9 ms·

If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=

by sulam 6y ago

If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Specifically it would declare that sites like Twitter and Facebook are subject to the Communications Decency Act by virtue of their editorializing the content vs acting in more of a common carrier capacity. This is a really big deal for them (much more significant than losing federal ad dollars).

seemslegit 6y ago
Or they could stop editorializing their content.
- cinquemb 6y ago
  But the children!
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    That's a different piece of legislation
    - cinquemb 6y ago
      Fair, but the adult children that cant be trusted to come to the same conclusions/opinions/perceptions that the platform holds without some contextual messaging? :P
whateveracct 6y ago
Literally no way this holds up in court. If it does, we have bigger problems than this EO.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mentalpiracy 6y ago
  Honestly whether it ultimately holds up in court or not is hardly the point - the disruptive theater of the EO and the subsequent muddying discourse unfortunately ends up being victory enough.
  - whateveracct 6y ago
    That's 100% true.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  I'm actually very much looking forward to seeing this make it's way to SCOTUS (assuming this is legit).
  - wmf 6y ago
    It would take years to reach SCOTUS and during that time more and more damage can be done.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      I'm not so sure. In recent issues as contentious as this we've had District Courts make Nation-wide injunctions against these EOs, and they've been fast-tracked to SCOTUS. It might take a year or so, but I think "years" is overstating how fast something that's this emotional can get to the High Court. There's other problems with the "Nation-wide injunction" but if this EO gets issued that'll for sure be the next thing that happens, and I'm sure Twitter et al are counting on it.
- lostdog 6y ago
  Don't forget that Trump has now appointed many of the judges who could decide it's "legality."
- 6y ago
Trasmatta 6y ago
> The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are? Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm having a hard time parsing what this would actually do (beyond soothe Trump's feelings after getting called out by Twitter).
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  sections 2b and 4c are the action items; new fcc and ftc regulations that prevent this kind (or broadly whatever kind they deem relevant) of behavior.
- sulam 6y ago
  It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Today they can claim that they aren’t responsible for it, the posters are. If they are operating in an editorial capacity, that shield is removed.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Exactly as it should be. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others, now that they're getting into the business of editorializing and dictating the truth as they see it via heavy-handed moderation, should be fully liable for all things posted to their platforms. It should apply to any large platform that makes that shift. It's perfectly fine if these platforms want to do that, and they should be held responsible accordingly. It'll restrict the size and activity of their networks, which will probably be a societal benefit. Twitter picked a fight they can't win. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Things will never return to the way they were before.
    - anyon 6y ago
      sorry to see you downvoted. People can disagree with your opinion but it is encouraging a debate. there is no god-given right for these companies to become monopolies. If this were to pass, it could break the monopolies: Decision 1: they choose to stop all moderation Out come 1: Advertisers ditch them because of all the objectionable content that will surely come. Decision 2: They choose to moderate, and take on the liability Outcome 2: Growing bigger becomes more costly and companies fall to some optimal 'Chandra Limit'
berberous 6y ago
Wouldn’t this be a great outcome for twitter? I don’t think they particularly want to be in the role of playing fact checker / censor, but have been forced to do so due to pressure. This seems like it would, practically, tie their hands from continuing, due to the negative consequences, at which point they can legitimately say their hands are tied.
- cinquemb 6y ago
  I agree, it could save platforms a lot of effort, and possibly put the onus on advertisers (who I suspect pressure the platforms anyways to engage in this sort of behavior) to adapt.
- daveevad 6y ago
  probably not, wouldn't that just alienate the other half of their users that would view that as backing down? it's a good question i hadn't considered though.
  - 2019-nCoV 6y ago
    Backing down to who? It becomes US law.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Most users only follow and are followed-by people in their own bubble, so I doubt they would notice.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Actually you have a point. Twitter can "temporarily" shelve this fact checker thing and get back to status quo ante. Dorsey and Trump can both declare victory and move on.
  - Animats 6y ago
    There doesn't seem to be anything there directed against Twitter's editorializing. If anything, this puts online services in the position of having to censor more to avoid nuisance lawsuits.
wmf 6y ago
"None of [the CDA's architects] said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking liability..." https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte... Can an executive order overturn this? Isn't there already precedent about this topic?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  An executive order can neither overturn statutory immunity from liability nor overturn Constitutional freedom of speech. OTOH, if Trump thinks that the Courts have changed (either in genuine opinion on the legal question, or if he thinks that the courts—or, ultimately, just the Supreme Court—has become partisan enough to simply favor his preferences independent of any genuine legal interpretation) then issuing an executive order conflicting with the present precedent on either of those points is an excellent way to get into position to force a test of them. And, in any case, it's an excellent way to fan conservative victimhood into an election-year rallying cry to the base.
  - dmix 6y ago
    In politics it often doesn't matter if policy doesn't actually work, it's frequently about sending a message. Especially when elections are around. It's not like they are ever tied to measurable outcomes. Plus even if the courts decline it will then further fuel the victimization, which conspiracies and radical groups historically feed off of. I've always believed creating martyrs over online speech is a minefield for radicalizing people. No longer venting into the void people become increasingly angry and isolated. The long term implications of this worries me a great deal. I also don't believe our only alternative means allowing (legitimate) hate speech, as a more limited approach has worked in countless other scenarios without the endless scope creep we're witnessing. But today this debate seems to be long lost, Twitter et al are full steam ahead, and now we can only witness the implications and hopefully adapt...
- zaroth 6y ago
adrianmonk 6y ago
> Therefore, this EO places such platforms outside scope of Sec. 230 protection So Trump is trying to tell the courts, via executive order, how to interpret the law? I'm no expert, but I don't think that's how the different branches of government work.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  He's not "telling" the courts anything, he's telling the FTC, FCC, etc to interpret 230 as intended, where a social media site can now be interpreted as a publisher and not as a neutral platform if they engage in active editorial decision making (i.e. feed manipulation, shadow banning, editorial injections, etc). If Twitter wants to challenge the Federal Government on this, they'll have to do battle in court. In the meantime, the Federal government will withdraw all paid advertising from the platform if they choose that route. He's also holding the FTC out, which deals with antitrust law. So Twitter could hit 3 different ways. In my opinion, they have far more to lose by fighting this than simply letting users choose who to follow and who to engage with and what speech to listen to.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > He's not "telling" the courts anything Yes, he is. He is telling the FCC, etc., to issue regulations “clarifying” section 230; regulations clarifying law exist specifically to guide the courts in application, and courts grant such regulations (where properly authorized under statute) great deference, which Trump clearly hopes to benefit from.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      The FCC is an executive branch department. So telling the FCC is not telling the courts. The FCC and FTC can make certain moves and it's up to Twitter to sue the Federal Government to contend with them. And then, the courts get to decide on the matter. But until then, let's not pretend 230c is the most well-defined precedent in legal history.
      - 6y ago
seemslegit 6y ago
It's one thing to believe the poster but why does the poster believe an anonymously sent "Executive order draft" and publish it ?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
2019-nCoV 6y ago
Akin to banning cigarette advertising, this will free up many millions in the war against misinformation. Would absolve Twitter from any future calls for debunking/censorship. Can't wait to see it enacted.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  A 3 month old account that only posts in threads about Trump and/or Social Media (Facebook, et al). Someone's low effort shill account. Come on buddy, the good shill accounts are years old and have longer, more obfuscating post histories.
  - COGlory 6y ago
    "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Let's not ruin the HN comments by introducing this type of language.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Argue the argument, not the arguer.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by sulam 6y ago

seemslegit 6y ago

Or they could stop editorializing their content.

cinquemb 6y ago
But the children!
- seemslegit 6y ago
  That's a different piece of legislation
  - cinquemb 6y ago
    Fair, but the adult children that cant be trusted to come to the same conclusions/opinions/perceptions that the platform holds without some contextual messaging? :P

whateveracct 6y ago

Literally no way this holds up in court. If it does, we have bigger problems than this EO.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mentalpiracy 6y ago
Honestly whether it ultimately holds up in court or not is hardly the point - the disruptive theater of the EO and the subsequent muddying discourse unfortunately ends up being victory enough.
- whateveracct 6y ago
  That's 100% true.
remarkEon 6y ago
I'm actually very much looking forward to seeing this make it's way to SCOTUS (assuming this is legit).
- wmf 6y ago
  It would take years to reach SCOTUS and during that time more and more damage can be done.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I'm not so sure. In recent issues as contentious as this we've had District Courts make Nation-wide injunctions against these EOs, and they've been fast-tracked to SCOTUS. It might take a year or so, but I think "years" is overstating how fast something that's this emotional can get to the High Court. There's other problems with the "Nation-wide injunction" but if this EO gets issued that'll for sure be the next thing that happens, and I'm sure Twitter et al are counting on it.
lostdog 6y ago
Don't forget that Trump has now appointed many of the judges who could decide it's "legality."
6y ago

Trasmatta 6y ago

> The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are? Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm having a hard time parsing what this would actually do (beyond soothe Trump's feelings after getting called out by Twitter).

throwlaplace 6y ago
sections 2b and 4c are the action items; new fcc and ftc regulations that prevent this kind (or broadly whatever kind they deem relevant) of behavior.
sulam 6y ago
It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Today they can claim that they aren’t responsible for it, the posters are. If they are operating in an editorial capacity, that shield is removed.
- adventured 6y ago
  > It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Exactly as it should be. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others, now that they're getting into the business of editorializing and dictating the truth as they see it via heavy-handed moderation, should be fully liable for all things posted to their platforms. It should apply to any large platform that makes that shift. It's perfectly fine if these platforms want to do that, and they should be held responsible accordingly. It'll restrict the size and activity of their networks, which will probably be a societal benefit. Twitter picked a fight they can't win. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Things will never return to the way they were before.
  - anyon 6y ago
    sorry to see you downvoted. People can disagree with your opinion but it is encouraging a debate. there is no god-given right for these companies to become monopolies. If this were to pass, it could break the monopolies: Decision 1: they choose to stop all moderation Out come 1: Advertisers ditch them because of all the objectionable content that will surely come. Decision 2: They choose to moderate, and take on the liability Outcome 2: Growing bigger becomes more costly and companies fall to some optimal 'Chandra Limit'

berberous 6y ago

Wouldn’t this be a great outcome for twitter? I don’t think they particularly want to be in the role of playing fact checker / censor, but have been forced to do so due to pressure. This seems like it would, practically, tie their hands from continuing, due to the negative consequences, at which point they can legitimately say their hands are tied.

cinquemb 6y ago
I agree, it could save platforms a lot of effort, and possibly put the onus on advertisers (who I suspect pressure the platforms anyways to engage in this sort of behavior) to adapt.
daveevad 6y ago
probably not, wouldn't that just alienate the other half of their users that would view that as backing down? it's a good question i hadn't considered though.
- 2019-nCoV 6y ago
  Backing down to who? It becomes US law.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Most users only follow and are followed-by people in their own bubble, so I doubt they would notice.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Actually you have a point. Twitter can "temporarily" shelve this fact checker thing and get back to status quo ante. Dorsey and Trump can both declare victory and move on.
- Animats 6y ago
  There doesn't seem to be anything there directed against Twitter's editorializing. If anything, this puts online services in the position of having to censor more to avoid nuisance lawsuits.

wmf 6y ago

"None of [the CDA's architects] said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking liability..." https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte... Can an executive order overturn this? Isn't there already precedent about this topic?

dragonwriter 6y ago
An executive order can neither overturn statutory immunity from liability nor overturn Constitutional freedom of speech. OTOH, if Trump thinks that the Courts have changed (either in genuine opinion on the legal question, or if he thinks that the courts—or, ultimately, just the Supreme Court—has become partisan enough to simply favor his preferences independent of any genuine legal interpretation) then issuing an executive order conflicting with the present precedent on either of those points is an excellent way to get into position to force a test of them. And, in any case, it's an excellent way to fan conservative victimhood into an election-year rallying cry to the base.
- dmix 6y ago
  In politics it often doesn't matter if policy doesn't actually work, it's frequently about sending a message. Especially when elections are around. It's not like they are ever tied to measurable outcomes. Plus even if the courts decline it will then further fuel the victimization, which conspiracies and radical groups historically feed off of. I've always believed creating martyrs over online speech is a minefield for radicalizing people. No longer venting into the void people become increasingly angry and isolated. The long term implications of this worries me a great deal. I also don't believe our only alternative means allowing (legitimate) hate speech, as a more limited approach has worked in countless other scenarios without the endless scope creep we're witnessing. But today this debate seems to be long lost, Twitter et al are full steam ahead, and now we can only witness the implications and hopefully adapt...
zaroth 6y ago

adrianmonk 6y ago

> Therefore, this EO places such platforms outside scope of Sec. 230 protection So Trump is trying to tell the courts, via executive order, how to interpret the law? I'm no expert, but I don't think that's how the different branches of government work.

chrisco255 6y ago
He's not "telling" the courts anything, he's telling the FTC, FCC, etc to interpret 230 as intended, where a social media site can now be interpreted as a publisher and not as a neutral platform if they engage in active editorial decision making (i.e. feed manipulation, shadow banning, editorial injections, etc). If Twitter wants to challenge the Federal Government on this, they'll have to do battle in court. In the meantime, the Federal government will withdraw all paid advertising from the platform if they choose that route. He's also holding the FTC out, which deals with antitrust law. So Twitter could hit 3 different ways. In my opinion, they have far more to lose by fighting this than simply letting users choose who to follow and who to engage with and what speech to listen to.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > He's not "telling" the courts anything Yes, he is. He is telling the FCC, etc., to issue regulations “clarifying” section 230; regulations clarifying law exist specifically to guide the courts in application, and courts grant such regulations (where properly authorized under statute) great deference, which Trump clearly hopes to benefit from.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    The FCC is an executive branch department. So telling the FCC is not telling the courts. The FCC and FTC can make certain moves and it's up to Twitter to sue the Federal Government to contend with them. And then, the courts get to decide on the matter. But until then, let's not pretend 230c is the most well-defined precedent in legal history.
    - 6y ago

seemslegit 6y ago

It's one thing to believe the poster but why does the poster believe an anonymously sent "Executive order draft" and publish it ?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

2019-nCoV 6y ago

Akin to banning cigarette advertising, this will free up many millions in the war against misinformation. Would absolve Twitter from any future calls for debunking/censorship. Can't wait to see it enacted.

blaser-waffle 6y ago
A 3 month old account that only posts in threads about Trump and/or Social Media (Facebook, et al). Someone's low effort shill account. Come on buddy, the good shill accounts are years old and have longer, more obfuscating post histories.
- COGlory 6y ago
  "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Let's not ruin the HN comments by introducing this type of language.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Argue the argument, not the arguer.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]