10 ms·

Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor

50 points by sharemywin 6y ago

sharemywin 6y ago
I he might have a point. if the platform creates content that content wouldn't be covered by section 230, I wouldn't think. Not a lawyer so don't know, but maybe.
untog 6y ago
This is so thoroughly depressing. There is a very real need for a debate about the place social networks have in the spread of misinformation, but no-one wanted to have it. Now we will anyway, but by debating it in the most hysterical terms possible. No good will come of it.
- pjc50 6y ago
  The ouroboros bites itself; having escalated all other debates to the most hysterical terms, and allowed the injection of far higher volumes of nonsense than it's feasible to fact-check, the fate of Twitter is going to be decided in that febrile environment. The success of Twitter after the Arab Spring was that it became a revolution-causing technology. The downside of that is that it can cause a revolution whether you need one or not, and the outcomes of revolutions are usually much worse in the short term and often in the longer term. (I note this is already flagged off the HN front page!)
  - bloogsy 6y ago
    > the outcomes of revolutions are usually much worse in the short term and often in the longer term This is a pretty strong and unfounded statement. Would we even have the relatively free and democratic societies we exist in now without the revolutions of centuries past?
    - huevosabio 6y ago
      I see revolutions similar to heavy mutations in evolution. Most of them leave society in a worse position, some, however, do bring long-lasting improvement to social governance.
    - untog 6y ago
      Sounds like a case of survivorship bias at work here. How many revolutions led to failed societies that aren’t around any more?
    - pjc50 6y ago
      The US is a bit biased by considering its revolution a great success - which it was, for the white population. There was never a wholesale slave revolt, but the revolt of the slaveowners was successfully suppressed. Conversely the UK never had a popular revolution and transitioned to constitutional monarchy (eg also Sweden). France was very bad in the medium term; the Terror, subsequent invasion, Napoleon etc. Perhaps only a fully free society at the 5eme republic. Much of the world by sheer number of countries got its freedom either at the end of WW2 or the Cold War. Cuba and Haiti are still going badly.
  - lowdose 6y ago
    Twitter was a second order effect from the fact right at that food became too expensive for the low-income countries. > Looking at long-term trends in rain, crops, food prices and migration, they were able to determine how these factors contributed to social instability in the region. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-and-rising-food-prices-heightened-arab-spring/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-an...
  - mindslight 6y ago
    With deplatforming, I come down on the side of viewing popular webapps as public venues - the concept of censorship most decidedly exists apart from the first amendment to the US Constitution. But this action is not censorship, rather it's adding some editorialization while leaving the original message intact. It's less intrusive than a site requiring a signin to view NSFW content. Politically, it seems analogous to a counter-protest facilitated by the venue being protested at. And what legal basis could possibly be here? Implementing this action through legislation would be an uphill battle, never mind an executive order. Unless judges are also drinking the leave Trumpney alone Kool Aid, I don't think the hysterical "debate" is going to have much to do with the fate of Twitter. The only interesting thing here will be watching a man-child finally be told a hard "no", as the fallout from his ruinous actions finally starts catching up with him.
    - untog 6y ago
      > Unless judges are also drinking the leave Trumpney alone Kool Aid I have some bad news about the past three years of judicial appointments...
      - mindslight 6y ago
        I'm not one to be naive, but it feels like justifying any executive order would require stretching logic quite thin. Executive orders generally get a pass because they function by instructing federal agencies how to operate. This one would seemingly be an attempt to directly order a private company to do something. It might take one or two rounds of appeals to find a sensible judge that agrees the President doesn't have this power. But overall I wouldn't think Trump has been able to replace enough judges with stooges as to destroy the whole system.
pchristensen 6y ago
This article explains how it would probably work opposite of his goals - https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-executive-order-social-media-liability-twitter-shadow-ban-bias-fact-check.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-executive-... Basically, if content companies become liable for the content their users post, they will have to become much more heavy handed in what they remove. Trump has benefited more than anyone from how little social media companies actually police content.
- huevosabio 6y ago
  Actually, this may be what he wants. You force them to take heavy action handed responses (likely censoring). Then complain loudly about the coordinated efforts of social media giants against them. Sell it as the "establishment strikes back", walk your way to reelection.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  There's no reason to think that they wouldn't be bullied and cajoled into keeping up one "side's" volatile posts and taking down the other's, precedent or reasonableness be damned. Particularly if that becomes the path of least federal blowback and shareholder impact.
  - loopz 6y ago
    This is how corporate ownership might try to incorporate toxic culture worldwide. They cannot do this if not for the cheerleading and silent 2/3 majority, that is currently not being bullied. Note: What a bully do to someone else by your support or lack of opposition, you will most likely be the next bully's victim. This is kind of karma: Don't expect to ever change the scorpion's own nature. Since Western individualistic cultures haven't really confronted bullies yet, this is the defining moment. There is nothing here that haven't already been subjected to other cultures in the past.
    - anonymousab 6y ago
      It's a good sentiment but I'd expect most companies to be more purely shorter term profit driven, especially under consistent and relentless pressure. That they would eventually kowtow to their own nation's ideological pressure the same way they would eventually do so for, say, Saudi Arabia's or China's government to ensure unmolested access. Even if the majority of users/citizens aren't part of the bullying clique, the people with the rod and the carrot are.
sergiotapia 6y ago
>"These platforms act like they are potted plants when [in reality] they are curators of user experiences, i.e. the man behind the curtain for everything we can see or hear,” Nothing incorrect about this statement. Worse still: if conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab), they are blacklisted across every mainstream developer platform. I'm glad there is legislation for this. >would address complaints that the online platforms are deceiving people by picking and choosing what content to allow or block instead of acting as politically neutral platforms or moderators. This is great news!
- travisporter 6y ago
  If Gab is a conservative platform, your next comment "politically neutral platforms or moderators" would not be able to exist right?
  - maallooc 6y ago
    The fact that "a conservative" runs a platform doesn't mean it's "a conservative platform". Don't put words in someone's mouth.
    - pm90 6y ago
      > Gab is an English-language social media platform known for its far-right userbase.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] From Wikipedia. OP isn’t putting any words in anyone’s mouth. They are referencing a well known fact about this establishment.
      - maallooc 6y ago
        So? The fact that the majority of the userbase is alt-right doesn't make the platform itself conservative. If tor is known for it's pedophile userbase, does it make the platform itself pedophile?
        6y ago
chapium 6y ago
This feels like blowing smoke into the media to distract from the two headlines this week. Economic numbers are being hidden because they are unflattering and US has passed 100k deaths.
- pm90 6y ago
  Maybe. But it seems like the current POTUS is completely uninterested in the job of Governing but takes delight in so called Culture Wars.
- lazugod 6y ago
  It is... but it’s also something that web tech developers should probably pay a lot of attention to because it directly impacts what they build. I’m very surprised how little discussion I’ve seen on HN about what this means for everyone here building public, community-building websites.
akersten 6y ago
The time for pleasantries is over. This is a totalitarian move designed to suppress the power of private entities' speech and expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). Absolutely terrifying and disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.
notyourwork 6y ago
Instead of speaking truth, the president attacks the messenger. This president's actions are not representative of the entire country.
uberman 6y ago
Twitter should politely respond by closing his account
- newsheist 6y ago
  That would be great for the share holders of twitter. lol
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Or move all business operations offshore, and basically claiming to be a non-US corp, and not bound by the USA's jurisdiction to prosecute.
  - pm90 6y ago
    I’m not sure if this is in Jest, but the federal government has a lot of coercive power with most Nations, so this wouldn’t really help.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Oh wow, let's see how that would work with tariffs and taxes. The U.S. government can do a lot to screw with business operations, domestic or abroad. A bureaucrat sitting in an office at the DOE or Trade can hold up a shipment of controller boards for any number of reasons almost indefinitely; piracy, hacking, heck even conflict minerals.
    - voisin 6y ago
      Maybe it is worth asking ourselves if we are okay with the government having so much power that it can “do a lot to screw with business operations, domestic or abroad.” I agree that this is the case and seriously wish it wasn’t so.
      - gremlinsinc 6y ago
        And new politicians will replace old ones, and bygones will be forgotten - winds will change. I mean, twitter could just decide to completely ban Trump now in retaliation. Nothing he could do about that.
johndevor 6y ago
We need a popular, distributed Twitter where people can choose what they want and we can put this to rest.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  There exist alternatives: the Mastodon federation network and alt-right clone gab.ai. The problem with letting people do what they want is that this was and will be abused for propaganda that sabotages elections - for example spreading lies about who is eligible to vote or that vote by mail is ripe for fraud.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Multiple platforms of this kind exist. And I'm glad they exist. But there's obviously a reason no one of them becomes mega-popular. This paradox is the biggest obstacle for the practical free speech argument (as opposed to the legal one).
  - Zecar 6y ago
    Yes, the reason is that their buddies at places like Google put their thumbs on the scale in order to prevent competition. Do you think it's an accident that Google SERPs are filled with mainstream corporations?
justAnotherNET 6y ago
This is fantastic news. Social media mega corps chose this. They couldn’t resist the urge to censor their opposition and in doing so went from a platform to a publisher. Once you choose to censor non-illegal content you are implicitly endorsing all the other non-illegal content you fail to remove and therefore liable. This should push these corrupt companies to either go full “endorsed contributor” (aka what blue check marks actually are) OR back to the “we remove only content which is illegal”. No more pretending to walk the line creating an “open community” that’s actually just an echochamber.
mschuster91 6y ago
Twitter and Facebook should close down his accounts. Fight fire with fire.
kolbe 6y ago
I find the whole convoluted whack-a-mole approach to the problem of spreading misinformation to be so pathetic. Much like drugs, so long as there is demand for misinformation, we will always have a supplier. It doesn't matter how many regulations you throw at the problem of spreading it. Elections are won and lost on misinformation, and some elections can be "worth" tens of billions of dollars to the winner. If you want to stop the effects of spreading misinformation, attack the demand side. Educate people. Or, on the more draconian side, don't let uneducated people vote.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  You don't need to do a whack-a-mole with irrelevant trolls, just go after the biggest public figures spreading propaganda: Trump, Alex Jones and other alt-right figureheads. Their names are known, their online presences are an easy target. German-Austrian alt-right organization "Identitäre Bewegung" all but collapsed once they were booted off social media.
  - kolbe 6y ago
    This is not partisan to the right. And if you think it is, you're part of the problem. Trump and Alex Jones do not accurately represent reality, I agree. And America suffers because of it. But just yesterday, the hottest trending topic was "Make Whites Great Again," because someone found a photo of a guy who looked like the Minnesota cop wearing a MAGA hat, and edited America to White, and Twitter went ballistic thinking it was the cop who killed that guy. Buildings burned down and people got injured (maybe died) yesterday because of it.
    - soylentcola 6y ago
      I don't typically keep track of Twitter drama so I had to look this up. Apparently, the photo in question wasn't a 'shop, but rather a well-known troll specifically looking to stir shit up.
      - kolbe 6y ago
rpiguy 6y ago
Beautiful, now we get to sit back and watch supposedly "anti-corporate" liberals argue that multi-billion dollar mega-corporations should be policing the information that is available to the people because X (safety, racism, danger!) It is lovely because it illustrates what despots they really are, and how intolerant they are of information spreading they don't agree with. Neither the government nor big-business should have control of our public forums. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit have become so important to political discourse, I can easily see 1st Amendment protections being extended to the users, despite the private ownership of the spaces. I certainly hope things go in that direction.
maallooc 6y ago
Yeah this will be downvoted to hell but I don't care a single fuk. He has a point. Big Tech with significant influence should not be able to censor. Using a product doesn't mean agreeing to their political values.
throwawaynjdjdj 6y ago
It’s strange. The actual fact check leaned HEAVY on “if voting fraud increases or not with mail in ballots”. Speculation getting fact checked seems like it should be a no-no. The fact check on “everyone gets a ballot” undoubtedly and rightfully should have been clarified. That was poorly worded bad information by the President. Again though, third bullet down and what they are back peddling to as the reason for it. Twitter screwed this up.
- mempko 6y ago
  It's not poorly worded by the president, he words things the best that anyone can word. If it's poorly worded, shouldn't the president clarify?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, it's not a "this is wrong" flag. It's a "this is contended - here's a source of information" flag (for better or for worse).
mempko 6y ago
You either believe social networks are like malls or like public parks. In a mall, you can't say whatever you want, you get kicked out because it's private property. In a park, you won't get kicked out. If you believe social networks are like public parks, then they should be owned like public parks no?
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  you run around naked in a public park you'll still get kicked out or thrown in jail.
  - maallooc 6y ago
    Your speech, whatever it is, is protected in public places.
  - cabalamat 6y ago
    And if you say things that the law says you can't say on social media, you should be stopped. Note I said "the law", which is created by the democratic process (in theory anyway. Stop laughing at the back.) This is as opposed to the whims of a private company. As for what things the law should forbid you from saying, that's another matter, and orthogonal to this one.
- maallooc 6y ago
  Nope. You're wrong. Social networks should not be treated like private property because it serves as an agora. Being restricted by social networks only because you have a difference of opinion is effectively restriction of free speech. The government should treat them like public uni, and defend peoples' rights to speak in the platform from far left to far right. The church tried Galilei for spreading fake news and misinformation in 1600s. We now know how dangerous shutting people up by force is.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > The government should treat them like public uni You want the government funding Twitter's operations? Incidentally, you can definitely get banned from public university campuses for misbehaving.
12xo 6y ago
I believe that at the heart of this move is the far right's confusion on the first amendment and the equal protection clause. They have perverted the principles so far from their spirit and past rulings, that they now believe being a-holes makes them a protected class... And yet, they still demand that its their right to refuse to bake a cake for an actual protected class... hmmm. In the end. I foresee mountains of lawsuits against the right-wing media. Most of which do not have the resources to defend. They are literally cutting off their nose to spite their face. This is the definition of myopia and greed. So very Trump... Be kind. These are just my opinions, and like always, I could be wrong :)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
carapace 6y ago
I think this will end well. I'm not being sarcastic. I feel like this fight is a good thing. Somehow my intuitive sense is that Trump and the tech companies openly butting heads over fundamental epistemology and values will result in a spectacular show that will strengthen us in the end.
Vvector 6y ago
It appears the route the Administration will take is removing CDA 230 protection status for Twitter. CDA 230 protects Twitter from being held legally responsible for hosting the comments of the users. Without the 230 shield, anyone could sue Twitter for a comment they didn't like. The cost of defending these lawsuits alone would bury Twitter in legal expenses. IMO, such an executive order will be challenged in court, as there is no case law that supports the CDA 230 removal. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Probably, but Section 230 needs reform. If this makes that happen sooner - in court or congress - so be it. We cannot depend on congress to do anything, so maybe it's time to push the issue a little.
- ryandvm 6y ago
  I don't get it. The entire CDA 230 thing strikes me as a kludge to begin with. CDA 230 protects social media platforms from being sued for content submitted by their users, but why in the hell is this even an issue in the first place? We don't have laws that allow me to sue Walmart if somebody in Walmart says something libelous about me. Why are social media platforms at particular risk for this?
  - basch 6y ago
    Because their servers are the ones hosting, propagating, and broadcasting the messages. They are the ones serving the messages to readers.
    - ryandvm 6y ago
      Okay, but if somebody send me a death threat via FedEx, it's not FedEx's fault. How did we end up in the situation where there's even a legal precedent for companies to be liable for the things their users do? Is there a legal precedent? Does CDA 230 solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Krasnol 6y ago
We live in weird times where words like "censor" lose all the weight they had and should have these times when they are being misused to describe moderation. We live in times where governments use censorship on wide scale for dangerous means. Mixing both things here is an insult for those who suffer under true censorship.
throwawayosiu1 6y ago
This is a good thing! Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit are pretty heavy handed when it comes to "censoring" content. This is annoying because somehow "rightwing / wrongthink" content is censored while "leftwing" content is fine as it is. If they are not platforms and are publishers - they need to be treated as such. I feel this needs to be extended all the way down - Why stop at social media? Let's go ahead and hit where this counts - Domain Registrars, DNS Hosts, Payment Processors and Web hosts. The sad part is - if they do, the internet as we know won't exist anymore. But in all honesty, we are heading to it anyways - with all the internet companies consolidating - I don't think I'll loose a lot of sleep if Twitter if fined - They had it coming for a while anyways. EDIT: If this comment does not follow the rules, I'm happy to delete it as it's inherently political imo. Also I'm happy to provide examples of the above claims as well.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  If you're referring to being downvoted, that feature does not target rule-breaking. That role belongs to the flagging feature.
pgrote 6y ago
The method in which he is handling it is wrong, I think. I get twitter, youtube, facebook, et. al. have their own rules and enforce them. The sites couldn't exist without the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Their rules arguably work for something like porn (which never seems to make it past youtube filters) and threats of violence. What makes less sense to me is the arbitrary method in which opinions based posts are handled. It becomes clearer when you see the newly (last 2 years) rules enforced when you realize it is advertising driving it all. If something rises to the level of impacting advertising, action is taken. They are censoring not to make political points; they cannot do that for threat of losing 320 protection. They do it to protect revenue, which as public companies they have to do.
- maallooc 6y ago
  It's a difficult question and I welcome the President's move because it will contribute to us with finding an answer how to deal with this kind of problem. Even though I don't think there's a mail vote fraud / the vaccine causes autism / the pandemic is planned etc. etc. but he has a point.
Miner49er 6y ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that this would make it so that social media sites are more liable when they remove posts, so they need to be more careful in what they remove? Certain things should still be fine to remove (content that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable), but they'll have to tread more carefully then before or risk being classified as a publisher and risk being sued?
- insickness 6y ago
  The delineation would be a legal foundation for removing posts rather than their discretion.
dang 6y ago
Many threads on this. Some with comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=trump%20executive%20order%20comments%3E0&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... At this point we should probably wait until something actually happens, and then hopefully the discussion will have details to be grounded in.
taylodl 6y ago
So? The president can sign all the executive orders he wants but if they infringe on your constitutional rights, which this one appears to be in violation of the First Amendment, then they're null and void. Oh sure, there's a legal hassle, but the companies he's going after have deep pockets to fight those legal battles and a vested interest in doing so.

50 points by sharemywin 6y ago

I he might have a point. if the platform creates content that content wouldn't be covered by section 230, I wouldn't think. Not a lawyer so don't know, but maybe.

untog 6y ago

This is so thoroughly depressing. There is a very real need for a debate about the place social networks have in the spread of misinformation, but no-one wanted to have it. Now we will anyway, but by debating it in the most hysterical terms possible. No good will come of it.

pjc50 6y ago
The ouroboros bites itself; having escalated all other debates to the most hysterical terms, and allowed the injection of far higher volumes of nonsense than it's feasible to fact-check, the fate of Twitter is going to be decided in that febrile environment. The success of Twitter after the Arab Spring was that it became a revolution-causing technology. The downside of that is that it can cause a revolution whether you need one or not, and the outcomes of revolutions are usually much worse in the short term and often in the longer term. (I note this is already flagged off the HN front page!)
- bloogsy 6y ago
  > the outcomes of revolutions are usually much worse in the short term and often in the longer term This is a pretty strong and unfounded statement. Would we even have the relatively free and democratic societies we exist in now without the revolutions of centuries past?
  - huevosabio 6y ago
    I see revolutions similar to heavy mutations in evolution. Most of them leave society in a worse position, some, however, do bring long-lasting improvement to social governance.
  - untog 6y ago
    Sounds like a case of survivorship bias at work here. How many revolutions led to failed societies that aren’t around any more?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    The US is a bit biased by considering its revolution a great success - which it was, for the white population. There was never a wholesale slave revolt, but the revolt of the slaveowners was successfully suppressed. Conversely the UK never had a popular revolution and transitioned to constitutional monarchy (eg also Sweden). France was very bad in the medium term; the Terror, subsequent invasion, Napoleon etc. Perhaps only a fully free society at the 5eme republic. Much of the world by sheer number of countries got its freedom either at the end of WW2 or the Cold War. Cuba and Haiti are still going badly.
- lowdose 6y ago
  Twitter was a second order effect from the fact right at that food became too expensive for the low-income countries. > Looking at long-term trends in rain, crops, food prices and migration, they were able to determine how these factors contributed to social instability in the region. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-and-rising-food-prices-heightened-arab-spring/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-an...
- mindslight 6y ago
  With deplatforming, I come down on the side of viewing popular webapps as public venues - the concept of censorship most decidedly exists apart from the first amendment to the US Constitution. But this action is not censorship, rather it's adding some editorialization while leaving the original message intact. It's less intrusive than a site requiring a signin to view NSFW content. Politically, it seems analogous to a counter-protest facilitated by the venue being protested at. And what legal basis could possibly be here? Implementing this action through legislation would be an uphill battle, never mind an executive order. Unless judges are also drinking the leave Trumpney alone Kool Aid, I don't think the hysterical "debate" is going to have much to do with the fate of Twitter. The only interesting thing here will be watching a man-child finally be told a hard "no", as the fallout from his ruinous actions finally starts catching up with him.
  - untog 6y ago
    > Unless judges are also drinking the leave Trumpney alone Kool Aid I have some bad news about the past three years of judicial appointments...
    - mindslight 6y ago
      I'm not one to be naive, but it feels like justifying any executive order would require stretching logic quite thin. Executive orders generally get a pass because they function by instructing federal agencies how to operate. This one would seemingly be an attempt to directly order a private company to do something. It might take one or two rounds of appeals to find a sensible judge that agrees the President doesn't have this power. But overall I wouldn't think Trump has been able to replace enough judges with stooges as to destroy the whole system.

pchristensen 6y ago

This article explains how it would probably work opposite of his goals - https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-executive-order-social-media-liability-twitter-shadow-ban-bias-fact-check.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-executive-... Basically, if content companies become liable for the content their users post, they will have to become much more heavy handed in what they remove. Trump has benefited more than anyone from how little social media companies actually police content.

huevosabio 6y ago
Actually, this may be what he wants. You force them to take heavy action handed responses (likely censoring). Then complain loudly about the coordinated efforts of social media giants against them. Sell it as the "establishment strikes back", walk your way to reelection.
anonymousab 6y ago
There's no reason to think that they wouldn't be bullied and cajoled into keeping up one "side's" volatile posts and taking down the other's, precedent or reasonableness be damned. Particularly if that becomes the path of least federal blowback and shareholder impact.
- loopz 6y ago
  This is how corporate ownership might try to incorporate toxic culture worldwide. They cannot do this if not for the cheerleading and silent 2/3 majority, that is currently not being bullied. Note: What a bully do to someone else by your support or lack of opposition, you will most likely be the next bully's victim. This is kind of karma: Don't expect to ever change the scorpion's own nature. Since Western individualistic cultures haven't really confronted bullies yet, this is the defining moment. There is nothing here that haven't already been subjected to other cultures in the past.
  - anonymousab 6y ago
    It's a good sentiment but I'd expect most companies to be more purely shorter term profit driven, especially under consistent and relentless pressure. That they would eventually kowtow to their own nation's ideological pressure the same way they would eventually do so for, say, Saudi Arabia's or China's government to ensure unmolested access. Even if the majority of users/citizens aren't part of the bullying clique, the people with the rod and the carrot are.

sergiotapia 6y ago

>"These platforms act like they are potted plants when [in reality] they are curators of user experiences, i.e. the man behind the curtain for everything we can see or hear,” Nothing incorrect about this statement. Worse still: if conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab), they are blacklisted across every mainstream developer platform. I'm glad there is legislation for this. >would address complaints that the online platforms are deceiving people by picking and choosing what content to allow or block instead of acting as politically neutral platforms or moderators. This is great news!

travisporter 6y ago
If Gab is a conservative platform, your next comment "politically neutral platforms or moderators" would not be able to exist right?
- maallooc 6y ago
  The fact that "a conservative" runs a platform doesn't mean it's "a conservative platform". Don't put words in someone's mouth.
  - pm90 6y ago
    > Gab is an English-language social media platform known for its far-right userbase.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] From Wikipedia. OP isn’t putting any words in anyone’s mouth. They are referencing a well known fact about this establishment.
    - maallooc 6y ago
      So? The fact that the majority of the userbase is alt-right doesn't make the platform itself conservative. If tor is known for it's pedophile userbase, does it make the platform itself pedophile?
      - 6y ago

chapium 6y ago

This feels like blowing smoke into the media to distract from the two headlines this week. Economic numbers are being hidden because they are unflattering and US has passed 100k deaths.

pm90 6y ago
Maybe. But it seems like the current POTUS is completely uninterested in the job of Governing but takes delight in so called Culture Wars.
lazugod 6y ago
It is... but it’s also something that web tech developers should probably pay a lot of attention to because it directly impacts what they build. I’m very surprised how little discussion I’ve seen on HN about what this means for everyone here building public, community-building websites.

akersten 6y ago

The time for pleasantries is over. This is a totalitarian move designed to suppress the power of private entities' speech and expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). Absolutely terrifying and disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.

notyourwork 6y ago

Instead of speaking truth, the president attacks the messenger. This president's actions are not representative of the entire country.

uberman 6y ago

Twitter should politely respond by closing his account

newsheist 6y ago
That would be great for the share holders of twitter. lol
gremlinsinc 6y ago
Or move all business operations offshore, and basically claiming to be a non-US corp, and not bound by the USA's jurisdiction to prosecute.
- pm90 6y ago
  I’m not sure if this is in Jest, but the federal government has a lot of coercive power with most Nations, so this wouldn’t really help.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Oh wow, let's see how that would work with tariffs and taxes. The U.S. government can do a lot to screw with business operations, domestic or abroad. A bureaucrat sitting in an office at the DOE or Trade can hold up a shipment of controller boards for any number of reasons almost indefinitely; piracy, hacking, heck even conflict minerals.
  - voisin 6y ago
    Maybe it is worth asking ourselves if we are okay with the government having so much power that it can “do a lot to screw with business operations, domestic or abroad.” I agree that this is the case and seriously wish it wasn’t so.
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      And new politicians will replace old ones, and bygones will be forgotten - winds will change. I mean, twitter could just decide to completely ban Trump now in retaliation. Nothing he could do about that.

johndevor 6y ago

We need a popular, distributed Twitter where people can choose what they want and we can put this to rest.

mschuster91 6y ago
There exist alternatives: the Mastodon federation network and alt-right clone gab.ai. The problem with letting people do what they want is that this was and will be abused for propaganda that sabotages elections - for example spreading lies about who is eligible to vote or that vote by mail is ripe for fraud.
happytoexplain 6y ago
Multiple platforms of this kind exist. And I'm glad they exist. But there's obviously a reason no one of them becomes mega-popular. This paradox is the biggest obstacle for the practical free speech argument (as opposed to the legal one).
- Zecar 6y ago
  Yes, the reason is that their buddies at places like Google put their thumbs on the scale in order to prevent competition. Do you think it's an accident that Google SERPs are filled with mainstream corporations?

justAnotherNET 6y ago

This is fantastic news. Social media mega corps chose this. They couldn’t resist the urge to censor their opposition and in doing so went from a platform to a publisher. Once you choose to censor non-illegal content you are implicitly endorsing all the other non-illegal content you fail to remove and therefore liable. This should push these corrupt companies to either go full “endorsed contributor” (aka what blue check marks actually are) OR back to the “we remove only content which is illegal”. No more pretending to walk the line creating an “open community” that’s actually just an echochamber.

mschuster91 6y ago

Twitter and Facebook should close down his accounts. Fight fire with fire.

kolbe 6y ago

I find the whole convoluted whack-a-mole approach to the problem of spreading misinformation to be so pathetic. Much like drugs, so long as there is demand for misinformation, we will always have a supplier. It doesn't matter how many regulations you throw at the problem of spreading it. Elections are won and lost on misinformation, and some elections can be "worth" tens of billions of dollars to the winner. If you want to stop the effects of spreading misinformation, attack the demand side. Educate people. Or, on the more draconian side, don't let uneducated people vote.

mschuster91 6y ago
You don't need to do a whack-a-mole with irrelevant trolls, just go after the biggest public figures spreading propaganda: Trump, Alex Jones and other alt-right figureheads. Their names are known, their online presences are an easy target. German-Austrian alt-right organization "Identitäre Bewegung" all but collapsed once they were booted off social media.
- kolbe 6y ago
  This is not partisan to the right. And if you think it is, you're part of the problem. Trump and Alex Jones do not accurately represent reality, I agree. And America suffers because of it. But just yesterday, the hottest trending topic was "Make Whites Great Again," because someone found a photo of a guy who looked like the Minnesota cop wearing a MAGA hat, and edited America to White, and Twitter went ballistic thinking it was the cop who killed that guy. Buildings burned down and people got injured (maybe died) yesterday because of it.
  - soylentcola 6y ago
    I don't typically keep track of Twitter drama so I had to look this up. Apparently, the photo in question wasn't a 'shop, but rather a well-known troll specifically looking to stir shit up.
    - kolbe 6y ago

rpiguy 6y ago

Beautiful, now we get to sit back and watch supposedly "anti-corporate" liberals argue that multi-billion dollar mega-corporations should be policing the information that is available to the people because X (safety, racism, danger!) It is lovely because it illustrates what despots they really are, and how intolerant they are of information spreading they don't agree with. Neither the government nor big-business should have control of our public forums. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit have become so important to political discourse, I can easily see 1st Amendment protections being extended to the users, despite the private ownership of the spaces. I certainly hope things go in that direction.

maallooc 6y ago

Yeah this will be downvoted to hell but I don't care a single fuk. He has a point. Big Tech with significant influence should not be able to censor. Using a product doesn't mean agreeing to their political values.

throwawaynjdjdj 6y ago

It’s strange. The actual fact check leaned HEAVY on “if voting fraud increases or not with mail in ballots”. Speculation getting fact checked seems like it should be a no-no. The fact check on “everyone gets a ballot” undoubtedly and rightfully should have been clarified. That was poorly worded bad information by the President. Again though, third bullet down and what they are back peddling to as the reason for it. Twitter screwed this up.

mempko 6y ago
It's not poorly worded by the president, he words things the best that anyone can word. If it's poorly worded, shouldn't the president clarify?
happytoexplain 6y ago
Unless I'm missing something, it's not a "this is wrong" flag. It's a "this is contended - here's a source of information" flag (for better or for worse).

mempko 6y ago

You either believe social networks are like malls or like public parks. In a mall, you can't say whatever you want, you get kicked out because it's private property. In a park, you won't get kicked out. If you believe social networks are like public parks, then they should be owned like public parks no?

gremlinsinc 6y ago
you run around naked in a public park you'll still get kicked out or thrown in jail.
- maallooc 6y ago
  Your speech, whatever it is, is protected in public places.
- cabalamat 6y ago
  And if you say things that the law says you can't say on social media, you should be stopped. Note I said "the law", which is created by the democratic process (in theory anyway. Stop laughing at the back.) This is as opposed to the whims of a private company. As for what things the law should forbid you from saying, that's another matter, and orthogonal to this one.
maallooc 6y ago
Nope. You're wrong. Social networks should not be treated like private property because it serves as an agora. Being restricted by social networks only because you have a difference of opinion is effectively restriction of free speech. The government should treat them like public uni, and defend peoples' rights to speak in the platform from far left to far right. The church tried Galilei for spreading fake news and misinformation in 1600s. We now know how dangerous shutting people up by force is.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > The government should treat them like public uni You want the government funding Twitter's operations? Incidentally, you can definitely get banned from public university campuses for misbehaving.

12xo 6y ago

I believe that at the heart of this move is the far right's confusion on the first amendment and the equal protection clause. They have perverted the principles so far from their spirit and past rulings, that they now believe being a-holes makes them a protected class... And yet, they still demand that its their right to refuse to bake a cake for an actual protected class... hmmm. In the end. I foresee mountains of lawsuits against the right-wing media. Most of which do not have the resources to defend. They are literally cutting off their nose to spite their face. This is the definition of myopia and greed. So very Trump... Be kind. These are just my opinions, and like always, I could be wrong :)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

carapace 6y ago

I think this will end well. I'm not being sarcastic. I feel like this fight is a good thing. Somehow my intuitive sense is that Trump and the tech companies openly butting heads over fundamental epistemology and values will result in a spectacular show that will strengthen us in the end.

Vvector 6y ago

It appears the route the Administration will take is removing CDA 230 protection status for Twitter. CDA 230 protects Twitter from being held legally responsible for hosting the comments of the users. Without the 230 shield, anyone could sue Twitter for a comment they didn't like. The cost of defending these lawsuits alone would bury Twitter in legal expenses. IMO, such an executive order will be challenged in court, as there is no case law that supports the CDA 230 removal. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic

Simulacra 6y ago
Probably, but Section 230 needs reform. If this makes that happen sooner - in court or congress - so be it. We cannot depend on congress to do anything, so maybe it's time to push the issue a little.
ryandvm 6y ago
I don't get it. The entire CDA 230 thing strikes me as a kludge to begin with. CDA 230 protects social media platforms from being sued for content submitted by their users, but why in the hell is this even an issue in the first place? We don't have laws that allow me to sue Walmart if somebody in Walmart says something libelous about me. Why are social media platforms at particular risk for this?
- basch 6y ago
  Because their servers are the ones hosting, propagating, and broadcasting the messages. They are the ones serving the messages to readers.
  - ryandvm 6y ago
    Okay, but if somebody send me a death threat via FedEx, it's not FedEx's fault. How did we end up in the situation where there's even a legal precedent for companies to be liable for the things their users do? Is there a legal precedent? Does CDA 230 solve a problem that doesn't exist?

Krasnol 6y ago

We live in weird times where words like "censor" lose all the weight they had and should have these times when they are being misused to describe moderation. We live in times where governments use censorship on wide scale for dangerous means. Mixing both things here is an insult for those who suffer under true censorship.

throwawayosiu1 6y ago

This is a good thing! Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit are pretty heavy handed when it comes to "censoring" content. This is annoying because somehow "rightwing / wrongthink" content is censored while "leftwing" content is fine as it is. If they are not platforms and are publishers - they need to be treated as such. I feel this needs to be extended all the way down - Why stop at social media? Let's go ahead and hit where this counts - Domain Registrars, DNS Hosts, Payment Processors and Web hosts. The sad part is - if they do, the internet as we know won't exist anymore. But in all honesty, we are heading to it anyways - with all the internet companies consolidating - I don't think I'll loose a lot of sleep if Twitter if fined - They had it coming for a while anyways. EDIT: If this comment does not follow the rules, I'm happy to delete it as it's inherently political imo. Also I'm happy to provide examples of the above claims as well.

happytoexplain 6y ago
If you're referring to being downvoted, that feature does not target rule-breaking. That role belongs to the flagging feature.

pgrote 6y ago

The method in which he is handling it is wrong, I think. I get twitter, youtube, facebook, et. al. have their own rules and enforce them. The sites couldn't exist without the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Their rules arguably work for something like porn (which never seems to make it past youtube filters) and threats of violence. What makes less sense to me is the arbitrary method in which opinions based posts are handled. It becomes clearer when you see the newly (last 2 years) rules enforced when you realize it is advertising driving it all. If something rises to the level of impacting advertising, action is taken. They are censoring not to make political points; they cannot do that for threat of losing 320 protection. They do it to protect revenue, which as public companies they have to do.

maallooc 6y ago
It's a difficult question and I welcome the President's move because it will contribute to us with finding an answer how to deal with this kind of problem. Even though I don't think there's a mail vote fraud / the vaccine causes autism / the pandemic is planned etc. etc. but he has a point.

Miner49er 6y ago

IANAL, but my understanding is that this would make it so that social media sites are more liable when they remove posts, so they need to be more careful in what they remove? Certain things should still be fine to remove (content that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable), but they'll have to tread more carefully then before or risk being classified as a publisher and risk being sued?

insickness 6y ago
The delineation would be a legal foundation for removing posts rather than their discretion.

dang 6y ago

Many threads on this. Some with comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=trump%20executive%20order%20comments%3E0&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... At this point we should probably wait until something actually happens, and then hopefully the discussion will have details to be grounded in.

taylodl 6y ago

So? The president can sign all the executive orders he wants but if they infringe on your constitutional rights, which this one appears to be in violation of the First Amendment, then they're null and void. Oh sure, there's a legal hassle, but the companies he's going after have deep pockets to fight those legal battles and a vested interest in doing so.