5 ms·

Donald Trump is starting a messy fight with the entire internet

29 points by prepperpotts 6y ago

prepperpotts 6y ago
truly wild that the fight over whether social media platforms should be held liable for speech happens the one time they actually do make a feeble attempt at moderation.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It's almost as if this is about optics and politics, and not a good faith discussion about the power that private companies have and whether or not they're doing a good job with it.
- downerending 6y ago
  My sense is that moderation has been around since virtually the beginning but has been getting more heavy-handed as time goes on. Moderating political views on international-scale open fora, though, seems far newer, and far more troubling. Most of us are appalled at the censorship in China, and yet we seem to be galloping in that direction. I'd like to feel that people will get sick of it and drop off of these platforms themselves, but I'm not sure that that will happen.
  - mrgreenfur 6y ago
    How is twitter labeling his lies as 'misleading' with evidence "galloping" towards china? I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments, but they do not have an obligation to fact check everyone.
    - downerending 6y ago
      > I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments For one, galloping in the sense that probably many Chinese citizens would agree with this sentiment. Try to imagine what Lenny Bruce or George Carlin would think of all this.
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        I think Lenny Bruce and Carlin would say they were never dog whistling violence.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        downerending 6y ago
        If you impute nefarious motives to all around you, communication collapses, and civilization will soon follow.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-today-cowboy-democrat-dead-couy-griffin-tweets-a9537016.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... So exactly what an I supposed to impute from that?
        downerending 6y ago
        That he's kind of a jackass sometimes.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        Like this? https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-aside-aim-to-be-dictator-german-cabinet-also-reveals.html https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-asid...
    - fareesh 6y ago
      Without getting into the weeds of the discussion, is it really dangerous to suggest that there may be potential for election fraud through mail-in ballots? Is it simply assumed that this is some kind of hack-proof process? Strange to find that kind of sentiment in this community, assuming that's what being suggested. This is an election with multiple candidates, if he is lying, his political opponent can reply and point out his point-of-view as well as the lies. Given that this is possible, how is it better for the platform itself to start participating in the debate on a topic requiring some other domain knowledge?
      - mrgreenfur 6y ago
        It's fine to suggest it if you have evidence, but fearmongering baseless claims is extremely dangerous. I believe they already have terms to avoid lots of dangerous language that incites hate/violence, do you disagree with those too? I think when these platforms become mouthpieces for one way communications, like this case, they deserve criticism for what is said.
        fareesh 6y ago
        Is it not sufficient to discuss the potential for abuse in such a scenario? Does one necessarily need evidence of prior abuse to voice their concern about a potentially broken system? For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud. We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system? Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect. Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above? Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?
foolzcrow 6y ago
The Verge = They Live
ribble 6y ago
all for it. liberals think they have the only voice online.
biolurker1 6y ago
The problem is that he can start a messy real world war too
finnthehuman 6y ago
Big "tech's" positions about what they will and won't enable people to do have become so inconsistent with public focused principal that I struggle to be sympathetic. If Section 230 is so important, then who the fuck got us in position that it's the current chesspiece between government and industry? Consolidation of power invites attention from other power. Once that happens to you, don't expect to win on principal. You've already decided that you're not fighting on principal.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
If a platform would be responsible for it's users and comments. Wouldn't Twitter remove Trump asap then? The guy is a trainwreck online.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  I think the idea is that Twitter should either moderate the content and be (partly) responsible for it, or it should not moderate the content and not be (partly) responsible for it.
  - kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
    This is impossible. People who want this want the actual, literal, impossible. And I don't understand it. Well, I do, mostly it's bigots wanting free reign to be bigots in someone else's house with a little bit of the ideologically inflexible thrown into the mix. So I should say I don't understand the people who want this. Not only that but if conservatives do what they are threatening to do, that will lead to an almost instant, complete, and full censoring of much of their content. Which online service provider would want to be civilly liable for someone posting a video that says "the only good democrat is a dead democrat" if a nut job throws back a shot of hand sanitizer and goes on a shooting spree because "the president said so"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-retweets-video-saying-only-good-democrat-is-dead-democrat/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-ret...
    - Mirioron 6y ago
      Why would that cause instant censoring? It could go the other way too. Content doesn't get censored. No more games by websites like Twitter where they "accidentally" censor one political side over and over. (Or vice versa elsewhere.) The idea is that if these websites get special protections that regular people don't, and are big enough to essentially be the town square, then the values the society itself accepts are what should guide it. In this case that would be free speech. Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing for this. I'm just trying to explain how else this might work.
phaedryx 6y ago
The interesting thing in this case is that Trump's tweet is a violation of the "Election Integrity" policy: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules (see the "Authenticity" section) whereas his other tweets, while inflammatory, are not.
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.
- prepperpotts 6y ago
  sorry, i totally missed those. thank you!

29 points by prepperpotts 6y ago

truly wild that the fight over whether social media platforms should be held liable for speech happens the one time they actually do make a feeble attempt at moderation.

ashtonkem 6y ago
It's almost as if this is about optics and politics, and not a good faith discussion about the power that private companies have and whether or not they're doing a good job with it.
downerending 6y ago
My sense is that moderation has been around since virtually the beginning but has been getting more heavy-handed as time goes on. Moderating political views on international-scale open fora, though, seems far newer, and far more troubling. Most of us are appalled at the censorship in China, and yet we seem to be galloping in that direction. I'd like to feel that people will get sick of it and drop off of these platforms themselves, but I'm not sure that that will happen.
- mrgreenfur 6y ago
  How is twitter labeling his lies as 'misleading' with evidence "galloping" towards china? I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments, but they do not have an obligation to fact check everyone.
  - downerending 6y ago
    > I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments For one, galloping in the sense that probably many Chinese citizens would agree with this sentiment. Try to imagine what Lenny Bruce or George Carlin would think of all this.
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      I think Lenny Bruce and Carlin would say they were never dog whistling violence.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - downerending 6y ago
        If you impute nefarious motives to all around you, communication collapses, and civilization will soon follow.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-today-cowboy-democrat-dead-couy-griffin-tweets-a9537016.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... So exactly what an I supposed to impute from that?
        downerending 6y ago
        That he's kind of a jackass sometimes.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        Like this? https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-aside-aim-to-be-dictator-german-cabinet-also-reveals.html https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-asid...
  - fareesh 6y ago
    Without getting into the weeds of the discussion, is it really dangerous to suggest that there may be potential for election fraud through mail-in ballots? Is it simply assumed that this is some kind of hack-proof process? Strange to find that kind of sentiment in this community, assuming that's what being suggested. This is an election with multiple candidates, if he is lying, his political opponent can reply and point out his point-of-view as well as the lies. Given that this is possible, how is it better for the platform itself to start participating in the debate on a topic requiring some other domain knowledge?
    - mrgreenfur 6y ago
      It's fine to suggest it if you have evidence, but fearmongering baseless claims is extremely dangerous. I believe they already have terms to avoid lots of dangerous language that incites hate/violence, do you disagree with those too? I think when these platforms become mouthpieces for one way communications, like this case, they deserve criticism for what is said.
      - fareesh 6y ago
        Is it not sufficient to discuss the potential for abuse in such a scenario? Does one necessarily need evidence of prior abuse to voice their concern about a potentially broken system? For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud. We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system? Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect. Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above? Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?

foolzcrow 6y ago

The Verge = They Live

ribble 6y ago

all for it. liberals think they have the only voice online.

biolurker1 6y ago

The problem is that he can start a messy real world war too

finnthehuman 6y ago

Big "tech's" positions about what they will and won't enable people to do have become so inconsistent with public focused principal that I struggle to be sympathetic. If Section 230 is so important, then who the fuck got us in position that it's the current chesspiece between government and industry? Consolidation of power invites attention from other power. Once that happens to you, don't expect to win on principal. You've already decided that you're not fighting on principal.

NicoJuicy 6y ago

If a platform would be responsible for it's users and comments. Wouldn't Twitter remove Trump asap then? The guy is a trainwreck online.

Mirioron 6y ago
I think the idea is that Twitter should either moderate the content and be (partly) responsible for it, or it should not moderate the content and not be (partly) responsible for it.
- kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
  This is impossible. People who want this want the actual, literal, impossible. And I don't understand it. Well, I do, mostly it's bigots wanting free reign to be bigots in someone else's house with a little bit of the ideologically inflexible thrown into the mix. So I should say I don't understand the people who want this. Not only that but if conservatives do what they are threatening to do, that will lead to an almost instant, complete, and full censoring of much of their content. Which online service provider would want to be civilly liable for someone posting a video that says "the only good democrat is a dead democrat" if a nut job throws back a shot of hand sanitizer and goes on a shooting spree because "the president said so"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-retweets-video-saying-only-good-democrat-is-dead-democrat/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-ret...
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    Why would that cause instant censoring? It could go the other way too. Content doesn't get censored. No more games by websites like Twitter where they "accidentally" censor one political side over and over. (Or vice versa elsewhere.) The idea is that if these websites get special protections that regular people don't, and are big enough to essentially be the town square, then the values the society itself accepts are what should guide it. In this case that would be free speech. Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing for this. I'm just trying to explain how else this might work.

phaedryx 6y ago

The interesting thing in this case is that Trump's tweet is a violation of the "Election Integrity" policy: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules (see the "Authenticity" section) whereas his other tweets, while inflammatory, are not.

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.

prepperpotts 6y ago
sorry, i totally missed those. thank you!