4 ms·

It seems to me that the threat is loud and clear. If you do anything to respond to the Trump administration, we will destroy and censor you. The great irony is

It seems to me that the threat is loud and clear. If you do anything to respond to the Trump administration, we will destroy and censor you. The great irony is that if you strip a company of their section 230 protections, doesn't that just mean that they're going to censor more things on their platform since they're now liable? Why wouldn't they remove Trump from Twitter entirely if they could be held liable for his rants? Of course then you're said to be 'biased' against Trump, which then circles back to the first step. Which seems to me might be the endgame here. Get Twitter to ban Trump and now you have a lot of red meat for his fervent fanbase.

mabbo 6y ago
I worry that what Trump wants is something far more "Godfather": for Jack Dorsey to sit down and be given an offer he can't refuse. Dorsey gets told "We'll call this all off, say that we've decided not to interfere with free speech, but from now on you never contradict the president, you never contradict any Republican leader, and you start posting fact-checks more often on Democrats". That's the Trump strategy, typically. Deals. Always making deals. And Dorsey knows he has to play the game, because his major shareholders will all be quietly informed that the deal was out there, and he didn't take it. He'd lose his job if he didn't agree. And if he goes public, Trump can say "I sat down with the man and tried to work out a fair deal, but he refused!", playing the victim. Donald Trump is not a brilliant man, but he is very, very good at this game because he does not let ethics, norms, or laws get in his way.
- joncrane 6y ago
  >Donald Trump is not a brilliant man, but he is very, very good at this game Very well put.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Those who scream the loudest of "orange man bad" don't seem to grasp this.
    - loopz 6y ago
      We call someone who burn down everything around the person, a pyromaniac, not "good at this game". Anybody expecting a human response, will continue to be devastated. This is a fine moment to learn quickly what maybe just 2-3% has experienced before.
hodgesrm 6y ago
> Get Twitter to ban Trump and now you have a lot of red meat for his fervent fanbase. I don't think Trump has completely thought this through. Twitter is how he communicates with his base. What would he use instead?
- Simulacra 6y ago
  He would spin up a White House version. In fact, I'm extremely surprised the White House, or conservatives in general, haven't spun up something like that. Don't even mention GAB, that's a platform that's become worse than 4Chan.
  - SrslyJosh 6y ago
    You're assuming they are competent enough to build that. Another assumption: his followers will leave Twitter, where they can harass/abuse everyone else at will, for an echo chamber where they'd basically just be reading Trump's bullshit 24/7.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      Oh gosh no, they wouldn't build it, Lockheed would. Like every other government administrative technology function. Trump Derangement Syndrome may be clouding your understanding of federal contracting and technology. Hopefully it will NOT be the same people who built Healthcare.gov Did you like that website?
  - bediger4000 6y ago
    Conservatives have spun up conservative equivalents of a lot of things. You can find a "Conservapedia", there's a Reddit analog in Voat, a Twitter alternative in Parler, a Facebook alternative in RightBook, for a while I had "Red63", a Trump-friendly Yelp thing on my phone.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Spivak 6y ago
What Twitter did was a stupid move and goes well beyond “responding.” They used their privileged position on a platform to comment on Trumps tweets in a way that nobody else can. Like I get that Twitter employees are mad and frustrated but they undermined themselves by throwing their weight around.
- Goronmon 6y ago
  It seems like a bit of a tautology to say that the owners of a platform can interact with that platform in a way no on else can...
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Editorialize is the word you're looking for.
- yellow_postit 6y ago
  It’s their platform and not some utility or public good, that the current administration believes they can bully the product direction is chilling.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  Do you believe HN deserves to be stripped of its 230 rights if they choose to ban people for violating the rules? How far down the rabbit hole of moderation = abuse of power do we want to go? Should platforms have zero control? What's stopping HN from becoming filled with off-topic images of cats outside of HN abusing their power to censor low-quality posts?
ibuiltthisbar 6y ago
They should fire his sleazebag social media corps. Isn't him sharing inappropriately an operational security concern anyway? Apparently, there's no penalty for that person who shared classified satellite imagery on that platform. That account is in clear violation of the Terms of Service. The government is prohibited from passing laws that infringe upon freedom of speech (one of our values). No business should be forced to carry such misinformation. No, this is America. "The 598 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List" (2016) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald... "Trump Is on Track to Insult 650 People, Places and Things on Twitter by the End of His First Term" (2017) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/26/upshot/president-trumps-newest-focus-discrediting-the-news-media-obamacare.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/26/upshot/presid... A disgrace. Learn some respect.
- ibuiltthisbar 6y ago
  "In 1,170 days, President Trump has made 18,000 false or misleading claims" (2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim... Section 230 has very little to do with whether a corporation operating a media platform may exercise their free speech right to respond to such discourse. Again, this is America.
ikerdanzel 6y ago
It means those companies will need to do censoring better job rather than peddling a certain unstantiate views as truth and claimed it is universally fact checked like evans evans evans (yeah, who fact check the fact checker and so on?). Or else, they get sue by anyone. Expect many social media companies to be less meddling now as they can't afford to be the next gawker. Lawsuit is very stressful and tiring even if you can afford to lose. Just go ask Bill Gates his monumental IE court adventure decades ago. Trump's motive is questionable, but the outcome of this is definitely better for the society. Many social media has not check and balance due to that 230. Now we the people able to check and balance while getting paid handsomely for doing so. Just see how CNN behave before and after Sandmann.
SrslyJosh 6y ago
> The great irony is that if you strip a company of their section 230 protections, doesn't that just mean that they're going to censor more things on their platform since they're now liable? Why wouldn't they remove Trump from Twitter entirely if they could be held liable for his rants? Please, oh please, don't throw me in the briar patch!

mabbo 6y ago

I worry that what Trump wants is something far more "Godfather": for Jack Dorsey to sit down and be given an offer he can't refuse. Dorsey gets told "We'll call this all off, say that we've decided not to interfere with free speech, but from now on you never contradict the president, you never contradict any Republican leader, and you start posting fact-checks more often on Democrats". That's the Trump strategy, typically. Deals. Always making deals. And Dorsey knows he has to play the game, because his major shareholders will all be quietly informed that the deal was out there, and he didn't take it. He'd lose his job if he didn't agree. And if he goes public, Trump can say "I sat down with the man and tried to work out a fair deal, but he refused!", playing the victim. Donald Trump is not a brilliant man, but he is very, very good at this game because he does not let ethics, norms, or laws get in his way.

joncrane 6y ago
>Donald Trump is not a brilliant man, but he is very, very good at this game Very well put.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Those who scream the loudest of "orange man bad" don't seem to grasp this.
  - loopz 6y ago
    We call someone who burn down everything around the person, a pyromaniac, not "good at this game". Anybody expecting a human response, will continue to be devastated. This is a fine moment to learn quickly what maybe just 2-3% has experienced before.

hodgesrm 6y ago

> Get Twitter to ban Trump and now you have a lot of red meat for his fervent fanbase. I don't think Trump has completely thought this through. Twitter is how he communicates with his base. What would he use instead?

Simulacra 6y ago
He would spin up a White House version. In fact, I'm extremely surprised the White House, or conservatives in general, haven't spun up something like that. Don't even mention GAB, that's a platform that's become worse than 4Chan.
- SrslyJosh 6y ago
  You're assuming they are competent enough to build that. Another assumption: his followers will leave Twitter, where they can harass/abuse everyone else at will, for an echo chamber where they'd basically just be reading Trump's bullshit 24/7.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Oh gosh no, they wouldn't build it, Lockheed would. Like every other government administrative technology function. Trump Derangement Syndrome may be clouding your understanding of federal contracting and technology. Hopefully it will NOT be the same people who built Healthcare.gov Did you like that website?
- bediger4000 6y ago
  Conservatives have spun up conservative equivalents of a lot of things. You can find a "Conservapedia", there's a Reddit analog in Voat, a Twitter alternative in Parler, a Facebook alternative in RightBook, for a while I had "Red63", a Trump-friendly Yelp thing on my phone.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Spivak 6y ago

What Twitter did was a stupid move and goes well beyond “responding.” They used their privileged position on a platform to comment on Trumps tweets in a way that nobody else can. Like I get that Twitter employees are mad and frustrated but they undermined themselves by throwing their weight around.

Goronmon 6y ago
It seems like a bit of a tautology to say that the owners of a platform can interact with that platform in a way no on else can...
Simulacra 6y ago
Editorialize is the word you're looking for.
yellow_postit 6y ago
It’s their platform and not some utility or public good, that the current administration believes they can bully the product direction is chilling.
fzeroracer 6y ago
Do you believe HN deserves to be stripped of its 230 rights if they choose to ban people for violating the rules? How far down the rabbit hole of moderation = abuse of power do we want to go? Should platforms have zero control? What's stopping HN from becoming filled with off-topic images of cats outside of HN abusing their power to censor low-quality posts?

ibuiltthisbar 6y ago

They should fire his sleazebag social media corps. Isn't him sharing inappropriately an operational security concern anyway? Apparently, there's no penalty for that person who shared classified satellite imagery on that platform. That account is in clear violation of the Terms of Service. The government is prohibited from passing laws that infringe upon freedom of speech (one of our values). No business should be forced to carry such misinformation. No, this is America. "The 598 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List" (2016) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald... "Trump Is on Track to Insult 650 People, Places and Things on Twitter by the End of His First Term" (2017) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/26/upshot/president-trumps-newest-focus-discrediting-the-news-media-obamacare.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/26/upshot/presid... A disgrace. Learn some respect.

ibuiltthisbar 6y ago
"In 1,170 days, President Trump has made 18,000 false or misleading claims" (2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim... Section 230 has very little to do with whether a corporation operating a media platform may exercise their free speech right to respond to such discourse. Again, this is America.

ikerdanzel 6y ago

It means those companies will need to do censoring better job rather than peddling a certain unstantiate views as truth and claimed it is universally fact checked like evans evans evans (yeah, who fact check the fact checker and so on?). Or else, they get sue by anyone. Expect many social media companies to be less meddling now as they can't afford to be the next gawker. Lawsuit is very stressful and tiring even if you can afford to lose. Just go ask Bill Gates his monumental IE court adventure decades ago. Trump's motive is questionable, but the outcome of this is definitely better for the society. Many social media has not check and balance due to that 230. Now we the people able to check and balance while getting paid handsomely for doing so. Just see how CNN behave before and after Sandmann.

SrslyJosh 6y ago

> The great irony is that if you strip a company of their section 230 protections, doesn't that just mean that they're going to censor more things on their platform since they're now liable? Why wouldn't they remove Trump from Twitter entirely if they could be held liable for his rants? Please, oh please, don't throw me in the briar patch!