27 ms·

Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

• cdolan 6y ago
  The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline: “This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations. Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action by Congress.”
  • microcolonel 6y ago
    > affirmed that private websites are not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment obligations FWIW this is only thematically related, the order concerns the distinction between immune or non-immune activities under Section 230. If you publish something defamatory on your blog, and you operate it, you may be liable. Section 230 is there to say that if a website merely retransmits your publication, it is not liable for it, so if you publish that same defamatory statement on Facebook, Facebook is not then liable. However, the argument with the executive order is that if you exercise a level of deliberate control over the content beyond some threshold, or you augment expression (like Twitter did the other day, adding links to contrary opinion pieces next to the President's opinion), you effectively become a publisher of that content. It's not a completely ridiculous idea either. Consider how diverse the expressions published to Twitter are; at some point it's not that different to choose not to publish some expression, than to express the complement of that expression yourself.
    • cdubzzz 6y ago
      One potential outcome here -- social media platforms start _more actively_ banning users to prevent potential liability issues, thus fracturing the market. Highly doubt it will work out that way, but it would be nice (well, maybe...).
      • microcolonel 6y ago
        That would be a spectacular outcome, especially for anyone who likes ActivityPub and blogs, and wants to see them get a fresh shot of juice. I'm just glad the prevailing call isn't to delete Section 230 altogether, which I think would cause a bit of pandemonium (though maybe that would be a social good as well, and maybe Section 230 was the mistake that made the social media monster).
        • Goronmon 6y ago
          That would be a spectacular outcome, especially for anyone who likes ActivityPub and blogs, and wants to see them get a fresh shot of juice. Wouldn't this harm any of these activities, aside from situations where people are directly hosting their own content, because anyone hosting could be held liable for what gets posted?
          • cdubzzz 6y ago
            That's the rub. The fantasy seems great initially for the prospect of breaking up the far too large (in my opinion) social media behemoths but maybe also ruins things for all the potential little guys as well.
      • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        Hopefully it will lead to what happened on reddit: the worst go off to a competitor which then fails to gain mainstream attention (e.g. Voat, Gab, etc). While they’ll be in an echo-chamber (which isn’t a good thing at all), at least they won’t ruin other communities.
        • joeyrideout 6y ago
          > the worst go off to a competitor which then fails to gain mainstream attention (e.g. Voat, Gab, etc). Or, HN :)
        • glennvtx 6y ago
          The problem there is that these sites have become echo-chambers, where they breed extremism. These kinds of ideologies (E.G. Nazism) need to be exposed to the light, like a bacteria, in order to be shamed and debunked.
    • nullc 6y ago
      It's kind of a ridiculous idea. Before S230 that was the case: Executing any editorial control risked you being concluded to be the publisher. Online providers said this is bullshit, we want be able to remove garbage -- lies, obscene material, defamation, etc. If moderating makes us publishers over everything on our site and legally liable, we can't do that. Make us immune so we can clean up the worst of things, and you can still always go after the actual sources. So I think it only makes sense to the extent that the world before S230 also made sense. But that's a world where sites like twitter probably couldn't have come into being. Without S230 the law is bizarre because it treated running a public venue as equivalently of being a publisher for everything that happened in it. It would be like if I ran a shopping mall and some member of the public came in and started calling you a paedophile that you could sue the mall simply because at other times I removed other people who were urinating on the walls.
      • Udik 6y ago
        On the other hand, there must be a limit on the amount of "moderation" you're allowed to perform before becoming a publisher. If you start labelling content as misleading (but don't remove it) or even if you privilege certain content instead of another (for example, you privilege social media posts advertising a product because it increases your revenue) then you could be considered a publisher. Let's put in another way: publishers used to produce content (as in select, solicit, remunerate) to further their interests (financial, but sometimes also political, or cultural). Now the big social networks don't need to produce the content, but they can tap into such an enormous amount of it that they can limit themselves to shaping it. Promote certain posts, reduce the visibility of others. The overall effect is the same. You could probably make Facebook or Twitter in a great cultural publications just by tweaking the algorithm that determines the visibility of the posts.
        • nullc 6y ago
          > On the other hand, there must be a limit on the amount of "moderation" you're allowed to perform before becoming a publisher. That isn't clear to me at all. The publisher is essentially the author from a liability perspective. I do agree (see my other post in this thread) that there are serious concerns about the moderation power of the operators of these massive online public forums. But that doesn't make treating them as the author from a liability perspective the right tool for dealing with that. Particularly because in most specific cases where their moderation power might be misused there is no question of liability. Imagine a site where everyone was always honest and nice, but the operator ruthlessly censored all posts by Georgists and S230 didn't exist. Okay, they'd be liable for their users posts-- but so what? There is nothing there for anyone to sue over. The Georgists would still be totally silenced.
    • fluidcruft 6y ago
      Don't all these social media sites augment content with targeted ads?
    • Corrado 6y ago
      Is this similar to how the phone company operates? As long as they just transmit your voice to the other party they can't be prosecuted for anything you say. But, as soon as they start listening in and commenting on your words they have to listen to everyone's conversations and comment on all the words. Obviously phone companies don't want to be responsible for everyone's words so they don't comment on anyone's words. The parallel would be Twitter commenting on a tweet. As long as they just pass the tweet on to other people, without commenting on it, then they aren't responsible for it's content. But as soon as they say "hey, this might be false information" about a specific tweet then they are responsible for the content of all tweets.
  • TheColorYellow 6y ago
    Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a "private website". It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts comprehension.
    • thrusong 6y ago
      Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?
      • Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        To play devil's advocate, you can't do that in a public park either. You can be arrested for disturbing the peace or some such. So I'm not sure it's necessarily about private vs public.
        • komali2 6y ago
          I'm not aware of it being illegal to stand on a soapbox and say racist things in a public park. If you're screaming at the top of your lungs, sure, maybe?
          • Wowfunhappy 6y ago
            Well, yeah, I suppose it depends how loud you're screaming. I was imagining someone shouting as loud as possible, which you'd definitely get stopped for in many places.
            • laughinghan 6y ago
              Aren't you just talking about the volume then? You could be screaming the most wholesome things about unicorns and rainbows and still be loud enough to be a public nuisance, and loud enough that authorities will have the right to ask you to pipe down. In America, no matter how big of a community mall, management can always remove you for good reasons (using racial slurs, even at normal volume), silly reasons (they didn't like the color of your hat), or no reason at all, as long as it's not for a prohibited reason (because of your race). Whereas authorities cannot remove you from a public square for no reason or silly reasons, only for good reasons specifically identified by law (like public nuisance).
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • nostromo 6y ago
    Be aware that the DC Circuit leans left, by a lot -- so it's an unsurprising result. The Supreme Court may eventually take one of these cases and come to a different conclusion.
    • driverdan 6y ago
      Loomer's suit was never going to go anywhere regardless. It was completely baseless.
    • JChase2 6y ago
      I'm not sure this is the case anymore. McConnell and Trump have been rapidly filling the courts with young, right leaning justices. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/28/thanks-trump-liberal-ninth-circuit-is-no-longer-liberal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/28/thanks-tru...
      • paulgb 6y ago
        The weird thing is that, a year ago, if you asked me where "private companies should be able to make their own decisions about what content they publish" falls on the spectrum, I would have considered it to be right of center. I guess it comes down to whether these justices are ideologically "right-leaning", or just Republican partisans.
      • roamerz 6y ago
        From my observations left leaning means apply liberal criteria to decisions. Right leaning means adhere to the Constitution and law of the United States of America.
        • pas 6y ago
          So in this case what does the Constitution say? And where does the Constitution say that a corporation spending money is speech?
          • Mirioron 6y ago
  • meragrin_ 6y ago
    There is already a ruling by the Supreme Court where social media sites are referred as the modern public square. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
    • anigbrowl 6y ago
      Phrasing in dicta isn't the same as a legal holding, though. It's a legitimate point, but not a dispositive one.
    • gamblor956 6y ago
      Not, it doesn't. The case was about a government trying to restrict a sex offender from accessing web sites where he could engage in first amendment activities like commenting. The court ruled that they could not, absent a sufficient showing that the restrictions on the appellant's internet usage were necessary to prevent the sex offender from re-offending. In fact the express language of the ruling states that social media sites are a means for accessing the public square, not that these sites are the public square. Moreover, these dicta statements (i.e., non-binding commentary) are a direct reference to the first amendment mall cases, which similarly involved activities that could occur in a public square. The mall cases held that private malls could ban speech because they were private facilities, thus they were not public squares even though the public could (and frequently did) engage in traditional public square activities in the mall. TLDR: the private-public distinction matters for First Amendment law. The First Amendment only applies to public properties and public agencies, not private properties or persons.
  • hintymad 6y ago
    I don't think that section 230 is about First Amendment. I thought it was about whether a company can be shielded from law suit on the content published on the company's website. That is, how to classify a company as a platform or as a publisher.
    • threatofrain 6y ago
      First amendment is the issue as we're contemplating who should be liable for the consequences of bad speech. If FB is liable than FB is incentivized to censor risky people; if I'm liable then I might watch what I say on Yelp or Wikipedia. Right now we have a situation where the platform owner can collect the fruits of popularity, while the platform users experience basically no-liability gossip, such as empirical claims about businesses. Anyone who is hated broadly by the internet, whether just or unjust, would like FB to be liable no matter what is right or wrong, because holding hundreds of tiny individuals accountable for tiny wrongs over the web is a losing battle.
      • Fjolsvith 6y ago
        > while the platform users experience basically no-liability gossip, such as empirical claims about businesses. Not true. You can be sued for Libel on Twitter and Facebook [1]. https://slate.com/technology/2012/11/libel-on-twitter-you-can-be-sued-for-libel-for-what-you-write-on-facebook-and-other-social-media.html https://slate.com/technology/2012/11/libel-on-twitter-you-ca...
        • jaredklewis 6y ago
          I think the parent comment recognizes that but is saying there is "basically" no-liability because it is so impractical to sue a random internet commenters one by one. For sure, if you are Elon Musk and you claim on your twitter account that a world renowned diver is a pedophile, you might suffer real consequences. But if someone posts on my restaurant's yelp page a totally fabricated negative review, what are my options? Even let's say I have video or other evidence that disproves their assertion (unlikely), I will need to quantity the harm that this particular internet comment did to my business, which is in most cases nearly impossible. And all for what? A median wage worker isn't going to be able to cover my lawyers fee's (assuming I can prove malicious intent) before going into bankruptcy. What businesses really want is to be able to sue Yelp itself for libel. They want to say: "Yelp, you didn't quality control your comments, these reviews are being fabricated. After my 5 star rating dropped to 1, my business’s income plummeted, now pay up." I don't think it would be a good idea if our laws worked like that, but as the parent points out, the current situation is that the platforms are more or less immune to libel, and suing random internet commenters for libel makes no sense.
  • empath75 6y ago
    Repealing section 230 would make twitter liable for publishing trump’s libelous murder accusations and incitement to violence. They’d be forced to ban him.
    • colejohnson66 6y ago
      I’m curious how that would turn out? What would happen if Trump was banned? While I’m against censorship, banning someone for not following your “code of conduct” is well within your rights.
      • incompatible 6y ago
        I'd guess Trump would move to a new platform, and take his social media circus with him. Twitter presumably wants to keep that traffic.
      • lastres0rt 6y ago
        The best example is what happened when Alex Jones found himself deplatformed -- although I think the simplest answer there is "too little too late".
    • anewdirection 6y ago
      You mean enforcing section 230, but you are correct.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • hindsightbias 6y ago
    It seems risky to take on the platform that got one elected. Perhaps this will end the same way codifying the word “Marriage” in the Defense of Marriage Act did. Nothing like Federalizing a word.
• xamuel 6y ago
  Without any attempt to weigh in on political sides, this debate made me think of an interesting "hack" to act as a publisher while enjoying the protections of a platform: 1. Start a website where users are able to write arbitrary articles. 2. Have a bot systematically spam your site with all possible articles (suitably limited so as to make this technically doable). 3. Systematically weed out all the articles which are NOT equal to the articles you actually wanted to publish. Voila, now you've published all and only the articles you wanted, and yet you're just an innocent platform, not a publisher! If your site is sufficiently widely used, you can even cut out step 2 and replace it with organic human beings.
  • kube-system 6y ago
    The law isn't really hackable in the same way a machine is, because the law isn't interpreted by a machine, it is interpreted by a court, which would take all of the above into account when applying the law.
    • nullc 6y ago
      Bingo. At least if anyone could figure out that you were doing it (including, e.g. discovery finding emails where you discuss it) any could would happily see right through it.
  • probably_wrong 6y ago
    That's not so much of a "hack", more like "fraud with enough extra steps to make it difficult to prosecute". That doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. Adult websites have been accused of something similar: as the version goes, they'll take your (illegally published) video down on request, no questions asked, but "someone" will upload it again later. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this, though, which means that either it isn't true, or it is and your plan would work just fine.
    • inetknght 6y ago
      > That's not so much of a "hack", more like "fraud with enough extra steps to make it difficult to prosecute". Demonstrate that users on Twitter aren't bots. Otherwise I don't see a difference here.
• chasing 6y ago
  All because Twitter dared to fact check him.
  • onetimemanytime 6y ago
    devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that content
    • ddoolin 6y ago
      Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change exactly what started the whole thing.
      • onetimemanytime 6y ago
        IIRC, they are not liable if they just host the comments, not if they endorse them. I guess every comment without a "fake /dubious" label is true? (Cause I'm about to drink a gallon of bleach and eat 2 lbs of raw garlic to ward off Covid as per a tweet's instruction ;) (joking) )
        • ddoolin 6y ago
          Even if they were the publisher in this scenario and were liable for his comment AND their annotation, there is nothing illegal about it.
          • elpool2 6y ago
            Twitter could put "Everything trump says is false!" underneath every Trump tweet and it would still be perfectly legal.
          • jklein11 6y ago
            I don't think the executive action targets the fact check label on Trump's tweet specifically. I think Twitter did something that really pissed Trump off and Trump is using Section 230 as leverage and a way to extend the narrative of "Twitter is plotting against me so don't believe everything you read." This is neither here nor there but I have considered my self a republican for the last 28 years of my life. This president's actions make me feel physically ill.
• ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Another source with some remarks from a Democrat FCC commissioner: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-social-media-executive-order/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-s...
  • raldi 6y ago
    Democrat is not an adjective.
    • cardiffspaceman 6y ago
      It's a common usage, but mainly among non-Democrats. And it's not a compliment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
      • ComputerGuru 6y ago
        You’re barking up the wrong tree. I wrote “democratic,” thought it looked wrong as it seemed more the adjective of “Democracy” rather than “member of the Democratic Party,” didn’t want to look it up on my phone because I cannot multitask for the life of me on my iPhone, and there you go. Anyway, you do realize that the very fact that I was linking to "here's what someone in a position to challenge or at least refuse to enforce this inanity" implies that I'm scarcely trying to side with the party backing the trigger-happy president, right?
        • runeb 6y ago
          You felt the need to refer to someone as a proponent of democracy?
          • ComputerGuru 6y ago
            Other way around, obviously.
    • ComputerGuru 6y ago
• ineedasername 6y ago
  Seems counter productive to the President's intent. If platforms can be held liable for user posts, that will give them a strong incentive to remove anything at all that might even come close to giving them legal liability. So sure, maybe changing the law (or asking the FCC to reinterpret its strictures) would "get back" at the companies President Trump thinks are doing something wrong to him, but the net results would be severe limitations on what he could say on all platforms.
  • akersten 6y ago
    Then he'll claim that he's being censored even more, which is probably exactly what he wants to do to rile up his supporters.
    • serpix 6y ago
      except his supporters won't know about it since he is censored.
      • billstar 6y ago
        The president can't be easily muted in the same way that a non-famous person could. Good or bad, the press will parrot what he says, in any forum.
      • ineedasername 6y ago
        The President can call a press conference at any moment that will get coverage from pretty much every national media outlet, especially any outlet likely to be frequented by his supporters. Presidents will never be without a method to communicate with their supporters.
  • hairofadog 6y ago
    The idea is that it would be impossible for Twitter to remove every single Tweet that's libelous, threatening, etc., and so the only way to avoid being sued is to not remove _anything_. That ends up being a policy that is favorable to people who want to spread disinformation.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• obilgic 6y ago
  Some days I just have trouble getting out of bed, he is over 70 years old I'm just fascinated with his agile work and energy to fight anything that comes against him. His choices are debatable abut That is definitely some form of leadership.
  • serpix 6y ago
    leadership is definitely not the word I would associate with this individual.
  • ptruesdell 6y ago
    While it is impressive, I'd call it a side effect of his narcissism rather than leadership.
  • pupppet 6y ago
    Hate is a hell of a drug.
• seanwilson 6y ago
  > "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are fed up with it. It is unfair, and it's been very unfair." What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "many people are saying" style statements.
  • vkou 6y ago
    Journalists do followup with obvious questions, but the WHPS doesn't answer them.
    • seanwilson 6y ago
      Why do they not keep pushing back with "you haven't answered my question" though? If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press?
      • vkou 6y ago
        Because then they don't get invited back to the next press conference, and they get fired, because their spineless employers want their journalists to be present at press conferences. Meanwhile, the press conference room can always be filled with sympathetic media reps. > If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press? Have you seen how this administration has been running press conferences? It's not an entirely unprecedented trainwreck (when any administration is in scandal mode, it behaves in such a fashion), but it is unprecedented for how frequently it has had to operate in scandal mode. Its supporters, of course, point to this sort of thing as an example of the bad liberal media bias that is being mean to the greatest man in the history of this country. The WHPS of the week could spend every single conference reading from a phonebook, and it still wouldn't change anyone's mind on anything.
  • akersten 6y ago
    He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."
• atian 6y ago
  Where there is liquidity, you mustn't mess where it wants to go.
• admiralspoo 6y ago
  This is long overdue. Social media companies grew their networks without censorship, but when they got sufficient monopoly and network power started censoring generally only in one direction.
  • mrlala 6y ago
    >generally only in one direction Do you think it's really a coincidence that the side that promotes racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc is the side getting 'censored'? Seems like a natural result to me.
  • angst_ridden 6y ago
    They have clearly stated TOS. You can read it at https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules Now, they do a crap job of enforcement, but it appears that that crap job is omnidirectional in its failings.
  • jrockway 6y ago
    Here's how it breaks down for this particular case. People are afraid to vote because they don't want to get COVID-19 while standing in line waiting at the polls. So states are letting people vote by mail. The problem with that is that Republicans tend to lose elections when everyone who is allowed to vote votes. So Trump, in an attempt to win the election, is sowing seeds of discontent with regards to mail-in ballots, claiming that fraud will be widespread. The goal is to get people to pressure states to not allow voting by mail, thus suppressing votes from people scared about COVID-19 (which tend to be poorer people that can't afford a $200,000 hospital stay), and thus leading to a Trump reelection. Twitter has stepped in to say "hey, voting by mail is not a new thing and there wasn't really a lot of fraud". That is not censoring a conservative viewpoint. It's just giving people some facts. Here's Trump's opinion, here's some data, make your own decision. I am sure that if Joe Biden started tweeting random conspiracy theories, Twitter would fact check those. But he doesn't, so we don't get to see that in action. Just because a conservative person in power tends to lie and start conspiracy theories on social media, doesn't mean the platform is biased against conservatives. It just means that they're not going to publish falsehoods without a little asterisk.
• marcell 6y ago
  I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions. Twitter's "fact check" singles out a specific Trump tweet. It's clearly a human intervention by Twitter staff, not user generated content. The subject of Trump's tweet was a political dispute, and while Trump certainly had false statements in his tweet, that's basically par for the course on Twitter. This raises a bunch of questions. Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements? If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning labels? We have seen this also with the coronavirus breakout. Medium and other publishers removed posts based that were sanguine data analysis (nothing inflammatory) because they were against the prevailing media sentiment. For example this Medium post [1] was removed based on its content. It did not contain anything inflammatory, violent, or otherwise unsavory. Medium just didn't like what it said. At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.). They are certainly within their rights do curate/moderate their platform, but if this continues, we need to start thinking of these companies less like user driven platforms, and more like opinionated publishers. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200321144004/https:/medium.com/six-four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894 https://web.archive.org/web/20200321144004/https:/medium.com...
  • JustSomeNobody 6y ago
    > Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements? They aren't. They've labeled other tweets before. > If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning labels? Presumably, yes.
    • epistasis 6y ago
      Economics is quite different than election interference, so I'm not sure that Twitter would make any "fact check" statements when it comes to economics. The idea of "facts" in economics can't extend very far beyond metics and other numbers, as most of the rest is up to vigorous theoretical, political debate. If this original poster is so keen on fact checking the "economics" of a certain political sides, it seems likely that they are not concerned with actual facts but rather deeply held theoretical and political beliefs that they have elevated to "fact" status.
• wnevets 6y ago
  Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government republicans
  • evan_ 6y ago
    As much as there ever really were "small government republicans" there certainly aren't any today. "Owning the libs" is the only reason the current batch of conservatives gets out of bed in the morning. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nratv-dan-bongino-my-life-is-all-about-owning-the-libs-now_n_5bb78317e4b0876eda9dc907 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nratv-dan-bongino-my-life-is-...
    • outworlder 6y ago
      > Owning the libs We should call what it is. They working to make the lives of other US citizens as miserable as they can. Whoever does this is working against their own country. This is unpatriotic.
      • evan_ 6y ago
        "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." --Frank Wilhoit
      • oldsklgdfth 6y ago
        > make the lives of other US citizens as miserable as they can The main tool that populism leverages is anger. It is true on both sides of the political spectrum.
      • marcusverus 6y ago
        This is lazy thinking. Telling yourself that the other side is evil is a short-cut for the incurious.
    • b0sk 6y ago
      Absolutely. To get a slice of that thinking. Here's Rush Limbaugh: (backstory: Trump has been repeatedly peddling an absolutely baseless claim that his TV critic Joe Scarborough murdered his employee couple of decades back. Her husband is now pleading that Trump is causing irreparable damage to their family). Anyway, here's Limbaugh: “The thing here is when you get to Trump and his conspiracy theories, he does it in a really clever way,” he proclaimed. “And this is where people don’t get the subtlety of Trump because they don’t think he has the ability to be subtle. Trump never says that he believes these conspiracy theories that he touts. He’s simply passing them on.” Asked by his producer whether he thinks “Trump cares whether Scarborough murdered anybody or not,” Limbaugh replied that the president doesn’t care but is tweeting about it “because it’s out there.” “So Trump is just throwing gasoline on a fire here, and he’s having fun watching the flames—and he’s having fun watching these holier-than-thou leftist journalists react like their moral sensibilities have been forever rocked and can never recover,” he concluded.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• TheColorYellow 6y ago
  "It also asks the Federal Trade Commission to report on acts of political bias collected by the White House" Is this not similar to the approach and actions of other large State actors out there that hold a lot of authoritative power?
  • nine_zeros 6y ago
    I posted a comment yesterday saying how this power grab was no different from the CCP and my post was voted into oblivion by people. From a 3rd country's perspective, really, all authoritative countries look the same in their policies barring nuances.
  • snowwrestler 6y ago
    The word "asks" is important here, as the FTC is an independent federal agency and not under direct authority of the President.
• elpool2 6y ago
  Eugene Volokh with some legal analysis: https://reason.com/2020/05/28/platform-immunity-and-platform-blocking-and-screening-of-offensive-material/ https://reason.com/2020/05/28/platform-immunity-and-platform...
• gulli1010 6y ago
  Does that mean we can sue Fox entertainment fake news network?
  • xamuel 6y ago
    You can already sue them. For example, if Fox runs a segment claiming that you (gulli1010) are a murderer, you can sue them for slander (with or without this executive order). If someone tweets that you are a murderer, you can't sue Twitter (or rather, if you do, Twitter will be protected by Section 230). However, suppose Twitter announces the following policy: "Any tweet which calls someone a murderer, shall be deleted, unless the alleged murderer is gulli1010". Should you be allowed to sue Twitter then? That's a more nuanced question. And what if the above policy isn't an official policy but is a de facto policy?
    • techntoke 6y ago
      People should look into the Seth Rich lawsuit and Ed Butowsky. Trump forgets his crowd is the one who constantly panders conspiracy theories like PizzaGate and QAnon. This will effectively take them down entirely.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • CountSessine 6y ago
        Yes, but at the cost of the entire platform. I’d doubt that Twitter could sustain being endlessly sued over user posts. They’d die the death of a thousand cuts. And a lot of conservatives would be perfectly happy with that.
      • artificial 6y ago
        No one side has a monopoly on conspiracy theories. The Russia collusion was something spun for years by the networks where people under oath said one thing privately and another publicly.
• jtchang 6y ago
  Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would any other troll on the internet.
  • oarabbus_ 6y ago
    I'm not sure if you mean this seriously, or in an exasperated but joking manner. If you are serious, it's because Trump has done more for the legitimacy and usage of Twitter than any engineer, businessperson, or celebrity other than Dorsey & cofounders. To be clear: Twitter may take a tough official stance against Trump, but behind closed doors he is the MVP.
    • tmpz22 6y ago
      Twitter stock 2013-2020 [1] vs. S&P 500 [2] supports your claim. My take is its a combination of political divisiveness in the US alongside larger influences (i.e. Trump) inflating audiences / ad. revenue. [1]:https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/stock-price-history https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TWTR/twitter/stock... [2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/2488/sp500-10-year-daily-chart https://www.macrotrends.net/2488/sp500-10-year-daily-chart
      • outericky 6y ago
        Maybe... I saw it posted somewhere that because 80m people follow Trump, he sways the monthly actives... but there are others with more followers than Trump. I don't think there is enough evidence of his impact to the stock price. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_...
    • tzs 6y ago
      That made my curious about what Twitter accounts have the most followers. The top 10 are [1]: 1. Barack Obama, 118 million. 2. Justin Bieber, 111. 3. Katy Perry, 108. 4. Rihanna, 96. 5. Taylor Swift, 86. 6. Christiano Ronoldy, 84. 7. Lady Gaga, 81. 8. Donald Trump, 80. 9. Ellen DeGeneres, 80. 10. Ariana Grande, 74. The next highest politican is Indian Prime Minister Modi, at #17 with 57 million. The Office of the Prime Minister of India is at #42, with 35 million. Obama, Trump, and Modi are the only politicians in the top 50. The only individuals in the top 50 who are not those three or entertainers (counting athletes as entertainers) are Bill Gates at #22 with 50 million and Elon Musk at 47 with 34 million. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_...
• ForHackernews 6y ago
  Good. Here's hoping Trump and the social media companies destroy each other. May a better world rise from the metaphoric ashes.
• amalcon 6y ago
  Ignoring the mechanical-legal aspects of what Section 230 already does, the discourse on this has been a shining example of logically inconsistent philosophy. The Citizens United v. FEC decision indicates that corporations have free speech rights similar to those of individuals. Logically, if you agree with that part of the decision, then you should also agree that the government can't punish Twitter for doing this, and vice versa. Yet very few people seem to hold either of those combinations of views. There are a few principled civil libertarians who are fine with both super-PACs and what Twitter did here. There are a few principled fair campaign advocates who think it's theoretically permissible, if inadvisable, for the government to stop what Twitter did here. Most people seem to take one of the inconsistent positions.
  • nullc 6y ago
    This tension comes from the fact that there don't exist any "traditional public forum" online. All venues online are private spaces, yet some act as extremely convincing replicas of public spaces. While I don't agree with this weird S230 opposition, the general sentiment that people expect to have a similar protection for free speech that they enjoy in our public squares, street corners, libraries and parks in the online alternatives to these things... isn't really a crazy one. It's also a tenshion that exists in offline form. Increasingly there are gigantic public "downtown" areas which are privately owned (on land taken from the public through eminent domain then sold to developers), where people's free speech is heavily curtailed. The general idea that just because the physical manifestation (or legal structure) behind our traditional public spaces is changing our effective right to free speech shouldn't change seems like a reasonable idea to me. Also the general idea that twitter itself should automatically be free from regulation in how it restricts others due to its own free speech seems extremely specious to me. Twitter is a business, it operates to make money. While businesses have free speech right, commercial operations have a strictly lower level of rights in many areas. Twitter has only refrained from banning the president, who regularly and flagrantly violates their rules, because he makes them money. If twitter consisted primarily of its owners speech no one would visit it. It is effectively a place of public accommodation and its value stems entirely from the public's use of it. We traditionally impose significant regulation on how private businesses that serve the public operate, including extensive rules ensuring equality of access and against discrimination. This executive order seems pretty foolish overall. But a law that set a threshold where a service like twitter become a "public forum"-- places where the public use is the whole point-- and they had to meet a much higher standard when they wanted to silence people or ideas (beyond "our AI picked you at random, tough luck") and had provide effective modes of redress might be important to preserving people's effective freedom of speech in the long run.
• mint2 6y ago
  Wait, if this was somehow enforceable wouldn’t the order make Twitter liable for trump posting misinformation essentially making them legally required to censor or flag him?
  • techntoke 6y ago
    I think it may actually be a way to empower companies to gain more access to information. If the companies are responsible, then they will want to sue the users for violations and personally identify them. A side effect is that they will have some government agency deciding what is acceptable or not. Much like China.
    • knodi123 6y ago
      > If the companies are responsible, then they will want to sue the users for violations and personally identify them I think you're drastically overestimating the profitability of a single twitter user. They have hundreds of millions of active users. It would probably be far easier and more cost effective to ban every user that causes them any amount of grief, than to investigate and potentially sue them.
      • techntoke 6y ago
        They already ban users. This change would fine companies that ban racists and conspiracy theorist because some conservative claimed oppression of free speech.
  • closeparen 6y ago
    Where exactly is there liability for misinformation? Fraud and libel come close, but there are important requirements in both cases beyond truth value.
• pengaru 6y ago
  What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private sector. It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut the hell up or leave. And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to being moderated on a web site after years of arguably excessive tolerance of his b.s. I'm not sure how much more embarrassed I can get for my country.
  • takeda 6y ago
    Most people totally miss the point. The first amendment is there from preventing the government from controlling the speech. Exactly what Trump is doing to Twitter right now.
    • outworlder 6y ago
      > Most people totally miss the point. Because 'free speech' is literally _all they know_ about the subject. If they did look it up, they would literally see the very first words of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law (...)". Literally about the legislative branch. Every other consequence of the First Amendment comes from that. Other laws can be more specific and may grant more rights, but this just specifies what the government can't take away.
      • greenyoda 6y ago
        > "Congress shall make no law (...)" The Bill of Rights has also been extended to apply state governments, based on the 14th Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
      • quicklime 6y ago
        Apologies if this is a stupid question; I'm a foreigner so I can't understand freedom like Americans do. But if the first words are "Congress shall make no law", does that mean that the President and his executive orders are not bound by the First Amendment?
• tombert 6y ago
  Oh my goodness is he a big dumb stupid moron. At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter, which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them put less racism apologia on their network?
  • munificent 6y ago
    I'm sorry but you have a fundamentally flawed model for how Trump (and many in the GOP) think about the world. You're operating under a principle that says that people are essential equal in terms of rights and that there is a moral obligation to consistency. The old Golden Rule, and everything. Under that framework, it's stupid to punch someone in the face unless you also want to get punched in the face, because your principle of equivalence says that you should be prepared to receive anything you give. But these people have an entirely different model. There is no right and wrong. No fairness, no consistency. It is simply a model of power. If you have the power to do a thing, you can do a thing. And if others don't have enough power to do the same back to you, their loss. You wouldn't get irate that the Earth pulls the moon out of its orbit more than the moon affects the Earth. It's not "unfair" that the Earth has more mass. It is simply a fact, and that fact determines how those planetary bodies act. The mentality of authoritarians is the same with respect to power. The universe has granted power to some and not others, and the only moral code is to use what you have to do what you can get away with. It's confusing, because these people often use words like "right" and "fair", but they are using them purely as tools of power for the effect using the words has on others, and not under any actual belief in them. My kids when they were toddlers would cry "not fair" any time they didn't get their way, because they learned that claiming something was unfair was sometimes an effective strategy to sway parents. It's the same thing.
    • mmazing 6y ago
      Well put.
    • jayspell 6y ago
• techntoke 6y ago
  Hurry up and finish a fast decentralized anonymous web before the US turns into China.
  • ordu 6y ago
    It wouldn't be China. In China there is truth, truth and only truth. The truth approved by government. US turns not into China, but into Russia, where there is no truth, only lies. Literally. Because the only way to categorize all sayings into truth and lies is to pick some political side and stick to it. One cannot believe to any authority: politicians, scientists, journalists, government officials... they are all lying. Some probably are not, but you have no ways to find out who is.
• smkellat 6y ago
  After just under four years of scorched earth resistance we now get this new EO. I am only surprised he waited this long.
  • kthxbye123 6y ago
    And to think, just this morning you were claiming the text of this order was probably a forgery because it was so shoddy and inconsistent.
    • smkellat 6y ago
      I used to work at a sub-cabinet bureau that had much, much higher standards than we’re seeing out of the executive mansion now. I’m disappointed.
• SiVal 6y ago
  The big problem that needs to be addressed is network effects. When the feature that matters most to users is the presence of other users, the result is a platform that can do all kinds of harm. The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, they have to be where everyone else is. If Twitter, for example, were an open protocol that you accessed through your ISP like email to join the world conversation, their own opinions wouldn't matter more than anyone else's. If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.
  • no-s 6y ago
    >>If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable. yeah, twitter could implement plug-in choose-your-own fact checking, but that would create a scary market outside twitter's control. Since the number of twitter users is roughly finite this could mean a reduction in attention share to twitter proper...
• buboard 6y ago
  > Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike About time. Social media should have been commoditized and decentralized by now, joining the group of email, DNS etc. Social media companies enjoyed milking free user content for 15 years, it's about time people take hold of their own intellectual property in the fediverse.
• akersten 6y ago
  I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.
  • mam2 6y ago
    Unless hes right and social media compagnies are actually biaised against conservatives. OH WAIT.
  • t0mas88 6y ago
    That own executive will attack any industry he doesn't agree with at any point he pleases. It's how he has done it for years in business and it's how he will do it in politics for as long as he isn't prosecuted and removed from office. As long as the Republicans keep supporting him and have a majority he will just continue to pull more and more crazy stunts and get away with it.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • aaaaaaaaaaa10 6y ago
      The Supreme Court has ruled that it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict...the free flow of information and ideas.” See the case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-44.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-44.ZO.html The full text: "The First Amendment's command that government not impede the freedom of speech does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict, through physical control of a critical pathway of communication, the free flow of information and ideas."
      • gilbetron 6y ago
        Twitter is expressing it's 1st amendment rights by labeling tweets. Twitter is not the government, Trump is. The situation is completely opposite what you make it.
• badrabbit 6y ago
  How can they comply with "EARN IT" if they can't moderate and censor?
• gok 6y ago
  The nice thing about Trump having the emotional self control of a toddler is that we don't have to wonder if this was really part of some larger plan. We know without a doubt that this was because Twitter subtly showed him an ounce of disrespect. Tech companies should therefore realize the futility of trying to negotiate with this administration.
• archagon 6y ago
  To repeat my comment from a different thread: If we accept corporations as people, I wish some of the ones with actual power had the backbone to do a bit of civil disobedience, instead of rolling over at the first sign of trouble. Twitter should double down and add a fact-check sticker to every single Trump lie, past and current — to hell with lawsuits and the FCC. Otherwise, we'll "maybe parts of this sound reasonable" our way straight into a goose-stepping, thought-shaping, Republican-ruled dictatorship. Surely, even the people who scoffed at this idea a few years ago can see this future taking shape. I am aghast that there's any support for this in the once-countercultural Silicon Valley. It's abhorrent and shameful, and it makes me fear that maybe the gravity well is already too large to escape. Meanwhile, people like Zuckerberg and Musk are tripping over themselves to appease the ruling party. (Just a reminder that earlier today, Trump retweeted a video declaring that "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat." I suppose this is one of those good old fashioned Republican values that our liberal bias works so hard to suppress.)
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• growlist 6y ago
  If it were the other way round, the media would be howling for regulation.
• soheil 6y ago
  Here is the text of the executive order (draft): https://www.scribd.com/document/463379849/Draft-Executive-Order-on-Social-Media https://www.scribd.com/document/463379849/Draft-Executive-Or... Here is the audio version: https://playthis.link/https://pastebin.com/0mzv8heR https://playthis.link/https://pastebin.com/0mzv8heR
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Thank you! After reading several contradictory and confusing articles, I found the actual order very clear. I would encourage others to take a look.
    • acid__ 6y ago
      Agreed! I've started reading the actual laws and legal orders much more often recently. I'd already been in the habit of diving into source code when confused about how a (software) library/tool works, and I figured this wasn't all that different. I've been surprised twofold: 1. to find out how often journalistic coverage is misleading or incomplete 2. to find out how often the legal text is actually fairly succinct and coherent, even to a layperson like myself
  • pas 6y ago
    tl;dr ? Seriously, is there some simple list that precisely indicates what does this EO mean? What does it mean for regular normal guys and gals (and genderfluid attack helicopterkins)? What does it mean for Twitter?
    • tyrust 6y ago
      It takes about 10 minutes to read and I was able to comprehend it as a layman. I do suggest reading the referenced section U.S. Code 230 [0] beforehand and having it available for reference. >genderfluid attack helicopterkins Please avoid transphobic idioms [1]. Replacing "regular normal etc." with simply "laypeople" or "non-lawyers" would suffice. [0] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Attack_Helicopter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Atta...
• gkoberger 6y ago
  "There's nothing I'd rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account." - Trump He doesn't care about the truth, and is trying to take advantage of our desire for neutrality and free speech to push lies. It's possible for us to be nuanced, and not let him ruin Twitter/Facebook/etc with bad-faith arguments.
• AzzieElbab 6y ago
  Let us all hope Trump does not get into WoW. But seriously, politicians and journalists have openly called for twitter to ban Trump and I am sure there is more going on behind the scenes
• guyxcw122 6y ago
  It seems like the fundamental question is: are services like Twitter and Facebook basically utilities (like ISPs) or are they basically editorial (like newspapers). That is, there are some private companies, like ISPs, that are seen as part of the basic plumbing of the internet, and which are generally not allowed to editorialize their content (for example, through net neutrality rules). However, there are others, like Yelp, which are seen as publishers of edited and curated content, even if some of the content was written by users and not the company itself. The question is, have Twitter and Facebook (etc.) become dominant enough that they are essentially utilities, or are they editors of content like Yelp?
  • holler 6y ago
    > dominant enough that they are essentially utilities If that statement is true then it's a sad day in America. That means that competition is dead and monopoly wins.
• kbenson 6y ago
  You know, it would be pretty funny if Twitter banned Trump's account because of some TOS terms have or something. If he actually causes them enough problems over this such that they are already paying for it, it might be worth it as a power play on their part. Trump definitely depends on Twitter far more than Twitter depends on Trump. He could move to Facebook/Instagram, but I just don't see that being a move he would want to do, partly because the type of communication doesn't seem to be the same, and partly because it would be a huge admission of defeat, where he couldn't bully a person or company into doing what he wanted. Twitter would likely see a big dip in usage, at least for a short period, as some Trump loyalists boycotted it, but I imagine a lot of them would be back. There's also the rights of a private companies to control their own service which is a traditional Republican belief, but I doubt that would matter much, as the current political climate doesn't seem conducive to politicians adhering to past beliefs, not matter whcih side of the divide they are on.
  • holler 6y ago
    why would Twitter ban their most popular user? not in a million years... they need him just as much as he needs them.
    • kbenson 6y ago
      > they need him just as much as he needs them. Not if he's threatening their business, and I think you overestimate how much Trump brings to Twitter. I'm sure he drives a level and engagement and discourse, but that's still going to be there to a large degree even if his account isn't. It's not like people aren't posting news clips about him from other websites all the time. Trump is one of many thousands of popular people driving engagement on Twitter, even if he's high up on the list (but he doesn't have the most followers, he's not even in the top 5 apparently.[1]) On the other hand, Twitter is the one preferred platform for Trump to speak to his followers. Press briefings and official statements are a distant second. The fact that he announced his official plans to counterattack Twitter on Twitter first says it all. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Twitter_...
• t0mas88 6y ago
  How long until a few big tech companies move their headquarters to Dublin and wish mr Trump good luck in ever collecting any more taxes from them? Or maybe Brussels like the Eclipse foundati did?
• bedhead 6y ago
  The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's definitely not a clear issue anymore.
  • slg 6y ago
    This is a valid argument, but it seems like the proper government response would be to use the tools that were designed to address issues like this such as antitrust law. We shouldn't be bestowing governmental responsibilities on these companies just because we let them become monopolies.
    • caminante 6y ago
      The legislation (Communications Decency Act of 1996) under discussion flows from EFFECTIVE lobbying by telecom monopolies seeking a liability shield [0]. Monopoly power and market manipulation is a second order issue. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
      • slg 6y ago
        I legitimately don't understand your point here. You seem to be implying that this specific legislation is a form of regulatory capture. Meanwhile nothing in the Wikipedia article you linked seems to support that. It even notes that groups like the ACLU are strongly in support of Sec 230. I don't think the ACLU normally does the bidding of big telecom. Either way, if the root cause is telecom monopolies, let's actually try to fix monopolies rather creating a new category of private company that becomes a public good through its monopoly.
        • caminante 6y ago
          My point is that an anti-trust lens isn't adequate if legislation keeps getting passed that rolls back regulation [0] and promotes formation of trusts. The CDA and §230 was part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996. Look at the outcome, which sure seems like "regulatory capture" to me: > Before the 1996 Act was passed, the largest four [Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers] owned less than half of all the lines in the country while, five years later, the largest four local telephone companies owned about 85% of all the lines in the country. It's also possible that the ACLU's interests will conveniently align with a subset of interests for third parties when the third party's liability is reduced. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#Claims_made_in_opposition_to_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996...
• bosswipe 6y ago
  In a world without Section 230 Twitter would be more likely to censor Trump to avoid liability for what he says. But I think the real goal to intimidate platforms into allowing right-wing disinformation propaganda, it's disgusting behavior from a president.
• minimaxir 6y ago
  Official page for the EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
• nsajko 6y ago
  From day one it seemed to me like Trump's main goal was desecrating the federal state institutions. Seriously, the guy seems as if he cares only about stepping on the constitution and laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't POTUS executive orders only serve to direct the federal government, his employees? Twitter is definitely not a federal agency. Why are a lot of people treating this situation like Trump is able to circumvent the legislative branch?
  • codezero 6y ago
    Part of the premise is directing the agencies not to spend money on those platforms that violate the EO.
    • nsajko 6y ago
      But does the US government even now buy any of Twitter's advertisement?
      • codezero 6y ago
        I don’t know. Would be a pretty shallow threat if not maybe?
• davewritescode 6y ago
  I’d much rather platforms like Twitter just ban users who violate the TOS even if they’re politicians. If you’ve ever followed Twitter accounts of local politicians you can see that it provides a framework for civil debate without restricting speech. What our president doing is abusing opponents using his popular twitter account as a megaphone while violating the TOS.
  • dariusj18 6y ago
    I'm of the belief part of the reason Trump ran for President in the first place was because he knew various investigations were in action against him and that eventually he would be prosecuted. By running for President, he turned every illegal thing he has ever done into a political issue, instead of a legal one. In the US, we have a long history of allowing politicians to get away with illegal activities in the name of not rocking the boat. Every once in a while someone comes along and tries to use that to their advantage, and ideally the system would punish them by media pointing out the issue and people not voting for them. But somehow, due to some nexus of insanity, someone like Trump was catapulted into office.
• 12xo 6y ago
  Until the tools, devices and technology needed to access the internet are free and universally available to all without restriction, these sites/services are no more of a public square than a country club is a public park. And no. A public library terminal is not universal access...
  • pas 6y ago
    Nothing is "free", there are always constraints and opportunity costs. For example if there's a rally in DC, how many people can go there? It costs a lot of money, they have to get time off work, organize transport and lodging, etc. Sure, there are material differences between - let's say local politics, where the bar is showing up at the town hall - and getting on Twitter. But that difference is becoming more and more meaningless. Especially that the nexus of power seems to be shifting away from the physical and more toward the virtual/digital.
    • 12xo 6y ago
      Public square. Not the Capital mall. This isnt about discourse with your leaders, nor protests. Its about the ability to speak ones mind without THE GOVERNMENT stifling you. That is the opposite of what Trump is trying to do here... The origins of both Free Speech and the so-called Public Square are closely tied. In fact, in some nations there is literally a place to go, stand and speak, available to anyone. In the public square. For free, not a penny of cost, not a ounce of censorship. If Trump felt so strong about this, he could make internet access a universal right and then forced the ISP's and to make it available everywhere for free. He could then subsidize the costs of the devices and assure that there was universal access. But that's not what he wants. He wants attention and to distract you from the horrors of his incompetent failings as a leader.
• xmly 6y ago
  Why is this the First Amendment issue? Trump was not blocked from tweeting. Twitter just added one small sign next to his tweets. Even Trump owns his tweets and Twitter owns the rest of the webpage.
  • _-david-_ 6y ago
    It doesn't have anything to do with blocking Trump or fact checking him. It has to do with bias against conservatives. Trump had talked about this well before he was fact checked. From a few days ago (prior to Trump being fact checked): https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/23/21268433/president-trump-conservative-bias-social-media-twitter-facebook-google https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/23/21268433/president-trump-...
• xmly 6y ago
  Why is this the First Amendment issue? Trump was not blocked from tweeting. Twitter just added one small sign next to his tweets. Even Trump owns his tweets' content and Twitter owns the rest of the webpage.
• foobarbazetc 6y ago
  That’s nice. Too bad there are laws and a constitution.
• fortran77 6y ago
  I think this executive order is an abuse of power. However, I do think Twitter could have handled it differently. For example, every time you're looking at posts from any blue-checked elected official, perhaps links could show up on the right hand side column for several fact-check websites. It would be nice to have arrangements with major newspapers, both left and right leaning, so un-paywalled news analysis can be one click away, too. This would help some people who truly want to be better informed.
• smeeth 6y ago
  Of course this is being handled ham-handedly, but it seems to me that section 230 is a ludicrous piece of legislative malfeasance that allows content publishers to duck the legal responsibilities of publishing while profiting from behavior that is obviously publishing. I can't see how a Twitter/FB feed is substantively different from a curated "letters to the editor" section in a newspaper and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is treated different legally. Would love to hear arguments that either 1) these social media sites are not actually publishing or 2) social media publishing is somehow different from publishing in other media.
  • rbanffy 6y ago
    Without S230, Twitter and Facebook would not curate or moderate any content - you'd be constantly bombarded by a torrent of spam, vitriol and disinformation. With S230, companies can remove the worst, most obvious ofenses without fearing being held accountable by the things they didn't find.
    • smeeth 6y ago
      That sounds to me like the outcome of both options are: 1) Toxic, awful to use sites with no personalization (custom recommendations, curation, etc) 2) Sites get more careful (and expensive to operate) because they don't want to get sued. I really doubt #1 is even a tenable business. Who uses a site like that? On the other hand I really like the idea of more careful social media sites.
      • mjburgess 6y ago
        Under (2), I don't think it's a matter of expense. As a publisher, you'd need editorial control over all users content (literally billions of people). A publisher platform with a billion users is untennable. There isnt enough money or people in the world to police it. Maybe the distinction between publishers and platforms is too archaic for digital platforms.
      • rbanffy 6y ago
        About 1, you can demonstrate that with the various chan sites and with the gab.ai Twitter clone.
• gamblor956 6y ago
  It's basically too late. First, the administration must formulate the rule itself. In formulating the rule, it must also provide supporting documentation justifying the rulemaking, which must include a record of the data looked at in deciding upon the need for the rule, research and conclusions drawn from that data. If the research is external to the agency, they must also justify the selection of research used in drafting the rulemaking. Once the proposed rule is published in the federal register, there is a comment period of at least 60 days or up to 180 days (depending on the complexity of the rule). The administration must then spend time reviewing the comments. It doesn't need to respond to comments individually but it does need to address all of the issues raised by those comments, especially if the issues raise constitutional concerns. Assuming that they get that out of the way without modifying the proposed rule (which could trigger another comment period, depending on the extent of the changes), the final version of the rule must then be published in the federal register. A final rule does not take effect until at least 30 days after it is published in the federal register. There are very few rules which can be ex post facto (generally only rules that grant additional rights or freedoms, or which are tax-related). So, even assuming the the crackerjacks in the Trump Administration could get a proposed rule out tomorrow, and review comments after the comment period in one day, they're still looking at 92 days before the rule could take effect, or approximately the end of August. Note:this doesn't include challenges to the rule proceeding through the federal court system. While SCOTUS could theoretically hear emergency appeals to a temporary injunction or district court ruling on the merits, they've refused to grant appeals in much less contentious cases where they ultimate sided with the administration. If they were to do so, the ruling would come in the middle of the electoral cycle, and it would likely result in the Democrats taking the House, Senate, and Presidency. And then they could simply override the rule using the APA in January.
  • gamblor956 6y ago
    Note: providing as followup comment since other is very long. Trump's order is not rulemaking. It's just an order to the federal agencies to start drafting a rule that would strip social media companies of CDA protection. Executive agencies have been designated the power to make legislative rules by laws of Congress (which sets forth the required procedure described above) but this grant does not extend to the Executive Office itself (i.e., the president). As the Axios article notes, a very conservative appeals court just ruled that under the CDA, social media companies aren't public forums for first amendment purposes, so the agencies would also have to come up with a conforming legal justification explaining why social media platforms are public spaces or otherwise subject to the infringement of their private first amendment rights.
• JacobGoodson 6y ago
  Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or including addendum's to peoples posts. The people made the platform successful, let the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction.
  • kanox 6y ago
    > let the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction. No freedom is lost here, people can (and will) decide that the factcheckers are wrong and dumb.
  • putnambr 6y ago
    Leaving it up to the users makes it so a single group can dominate discourse, either through preying on ignorance or bots or paid users. Fact checking isn't perfect, but neither is anarchy.
  • xtony 6y ago
    Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but Jack Dorsey claims that they are not being an "arbiter of truth" here: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837139360485376 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837139360485376
  • braythwayt 6y ago
    Nobody is acting as a “sole arbiter of truth.” If you and I meet in a bar, and over some drinks I tell you that I’m the CEO of Uber, and the tavern owner leans in and say, “No he’s not,” how is that being the “sole arbiter of truth?” If I don’t like it, I should meet you somewhere else. This is also no different than if Daniel Dale interviews me, and I say I founded YCombinator. When he prints the article, he says, “Reg lied.” How is that making Dale the ‘sole arbiter of truth?” Nobody told Trump to use Twitter. He’s actually better off on Twitter than I would be in either of the scenarios I mentioned, because moments after he tweets, millions of his followers can reply and agree with his statements. There is no way Twitter’s “fact check” is the sole arbiter of truth, when everyone can read thousands of replies that disagree with what Twitter claims are facts, and when Mr. Trump can say whatever he likes on the news, or when calling into some Fox show, without Twitter ‘fact-bombing’ him.
• lgleason 6y ago
  A good documentary that outlines how social media becomes more of a publisher is The Creepy Line. https://www.thecreepyline.com/ https://www.thecreepyline.com/ The movement to rein in the abuse of Section 230 has been going on for a while, but is finally starting to pick up steam. Odds are, given that this is an election year, they had this ready to go in the background if Twitter tried pulling something like they did yesterday, which is why it only took a day be signed.
• ilaksh 6y ago
  Again, parallel universes. For half of the people out there, believe it or not, this is Trump sticking up for people's free speech on Twitter. For the other half, this is Trump attempting to eliminate free speech on Twitter and other places. In my opinion, eliminating the protections could have a negative effect on free speech. But it also seems like a very bad outcome in general for the companies that they would want to avoid. So it seems like this is being used as a threat to try to get them to take free speech more seriously, so they can avoid that policing. Another thing is the website or whatever collecting instances of censorship. That seems to indicate that they are genuinely trying to help reduce censorship. Does it not?
• say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
  How can these changes improve social media? Is there a silver lining here?
• aazaa 6y ago
  This action concerns, among other things, U.S. Code § 230. > Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... Through his action, the president appears to be directing the executive branch to use a more narrow interpretation of Section 230 than has been used previously: > ... Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... (c)(2)(A) reads: > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material > (2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 To summarize, the president is directing his administration to disregard "Good Samaritan" protections for services that don't strictly meet the exception given in (c)(2)(A). The phrases "good faith" and "otherwise objectionable" seem broad enough to allow just about any form of censorship a company might want to engage in, while continuing to enjoy Good Samaritan protection. If so, what exactly does the administration gain here?
• coliveira 6y ago
  Another example of blatant political use of the justice system. If a company becomes a problem to the Trump regime, they will use the full array of existing laws to prosecute them, at the same time when they are dismantling legislation that targets their allies.
• fortran77 6y ago
  Maybe Hacker News should post factchecking links under every Rustlang post.
  • effable 6y ago
    "fortran 77" - username checks out. On a more serious note, I have been dipping my toes into Rust and it seems fun. I suppose, I'll have a more considered opinion of it once I actually build something substantial with it.
• thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  Given the concentration of user-generated content on these platforms' market regulation is needed. Twitter/Facebook have a monopoly by virtue of the "moat". Once someone generates their own content it's only accessible through one platform - that is a monopoly. This market needs innovation and competition. Don't break them up just force them to compete by removing the moat.
• jmull 6y ago
  I wonder how upset free speech advocates will be about an executive order that trumpets free speech but is intended to punish twitter for exercising free speech? Twitter responded to a message from authority by adding their own, dissenting message, not censoring the first message. I guess this kind of double-speak is what we can expect now.
  • aniro 6y ago
    You should read the signing statement for the CARES act. The Executive (created to execute the laws enacted by Congress) states that they WILL NOT execute a portion of Congressional Law (the portion that stipulates oversight of the Executive) because they “don’t understand” and because the Constitution has a clause stating that they (the Executive) must execute the laws faithfully. I think it is the patent for “what to expect moving forward”.
• CMYKninja 6y ago
  This is a symptom of a larger problem. The Constitution and thusly the election system is woefully out of date and needs a formal rewriting based on a more general and modern consensus of ideas and principals. All of these issues could be irrelevant with an updated and more precise rule of law and government. I think we can all agree that any document which counts some people as 3/5s needs to be reassessed.
• thewindowmovie2 6y ago
  Is it not the case that the fact checking is not going to change any of Trump's followers? If all the bullshit that he has been spewing over all these years has not deterred his followers, showing facts will not. It is been clear that Trump's only agenda is to make people turn against each other and profit from it and he will keep using any chance he gets to do that.
  • pas 6y ago
    There are many people who are new on the Internet, or simply doesn't know much about politics, etc. I think adding context, trying to be more rational (even and especially with using tools/technology) is something everyone, who isn't so lucky as to have been born into a life of careless dumbness, values.
• disordinary 6y ago
  It's sad but the internet has a lot to answer for, the ability for us to access unfiltered and blatantly false information and for it to appear no different to peer reviewed and true information is leading humanity to disaster. Ideally we'd be able to have a chain of trust of information, the same way we have a chain of trust for certificates, with peer reviews from experts giving credence to articles and statements. Some stuff is plausible but wrong, like taking certain antiviral drugs to combat Covid. Others completely defy everything we know about physics, like 5G spreading Covid. And some stuff is true, like staying at home breaking the chain of transmission. But people believe all of the above and none of the above appear different or are treated differently on social media sites. Some of the opinions and statements that influential people say are dangerous and either harm directly or cause others to harm and a lot of them build on existing divisions further breaking apart our communities. A few days ago we had an earthquake in my home city, our liberal prime minister was having a live interview when it happened. On news sites when they played the interview the comments were full of people saying it was Trump blowing up tunnels which were being used to traffic children as sex slaves by the liberal government. That's obviously insane, not least because I live on a group of islands 3,000 kilometres away from the next country and that's one hell of a tunnel, but also because that's not a thing that governments do in transparent and well run democracies. Unfortunately there's a subset of the population who are unstable and prone to believe anything, and the fact that it's discredited probably drives them to believe it more. But there's a much larger subset who are susceptible to arguments but not critical of them and may be more inclined to see reason if given information backing that up. So, the question is how do you debunk blatant falsehoods while still balancing peoples freedom to believe what they want.
• sreedhark 6y ago
  I wanted to share a debate on topic "Constitutional Free Speech Principles Can Save Social Media Companies from Themselves". https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/constitutional-free-speech-principles-can-save-social-media-companies-themselves https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/constitutional.... Main Points from the page. - The First Amendment is content-neutral and provides a nonpolitical framework for regulating speech. It would behoove social media companies to abide by it. - Rather than resort to censorship, social media companies can offer users tools that block unwanted content, including content that could be hurtful or offensive. - Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have become the new public square. Rather than resorting to corporate speech policies, these companies should promote free speech principles in the U.S. and abroad. - Social media companies are global. The U.S. Constitution is based on American values and, therefore, should not be used to regulate international platforms. - The spread of hateful digital content dilutes meaningful discourse and, in some cases, causes emotional and physical harm. Social media companies have a duty to offer safe, welcoming platforms for users. From election interference to “fake news,” nefarious actors are using social media to undermine democracies and deepen partisan divides. Social media companies must act to prevent this type of conduct. The Debaters David French - Senior Writer, National Review Corynne McSherry - Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation Nathaniel Persily - Professor, Stanford Law Marietje Schaake - International Policy Director, Stanford's Cyber Policy Center & Fmr. Member, European Parliament
  • sub7 6y ago
    If by some bizarre chain of events this chimp actually manages to reign in all the shittiness that permeates freely on YouTube, FB+WA+IG and Twitter I think he would have made the world whole for fucking up covid. My 2 cents has always been that we should just ban the advertising incentive entirely from social platforms. All the expensive data harvesting, the tricks to keep you addicted, the shit UIs etc would end automatically. They would end up smaller and poorer and we'd all be better off.
  • adjkant 6y ago
    Is the problem not precisely that there are very apparent and relevant conflicts between these points? Reconciling free speech with "offer[ing a] safe, welcoming platforms for users" is exactly what's at play here when it comes to TOS and deleting content. > "Rather than resort to censorship, social media companies can offer users tools that block unwanted content, including content that could be hurtful or offensive." I think this is an interesting idea, but I think it would effectively mean de facto speech censorship like HN has with flagged/dead comments. Sure they exist, but most users don't have them on, and the larger the forum, the more annoying having them on will be. Given the amount of spam/hate comments on Twitter, no sane user would ever turn that feature on. So you end up right back where we are now, only by technicality they aren't censored. I suppose a positive, but then it gets right back into editorialization arguments re what content is flagged or "blocked". > Social media companies must act to prevent this type of conduct. Even if most can agree here, this doesn't appear to lay out concrete policies, nor does anyone appear to have any proposed that align with these main points that I know of. I didn't watch the media specifically so if you have any detail on those specifics or any concrete recommendations they make, a summary would be very much appreciated.
• rwhitman 6y ago
  Biting the hand that feeds him. I think this is a strategic miscalculation.
• anon776 6y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it Twitters first amendment right to respond to Trump's tweets? Does not seem like this is censorship to me.
• zmmmmm 6y ago
  What I find weird here is that the president is transparently stating that he is doing this to help is own political interests. I would have hoped that any presidential action exercising executive power (of any kind) with the stated intent to influence his own electoral chances in an imminent election would be considered an illegal act, based on intent alone. It is not dissimilar to the original immigration bans where they were struck down initially because Trump openly expressed the intent that they were designed to achieve an outcome based on race, even though in technical implementation an argument could be made that they were not.
• busymom0 6y ago
  https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history > The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230 > Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up becoming Section 230. The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability. Section 230 had two purposes: the first was to "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it; the other was to allow online services to implement their own standards for policing content and provide for child safety. Seeing the crucial importance of the amendment, the House passed it 420-4. "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it" is being forgotten by a lot of comments here. EDIT: I seem to get downvoted on anything remotely political on HN. So I am glad this EO was passed and hoping it gets enforced.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • cthalupa 6y ago
    What's interesting is we're both reading "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," and my take on it is that yes, section 230 is there to explicitly protect Twitter under this circumstance, and you take it as giving Trump the ability to censor them. Thankfully, one of the authors of the section in question has actually stated exactly what it means: https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 "As the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear: there is nothing in the law about political neutrality. It does not say companies like Twitter are forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president."
    • busymom0 6y ago
      Why did you ignore the part that the amendment was written by 2 people - Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) Somehow you only quoted what the Democrat says but not what the Republican says. Quite dishonest of you.
• corrupt_measure 6y ago
  Staying focused on the actual details of the tweet that spurred this order, Twitter's response highlights the problems inherent with content moderation. There are hundreds of documented cases of people being convicted of mail in ballot voter fraud. In Paterson NJ there was an all mail election recently that is causing significant problems. I shudder at the thought of that playing out on a national scale. Yet in spite of those facts, Twitter feels that Trump's warnings are somehow wrong. In light of the facts I think his fear is justified. Twitter is a private company but we restrict the activities of private companies all the time. I see no reason why we shouldn't have a serious conversation about placing special restrictions on internet platforms' ability to censor users.
• hedora 6y ago
  If I worked at Twitter, I’d write this below his tweet on the subject: Fact check: As a member of the executive, not legislative branch, Trump does not have the authority to modify existing legislation.
• kgwxd 6y ago
  A rule like that would effectively ensured Trump won't have an internet platform. No company wants to be liable for the content he posts.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• madballster 6y ago
  For a second I thought this was a headline from Iran or Russia.
• refurb 6y ago
  As a random thought, I’ll bet Twitter leadership is absolutely frantic right now figuring out next steps. I’ve been on that side before and it’s not pretty! Lots of long nights for those folks.
• efitz 6y ago
  I would love to see a law that for corporations, once the corporation exceeds some commercial threshold (e.g. 1M customers or 10M/year revenue or whatever) then you are no longer allowed to discriminate against your users for any reason other than violation of non-discriminatory terms of service. I don't think that companies that achieve near-monopoly status should have the right to arbitrarily cancel, shadow ban, hide from search, delete content, flag content, "fact check", label, or otherwise interfere with users' use of the service. This is not a "free speech" issue, it's a "when you have monopoly power and positioning in the market, there are no alternatives" issue. Visa refusing to process CC payments because they don't like your politics, is not a power that I want them to have. If you're a tiny boutique company, discriminate to your heart's content. When you get big, I don't want you to have that power anymore. If you don't like it, then eschew the current fashion of companies to value growth over all else.
  • ianferrel 6y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with this, though I think it's an interesting idea. The threshold you've suggested seems way too low. 1M customers or $10M/year revenue isn't "near-monopoly", it's barely a player in the game.
    • efitz 6y ago
      Completely fair, and maybe the idea isn’t the right way to do it, but I am frustrated with the cancel power that many companies wield in our society and hadn’t seen this proposed anywhere. And corporations are controlled by people, usually a small number of people with unbelievable ability to wield power: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5839cf32e4b000af95ee5b68 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5839cf32e4b000af95ee5b68
  • awillen 6y ago
    The problem is defining what those "non-discriminatory terms of service" are and applying them evenly to everyone. That's why Facebook is making a theoretically independent content review board - things aren't black and white, especially in today's climate in which people just deny facts. Trump's issue with Twitter illustrates this point - he's just factually incorrect about a lot of his voter fraud claims, but he calls it discrimination against his view point and he's got millions of people who support him in that. So where's the line? I think anti-vaxxers should be censored because their viewpoint causes actual harm to people, but they would obviously argue otherwise. You can say that anything that causes harm is not permitted and call that a non-discriminatory term of service, but whenever you apply it, the person you're applying it against is going to claim discrimination. A lot of people don't like FB's stance of letting anything go in terms of political ads, but they don't have a good alternative, because otherwise any stance they take will face claims of discrimination. In that case, I think the government should be defining what is acceptable content for political ads and leaving it to FB to enforce, but of course the people in government are more biased than anyone. It is, to say the least, a tough problem.
• MintelIE 6y ago
  When the social media executives got before Congress and lied their asses off they must have suspected that something like this might happen in the future.
• GlTChWhISKY 6y ago
  Youtube places checks on videos for covid ... Antivax and more. How is what twitter did any different. Why is the conversation about what twitter did and not about Trump getting mad and using an EO to stop people from fact checking him. Why isnt that the conversation.. I shouldnt be able to turn a radio on and not hear how unprofessional and childish and abuse of power this truly is. This isnt how the presidency is supposed to be used. He got mad and hes trying to silence his critics. Enough with the twitter is right or wrong.. Publisher vs platform. This is the conversation that needs to be had. There is no reason an EO of this nature should be slid across the desk. A blind judge could see hes reacting to being checked.
  • sfj 6y ago
    > This isnt how the presidency is supposed to be used. He got mad and hes trying to silence his critics. There is a “reply” button underneath all of his tweets, you know?
• remarkEon 6y ago
  I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super powerful social media companies should have to submit to. Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election they absolutely have the power to do that. Isn't that a problem that government is supposed to solve? I'm sorry, and I don't like the guy in charge right now either, but regulation really is the only answer here. Maybe calm down for a minute and let this make its way through the Circuit Courts, refined, watered down, etc etc. All of that aside, I want my distributed and independent internet back. Maybe we should just be teaching our kids the command line from now on because that might be the only way that we can communicate over this protocol in a civil way.
  • colejohnson66 6y ago
    I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now. Because he knows that something like this would be held up in Congress by the Democrats. Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected “compelled speech”). Although, yes, we should wait for the courts to (hopefully) strike it down. There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet. Sure, decentralize it all, but, as it stands now, that’s not what the majority of the public want; They want centralization because it makes things easier. Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube, etc. are the size they are today because they’re centralized; it makes finding what you want easier.
    • VectorLock 6y ago
      I'd be interested to see what a Court would say if Twitter decided to straight-up delete his account as a response.
      • tebruno99 6y ago
        If they make Twitter liable for content this way, Twitter will have to delete his account ;)
• divbzero 6y ago
  Post and discussion of the actual executive order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23343313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23343313
• dmode 6y ago
  Can someone just give me a magic potion where I don't have to hear about Trump and his daily antics anymore ? This guy sucks the oxygen out of everything without adding any value to humanity
• dmode 6y ago
  100k Americans are dead from COVID. There are riots happening in Minnesota. And here we are debating the latest oxygen sucking attention grab by our reality TV president. Let's ignore him
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• sizzle 6y ago
  Make social media a public utility
• courtf 6y ago
  Twitter, Facebook etc created this problem (exemplified by Trump) and continue to benefit from it. Social media has significantly amplified expressions outrage and taken an active role in spreading those messages, which in turn has given rise to all manner of demagogues and populists. If the day ever comes that these companies are forced to atone for the corrosive effect they have had on discourse and politics all over the world, it can't happen to a more deserving group.
• bePoliteAlways 6y ago
  One more thing to consider if twitter/facebook are publisher or not is see how they earn money? They earn money in very similar way like a publisher does, by advertisement. Like any publisher they will want to make sure that content on their platform is "advertiser friendly".
• rguiliani 6y ago
  Twitter should permanently ban the shit stain in office. FUCK REPUBLICANS. FUCK WHITE SUPREMACISTS. FUCK THE GOP.
• nautilus12 6y ago
  Asking obvious question: Who's building/has built the block chain based, untamperable twitter alternative?
• Normille 6y ago
  It's not often I side with Donald Trump on anything. But I think it's high time, the likes of Twitter, Facebook et al got a good kicking. To be fair, the problem is not with the sites themselves. They are private companies and [within the law] can do whatever the hell they like with regard to who can use their platforms and what they can say while doing so. The problem is that these type of sites [and especially Twitter] have been elevated by the rest of the world and transformed from being outlets for vacuous chatter into being the official conduit for 'news', for any lazy journalist who can't be bothered to research a story properly. Even on such esteemed organisations as the BBC and Reuters, it's becoming increasingly common to see news articles in which the 'sources' are little more than lists of what various parties said on Twitter. And on a smaller and even local level, more and more companies are only contactable through their Twitter accounts or Facebook pages. I even got message from the UK Government's unemployment service a few days ago, informing me that they would be announcing nee vacancies on their Twitter account, from now on. Now, as I said, that's not Twitter or Facebook's fault. It's the rest of the worlds fault for increasingly elevating them to this pseudo-official status. But it does create the situation whereby anyone who's not on Twitter or Facebook is increasingly disenfranchised from having their viewpoint heard or from participating in the great and small issues of the day. And what if Twitter or Facebook decide to ban a user or suspend an account? That user has no recourse but to plead with the company in question to reinstate them, which is entirely arbitrary decision. There is no legal recourse, as there would be if some authority tried to remove a person's vote or to ban them from speaking, writing or otherwise putting forward their opinions in the 'real world'. As chance would have it, I've run into this myself. About a year ago, I logged into my Twitter account to find that it had been suspended as had my business Twitter account --with no reason given and nothing that I had done [that I can see] to have justified this. I never verbally attacked anyone or posted anything dodgy. I can only think my accounts were mistakenly caught up in one of Twitter's periodic automated sweeps, after which they proudly announce they've removed X-million bot accounts. The only recourse is to fill in a form asking them to review the account suspension. Which, needless to say results in nothing but an autoreply, assigning you a case number. And then... nothing. Likewise, as chance would have it, just today I logged into a Facebook page I'd set up for my business to find a message saying that had been suspended for "suspicious activity". Again, nothing I can see that i've done that could possibly justify that. In fact, I don't do FB at all. So I don't even interact with that account apart from to occasionally post links to the latest 'thing' I've made and am selling on Amazon. I've not even added any friends to my FB account, so I couldn't have 'offended' any one! In order to lift that suspension I was asked to verify my mobile phone number [OK... with great reluctance] and then upload a photograph of myself, so they can 'verify' me [WTF? Am i applying for a passport to the fucking internet now? Now, I know those last few paragraphs sound like I'm just whining and crying because I can't use Twitter or Facebook any more. I'm honestly not. I couldn't give a flying fk about either of them. I only created accounts on both because [as I intimated above], with the state of the internet today, we've arrived at a point, where, for a lot of people, Twitter and Facebook ARE the internet. It's where they talk to their friends, where they arrange their social lives, where they do their shopping, where they read their news, where they run their businesses and where they exist online. So, sometimes, you've just got to swallow the rising vomit and at least establish a token presence there, just so people know you exist. Anyway, given that's the state we're in, should all that vast mass of human commerce and interaction be dependent on the whims of a couple of monstrously rich individuals and a couple of monstrously rich corporations? It's a toughie. On the one hand, I'm generally opposed to government interference in how people run their lives or their businesses. On the other hand, I believe in freedom of expression and freedom of access to the media and the government, which isn't dispensed or withheld at the whim of a few individuals.
• mesozoic 6y ago
  Unfortunately I've found axios to be too biased (largely by omission) to be reliable.