6 ms·

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

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 ;)
- chongli 6y ago
  This isn’t about repealing section 230, it’s about enforcing it. Twitter is exercising editorial control over users’ posts. That makes them a publisher. I don’t like Trump either but I think he has a point here.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Section 230 does not say “any form of moderation or editorialization makes them liable.” In fact, this what §230(c)(1) says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Enforcing section 230 would actually mean that Twitter is not liable for what Trump posts. Which is already the case. If Trump were to advocate violence, Twitter would not be liable.
    - chongli 6y ago
      Yes, I read the Wikipedia article as well. Read the section on application and limits: In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[9] 1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." 2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. 3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue. By adding "fact checks" to Trump's tweets, they are acting as his editor. This makes them the provider of the information, just as a newspaper editor is the provider despite not necessarily being the original author. Imagine if dang, the moderator here on HN, decided to edit people's posts with addenda or disclaimers about the factual content of the writing. That'd make him an editor too, rather than a moderator, and then should in fairness be subject to all of the liabilities that publishers face.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        > Imagine if dang, the moderator here on HN, decided to edit people's posts with addenda or disclaimers about the factual content of the writing. That'd make him an editor too, rather than a moderator, and then should in fairness be subject to all of the liabilities that publishers face. Sure, that’d be editing, but what Twitter did was not editing. It’s akin to a reply tweet that was pinned to the top. They did not edit Trump’s tweet at all.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  >He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now. And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here. >as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech Not quite sure this is actually the question at hand. It's about choice of moderation is it not? In any case ... thankfully we have a Court system that is designed to handle these types of questions. >There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet. Not following you. Maybe the social media and tech companies have to hire a lot more layers instead of bloating their HR departments. Probably a good development imo, since HR people like to pretend they work in tech but what they really do is bureaucracy.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    > And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here. What is this argument? Why is it always “look at what Obama did! Therefore it’s ok!” when Trump does something bad?
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      I'm making an argument that Executive Order abuse is bad, but for whatever reason we're only worried about it now. When the guy in charge isn't the usual kind of ... uh ... President. If you want me to say it George W. Bush's EO abuses were also bad.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    > And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here. If you truly think that Obama invented the Executive Order or was the first to use them frequently, you are laughably misinformed. Use of Executive Order has been common for at least 150 years.
    - 6y ago
- ColanR 6y ago
  > repealing Section 230 I don't see how this is repealing anything. It seems like the order is saying that if a company wants Section 230 protection, they have to be very strict about not editorializing anything, and if they do even a little bit, they have to go all the way.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Which, in essence, is repealing it. It’s saying, if you do anything, it’s editorialization. That was how it was before Section 230.
    - perf1 6y ago
      They are allowed to police things that are against their TOS. They just aren't allowed to be biased.
      - paddez 6y ago
        > Aren't allowed to be biased. Where does this come from?
- mavsman 6y ago
  The headline looks a little repulsive to start but I agree with you that this would be beneficial to start holding companies accountable for the content on their platforms. That said, I'm not quite sure why Trump would call for it. Doesn't seem like something that would help him.
oldsklgdfth 6y ago
I don't disagree that policy is required, but expecting policy to correct problems is asking too much. Policy is there to provide guidelines, not create an exhaustive list of what is ok and what is not. If we do not police ourselves, the government will do it for us. When law enforcement is expected to deal with everything, they become militarized. I'm not sure what this means for the internet.
confusedcli 6y ago
Could share what regulation you’re talking about? I’m sorry I don’t follow your position when it comes to regulating social media and what regulations are needed. If we use the oil industry as an example I think it’s clear that environmental regulations are needed to preserve ecological environments. What is the end goal to regulating tech giants?
- 2019-nCoV 6y ago
  Upholding the bedrock of democracy. The EO spells out the reasoning: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...
dmode 6y ago
I don't understand this point. This is not thoughtful legislation being debated. This is one guy writing some executive order out of spite, which will soon be reversed by the.courts
AgentME 6y ago
The concept of regulation in this space may make sense, but that doesn't mean just any regulation will do, and the fact that it's come in the form of government retaliation to Twitter publishing a fact check of a public official is scary.

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 ;)
chongli 6y ago
This isn’t about repealing section 230, it’s about enforcing it. Twitter is exercising editorial control over users’ posts. That makes them a publisher. I don’t like Trump either but I think he has a point here.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Section 230 does not say “any form of moderation or editorialization makes them liable.” In fact, this what §230(c)(1) says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Enforcing section 230 would actually mean that Twitter is not liable for what Trump posts. Which is already the case. If Trump were to advocate violence, Twitter would not be liable.
  - chongli 6y ago
    Yes, I read the Wikipedia article as well. Read the section on application and limits: In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[9] 1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." 2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. 3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue. By adding "fact checks" to Trump's tweets, they are acting as his editor. This makes them the provider of the information, just as a newspaper editor is the provider despite not necessarily being the original author. Imagine if dang, the moderator here on HN, decided to edit people's posts with addenda or disclaimers about the factual content of the writing. That'd make him an editor too, rather than a moderator, and then should in fairness be subject to all of the liabilities that publishers face.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      > Imagine if dang, the moderator here on HN, decided to edit people's posts with addenda or disclaimers about the factual content of the writing. That'd make him an editor too, rather than a moderator, and then should in fairness be subject to all of the liabilities that publishers face. Sure, that’d be editing, but what Twitter did was not editing. It’s akin to a reply tweet that was pinned to the top. They did not edit Trump’s tweet at all.
remarkEon 6y ago
>He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get what he wants now. And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here. >as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry his speech Not quite sure this is actually the question at hand. It's about choice of moderation is it not? In any case ... thankfully we have a Court system that is designed to handle these types of questions. >There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely detrimental to the internet. Not following you. Maybe the social media and tech companies have to hire a lot more layers instead of bloating their HR departments. Probably a good development imo, since HR people like to pretend they work in tech but what they really do is bureaucracy.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  > And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here. What is this argument? Why is it always “look at what Obama did! Therefore it’s ok!” when Trump does something bad?
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I'm making an argument that Executive Order abuse is bad, but for whatever reason we're only worried about it now. When the guy in charge isn't the usual kind of ... uh ... President. If you want me to say it George W. Bush's EO abuses were also bad.
- naikrovek 6y ago
  > And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here. If you truly think that Obama invented the Executive Order or was the first to use them frequently, you are laughably misinformed. Use of Executive Order has been common for at least 150 years.
  - 6y ago
ColanR 6y ago
> repealing Section 230 I don't see how this is repealing anything. It seems like the order is saying that if a company wants Section 230 protection, they have to be very strict about not editorializing anything, and if they do even a little bit, they have to go all the way.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Which, in essence, is repealing it. It’s saying, if you do anything, it’s editorialization. That was how it was before Section 230.
  - perf1 6y ago
    They are allowed to police things that are against their TOS. They just aren't allowed to be biased.
    - paddez 6y ago
      > Aren't allowed to be biased. Where does this come from?
mavsman 6y ago
The headline looks a little repulsive to start but I agree with you that this would be beneficial to start holding companies accountable for the content on their platforms. That said, I'm not quite sure why Trump would call for it. Doesn't seem like something that would help him.

oldsklgdfth 6y ago

I don't disagree that policy is required, but expecting policy to correct problems is asking too much. Policy is there to provide guidelines, not create an exhaustive list of what is ok and what is not. If we do not police ourselves, the government will do it for us. When law enforcement is expected to deal with everything, they become militarized. I'm not sure what this means for the internet.

confusedcli 6y ago

Could share what regulation you’re talking about? I’m sorry I don’t follow your position when it comes to regulating social media and what regulations are needed. If we use the oil industry as an example I think it’s clear that environmental regulations are needed to preserve ecological environments. What is the end goal to regulating tech giants?

2019-nCoV 6y ago
Upholding the bedrock of democracy. The EO spells out the reasoning: https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...

dmode 6y ago

I don't understand this point. This is not thoughtful legislation being debated. This is one guy writing some executive order out of spite, which will soon be reversed by the.courts

AgentME 6y ago

The concept of regulation in this space may make sense, but that doesn't mean just any regulation will do, and the fact that it's come in the form of government retaliation to Twitter publishing a fact check of a public official is scary.