10 ms·

'Who the hell elected you?' U.S. Senate tech hearing becomes political tussle

55 points by simonswords82 6y ago

ycombonator 6y ago
Well its simple. There is overwhelming evidence they didnt play fair. They are not supposed to editorialize tweets (violation of sec 230 protection). They were free to let Nytimes publish supposed hacked tax returns yet blocked/ censored Nypost and other twitter users from sharing URLs in the same context. They got caught. Now its up to the congress on how they want to proceed to strip them of sec 230 protection and let the trial lawyers sue them into oblivion.
- iron0013 6y ago
  That’s not how section 230 works, as I suspect you know very well.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  This is not how section 230 works. https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of...
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
These hearings only serve to show how these senators are complete and total idiots: Senators: "Who the hell elected you?" The solution is for us to repeal Section 230 so then you'll be liable!! Big Tech: Umm, you do realize that if you make us liable then our only option is to moderate content more stringently and have stronger controls over what people say, right? Senators: Monorail!! or something...
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  While Trump may be saying "Repeal Section 230", his actual proposal makes it bigger: https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  The goal of many senators is to force Twitter to be transparent in being partisan. If Twitter tomorrow says "We're pro-XYZ and we're going to take down content we don't like" then the hearings would be over. Twitter (and Facebook, et al) don't want that because they would be at risk of losing large parts of their audience. They don't really make money from a bunch of people agreeing with each other and sending nice daily affirmations. They make money when your angry Uncle Billy posts something political and gets a bunch of other people in a big shouting match - views are money. The senators aren't doing this out of the goodness of their own heart. They believe they will gain better platforms of their own uses (and potentially profit) instead of having to deal with what they perceive as an adversarial platform.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    I mean, the real problem is that misinformation and lies are not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. If they were, everyone would complain and there would be no accusations of bias. It's unfortunate, but it's true.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The Senators are deluded or cynical power grabbers to equate "not bowing in deference to me" as "partisan". The bipartisan and contradictory nature of accusations should really be a hint that they are more full of it than feed lot sewage lagoon.
smileysteve 6y ago
This quote is incredibly awkward from Cruz, who has a family story about fighting nationalization in Cuba, asking a CEO of a sign up required company, with commercial advertisers funding, why he is a private CEO and isn't run by the government.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Animats 6y ago
A good answer: "340 million users choose to use Twitter. 4,440,137 voters voted for you, Sen. Cruz."
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Is that really a fair characterization though? It may also be that many people feel obligated to use Twitter because it is already one of the "winners" and may not go anywhere due to network effects. So not engaging on it is the same as being silenced/unheard. Similarly, I don't think it would make sense to say "a billion users choose to use Google" and [N] voters voted for [politician].
  - saghm 6y ago
    I don't think it's any less fair than implying that CEOs of companies should have to be elected
  - lostphilosopher 6y ago
    You could say the same thing about people living in Texas who didn't vote for Cruz. :-)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    The point is that it's not a fair comparison. It's a retort revealing by absurdity the invalidity of the question.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  That isn't a fair comparison because people outside of Cruz's district are not able to vote for him. The same is not true for Twitter users and Twitter.
paxys 6y ago
Everything is political in an election season. In a normal year Congress would delay stuff like court appointments, antitrust investigations, hearings etc. for a couple of months, but our current leaders just can't let an opportunity for free campaign ad footage pass by.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Every other year is a campaign year. The delays or lack of them depends on who is in power. When there is mixed power everyone benifets from delay so you see a lot.
mullingitover 6y ago
'Who the hell elected you?' The free market. Consumers who enjoy a curated platform. There are plenty of alternative platforms, which conservatives are constantly failing to lure anyone to. There is nothing stopping consumers from using the competition other than personal preference for the experience twitter provides.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Weird, because I keep hearing about the alternative platforms getting kicked offline. Krebs has a story about trying to kill 8chan right now. Gab had its payment processing suspended, etc. Now, right now, it's hard to blame platforms for wanting to get rid of Nazis. Nobody wants a Nazi on their front lawn. But in the long term, having capitalist oligarchs with control over most of the public's ability to communicate with each other does not seem like a good plan. The people who lead the companies won't be there forever and in the future, one of the leaders with all the control over what people can and cannot say may be a Nazi or perhaps someone in power will convert to one. I'd like to believe that's unthinkable, but not thinking about things like this doesn't seem like a very solid plan. Maybe we should limit how much power and control any one media agency can have over public discourse. And yes, the government's power over that should also be limited.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > Weird, because I keep hearing about the alternative platforms getting kicked offline. Krebs has a story about trying to kill 8chan right now. Gab had its payment processing suspended, etc. 8chan hosting is a legitimate liability concern. This is not an apples to apples comparison of businesses operating in good faith with reasonable policies and practices. I don't see the slippery slope. "If someone is able to shut down our unabashed cesspool, eventually they're going to start coming for sites that aren't cesspools!"
    - Natsu 6y ago
      This is not a slippery slope argument, it's "what happens if we permit all this power to rest with a few people and one of them converts to or gets replaced by a Nazi in the future."
aeternum 6y ago
Let users choose their visibility settings and news feed prioritization algorithm (similar to how users can select the search engine used by their browser/phone among various options). This is a simple solution that should make everyone happy which does not require lawyers or revoking sec 230. It also provides the opportunity for others to publish algorithms that are less polarizing which we very much need right now. Both Wolfram and Dorsey support this idea.
- neuland 6y ago
  I also really like this option. But what about the default? I expect there would still be significant disagreement between different factions over what is censored / labeled / prioritized / deprioritized for those users that don't actively switch to the left or right or whatever other custom view. For this, I wonder if this could be a feature of who you follow / engage with. When someone you engage with flags something, then you don't see it. And vice-versa on prioritization. You are more likely to see things that people you follow engage with.
  - Spartan-S63 6y ago
    What if there were no default? You had to go through a setup process to assign the visibility settings you want. That way, there's no possibility of bias because everyone would be required to set their own settings.
    - neuland 6y ago
      Yeah, that would be perfect. It'd be disruptive to force everyone to pick. And, I'm sure there'd be some demagoging about which options there are & how they're presented. But, I haven't heard any other suggestions that don't lead to further conflict. Ultimately, I hope there can be a solution to this that let's everyone see the content they want and engage in the public square without censorship.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > This is a simple solution that should make everyone happy It won't, though, because the best feed algorithm for increasing engagement and stoking outrage and making money off ads is not the one that is best for fostering calm discussion and building a community. Twitter etc. want you to use the engagement one, but in order to actually fix the social problems created by their platform, people have to use something else that will make them less money. I personally think that's fine, but I doubt Twitter will be happy with that. And I'm not sure how you legislate a requirement that your platform isn't psychologically tuned to bring out the worst in people.
marta_morena_28 6y ago
It's definitely rich that US Senators are asking "Who the hell elected you?", while they are busy gerrymandering, suppressing voters and actively dismantling democracy.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  States establish their own districts, not the federal government. And senators (these days, not originally) are elected by popular vote within their state, districting doesn't matter. Now, the US House of Representatives is the way it is largely due to gerrymandering.
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    It's hopeless. More than once I've seen claimed that "gerrymandering" affects the Electoral College and got Trump elected. Yet more proof that the word, like "fascism", simply means "anything I don't like".
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      The electors for the Electoral College in 48 of the 50 states are determined by the states' popular vote, gerrymandering has no effect on this. In Maine and Nebraska, it is partially by congressional district. Gerrymandering had no impact on Trump's election. He was elected because he got the right states to pull out an Electoral College majority despite losing the national popular election. Gerrymandering's impact is on the US House of Representatives and state legislatures. Most executive offices are elected by statewide popular vote.
      - pksebben 6y ago
        the shame is that gerrymandering is just the tip of an absolutely massive iceberg. if you add up all the ways in which decisions are divorced from popular interest you get a very, very bleak picture of anyone's ability to claim fair representation.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
dsaavy 6y ago
For anyone who wants to actually look at Section 230, it's relatively short: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 It seems like the relevant parts of the discussion are: (b) Policy (3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; and then this one: (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker 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. (2)Civil liability No 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 (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker 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.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Additionally to this: for anyone who wants to assert that there's some implied requirement of "neutrality," I invite them to read what the authors of the law had to say quite recently. "The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to "interpret" Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website's moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment" (pg 17) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-Cox-Wyden-FCC-Reply-Comments-Final-2.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-C...
nostromo 6y ago
I agree with the left on so many issues -- and have voted for them consistently for a few decades -- but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party of censorship and limits on free speech. It's telling that they are now the party that is overly cozy with the largest, most-powerful companies on the planet. The Democratic Party has been moving away from the original meaning of "liberal" for a long time -- but supporting mega-corps censoring journalism must be the final confirmation that this is no longer a liberal party.
- Semiapies 6y ago
  Ted Cruz, known leftist and Democrat...
  - nostromo 6y ago
    leftist != liberal Democrat != liberal ... that's the point. On this issue, Cruz is indeed more liberal than Schatz.
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      And yet he opposes net neutrality. His position is inconsistent here. He is self-serving, not liberal in any sense.
      - nostromo 6y ago
        His position is inconsistent, yes, and so is anyone who supports net neutrality but thinks Twitter should be able to block legal user content on their platform. On many issues Democrats have the liberal position, but in a growing number of areas, Republicans have the liberal position. Neither is ideologically pure and both are self-serving.
        Jtsummers 6y ago
        I disagree with your first conclusion. It depends on how you view Twitter. If you view Twitter as a service provider, then net neutrality rules should be applied to them as well. But if you view them as a platform, they're distinct and ought to have greater control. Like a forum, should net neutrality proponents argue against moderators like dang here on HN to be consistent? That's absurd. But Ted Cruz (and others) are trying to argue that Twitter should be considered closer to a service provider (and thus remain "neutral", whatever that means here) than a platform/publisher (which can control its content more). But Ted Cruz also argues that net neutrality proponents are "snowflakes" and net neutrality is wrong. It would be funnier if the consequences weren't so potentially severe.
pseudolus 6y ago
GodFather II: Senator Pat Geary: I can get you a gaming license. The price is $250,000, plus a monthly payment of five percent of the gross of all four hotels. [sneers] Mr. Corl-ee-own-eh. Michael Corleone: Now, the price of a gaming license is less than $20,000. Is that right? Senator Pat Geary: That's right. Michael Corleone: So why would I ever consider paying more than that? Senator Pat Geary: Because I intend to squeeze you. I don't like your kind of people. I don't like to see you come out to this clean country with your oily hair, dressed up in those silk suits, passing yourselves off as decent Americans. I'll do business with you, but the fact is that I despise your masquerade, the dishonest way you pose yourself. Yourself and your whole f*ing family. Michael: Senator. We're both part of the same hypocrisy...but never think it applies to my family. Senator Pat Geary: [exasperated] Okay. Some people need play little games. You play yours. Let's just say that you'll pay me because it's in your interest to pay me. But I want your answer and the money by noon tomorrow. And one more thing. Don't you contact me again, ever. From now on, you deal with Turnbull. Michael: Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally. https://youtu.be/sG2-FI5_INA?t=96 https://youtu.be/sG2-FI5_INA?t=96
- 99_00 6y ago
  What is the point of posting this? What is the point you are trying to make?
  - pseudolus 6y ago
    That the hearing is little more second-rate theater for public consumption that has been done better in the movies (particularly Godfather II). The feigned indignation of senators, the stoicism of the various CEO's, it's a bit too much.
LatteLazy 6y ago
That's a bit rich coming from the US senate...
justin66 6y ago
> Senator Ted Cruz went after Twitter’s Jack Dorsey after the CEO said Twitter has no influence over elections. > “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear,” Cruz said ... I hope Ted Cruz doesn't believe it's the role of an elected official, of all people, to be "in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear," as his comment seems to imply. If a shitty social media company wants to filter people's access to information that's one thing, if an elected official tries to do it that's something else entirely.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Maybe they should apply this same logic to make mainstream media require neutrality when reporting the news. (all are bad, not saying they aren't, but let's start with Fox News). If Fox news can't be forced to let equal number of progressives on as conservatives, then why should Twitter be forced to modify their algorithm at all?
jcadam 6y ago
Social media platforms definitely are exerting undue influence over our society and I don't think, after the last couple of weeks, anyone can seriously claim that these companies aren't using their market position to shape public opinion ahead of next week's election. What to do about it? It's a tough problem. Simply repealing Section 230 would be a ham-fisted solution (like all govt solutions) that would do a lot of harm to smaller players in the industry. It would be great if people weren't idiots and didn't rely so much on twitter/facebook for their news, but that apparently isn't going to happen...
- titanomachy 6y ago
  Doesn’t really seem fair to call people idiots for using social media considering the incredible amount of research and investment that’s gone into making it so addictive. And as for using it as primary source of news, people only have so many hours available to them... if they’re spending it on addictive social media they might not want to go seek out additional news, especially if they feel they’ve gotten enough news from Facebook.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  How do you define an "undue" influnce in the first place? Violating the "natural order of things" by not submitting to their "betters"? The very assertion is deeply wrongheaded in its presumptions of control.
Jtsummers 6y ago
Remember, this is the same Ted Cruz who opposes net neutrality. His position is wildly inconsistent between his apparent views on Twitter and his views on the Internet as a whole.
BluSyn 6y ago
Here's where I'm confused. As I understand if you repeal Section 230, and these companies become regulated as publishers, they will be required to censor ALL content. So how would repealing Section 230 protect free speech? It seems it would in fact do the exact opposite: result in EXTREME censorship on all these platforms. Furthermore, politicians would have direct control over what these platforms publish in form of laws governing publishers. So now we would have literal government censorship on private platforms. Perhaps this is what they actually want? Am I missing something?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > As I understand if you repeal Section 230, and these companies become regulated as publishers, they will be required to censor ALL content. If you just repeal Section 230, then if they don't moderate at all, they will become (at least, based on the legal precedent which motivated 230) distributors, which generally have liability only when they have actual notice of unlawful content. If they actively engaged in preemptive moderation at all, then they will become publishers and fully liable, with no notice requirement, for all content. So, self-initiated moderation becomes all-or-nothing. Section 230 was passed to encourage the middle ground.
linkjuice4all 6y ago
These conversations seem to make more sense if you think of Facebook and Twitter as bars. They're open to the public but there's some rules for entry (e.g. state/federal laws precluding minors and the establishment's policies around dresscode/behavior). The staff can ask you to leave or remove you when you're acting up and ban you from reentry if they deem it necessary. Other patrons of the establishment and the staff are welcome to listen to you but are not required to - and they certainly don't owe you a seat at their table just because you're inside. Open mics don't require "both sides" and typically have the same enforcement mechanisms as above. One can expect to get booed off, muted, and potentially expelled from the place if the crowd doesn't like your singing or the content of your lyrics. While I very strongly support viewing internet access as a utility - Facebook and Twitter (and similar) aren't essential (much like bars) and might be better off treated as vices to begin with. These arguments should be focused on how to build protocols that everyone can use for communications instead of platforms. I think that the concepts, expectations, and regulations of the post office and post roads should be extended into the digital world. Of course you'll need to deal with the political vulnerability that was recently exposed when bad actors are put in charge of crucial communications mediums such as the post office. Section 230 is a remarkably clear and short law which is surprising considering how recently it's been written and the protection it provides but it is probably because it is mostly stating that which is self-evident. Even opening the door to moderate reform of Section 230 is ceding ground to censors and "speech-forcers".
- rektide 6y ago
  I keep thinking it would be interested to see a digital governance initiative to host citizen's voices. Give each citizen 100kB a day that the government will try to protect, if it is lawfully able to do so, & make accessible, to a certain promised level of scale, for as long as it can.
mshron 6y ago
Just going to place this here, before people start talking about "platforms" and "publishers" despite neither of those terms being actually in Section 230 "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act" https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
wux 6y ago
There’s much that can be said about Twitter’s moderation policies, but entirely orthogonal to that, this quotation should be mighty upsetting to anyone who hews to the basic tenets of American constitutionalism regardless of your political leanings. “Who the hell elected you?” The implied statement here is that, because you (Jack) aren’t elected, you can’t decide what people read; the corollary being that, because I (Ted) am elected, I can decide what people read. This is entirely backwards! “Congress shall make no law,” says the Constitution. It’s precisely because Ted Cruz is elected that the Constitution says he cannot make laws deciding what people read. That’s the entire point of the exercise!
xtiansimon 6y ago
This article reads like the legislative opinion of ‘encryption’—- strong enough to ensure commerce, but easily back footed by law enforcement. Legislators don’t do well with incompatible beliefs .

55 points by simonswords82 6y ago

Well its simple. There is overwhelming evidence they didnt play fair. They are not supposed to editorialize tweets (violation of sec 230 protection). They were free to let Nytimes publish supposed hacked tax returns yet blocked/ censored Nypost and other twitter users from sharing URLs in the same context. They got caught. Now its up to the congress on how they want to proceed to strip them of sec 230 protection and let the trial lawyers sue them into oblivion.

iron0013 6y ago
That’s not how section 230 works, as I suspect you know very well.
roywiggins 6y ago
This is not how section 230 works. https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of...

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

These hearings only serve to show how these senators are complete and total idiots: Senators: "Who the hell elected you?" The solution is for us to repeal Section 230 so then you'll be liable!! Big Tech: Umm, you do realize that if you make us liable then our only option is to moderate content more stringently and have stronger controls over what people say, right? Senators: Monorail!! or something...

bryanlarsen 6y ago
While Trump may be saying "Repeal Section 230", his actual proposal makes it bigger: https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
vorpalhex 6y ago
The goal of many senators is to force Twitter to be transparent in being partisan. If Twitter tomorrow says "We're pro-XYZ and we're going to take down content we don't like" then the hearings would be over. Twitter (and Facebook, et al) don't want that because they would be at risk of losing large parts of their audience. They don't really make money from a bunch of people agreeing with each other and sending nice daily affirmations. They make money when your angry Uncle Billy posts something political and gets a bunch of other people in a big shouting match - views are money. The senators aren't doing this out of the goodness of their own heart. They believe they will gain better platforms of their own uses (and potentially profit) instead of having to deal with what they perceive as an adversarial platform.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  I mean, the real problem is that misinformation and lies are not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. If they were, everyone would complain and there would be no accusations of bias. It's unfortunate, but it's true.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The Senators are deluded or cynical power grabbers to equate "not bowing in deference to me" as "partisan". The bipartisan and contradictory nature of accusations should really be a hint that they are more full of it than feed lot sewage lagoon.

smileysteve 6y ago

This quote is incredibly awkward from Cruz, who has a family story about fighting nationalization in Cuba, asking a CEO of a sign up required company, with commercial advertisers funding, why he is a private CEO and isn't run by the government.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Animats 6y ago

A good answer: "340 million users choose to use Twitter. 4,440,137 voters voted for you, Sen. Cruz."

throwawaysea 6y ago
Is that really a fair characterization though? It may also be that many people feel obligated to use Twitter because it is already one of the "winners" and may not go anywhere due to network effects. So not engaging on it is the same as being silenced/unheard. Similarly, I don't think it would make sense to say "a billion users choose to use Google" and [N] voters voted for [politician].
- saghm 6y ago
  I don't think it's any less fair than implying that CEOs of companies should have to be elected
- lostphilosopher 6y ago
  You could say the same thing about people living in Texas who didn't vote for Cruz. :-)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- inopinatus 6y ago
  The point is that it's not a fair comparison. It's a retort revealing by absurdity the invalidity of the question.
yeetawayhn 6y ago
That isn't a fair comparison because people outside of Cruz's district are not able to vote for him. The same is not true for Twitter users and Twitter.

paxys 6y ago

Everything is political in an election season. In a normal year Congress would delay stuff like court appointments, antitrust investigations, hearings etc. for a couple of months, but our current leaders just can't let an opportunity for free campaign ad footage pass by.

bluGill 6y ago
Every other year is a campaign year. The delays or lack of them depends on who is in power. When there is mixed power everyone benifets from delay so you see a lot.

mullingitover 6y ago

'Who the hell elected you?' The free market. Consumers who enjoy a curated platform. There are plenty of alternative platforms, which conservatives are constantly failing to lure anyone to. There is nothing stopping consumers from using the competition other than personal preference for the experience twitter provides.

Natsu 6y ago
Weird, because I keep hearing about the alternative platforms getting kicked offline. Krebs has a story about trying to kill 8chan right now. Gab had its payment processing suspended, etc. Now, right now, it's hard to blame platforms for wanting to get rid of Nazis. Nobody wants a Nazi on their front lawn. But in the long term, having capitalist oligarchs with control over most of the public's ability to communicate with each other does not seem like a good plan. The people who lead the companies won't be there forever and in the future, one of the leaders with all the control over what people can and cannot say may be a Nazi or perhaps someone in power will convert to one. I'd like to believe that's unthinkable, but not thinking about things like this doesn't seem like a very solid plan. Maybe we should limit how much power and control any one media agency can have over public discourse. And yes, the government's power over that should also be limited.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Weird, because I keep hearing about the alternative platforms getting kicked offline. Krebs has a story about trying to kill 8chan right now. Gab had its payment processing suspended, etc. 8chan hosting is a legitimate liability concern. This is not an apples to apples comparison of businesses operating in good faith with reasonable policies and practices. I don't see the slippery slope. "If someone is able to shut down our unabashed cesspool, eventually they're going to start coming for sites that aren't cesspools!"
  - Natsu 6y ago
    This is not a slippery slope argument, it's "what happens if we permit all this power to rest with a few people and one of them converts to or gets replaced by a Nazi in the future."

aeternum 6y ago

Let users choose their visibility settings and news feed prioritization algorithm (similar to how users can select the search engine used by their browser/phone among various options). This is a simple solution that should make everyone happy which does not require lawyers or revoking sec 230. It also provides the opportunity for others to publish algorithms that are less polarizing which we very much need right now. Both Wolfram and Dorsey support this idea.

neuland 6y ago
I also really like this option. But what about the default? I expect there would still be significant disagreement between different factions over what is censored / labeled / prioritized / deprioritized for those users that don't actively switch to the left or right or whatever other custom view. For this, I wonder if this could be a feature of who you follow / engage with. When someone you engage with flags something, then you don't see it. And vice-versa on prioritization. You are more likely to see things that people you follow engage with.
- Spartan-S63 6y ago
  What if there were no default? You had to go through a setup process to assign the visibility settings you want. That way, there's no possibility of bias because everyone would be required to set their own settings.
  - neuland 6y ago
    Yeah, that would be perfect. It'd be disruptive to force everyone to pick. And, I'm sure there'd be some demagoging about which options there are & how they're presented. But, I haven't heard any other suggestions that don't lead to further conflict. Ultimately, I hope there can be a solution to this that let's everyone see the content they want and engage in the public square without censorship.
kelnos 6y ago
> This is a simple solution that should make everyone happy It won't, though, because the best feed algorithm for increasing engagement and stoking outrage and making money off ads is not the one that is best for fostering calm discussion and building a community. Twitter etc. want you to use the engagement one, but in order to actually fix the social problems created by their platform, people have to use something else that will make them less money. I personally think that's fine, but I doubt Twitter will be happy with that. And I'm not sure how you legislate a requirement that your platform isn't psychologically tuned to bring out the worst in people.

marta_morena_28 6y ago

It's definitely rich that US Senators are asking "Who the hell elected you?", while they are busy gerrymandering, suppressing voters and actively dismantling democracy.

Jtsummers 6y ago
States establish their own districts, not the federal government. And senators (these days, not originally) are elected by popular vote within their state, districting doesn't matter. Now, the US House of Representatives is the way it is largely due to gerrymandering.
- TMWNN 6y ago
  It's hopeless. More than once I've seen claimed that "gerrymandering" affects the Electoral College and got Trump elected. Yet more proof that the word, like "fascism", simply means "anything I don't like".
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    The electors for the Electoral College in 48 of the 50 states are determined by the states' popular vote, gerrymandering has no effect on this. In Maine and Nebraska, it is partially by congressional district. Gerrymandering had no impact on Trump's election. He was elected because he got the right states to pull out an Electoral College majority despite losing the national popular election. Gerrymandering's impact is on the US House of Representatives and state legislatures. Most executive offices are elected by statewide popular vote.
    - pksebben 6y ago
      the shame is that gerrymandering is just the tip of an absolutely massive iceberg. if you add up all the ways in which decisions are divorced from popular interest you get a very, very bleak picture of anyone's ability to claim fair representation.
- LatteLazy 6y ago

dsaavy 6y ago

For anyone who wants to actually look at Section 230, it's relatively short: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 It seems like the relevant parts of the discussion are: (b) Policy (3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; and then this one: (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker 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. (2)Civil liability No 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 (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker 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.

roywiggins 6y ago
Additionally to this: for anyone who wants to assert that there's some implied requirement of "neutrality," I invite them to read what the authors of the law had to say quite recently. "The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to "interpret" Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website's moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment" (pg 17) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-Cox-Wyden-FCC-Reply-Comments-Final-2.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-C...

nostromo 6y ago

I agree with the left on so many issues -- and have voted for them consistently for a few decades -- but I'm really disgusted at how they have become the party of censorship and limits on free speech. It's telling that they are now the party that is overly cozy with the largest, most-powerful companies on the planet. The Democratic Party has been moving away from the original meaning of "liberal" for a long time -- but supporting mega-corps censoring journalism must be the final confirmation that this is no longer a liberal party.

Semiapies 6y ago
Ted Cruz, known leftist and Democrat...
- nostromo 6y ago
  leftist != liberal Democrat != liberal ... that's the point. On this issue, Cruz is indeed more liberal than Schatz.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    And yet he opposes net neutrality. His position is inconsistent here. He is self-serving, not liberal in any sense.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      His position is inconsistent, yes, and so is anyone who supports net neutrality but thinks Twitter should be able to block legal user content on their platform. On many issues Democrats have the liberal position, but in a growing number of areas, Republicans have the liberal position. Neither is ideologically pure and both are self-serving.
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        I disagree with your first conclusion. It depends on how you view Twitter. If you view Twitter as a service provider, then net neutrality rules should be applied to them as well. But if you view them as a platform, they're distinct and ought to have greater control. Like a forum, should net neutrality proponents argue against moderators like dang here on HN to be consistent? That's absurd. But Ted Cruz (and others) are trying to argue that Twitter should be considered closer to a service provider (and thus remain "neutral", whatever that means here) than a platform/publisher (which can control its content more). But Ted Cruz also argues that net neutrality proponents are "snowflakes" and net neutrality is wrong. It would be funnier if the consequences weren't so potentially severe.

pseudolus 6y ago

GodFather II: Senator Pat Geary: I can get you a gaming license. The price is $250,000, plus a monthly payment of five percent of the gross of all four hotels. [sneers] Mr. Corl-ee-own-eh. Michael Corleone: Now, the price of a gaming license is less than $20,000. Is that right? Senator Pat Geary: That's right. Michael Corleone: So why would I ever consider paying more than that? Senator Pat Geary: Because I intend to squeeze you. I don't like your kind of people. I don't like to see you come out to this clean country with your oily hair, dressed up in those silk suits, passing yourselves off as decent Americans. I'll do business with you, but the fact is that I despise your masquerade, the dishonest way you pose yourself. Yourself and your whole f*ing family. Michael: Senator. We're both part of the same hypocrisy...but never think it applies to my family. Senator Pat Geary: [exasperated] Okay. Some people need play little games. You play yours. Let's just say that you'll pay me because it's in your interest to pay me. But I want your answer and the money by noon tomorrow. And one more thing. Don't you contact me again, ever. From now on, you deal with Turnbull. Michael: Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally. https://youtu.be/sG2-FI5_INA?t=96 https://youtu.be/sG2-FI5_INA?t=96

99_00 6y ago
What is the point of posting this? What is the point you are trying to make?
- pseudolus 6y ago
  That the hearing is little more second-rate theater for public consumption that has been done better in the movies (particularly Godfather II). The feigned indignation of senators, the stoicism of the various CEO's, it's a bit too much.

LatteLazy 6y ago

That's a bit rich coming from the US senate...

justin66 6y ago

> Senator Ted Cruz went after Twitter’s Jack Dorsey after the CEO said Twitter has no influence over elections. > “Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear,” Cruz said ... I hope Ted Cruz doesn't believe it's the role of an elected official, of all people, to be "in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear," as his comment seems to imply. If a shitty social media company wants to filter people's access to information that's one thing, if an elected official tries to do it that's something else entirely.

gremlinsinc 6y ago
Maybe they should apply this same logic to make mainstream media require neutrality when reporting the news. (all are bad, not saying they aren't, but let's start with Fox News). If Fox news can't be forced to let equal number of progressives on as conservatives, then why should Twitter be forced to modify their algorithm at all?

jcadam 6y ago

Social media platforms definitely are exerting undue influence over our society and I don't think, after the last couple of weeks, anyone can seriously claim that these companies aren't using their market position to shape public opinion ahead of next week's election. What to do about it? It's a tough problem. Simply repealing Section 230 would be a ham-fisted solution (like all govt solutions) that would do a lot of harm to smaller players in the industry. It would be great if people weren't idiots and didn't rely so much on twitter/facebook for their news, but that apparently isn't going to happen...

titanomachy 6y ago
Doesn’t really seem fair to call people idiots for using social media considering the incredible amount of research and investment that’s gone into making it so addictive. And as for using it as primary source of news, people only have so many hours available to them... if they’re spending it on addictive social media they might not want to go seek out additional news, especially if they feel they’ve gotten enough news from Facebook.
Nasrudith 6y ago
How do you define an "undue" influnce in the first place? Violating the "natural order of things" by not submitting to their "betters"? The very assertion is deeply wrongheaded in its presumptions of control.

Jtsummers 6y ago

Remember, this is the same Ted Cruz who opposes net neutrality. His position is wildly inconsistent between his apparent views on Twitter and his views on the Internet as a whole.

BluSyn 6y ago

Here's where I'm confused. As I understand if you repeal Section 230, and these companies become regulated as publishers, they will be required to censor ALL content. So how would repealing Section 230 protect free speech? It seems it would in fact do the exact opposite: result in EXTREME censorship on all these platforms. Furthermore, politicians would have direct control over what these platforms publish in form of laws governing publishers. So now we would have literal government censorship on private platforms. Perhaps this is what they actually want? Am I missing something?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> As I understand if you repeal Section 230, and these companies become regulated as publishers, they will be required to censor ALL content. If you just repeal Section 230, then if they don't moderate at all, they will become (at least, based on the legal precedent which motivated 230) distributors, which generally have liability only when they have actual notice of unlawful content. If they actively engaged in preemptive moderation at all, then they will become publishers and fully liable, with no notice requirement, for all content. So, self-initiated moderation becomes all-or-nothing. Section 230 was passed to encourage the middle ground.

linkjuice4all 6y ago

These conversations seem to make more sense if you think of Facebook and Twitter as bars. They're open to the public but there's some rules for entry (e.g. state/federal laws precluding minors and the establishment's policies around dresscode/behavior). The staff can ask you to leave or remove you when you're acting up and ban you from reentry if they deem it necessary. Other patrons of the establishment and the staff are welcome to listen to you but are not required to - and they certainly don't owe you a seat at their table just because you're inside. Open mics don't require "both sides" and typically have the same enforcement mechanisms as above. One can expect to get booed off, muted, and potentially expelled from the place if the crowd doesn't like your singing or the content of your lyrics. While I very strongly support viewing internet access as a utility - Facebook and Twitter (and similar) aren't essential (much like bars) and might be better off treated as vices to begin with. These arguments should be focused on how to build protocols that everyone can use for communications instead of platforms. I think that the concepts, expectations, and regulations of the post office and post roads should be extended into the digital world. Of course you'll need to deal with the political vulnerability that was recently exposed when bad actors are put in charge of crucial communications mediums such as the post office. Section 230 is a remarkably clear and short law which is surprising considering how recently it's been written and the protection it provides but it is probably because it is mostly stating that which is self-evident. Even opening the door to moderate reform of Section 230 is ceding ground to censors and "speech-forcers".

rektide 6y ago
I keep thinking it would be interested to see a digital governance initiative to host citizen's voices. Give each citizen 100kB a day that the government will try to protect, if it is lawfully able to do so, & make accessible, to a certain promised level of scale, for as long as it can.

mshron 6y ago

Just going to place this here, before people start talking about "platforms" and "publishers" despite neither of those terms being actually in Section 230 "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act" https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

wux 6y ago

There’s much that can be said about Twitter’s moderation policies, but entirely orthogonal to that, this quotation should be mighty upsetting to anyone who hews to the basic tenets of American constitutionalism regardless of your political leanings. “Who the hell elected you?” The implied statement here is that, because you (Jack) aren’t elected, you can’t decide what people read; the corollary being that, because I (Ted) am elected, I can decide what people read. This is entirely backwards! “Congress shall make no law,” says the Constitution. It’s precisely because Ted Cruz is elected that the Constitution says he cannot make laws deciding what people read. That’s the entire point of the exercise!

xtiansimon 6y ago

This article reads like the legislative opinion of ‘encryption’—- strong enough to ensure commerce, but easily back footed by law enforcement. Legislators don’t do well with incompatible beliefs .