11 ms·

> FYI: Will Blocking remain legal for all in the USA? Supreme Court to rule on issue. It's not currently legal for all. At the present moment whether blocking

> FYI: Will Blocking remain legal for all in the USA? Supreme Court to rule on issue. It's not currently legal for all. At the present moment whether blocking a constituent is legal depends on which circuit you live in. > While these cases address only issues related to an individual's explicit blocking of other individuals, I can't help wondering if a future case might limit an individual's freedom to choose which instance to use. If SCOTUS rules against blocking, might individuals with government roles be barred from using instances that provide instance-level blocking or either individuals or other instances? In a certain sense anything can happen. But there's no reason to think this is more likely than outlawing apple pie. The current case is about whether elected officials can click the block button when logged into official accounts for certain reasons. Note that platforms are still allowed to block for any reason regardless of the outcome in this case. Note also this case leaves open the possibility it might be permissible for an official to block constituents who broke neutral rules. There is nothing here to suggest any platform changes would be needed.

sverhagen 4y ago
What are "official accounts", may still be up for some debate? Both Trump and AOC were sued for blocking people on Twitter. I understand that if you manage the Twitter account of the Department of Blank, that you may be prevented from blocking citizens, but for Trump and AOC, were the accounts in question not as much a personal account as anything else?
- krapp 4y ago
  Obviously @realDonaldTrump is a personal account and @POTUS is the account representing the office of President. But as far as I know, Trump never touched the official White House account, and mistrusted the press, and used his personal account as a primary source of communication, which is why the courts ruled as they did in his case. Being denied access to Trump's personal account became a Constitutional issue because of the way Trump was using it. If you do business on a personal account, at some point that's now a business account. I don't know about AOC but I assume the same situation applies.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    The obvious fix to that would be to introduce a law mandating that communication with the general public by a government official has to be made on government-provided/managed social media and email accounts. Using "private" accounts to bypass legal requirements (archival, monitoring, insider trading, or blocking political opponents/critical citizens) should result in getting immediately booted from office. Even if it's the President.
    - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
      Yeah, it's like running an email server in your basement, or bringing your laptop in for repair.
      - orwin 4y ago
        agree for the first (Clinton got out easy imho, but as i understand, Republicans were afraid of setting a precedent), hard disagree on the second. Unless you think you can use politician children against them.
        Akronymus 4y ago
        [flagged]
        krapp 4y ago
        If that were actually the case, the Republicans would be impeaching him with it as we speak. Fox News and all the right-leaning press would be running wall to wall coverage on it. It's getting pathetic at this point. Hunter Biden's laptop isn't going to take down the Biden administration. It isn't going to be Biden's Watergate. It isn't going to get Trump another term. Find something real that actually sticks.
        krapp 4y ago
        It's become an autonomic response on HN at this point, if one mentions Trump in any capacity other than ebullient praise, the Trumpists show up to spread insinuations about the Bidens and Hillary Clinton. I guess in their heads somehow that "wins" the argument every time.
- rcme 4y ago
  I don't think it's a question of "official" vs. "personal" accounts. It's like if you use a personal email at work, you're still subject to regulatory information withholding guidelines. Using a personal account to conduct official business doesn't magically absolve you of your responsibilities under the law. If you use your personal Twitter account to talk with friends and personal interests, then go ahead and block whomever. But if you use your personal account for official business, e.g. to discuss your administration's policies and priorities, then you're acting in an official capacity and should not be allowed to block citizens.
naasking 4y ago
Elected representatives should not be able to block real citizens [1]. However, not everyone posting on social is a citizen, or even human, and they should be able to block non-citizens. This has been the single consistent problem with social media. [1] However, citizens harassing them in real life can be handled by the police, what is the social media equivalent that doesn't block them outright?
- chrischen 4y ago
  Maybe disallow anonymous or only allow pseudo anonymous interaction?
  - naasking 4y ago
    That's one possibility, but pseudonmyous is the default on Twitter now unless you pay for the privilege. It's a tricky problem. We want some degree of anonymity but that also invites abuse. We need something like a zero-knowledge proof of citizenry, at the very least.
- btown 4y ago
  This gets murky. How is a pseudonymous account, where I schedule posts, different from a bot account, legally? Should I lose rights to information just because my “main” account doesn’t have my full name and face?
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    Well, I mean, how else can we prove that a slimeball politician is blocking his constituents unless we can identify the constituents blocked. A politician in Wisconsin shouldn't be able to block Wisconsinites in his constituency, but I can see where it'd be legal for him to block Nebraskans. Fundamental to attribution here is determining the one from the other. Courts of law are generally sticklers about that sort of thing.
  - papito 4y ago
    I am not blocking a person, I am blocking a random handle on the Internet.
Jiro 4y ago
>Note that platforms are still allowed to block for any reason regardless of the outcome in this case. What's to prevent the politician from just using social media run by a company who is friendly to him and will block people with opposing viewpoints even without him telling them to? (Aside from the fact that social media companies like some politicians more than others, which just makes the problem worse.)
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Not much. In theory if a company acts under the direction of a govt official a court could find that it acted as part of the state. But that takes a very high degree of entanglement. If the company is simply persuaded the official has a good argument that isn't enough. You can see the miserable track record of Trump supporters sueing over govt programs to report "disinformation" to social media companies for examples of what isn't sufficient.

sverhagen 4y ago

What are "official accounts", may still be up for some debate? Both Trump and AOC were sued for blocking people on Twitter. I understand that if you manage the Twitter account of the Department of Blank, that you may be prevented from blocking citizens, but for Trump and AOC, were the accounts in question not as much a personal account as anything else?

krapp 4y ago
Obviously @realDonaldTrump is a personal account and @POTUS is the account representing the office of President. But as far as I know, Trump never touched the official White House account, and mistrusted the press, and used his personal account as a primary source of communication, which is why the courts ruled as they did in his case. Being denied access to Trump's personal account became a Constitutional issue because of the way Trump was using it. If you do business on a personal account, at some point that's now a business account. I don't know about AOC but I assume the same situation applies.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  The obvious fix to that would be to introduce a law mandating that communication with the general public by a government official has to be made on government-provided/managed social media and email accounts. Using "private" accounts to bypass legal requirements (archival, monitoring, insider trading, or blocking political opponents/critical citizens) should result in getting immediately booted from office. Even if it's the President.
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    Yeah, it's like running an email server in your basement, or bringing your laptop in for repair.
    - orwin 4y ago
      agree for the first (Clinton got out easy imho, but as i understand, Republicans were afraid of setting a precedent), hard disagree on the second. Unless you think you can use politician children against them.
      - Akronymus 4y ago
        [flagged]
        krapp 4y ago
        If that were actually the case, the Republicans would be impeaching him with it as we speak. Fox News and all the right-leaning press would be running wall to wall coverage on it. It's getting pathetic at this point. Hunter Biden's laptop isn't going to take down the Biden administration. It isn't going to be Biden's Watergate. It isn't going to get Trump another term. Find something real that actually sticks.
      - krapp 4y ago
        It's become an autonomic response on HN at this point, if one mentions Trump in any capacity other than ebullient praise, the Trumpists show up to spread insinuations about the Bidens and Hillary Clinton. I guess in their heads somehow that "wins" the argument every time.
rcme 4y ago
I don't think it's a question of "official" vs. "personal" accounts. It's like if you use a personal email at work, you're still subject to regulatory information withholding guidelines. Using a personal account to conduct official business doesn't magically absolve you of your responsibilities under the law. If you use your personal Twitter account to talk with friends and personal interests, then go ahead and block whomever. But if you use your personal account for official business, e.g. to discuss your administration's policies and priorities, then you're acting in an official capacity and should not be allowed to block citizens.

naasking 4y ago

Elected representatives should not be able to block real citizens [1]. However, not everyone posting on social is a citizen, or even human, and they should be able to block non-citizens. This has been the single consistent problem with social media. [1] However, citizens harassing them in real life can be handled by the police, what is the social media equivalent that doesn't block them outright?

chrischen 4y ago
Maybe disallow anonymous or only allow pseudo anonymous interaction?
- naasking 4y ago
  That's one possibility, but pseudonmyous is the default on Twitter now unless you pay for the privilege. It's a tricky problem. We want some degree of anonymity but that also invites abuse. We need something like a zero-knowledge proof of citizenry, at the very least.
btown 4y ago
This gets murky. How is a pseudonymous account, where I schedule posts, different from a bot account, legally? Should I lose rights to information just because my “main” account doesn’t have my full name and face?
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  Well, I mean, how else can we prove that a slimeball politician is blocking his constituents unless we can identify the constituents blocked. A politician in Wisconsin shouldn't be able to block Wisconsinites in his constituency, but I can see where it'd be legal for him to block Nebraskans. Fundamental to attribution here is determining the one from the other. Courts of law are generally sticklers about that sort of thing.
- papito 4y ago
  I am not blocking a person, I am blocking a random handle on the Internet.

Jiro 4y ago

>Note that platforms are still allowed to block for any reason regardless of the outcome in this case. What's to prevent the politician from just using social media run by a company who is friendly to him and will block people with opposing viewpoints even without him telling them to? (Aside from the fact that social media companies like some politicians more than others, which just makes the problem worse.)

iudqnolq 4y ago
Not much. In theory if a company acts under the direction of a govt official a court could find that it acted as part of the state. But that takes a very high degree of entanglement. If the company is simply persuaded the official has a good argument that isn't enough. You can see the miserable track record of Trump supporters sueing over govt programs to report "disinformation" to social media companies for examples of what isn't sufficient.