Notable paragraph which was not present in the leaked draft:
> Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
> A notable part of the pushback directed at this Twitter employee is that his team focuses on bots & platform manipulation (not the same as fact-checking). But because he's been publicly critical of the president on social media, Trump surrogates are claiming it was his decision.
> Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.
It's a valid point. Shouldn't the head of integrity not have a history of negative bias? That's impossible in practice, but jeez Louise this guy said some pretty offensive things. I think that in of itself should make him ineligible. There cannot be a double standard here.
There was never any russian collusion, we know that for a fact now. HN can continue to censor this but it's true, and Twitter not recognizing that as disinformation is why they should be regulated.
Thanks for checking in, but it still is contrary to what the House of Representatives founds. Your truth that there was collusion is met with other truths that there were not. Is it twitter's role to decide who is right?
The Republicans on HPSCI found what they wanted to find, and avoided finding what they didn't want to find. See the HPSCI minority report for the specific details on this.
Much of the HPSCI majority report is also contradicted by:
- bipartisan Senate reports
- the Special Counsel's report
- the Special Counsel's indictments
- the FBI, as well as the intelligence community (in toto)
- the DOJ and intelligence Inspectors General
This is unconstitutional and will be struck down. The president can’t just decide to change the meaning of a law to make it do something it wasn’t written to do, and assigning three unelected bureaucrats at the FCC to regulate free speech on the Internet sets an extremely dangerous precedent whether you agree with the politics in this case or not.
There are _legal_ approaches to address the real issue of online censorship:
1. Actually amend the Communications Decency Act Section 230
2. Exercise antitrust authority to break up platforms that exert monopoly influence
3. Encourage free market alternatives to established platforms
I believe that online censorship of political viewpoints is a real and serious issue, but it needs to be addressed in a lawful manner. Between this and the EARN IT Act, we are entering extremely dangerous territory for free speech online and I fear the short sighted politicians and DOJ are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to pushing these policies.
1. The political optics of this will never let it happen. Not withstanding those on the right and left who agree, but rather tech companies, their mouthpieces, and oh boy the lobbyists. Be thankful for your government, it's the best money can buy.
2. WAY easier said than done. The FTC started investigating Microsoft in 1992, but it was not until 2001 that the courts settled the matter and Microsoft settled. Nine YEARS. So no, this is absolutely not a top option for the administration because they've got only four years left.
3. Forgive me, I don't know where you are located, but this is kind of the mantra for America. Companies from Google to GAB to that decentralized network I can't remember the name of, have tried to compete. They can't - possibly because the companies are too powerful.
Oh, and it's not unconstitutional, unless you have a specific clause in the Constitution that I am not seeing? At best it's not within the boundaries of Executive Orders; banning guns is definitely not within the boundaries but the Left wants to do it anyway.
It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. Only the legislature can.
Unfortunately CDA is written in a way that broadly allows tech companies to censor any content that doesn’t fit their commercial or political narratives. It’s a poison pill to Internet discourse at the endpoint we’ve reached where three or four companies control that vast majority of online speech.
In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,” an admission of defeat for the free market ideals that we pretend this country champions.
Only a change to the law or reimagining of the Internet can fix this. I don’t share your pessimism that this is impossible. I think decentralized/P2P platforms do have a place and a chance to unseat tech incumbents. Remember what happened to Yahoo and AOL? I just don’t think that our current set of tech companies are immune from the same sort of abandonment and irrelevance. A moment is coming where everything changes.
> It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law.
True, but it's within the executive branch's purview to... interpret the law a bit, as they execute it. Of course, then it's on the judicial branch to determine whether or not that was okay.
> In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,”
This is actually one of the most interesting parts of this, though it definitely will be tested by the judicial branch here. Trump has decided Twitter constitutes the modern equivalent of the "public square", where people are entitled to speak freely. ...Apart from the fact that it's corporately owned, I'd totally agree that that's true: Modern free speech has moved entirely to media (TV, Internet, Radio, etc.) which are all owned by corporations.
Now, where that gets interesting is that the government is required to allow you to speak freely... corporations aren't, according to current interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has vastly expanded the application of the Bill of Rights before though. It's presumably possible that a future court could decide that social media companies must allow people their town square.
Can you please point out where it forces Twitter to do anything?
I think you may have gotten off on the wrong exit. One was a religious freedom case. The other is ordering the government to investigate Twitter for violating Section 203. Two..totally different things. The Executive Order can't force Twitter to do anything.
He has a platform for communicating with the people, just like every other president. He’s chosen to use Twitter. Just like Fox News, another thing he’s complaining about now that it isn’t guaranteed to be frictionless. He can say anything he wants in press releases, on whitehouse.gov, etc.
Interesting how they changed the wording of Section 5:
Yesterday's draft:
> The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
> (i) monitoring or creating watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or users (e.g., likes, follows, time spent); and
> (ii) monitoring users based on their activity off the platform.
Final version:
> The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
> (i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
> (ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
> (iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
> (iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
> (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Wouldn't taking away Section 230 thus making Twitter liable for content posted on Twitter have the opposite effect that Trump is going for.
Twitter will be liable for content posted, therefor won't they start censoring things so they can't be sued? This would make them also liable for Trump's tweets if those tweets aren't removed...
I don't think that's quite right. From what I can tell, it seems like social media sites like twitter are being given two options, and they're being told that the middle of the road between those options isn't ok anymore.
First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection)
Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies.
Idk if this is a decent analogy, but it seems comparable to the classic anonymous swiss bank account. Either the bank completely protects all personal information for everyone, or it has to move out of switzerland and give up all its anonymity. (I know the analogy isn't accurate, but it seems like a decent mental model.)
Ah yeah, so it's Twitter's choice if they lose 230 protection or not. Keeping doing this lose it (and they become liable and start censoring everything including Trump), or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$
I think the hypothetical opposite would be interesting: What if Twitter was run by Peter Theil, and they fact checked Joe Biden. I think we'd see absolutely uproar by the democrats. The left believes twitter is on their side, and how that came to be is much more interesting.
> First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection.
The scope of publisher liability makes that impractical for a user-submitted content site.
> Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies.
Not only don't make comments, but don't control content at all (at least, except (and making errors of interpretation may be dangerous here) removing actually illegal content; this has (among other things) significantly adverse commercial consequences.
Honestly, it might be nice to end up with a greater divide between the commercial and non-commercial parts of the internet. I agree, it will be very hard to control all the content on e.g. Twitter; the degree of cleanup required to pull it off might limit the users to a small fraction of the current number. We might end up with commercial sites that are much more tightly controlled.
However, what about sites like HN? I think there'd be more of those. Dang does great work, but I think (?) most of the content control is done by users. It might be really nice to regain an internet that isn't dominated by profit-seeking.
HN has nowhere near enough active management to safe from liability without Section 230, but enough to be at risk of losing Section 230 protection especially for a government effort overtly motivated by perceived anti-Republican bias (which HN is regularly accused of exhibiting and reinforcing via it's moderation policies.)
I'm pretty sure YC wouldn't risk running it if Section 230 protection with active moderation wasn't available; user-submitted content sites that are side project for a business are even more at risk than ones that are core business; no one is going to absorb substantial liabit risk for a peripheral effort.
About goddamn time. I am not on Trumps side on 99% of issues but this is absolutely needed. The platform-publishers have failed to police themselves, and have (too) publicly played favorites lately.
Please, if you disagree, reply with why. Besides ad-hominem attacking the person, and if this particular incident is a good example (it is not), explain why fb/twit/etc deserve dual protections?
My view is that private companies should not host and enable content that makes the world a worse place to live.
Places like Gab or Voat have their view of what is acceptable, and I disagree and condemn them for it. Places like HN have a code with which I largely agree, and I commend them for it.
I neither expect, nor desire, companies like to twitter to provide "freedom of speech." Not with the internet and web we currently have, whose technical design overwhelmingly favors bad actors.
If Twitter was run by Peter Theil and did this to Bernie Sanders, or Joe Binden, the left would have a collective meltdown. Trump has a valid point: Twitter has never done this before, why are they starting now?
And I ask that in addition to your not arguing about something that didn’t happen and how you hypothesize people you cannot name would react, that you make the argument just once and not paper all over a topic with exact copies of it.
So basically, if noted independent and well-reasoned decision maker William Barr decides that a platform is operating in ways that are 'deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service' they lose protection under section 203(c). Am I understanding this correctly?
If so, that's hilarious because nobody can possibly argue that Twitter's ToS enforcement has been anything close to consistent. The very fact that Trump still has a personal twitter account is proof of that. They're being bit by the dog they refused to muzzle.
The argument I've heard here, I think, is that in fact this is supposedly a trick, and not about preventing online censorship, but actually a sneaky way to increase censorship.
My understanding is that this is the problem that people have with this, and most people who are in that camp also hate Trump.
In my opinion, Trump's racism and other aspects are quite odious, but I want to believe that in this case he actually is fighting against censorship. Because it does seem that conservative viewpoints are being censored.
If this a trick, then we are more screwed than I thought. Because the left-leaning group actually seems to be asking for _more_ censorship.
Obviously I think the order is being done for the wrong reasons, and I doubt the text of it itself will do much to reign in big tech. But I think Trump inadvertently stumbled into a good thing, as tech industry power must be curtailed.
Trump is worried about conservative accounts being censored or shut down with no opportunity for appeal, for instance, but the very same demands for review may help people locked out by broken algorithmic systems on purely non-political errors.
And fundamentally, it's way overdue that we stop giving tech companies immunity from prosecution for their platforms. Right now everyone is focused on using Section 230 as a carrot that requires tech companies do things to continue to receive it (EARN IT, etc.) but we really just need to remove it entirely.
I agree, but there are many that object to anything the potus does by virtue of who he is, and what he stands for in thieir eyes. Its hard to argue in good faith with that camp. There are a few who think the status quo is fine. They are likely the same people making lots of money under the current arrangement and are having trouble seeing the forrest, but for the trees.
I hope this helps at least open new opprotunities for social media whose likes we have never seen before. Both better curation and more open-ness are potentially up for grabs. Surely this is only an opprotunity to anyone with a sharp mind.
This isn't quite right. 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say.
Not that it matters. Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this. And Twitter (or your personal forum) can continue to boot trolls, Nazis, or heads of state posting targeted harassment at widows, and do so in good faith all day long.
What really happened is that the hard, valid questions about how much power social media companies have, how they should ensure free speech without enabling the worst elements of society, how appeals on moderation should work etc, just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them.
> 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say.
This definitely isn't true. The reality is that you are never automatically responsible for what someone else does. (It makes no sense!) Tech companies would like you to believe that Section 230 is some fundamental bedrock to the Internet, but it's not, it's just a get out of jail card for ad companies acting badly.
> Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this.
There's probably some manner of activity executive departments such as the FTC and FCC are capable of doing. Though it's definitely true that Congress-passed laws (unfortunately, including Section 230 of the CDA) stand above the regulatory power they have. But this order may be a precursor towards a larger push to scale back or (ideally) remove Section 230 in legislation.
> just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them
I actually disagree here. The vast majority of issues that require legislative attention aren't getting it because they're not loud enough to be put as conditions upon other things happening. Legislatively a lot of issues are at a complete standstill. But once it becomes a hot button issue, legislators are more likely to pack it in here or there until something moves on it.
You're not responsible for what someone else does, but you are responsible for what you do. If you accept a submission to your newspaper and publish it then you may be liable for any libelous claims because you are the one who published it. You think that HN is different because it automatically publishes anything anyone writes, but that perception isn't shared by many people who are old enough to remember a time before the World Wide Web.
Notable paragraph which was not present in the leaked draft:
> Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
ﱞ
He seems to be a well balanced individual.
> A notable part of the pushback directed at this Twitter employee is that his team focuses on bots & platform manipulation (not the same as fact-checking). But because he's been publicly critical of the president on social media, Trump surrogates are claiming it was his decision.
https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265675205680099328
Plus the response from Jack Dorsey yesterday:
> Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837138114830336
It's a valid point. Shouldn't the head of integrity not have a history of negative bias? That's impossible in practice, but jeez Louise this guy said some pretty offensive things. I think that in of itself should make him ineligible. There cannot be a double standard here.
Wow, that's actually a pretty relevant thing to point out
There was never any russian collusion, we know that for a fact now. HN can continue to censor this but it's true, and Twitter not recognizing that as disinformation is why they should be regulated.
From the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal:
"Newly released documents show he [Adam Schiff] knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts... 11589326164
So why not put a disclaimer on every politician that says there WAS collusion, or claiming to have evidence of collusion?
Here are some actual facts, rather than assertions or WSJ editorials (as opposed to reported articles)
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo...
It's almost surreal that users named Overtonwindow and Simulacra are pushing the "no collusion" narrative
Thanks for checking in, but it still is contrary to what the House of Representatives founds. Your truth that there was collusion is met with other truths that there were not. Is it twitter's role to decide who is right?
The Republicans on HPSCI found what they wanted to find, and avoided finding what they didn't want to find. See the HPSCI minority report for the specific details on this.
Much of the HPSCI majority report is also contradicted by:
IOW, it was contradicted by everybody else
This is unconstitutional and will be struck down. The president can’t just decide to change the meaning of a law to make it do something it wasn’t written to do, and assigning three unelected bureaucrats at the FCC to regulate free speech on the Internet sets an extremely dangerous precedent whether you agree with the politics in this case or not.
There are _legal_ approaches to address the real issue of online censorship:
1. Actually amend the Communications Decency Act Section 230
2. Exercise antitrust authority to break up platforms that exert monopoly influence
3. Encourage free market alternatives to established platforms
I believe that online censorship of political viewpoints is a real and serious issue, but it needs to be addressed in a lawful manner. Between this and the EARN IT Act, we are entering extremely dangerous territory for free speech online and I fear the short sighted politicians and DOJ are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to pushing these policies.
Are you aware of who appoints and approves federal judges that will hear this case?
Yes, and the judiciary is not a rubber-stamp for executive authority, contrary to popular belief.
1. The political optics of this will never let it happen. Not withstanding those on the right and left who agree, but rather tech companies, their mouthpieces, and oh boy the lobbyists. Be thankful for your government, it's the best money can buy.
2. WAY easier said than done. The FTC started investigating Microsoft in 1992, but it was not until 2001 that the courts settled the matter and Microsoft settled. Nine YEARS. So no, this is absolutely not a top option for the administration because they've got only four years left.
3. Forgive me, I don't know where you are located, but this is kind of the mantra for America. Companies from Google to GAB to that decentralized network I can't remember the name of, have tried to compete. They can't - possibly because the companies are too powerful.
Oh, and it's not unconstitutional, unless you have a specific clause in the Constitution that I am not seeing? At best it's not within the boundaries of Executive Orders; banning guns is definitely not within the boundaries but the Left wants to do it anyway.
It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. Only the legislature can.
Unfortunately CDA is written in a way that broadly allows tech companies to censor any content that doesn’t fit their commercial or political narratives. It’s a poison pill to Internet discourse at the endpoint we’ve reached where three or four companies control that vast majority of online speech.
In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,” an admission of defeat for the free market ideals that we pretend this country champions.
Only a change to the law or reimagining of the Internet can fix this. I don’t share your pessimism that this is impossible. I think decentralized/P2P platforms do have a place and a chance to unseat tech incumbents. Remember what happened to Yahoo and AOL? I just don’t think that our current set of tech companies are immune from the same sort of abandonment and irrelevance. A moment is coming where everything changes.
> It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law.
True, but it's within the executive branch's purview to... interpret the law a bit, as they execute it. Of course, then it's on the judicial branch to determine whether or not that was okay.
> In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,”
This is actually one of the most interesting parts of this, though it definitely will be tested by the judicial branch here. Trump has decided Twitter constitutes the modern equivalent of the "public square", where people are entitled to speak freely. ...Apart from the fact that it's corporately owned, I'd totally agree that that's true: Modern free speech has moved entirely to media (TV, Internet, Radio, etc.) which are all owned by corporations.
Now, where that gets interesting is that the government is required to allow you to speak freely... corporations aren't, according to current interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has vastly expanded the application of the Bill of Rights before though. It's presumably possible that a future court could decide that social media companies must allow people their town square.
Discussion in progress: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161
Didn't the GOP just not a few months ago argue that a business couldn't be forced to make a Cake for a Gay wedding?
Now they want to argue that they can force a business (Twitter) to do something that business (Twitter) doesn't want to do?
Can you please point out where it forces Twitter to do anything?
I think you may have gotten off on the wrong exit. One was a religious freedom case. The other is ordering the government to investigate Twitter for violating Section 203. Two..totally different things. The Executive Order can't force Twitter to do anything.
Wow well put. Tip of the hat to you sir.
Can you please point out where it forces Twitter to do anything?
He has a platform for communicating with the people, just like every other president. He’s chosen to use Twitter. Just like Fox News, another thing he’s complaining about now that it isn’t guaranteed to be frictionless. He can say anything he wants in press releases, on whitehouse.gov, etc.
Interesting how they changed the wording of Section 5:
Yesterday's draft:
> The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
> (i) monitoring or creating watch-lists of users based on their interactions with content or users (e.g., likes, follows, time spent); and
> (ii) monitoring users based on their activity off the platform.
Final version:
> The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
> (i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
> (ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
> (iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
> (iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
> (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Interesting, thank you for noting.
"other anti-democratic associations or governments"
This is troubling to me. Can this be used to mean "anyone I label anti-democratic"?
Yes but that's why drafts are drafts.
If you're planning on posting in these threads, scrub your bio here first to avoid having your email messed with.
I've discovered some interesting new websites!
Go wild:
http://braythwayt.com
http://raganwald.com
Can you explain what you mean by that comment?
I'm guessing he's mentioning it you're commenting in a DT thread to protect your personal info. One of the tools 'THey' like to use is Doxxing.
Too bad you can’t have social media for just the good or OK parts of the planet, the bad parts get it too.
Wouldn't taking away Section 230 thus making Twitter liable for content posted on Twitter have the opposite effect that Trump is going for.
Twitter will be liable for content posted, therefor won't they start censoring things so they can't be sued? This would make them also liable for Trump's tweets if those tweets aren't removed...
I don't think that's quite right. From what I can tell, it seems like social media sites like twitter are being given two options, and they're being told that the middle of the road between those options isn't ok anymore.
First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection)
Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies.
Idk if this is a decent analogy, but it seems comparable to the classic anonymous swiss bank account. Either the bank completely protects all personal information for everyone, or it has to move out of switzerland and give up all its anonymity. (I know the analogy isn't accurate, but it seems like a decent mental model.)
Ah yeah, so it's Twitter's choice if they lose 230 protection or not. Keeping doing this lose it (and they become liable and start censoring everything including Trump), or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$
> or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$
I don't think the stuff on Twitter has often been held up as an example of healthy dialog. Other than that, I agree.
I think the hypothetical opposite would be interesting: What if Twitter was run by Peter Theil, and they fact checked Joe Biden. I think we'd see absolutely uproar by the democrats. The left believes twitter is on their side, and how that came to be is much more interesting.
Maybe they are fact checking Biden and it doesn't seem like it cause they come up empty. LOL
or mayb they can't figure out what he's saying :)
> First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection.
The scope of publisher liability makes that impractical for a user-submitted content site.
> Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies.
Not only don't make comments, but don't control content at all (at least, except (and making errors of interpretation may be dangerous here) removing actually illegal content; this has (among other things) significantly adverse commercial consequences.
> significantly adverse commercial consequences
Honestly, it might be nice to end up with a greater divide between the commercial and non-commercial parts of the internet. I agree, it will be very hard to control all the content on e.g. Twitter; the degree of cleanup required to pull it off might limit the users to a small fraction of the current number. We might end up with commercial sites that are much more tightly controlled.
However, what about sites like HN? I think there'd be more of those. Dang does great work, but I think (?) most of the content control is done by users. It might be really nice to regain an internet that isn't dominated by profit-seeking.
> However, what about sites like HN?
HN has nowhere near enough active management to safe from liability without Section 230, but enough to be at risk of losing Section 230 protection especially for a government effort overtly motivated by perceived anti-Republican bias (which HN is regularly accused of exhibiting and reinforcing via it's moderation policies.)
I'm pretty sure YC wouldn't risk running it if Section 230 protection with active moderation wasn't available; user-submitted content sites that are side project for a business are even more at risk than ones that are core business; no one is going to absorb substantial liabit risk for a peripheral effort.
YES! For some reason everyone that is howling at Trump seem to have missed that it would censor Trump as well!
About goddamn time. I am not on Trumps side on 99% of issues but this is absolutely needed. The platform-publishers have failed to police themselves, and have (too) publicly played favorites lately.
Please, if you disagree, reply with why. Besides ad-hominem attacking the person, and if this particular incident is a good example (it is not), explain why fb/twit/etc deserve dual protections?
So what? Why is that, of itself, bad?
My view is that private companies should not host and enable content that makes the world a worse place to live.
Places like Gab or Voat have their view of what is acceptable, and I disagree and condemn them for it. Places like HN have a code with which I largely agree, and I commend them for it.
I neither expect, nor desire, companies like to twitter to provide "freedom of speech." Not with the internet and web we currently have, whose technical design overwhelmingly favors bad actors.
>"My view is that private companies should not host and enable content that makes the world a worse place to live."
And who is to decide what makes the world a worse place?
The person doing the hosting.
If Twitter was run by Peter Theil and did this to Bernie Sanders, or Joe Binden, the left would have a collective meltdown. Trump has a valid point: Twitter has never done this before, why are they starting now?
I have taken down this same argument you made elsewhere on this topic:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23345380
And I ask that in addition to your not arguing about something that didn’t happen and how you hypothesize people you cannot name would react, that you make the argument just once and not paper all over a topic with exact copies of it.
If you're going to keep censoring and deleting, then you're just proving the point. I don't understand.
So basically, if noted independent and well-reasoned decision maker William Barr decides that a platform is operating in ways that are 'deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service' they lose protection under section 203(c). Am I understanding this correctly?
If so, that's hilarious because nobody can possibly argue that Twitter's ToS enforcement has been anything close to consistent. The very fact that Trump still has a personal twitter account is proof of that. They're being bit by the dog they refused to muzzle.
>noted independent and well-reasoned decision maker William Barr
Laughing so hard at this. Did you forget a /s?
The argument I've heard here, I think, is that in fact this is supposedly a trick, and not about preventing online censorship, but actually a sneaky way to increase censorship.
My understanding is that this is the problem that people have with this, and most people who are in that camp also hate Trump.
In my opinion, Trump's racism and other aspects are quite odious, but I want to believe that in this case he actually is fighting against censorship. Because it does seem that conservative viewpoints are being censored.
If this a trick, then we are more screwed than I thought. Because the left-leaning group actually seems to be asking for _more_ censorship.
Obviously I think the order is being done for the wrong reasons, and I doubt the text of it itself will do much to reign in big tech. But I think Trump inadvertently stumbled into a good thing, as tech industry power must be curtailed.
Trump is worried about conservative accounts being censored or shut down with no opportunity for appeal, for instance, but the very same demands for review may help people locked out by broken algorithmic systems on purely non-political errors.
And fundamentally, it's way overdue that we stop giving tech companies immunity from prosecution for their platforms. Right now everyone is focused on using Section 230 as a carrot that requires tech companies do things to continue to receive it (EARN IT, etc.) but we really just need to remove it entirely.
I agree, but there are many that object to anything the potus does by virtue of who he is, and what he stands for in thieir eyes. Its hard to argue in good faith with that camp. There are a few who think the status quo is fine. They are likely the same people making lots of money under the current arrangement and are having trouble seeing the forrest, but for the trees.
I hope this helps at least open new opprotunities for social media whose likes we have never seen before. Both better curation and more open-ness are potentially up for grabs. Surely this is only an opprotunity to anyone with a sharp mind.
This isn't quite right. 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say.
Not that it matters. Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this. And Twitter (or your personal forum) can continue to boot trolls, Nazis, or heads of state posting targeted harassment at widows, and do so in good faith all day long.
What really happened is that the hard, valid questions about how much power social media companies have, how they should ensure free speech without enabling the worst elements of society, how appeals on moderation should work etc, just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them.
> 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say.
This definitely isn't true. The reality is that you are never automatically responsible for what someone else does. (It makes no sense!) Tech companies would like you to believe that Section 230 is some fundamental bedrock to the Internet, but it's not, it's just a get out of jail card for ad companies acting badly.
> Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this.
There's probably some manner of activity executive departments such as the FTC and FCC are capable of doing. Though it's definitely true that Congress-passed laws (unfortunately, including Section 230 of the CDA) stand above the regulatory power they have. But this order may be a precursor towards a larger push to scale back or (ideally) remove Section 230 in legislation.
> just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them
I actually disagree here. The vast majority of issues that require legislative attention aren't getting it because they're not loud enough to be put as conditions upon other things happening. Legislatively a lot of issues are at a complete standstill. But once it becomes a hot button issue, legislators are more likely to pack it in here or there until something moves on it.
You're not responsible for what someone else does, but you are responsible for what you do. If you accept a submission to your newspaper and publish it then you may be liable for any libelous claims because you are the one who published it. You think that HN is different because it automatically publishes anything anyone writes, but that perception isn't shared by many people who are old enough to remember a time before the World Wide Web.