
Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies - cdolan
https://www.axios.com/trump-executive-order-social-media-protections-8a53f1c6-3c05-4844-98a3-071373b497a8.html?stream=technology&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts_technology
======
cdolan
The biggest takeaway, looking past the headline:

“This week a federal appeals court, ruling in a case brought by conservative
activists against social media companies, affirmed that private websites are
not public spaces and social media companies don't have First Amendment
obligations.

Any truly strong limits to Section 230 would almost certainly require action
by Congress.”

~~~
TheColorYellow
Its an interesting thought experiment to assess in what ways Twitter is a
"private website".

It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company, but I
can't help but feel that the nuances and similarities of what Twitter really
is and what responsibility they truly hold in society is above the courts
comprehension.

~~~
krapp
>It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company

No, it isn't, any more than a store is a public space because it has windows
the public can see into. You have to sign up for a Twitter account and accept
their terms of service to post on the site. It's a private platform run by a
private company for its own private business interests.

~~~
MrJagil
I think that’s a simplistic view. No one is arguing Twitter is comparable to a
store with a display window. The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to
billions of people. It’s a new reality. It’s a newspaper where anyone and
everyone is authoring anything, including presidents, and with the roll of a
die, the message is amplified to a multiple of the expected audience.

Twitter may technically be a private platform run by a private company, but
the issue not one of semantics, it’s about ethics and morals and how we
compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech.

~~~
threeseed
Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries.

They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments
for example.

So it sounds 'new tech' hasn't really changed anything.

~~~
jtbayly
Newspapers do that because they are liable for what they publish. Twitter is
not liable for what it publishes. Why should it not be liable? The answer is
because they are just providing a platform and others are publishing. But the
moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then
they should probably be liable, right?

~~~
thomaslord
I don't see why they should be.

If someone uploads their library of child porn encoded to base64 split across
tons of tweets, do you want Twitter to have a choice between removing that
content and continuing to operate?

We have 3 options here:

1\. No moderation allowed whatsoever on a site without a court order. That
obviously leads to a terrible, toxic community with lots of reprehensible
content that the average person wouldn't want to participate in.

2\. A good faith effort at moderation. This allows the most reprehensible,
highest-impact content to be removed and allows users to participate in the
moderation process.

3\. No content can be published without moderation, on any site anywhere. Want
to post a Facebook status? Have fun paying $20 for the privilege of waiting 48
hours for a human to review it.

All of this is irrelevant though, because this executive order is not targeted
at censorship. It's targeted at a private individual who voluntarily, _for
free_ , passed on a message from one person to many other people and decided
to tell them "this seems fishy, you might want to read up on it."

~~~
berryjerry
Twitter is actually required by law to remove child porn, not being forced to
keep it up, that would be insane. This isn't a call for no moderation, it is a
call for a neutral platform when companies are on the verge of monopolies.
They are definitely monopolize your followers, switching platforms is not even
a choice. You can work you're entire life building a channel and audience on
social media site and they can take it away in a heartbeat and you don't even
get a chance to let your followers know what happened, e-mail them even, let
them know where they can find you going forward. That's not the worst part,
the worst part is they can and do do it without any reason whatsoever, it
could be just because someone at the company dislikes what you said. Again
this is not about moderation, this is about companies that were built off of
being a neutral platform that cannot be sued for liability, like a phone
company but are now using their monopoly over your follower's information to
hold over you and control what you say. If anything what really needs to be in
legislation is rights to notify followers where else they can find you if you
are banned or censored.

------
remarkEon
I don't know why everyone here is upset by this. Isn't this what we wanted? An
actual policy debate, decided by the three branches of government - the
executive, congress, the Courts - about what kinds of regulations these super
powerful social media companies should have to submit to.

Don't fool yourselves, if Facebook or Twitter wanted to swing an election
_they absolutely have the power to do that_. Isn't that a problem that
government is supposed to solve? I'm sorry, and I don't like the guy in charge
right now either, but regulation really is the only answer here. Maybe calm
down for a minute and let this make its way through the Circuit Courts,
refined, watered down, etc etc.

All of that aside, I want my distributed and independent internet back. Maybe
we should just be teaching our kids the command line from now on because that
might be the only way that we can communicate over this protocol in a civil
way.

~~~
colejohnson66
I think some people are upset because he’s not going the proper route. He’s
doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to get
what he wants _now_. Because he knows that something like this would be held
up in Congress by the Democrats.

Others are upset because, as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a
private website to carry his speech (the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected
“compelled speech”). Although, yes, we should wait for the courts to
(hopefully) strike it down.

There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely
detrimental to the internet. Sure, decentralize it all, but, as it stands now,
that’s not what the majority of the public want; They want centralization
because it makes things easier. Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube, etc. are
the size they are today _because_ they’re centralized; it makes finding what
you want easier.

~~~
remarkEon
>He’s doing an end run around Congress using Executive Orders in an attempt to
get what he wants now.

And you can thank the previous guy in charge for setting this precedent, that
you can do whatever you want via Executive Order. I have little sympathy here.

>as the Constitution is written, he cannot force a private website to carry
his speech

Not quite sure this is actually the question at hand. It's about choice of
moderation is it not? In any case ... thankfully we have a Court system that
is designed to handle these types of questions.

>There’s also the fact that repealing Section 230 would be absolutely
detrimental to the internet.

Not following you. Maybe the social media and tech companies have to hire a
lot more layers instead of bloating their HR departments. Probably a good
development imo, since HR people like to pretend they work in tech but what
they really do is bureaucracy.

~~~
2OEH8eoCRo0
What? No. Executive order is an order to the executive branch from it's boss
the President. It's not going around Congress at all- it's separate from
Congress. It's not changing law. All Presidents do this and are allowed to.

You can't do whatever you want via executive order. This is Trump telling the
FCC, one of his departments, how to operate, which he can do, as much as I
disagree with it.

~~~
freehunter
The powers of the executive branch are not unlimited and not every order is
Constitutionally valid. Especially ones restricting freedom of speech by
private individuals.

~~~
2OEH8eoCRo0
You're right, I'm merely defending the executive order and outlining it's not
a magic wand that lets the President do everything they want.

------
bedhead
The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that the lines are getting blurry
with regards to public vs private. Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are
the de facto new town squares. Not saying I have any answers, just saying it's
definitely not a clear issue anymore.

~~~
vannevar
_Like it or not, a couple tech platforms are the de facto new town squares._

I'd agree, but de facto is not de jure. And if we're going to make them into
public spaces legally, it's certainly not going to happen through an executive
order. It would require an act of Congress, similar to the restrictions and
obligations placed on broadcasters.

~~~
Reelin
Except that SCOTUS has already at least flirted with the idea (see Packingham
v. North Carolina, 2017). Also the executive order in question doesn't have
anything to do with public spaces but rather Section 230 protections; the
argument is that fact checking is a form of editorializing.

~~~
SilasX
See also this HN discussion about a case[1], where a judge ruled that Trump
can't block people on Twitter.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945)

[1] Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 17-cv-5205, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York

~~~
perl4ever
It seems significant that Twitter wasn't a party to that case. People seem to
be enthusiastically conflating it with some sort of ruling on what Twitter can
or must do. I'm not sure if you are, but even bringing it up worries me.

------
sreedhark
I wanted to share a debate on topic " _Constitutional Free Speech Principles
Can Save Social Media Companies from Themselves_ ".

[https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/constitutional...](https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/constitutional-
free-speech-principles-can-save-social-media-companies-themselves).

Main Points from the page.

\- The First Amendment is content-neutral and provides a nonpolitical
framework for regulating speech. It would behoove social media companies to
abide by it.

\- Rather than resort to censorship, social media companies can offer users
tools that block unwanted content, including content that could be hurtful or
offensive.

\- Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have become the new
public square. Rather than resorting to corporate speech policies, these
companies should promote free speech principles in the U.S. and abroad.

\- Social media companies are global. The U.S. Constitution is based on
American values and, therefore, should not be used to regulate international
platforms.

\- The spread of hateful digital content dilutes meaningful discourse and, in
some cases, causes emotional and physical harm. Social media companies have a
duty to offer safe, welcoming platforms for users.

From election interference to “fake news,” nefarious actors are using social
media to undermine democracies and deepen partisan divides. Social media
companies must act to prevent this type of conduct.

The Debaters

David French - Senior Writer, National Review

Corynne McSherry - Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Nathaniel Persily - Professor, Stanford Law

Marietje Schaake - International Policy Director, Stanford's Cyber Policy
Center & Fmr. Member, European Parliament

~~~
adjkant
Is the problem not precisely that there are very apparent and relevant
conflicts between these points? Reconciling free speech with "offer[ing a]
safe, welcoming platforms for users" is exactly what's at play here when it
comes to TOS and deleting content.

> "Rather than resort to censorship, social media companies can offer users
> tools that block unwanted content, including content that could be hurtful
> or offensive."

I think this is an interesting idea, but I think it would effectively mean de
facto speech censorship like HN has with flagged/dead comments. Sure they
exist, but most users don't have them on, and the larger the forum, the more
annoying having them on will be. Given the amount of spam/hate comments on
Twitter, no sane user would ever turn that feature on. So you end up right
back where we are now, only by technicality they aren't censored. I suppose a
positive, but then it gets right back into editorialization arguments re what
content is flagged or "blocked".

> Social media companies must act to prevent this type of conduct.

Even if most can agree here, this doesn't appear to lay out concrete policies,
nor does anyone appear to have any proposed that align with these main points
that I know of. I didn't watch the media specifically so if you have any
detail on those specifics or any concrete recommendations they make, a summary
would be very much appreciated.

------
JacobGoodson
Regardless of ones views pertaining to the current president, does anyone feel
comfortable with so called "fact checking"? I do not like anyone acting as the
sole arbiter of truth, whether it be the president, the pope, or the random
fellow screaming in the park. I prefer that corporations trust their users to
make their own choices about what people say instead of making edits or
including addendum's to peoples posts. The people made the platform
successful, let the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is
true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction.

~~~
tenebrisalietum
> ... does anyone feel comfortable with so called "fact checking"?

This has nothing to do with any real person, but is just a hypothetical
situation pertaining to this question in your post:

Let's say an account X with many followers calls you a pedophile. You're not,
of course, so you responded and said you weren't, but since the followers tend
to like X, they don't listen to you. X's followers then dox you, find your
address, and start making threats to you outside of the realm of social media.

Does the model of "the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is
true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction" hold up here?

~~~
daenz
Fact checkers are necessary because otherwise people will believe a bad thing
and commit crimes? Committing crimes like threatening people is not the
natural outcome of the freedom to decide for yourself what you believe.

~~~
tenebrisalietum
I'm not sure the term "natural outcome" is very meaningful. Things either
happen or they don't. It's a _possible_ outcome and possible enough to merit
discussion.

But let's take bad effect down a notch, from a crime to just an unpleasant
consequence if you want. Let's say instead of getting doxxed and physically
threatened, you just get turned down for a job offer instead. What about that?

------
soheil
Here is the text of the executive order (draft):
[https://www.scribd.com/document/463379849/Draft-Executive-
Or...](https://www.scribd.com/document/463379849/Draft-Executive-Order-on-
Social-Media)

Here is the audio version:
[https://playthis.link/https://pastebin.com/0mzv8heR](https://playthis.link/https://pastebin.com/0mzv8heR)

~~~
s1artibartfast
Thank you! After reading several contradictory and confusing articles, I found
the actual order very clear. I would encourage others to take a look.

~~~
acid__
Agreed! I've started reading the actual laws and legal orders much more often
recently. I'd already been in the habit of diving into source code when
confused about how a (software) library/tool works, and I figured this wasn't
all that different.

I've been surprised twofold:

1\. to find out how often journalistic coverage is misleading or incomplete

2\. to find out how often the legal text is actually fairly succinct and
coherent, even to a layperson like myself

------
tombert
Oh my goodness is he a big dumb stupid moron.

At the risk of this being downvoted to oblivion, why doesn't he think that
Twitter, a privately run company, has the right to fact-check claims made on
their site? Even if there were some secret evil liberal agenda on Twitter,
which there absolutely is not, why aren't they allowed to do that exactly? Is
he planning on holding Fox News to the same standard and make them put less
racism apologia on their network?

~~~
apostacy
Well, is Verizon allowed to use packet injection to "fact check" a website you
view over their internet connection?

Because seems to be presenting themselves as a neutral platform, which they
have shown themselves to not be.

EDIT: Just to clarify, obviously Twitter is not presenting themselves to users
as a neutral platform. But for legal purposes, they are cloaking themselves in
the same privileged status as a phone company, when they clearly are not.

~~~
tombert
A) Twitter has never presented itself as a neutral platform. They've banned
white supremacists, dangerous conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and even left-
leaning people like Destiny when he joked about how he was going to bomb
Comcast.

B) Verizon (Comcast, Spectrum, etc...) are closer to something like a utility.
I wouldn't be supportive of a water or electricity company not providing
services to people I disagree with. Twitter is not a utility, it's a glorified
fortune-cookie-sharing site. It's a not a "right", and there's no reason that
you should feel entitled to it.

~~~
partyboat1586
Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens not just _a_ place
where it happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs that they happen to be
a private company with a bias.

~~~
asdgopiahsogfi
Here's simple fact check. Twitter is not _the_ place where political discourse
happens. You're discussing politics on HN right now.

~~~
partyboat1586
It's the place that regularly gets quoted on major networks and newspapers.
This is a minority website with nowhere near as much impact.

~~~
asdgopiahsogfi
That still doesn't make it _the_ place for political discourse. Reddit gets
quoted quite often. Tons of politicians do AMA on Reddit and Facebook. Just
because Trump is on Twitter doesn't make it special.

~~~
pas
That's not how these kinds of "facts" work. If someone tried to use this
during some kind of proceeding the court will determine this. (Using a jury or
not, expert witnesses or not, doesn't matter.)

Usually fact checking "services" like snopes.com, politifact, or WaPo with the
pinocchio heads, have a consistent model about what they are willing to touch,
how they approach it, and how they determine factualness, etc.

Just throwing out that Twitter is or isn't _the_ platform makes no sense.

------
jtchang
Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would
any other troll on the internet.

~~~
slfnflctd
Jack Dorsey has responded to this question multiple times in several places--
I heard him address it in the Making Sense podcast by Sam Harris some time in
the past year. He seemed to show a firm grasp of the nuances involved.

Here is a quote from him: "Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing
their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be
able to see and debate,” [...] “It would also not silence that leader, but it
would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

He apparently feels there will be wider discussion from all parts of the
political spectrum if things are left as they are. Should Trump move to a
platform where he has more control over the format, it might just make it
easier for him to suppress or obfuscate dissent.

I don't know if Dorsey is making the right call here, but he has clearly
thought about it a lot, and discussed those thoughts publicly.

~~~
amoorthy
Dorsey is right to want to encourage broader discussion across the political
spectrum on topics. But the current fact-checking approach is flawed as it
requires human judgment, which is hobbled by people's biases and potential
lack of topical expertise.

A better approach may be to offer a resource page that shows every news
article on the topic, with guidelines on political leaning, how credible each
article is etc so that readers can exercise their critical thinking to figure
out what to believe. For example:
[https://story.thefactual.com/news/story/239362-Social-
Media](https://story.thefactual.com/news/story/239362-Social-Media) shows 285
related articles.

Disclosure: above page is from my startup, The Factual.

~~~
Pils
>But the current fact-checking approach is flawed as it requires human
judgment, which is hobbled by people's biases and potential lack of topical
expertise.

This is a true statement.

>A better approach may be to offer a resource page that shows every news
article on the topic, with guidelines on political leaning

...seems to just introduce another level of bias. Every "media bias" website
touts "objective analysis" while in the FAQ they admit to relying on a panel
that they assure you is 100% objective. How do you guarantee that these
ratings are not "flawed as it requires human judgment, which is hobbled by
people's biases and potential lack of topical expertise"? See: allsides.com[1]
and Media Bias Fact Check [2].

Looking at your employee page, you seem to have exactly zero employees with
any significant background in journalism. What "topical expertise" does
Factual provide that a layperson doesn't have? How do you minimize human
judgement?

This reads to me as "You shouldn't use Facebook because you're the product,
not the customer, which leads to bad incentive alignment. Use Twitter
instead."

[1] [https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-
method...](https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods) [2]
[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/)

------
TheColorYellow
"It also asks the Federal Trade Commission to report on acts of political bias
collected by the White House"

Is this not similar to the approach and actions of other large State actors
out there that hold a lot of authoritative power?

~~~
snowwrestler
The word "asks" is important here, as the FTC is an independent federal agency
and not under direct authority of the President.

------
smeeth
Of course this is being handled ham-handedly, but it seems to me that section
230 is a ludicrous piece of legislative malfeasance that allows content
publishers to duck the legal responsibilities of publishing while profiting
from behavior that is obviously publishing.

I can't see how a Twitter/FB feed is substantively different from a curated
"letters to the editor" section in a newspaper and I cannot for the life of me
understand why it is treated different legally.

Would love to hear arguments that either 1) these social media sites are not
actually publishing or 2) social media publishing is somehow different from
publishing in other media.

~~~
rbanffy
Without S230, Twitter and Facebook would not curate or moderate any content -
you'd be constantly bombarded by a torrent of spam, vitriol and
disinformation.

With S230, companies can remove the worst, most obvious ofenses without
fearing being held accountable by the things they didn't find.

~~~
smeeth
That sounds to me like the outcome of both options are:

1) Toxic, awful to use sites with no personalization (custom recommendations,
curation, etc)

2) Sites get more careful (and expensive to operate) because they don't want
to get sued.

I really doubt #1 is even a tenable business. Who uses a site like that? On
the other hand I really like the idea of more careful social media sites.

~~~
mjburgess
Under (2), I don't think it's a matter of expense. As a _publisher_ , you'd
need editorial control over all users content (literally billions of people).

A publisher platform with a billion users is untennable. There isnt enough
money or people in the world to police it.

Maybe the distinction between publishers and platforms is too archaic for
digital platforms.

------
elpool2
Eugene Volokh with some legal analysis:
[https://reason.com/2020/05/28/platform-immunity-and-
platform...](https://reason.com/2020/05/28/platform-immunity-and-platform-
blocking-and-screening-of-offensive-material/)

------
minimaxir
Official page for the EO: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/executive-or...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/)

------
davewritescode
I’d much rather platforms like Twitter just ban users who violate the TOS even
if they’re politicians. If you’ve ever followed Twitter accounts of local
politicians you can see that it provides a framework for civil debate without
restricting speech.

What our president doing is abusing opponents using his popular twitter
account as a megaphone while violating the TOS.

~~~
dariusj18
I'm of the belief part of the reason Trump ran for President in the first
place was because he knew various investigations were in action against him
and that eventually he would be prosecuted. By running for President, he
turned every illegal thing he has ever done into a political issue, instead of
a legal one.

In the US, we have a long history of allowing politicians to get away with
illegal activities in the name of not rocking the boat. Every once in a while
someone comes along and tries to use that to their advantage, and ideally the
system would punish them by media pointing out the issue and people not voting
for them. But somehow, due to some nexus of insanity, someone like Trump was
catapulted into office.

------
jmull
I wonder how upset free speech advocates will be about an executive order that
trumpets free speech but is intended to punish twitter for exercising free
speech?

Twitter responded to a message from authority by adding their own, dissenting
message, not censoring the first message.

I guess this kind of double-speak is what we can expect now.

~~~
aniro
You should read the signing statement for the CARES act.

The Executive (created to execute the laws enacted by Congress) states that
they WILL NOT execute a portion of Congressional Law (the portion that
stipulates oversight of the Executive) because they “don’t understand” and
because the Constitution has a clause stating that they (the Executive) must
execute the laws faithfully.

I think it is the patent for “what to expect moving forward”.

------
mint2
Wait, if this was somehow enforceable wouldn’t the order make Twitter liable
for trump posting misinformation essentially making them legally required to
censor or flag him?

~~~
techntoke
I think it may actually be a way to empower companies to gain more access to
information. If the companies are responsible, then they will want to sue the
users for violations and personally identify them. A side effect is that they
will have some government agency deciding what is acceptable or not. Much like
China.

~~~
knodi123
> If the companies are responsible, then they will want to sue the users for
> violations and personally identify them

I think you're drastically overestimating the profitability of a single
twitter user.

They have hundreds of millions of active users. It would probably be far
easier and more cost effective to ban every user that causes them any amount
of grief, than to investigate and potentially sue them.

~~~
techntoke
They already ban users. This change would fine companies that ban racists and
conspiracy theorist because some conservative claimed oppression of free
speech.

------
xamuel
Without any attempt to weigh in on political sides, this debate made me think
of an interesting "hack" to act as a publisher while enjoying the protections
of a platform:

1\. Start a website where users are able to write arbitrary articles.

2\. Have a bot systematically spam your site with all possible articles
(suitably limited so as to make this technically doable).

3\. Systematically weed out all the articles which are NOT equal to the
articles you _actually_ wanted to publish.

Voila, now you've published all and only the articles you wanted, and yet
you're just an innocent platform, not a publisher!

If your site is sufficiently widely used, you can even cut out step 2 and
replace it with organic human beings.

~~~
kube-system
The law isn't really hackable in the same way a machine is, because the law
isn't interpreted by a machine, it is interpreted by a court, which would take
all of the above into account when applying the law.

~~~
nullc
Bingo. At least if anyone could figure out that you were doing it (including,
e.g. discovery finding emails where you discuss it) any could would _happily_
see right through it.

------
busymom0
[https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-
history](https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history)

> The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230

> Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to
> Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)
> introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up
> becoming Section 230. The amendment specifically made sure that "providers
> of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of
> third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are
> accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of
> this liability. Section 230 had two purposes: the first was to "encourage
> the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet,"
> as one judge put it; the other was to allow online services to implement
> their own standards for policing content and provide for child safety.
> Seeing the crucial importance of the amendment, the House passed it 420-4.

"encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the
Internet," as one judge put it" is being forgotten by a lot of comments here.

EDIT: I seem to get downvoted on anything remotely political on HN. So I am
glad this EO was passed and hoping it gets enforced.

~~~
cthalupa
What's interesting is we're both reading "encourage the unfettered and
unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," and my take on it is
that yes, section 230 is there to explicitly protect Twitter under this
circumstance, and you take it as giving Trump the ability to censor them.

Thankfully, one of the authors of the section in question has actually stated
exactly what it means:
[https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456](https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456)

"As the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear: there is nothing in
the law about political neutrality. It does not say companies like Twitter are
forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president."

~~~
busymom0
Why did you ignore the part that the amendment was written by 2 people - Chris
Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Somehow you only quoted what the Democrat says but not what the Republican
says. Quite dishonest of you.

~~~
cthalupa
Because Chris Cox hasn't said anything about the issue.

They co-authored the bill. They almost certainly had similar aims when doing
so.

If there is no indication the other party has any difference in opinion, has
not spoken out to disagree with the party mentioned, and there is no real
reason to believe there would be a difference in opinion, why should I not be
allowed to quote the only explanation from an authoritative party on the
matter?

The answer is that that's perfectly allowable and that I am not being
dishonest.

------
12xo
Until the tools, devices and technology needed to access the internet are free
and universally available to all without restriction, these sites/services are
no more of a public square than a country club is a public park.

And no. A public library terminal is not universal access...

~~~
pas
Nothing is "free", there are always constraints and opportunity costs. For
example if there's a rally in DC, how many people can go there? It costs a lot
of money, they have to get time off work, organize transport and lodging, etc.

Sure, there are material differences between - let's say local politics, where
the bar is showing up at the town hall - and getting on Twitter. But that
difference is becoming more and more meaningless. Especially that the nexus of
power seems to be shifting away from the physical and more toward the
virtual/digital.

~~~
12xo
Public square. Not the Capital mall. This isnt about discourse with your
leaders, nor protests. Its about the ability to speak ones mind without THE
GOVERNMENT stifling you. That is the opposite of what Trump is trying to do
here...

The origins of both Free Speech and the so-called Public Square are closely
tied. In fact, in some nations there is literally a place to go, stand and
speak, available to anyone. In the public square. For free, not a penny of
cost, not a ounce of censorship.

If Trump felt so strong about this, he could make internet access a universal
right and then forced the ISP's and to make it available everywhere for free.
He could then subsidize the costs of the devices and assure that there was
universal access. But that's not what he wants. He wants attention and to
distract you from the horrors of his incompetent failings as a leader.

------
thoughtstheseus
Given the concentration of user-generated content on these platforms' market
regulation is needed. Twitter/Facebook have a monopoly by virtue of the
"moat". Once someone generates their own content it's only accessible through
one platform - that is a monopoly. This market needs innovation and
competition. Don't break them up just force them to compete by removing the
moat.

------
SiVal
The big problem that needs to be addressed is network effects. When the
feature that matters most to users is the presence of other users, the result
is a platform that can do all kinds of harm.

The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects
leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to
or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, they have
to be where everyone else is.

If Twitter, for example, were an open protocol that you accessed through your
ISP like email to join the world conversation, their own opinions wouldn't
matter more than anyone else's. If instead there is a single company that
decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a
castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol)
to make alternatives viable.

~~~
no-s
>>If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on
their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should
force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.

yeah, twitter could implement plug-in choose-your-own fact checking, but that
would create a scary market outside twitter's control. Since the number of
twitter users is roughly finite this could mean a reduction in attention share
to twitter proper...

------
badrabbit
How can they comply with "EARN IT" if they can't moderate and censor?

------
pengaru
What's surprising is how often I encounter fellow Americans mistakenly
asserting the first amendment extends beyond government and into the private
sector.

It's like they've never even been to a movie theater where they need to shut
the hell up or leave.

And here we have a US president signing an executive order in response to
being _moderated_ on a _web_ _site_ after years of arguably excessive
tolerance of his b.s.

I'm not sure how much more embarrassed I can get for my country.

~~~
meragrin_
Social media are the broadcasters of this age. I see no reason why they should
be exempt from the same rules and regulations as old school broadcasters.

~~~
kanox
I believe the correct model for large social media platforms (for example
above 10m users) is that of a telecom provider.

Comcast can't block CNBC or Fox and at the same time nobody assumes that
Comcast is responsible for view expressed on the networks it carries

~~~
meragrin_
Comcast pays to carry CNBC and Fox content. They can freely decline to pay the
content providers what they wish and drop their content. It is not an uncommon
occurrence.

Fox and NBC cannot provide air time for one political campaign and deny air
time for an opposing political campaign. Twitter is more like Fox and NBC
rather than Comcast.

~~~
gamblor956
Twitter is nothing like Fox and NBC, unless they've managed to pick up a
broadcast license without anyone noticing.

Fox and NBC are only required to provide political campaigns equal access
because of their licenses to exclusive use of portions of the public spectrum.

Cable channels like CNN and Fox News don't use this spectrum, and thus don't
have the same requirement. Twitter is more like a cable channel than a
broadcast station.

------
gulli1010
Does that mean we can sue Fox entertainment fake news network?

~~~
xamuel
You can already sue them. For example, if Fox runs a segment claiming that you
(gulli1010) are a murderer, you can sue them for slander (with or without this
executive order).

If someone tweets that you are a murderer, you can't sue Twitter (or rather,
if you do, Twitter will be protected by Section 230).

However, suppose Twitter announces the following policy: "Any tweet which
calls someone a murderer, shall be deleted, unless the alleged murderer is
gulli1010". Should you be allowed to sue Twitter then? That's a more nuanced
question. And what if the above policy isn't an official policy but is a de
facto policy?

~~~
techntoke
People should look into the Seth Rich lawsuit and Ed Butowsky. Trump forgets
his crowd is the one who constantly panders conspiracy theories like PizzaGate
and QAnon. This will effectively take them down entirely.

~~~
artificial
No one side has a monopoly on conspiracy theories. The Russia collusion was
something spun for years by the networks where people under oath said one
thing privately and another publicly.

~~~
adjkant
[citation needed]

~~~
techntoke
They have none except Trump's Twitter feed.

~~~
artificial
From the mouth of Richard Grenell:
[https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/126602867937061683...](https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1266028679370616834)

~~~
techntoke
A twitter post? All the intelligence agencies said their was Russia collusion.
Remember the President said... Russia, if you're listening?

------
guyxcw122
It seems like the fundamental question is: are services like Twitter and
Facebook basically utilities (like ISPs) or are they basically editorial (like
newspapers).

That is, there are some private companies, like ISPs, that are seen as part of
the basic plumbing of the internet, and which are generally not allowed to
editorialize their content (for example, through net neutrality rules).
However, there are others, like Yelp, which are seen as publishers of edited
and curated content, even if some of the content was written by users and not
the company itself.

The question is, have Twitter and Facebook (etc.) become dominant enough that
they are essentially utilities, or are they editors of content like Yelp?

~~~
holler
> dominant enough that they are essentially utilities

If that statement is true then it's a sad day in America. That means that
competition is dead and monopoly wins.

------
CMYKninja
This is a symptom of a larger problem. The Constitution and thusly the
election system is woefully out of date and needs a formal rewriting based on
a more general and modern consensus of ideas and principals. All of these
issues could be irrelevant with an updated and more precise rule of law and
government. I think we can all agree that any document which counts some
people as 3/5s needs to be reassessed.

------
GlTChWhISKY
Youtube places checks on videos for covid ... Antivax and more. How is what
twitter did any different. Why is the conversation about what twitter did and
not about Trump getting mad and using an EO to stop people from fact checking
him. Why isnt that the conversation.. I shouldnt be able to turn a radio on
and not hear how unprofessional and childish and abuse of power this truly is.

This isnt how the presidency is supposed to be used. He got mad and hes trying
to silence his critics. Enough with the twitter is right or wrong.. Publisher
vs platform. This is the conversation that needs to be had.

There is no reason an EO of this nature should be slid across the desk. A
blind judge could see hes reacting to being checked.

~~~
sfj
> This isnt how the presidency is supposed to be used. He got mad and hes
> trying to silence his critics.

There is a “reply” button underneath all of his tweets, you know?

------
gamblor956
It's basically too late.

First, the administration must formulate the rule itself. In formulating the
rule, it must also provide supporting documentation justifying the rulemaking,
which must include a record of the data looked at in deciding upon the need
for the rule, research and conclusions drawn from that data. If the research
is external to the agency, they must also justify the selection of research
used in drafting the rulemaking.

Once the proposed rule is published in the federal register, there is a
comment period of at least 60 days or up to 180 days (depending on the
complexity of the rule).

The administration must then spend time reviewing the comments. It doesn't
need to respond to comments individually but it does need to address all of
the issues raised by those comments, especially if the issues raise
constitutional concerns.

Assuming that they get that out of the way without modifying the proposed rule
(which could trigger another comment period, depending on the extent of the
changes), the final version of the rule must then be published in the federal
register.

A final rule does not take effect until at least 30 days after it is published
in the federal register. There are very few rules which can be ex post facto
(generally only rules that grant additional rights or freedoms, or which are
tax-related).

So, even assuming the the crackerjacks in the Trump Administration could get a
proposed rule out tomorrow, and review comments after the comment period in
one day, they're still looking at 92 days before the rule could take effect,
or approximately the end of August.

Note:this doesn't include challenges to the rule proceeding through the
federal court system. While SCOTUS could theoretically hear emergency appeals
to a temporary injunction or district court ruling on the merits, they've
refused to grant appeals in much less contentious cases where they ultimate
sided with the administration. If they were to do so, the ruling would come in
the middle of the electoral cycle, and it would likely result in the Democrats
taking the House, Senate, and Presidency. And then they could simply override
the rule using the APA in January.

~~~
gamblor956
Note: providing as followup comment since other is very long.

Trump's order is not rulemaking. It's just an order to the federal agencies to
start _drafting_ a rule that would strip social media companies of CDA
protection. Executive agencies have been designated the power to make
legislative rules by laws of Congress (which sets forth the required procedure
described above) but this grant does not extend to the Executive Office itself
(i.e., the president).

As the Axios article notes, a very conservative appeals court just ruled that
under the CDA, social media companies aren't public forums for first amendment
purposes, so the agencies would also have to come up with a conforming legal
justification explaining why social media platforms are public spaces or
otherwise subject to the infringement of their private first amendment rights.

------
bePoliteAlways
One more thing to consider if twitter/facebook are publisher or not is see how
they earn money? They earn money in very similar way like a publisher does, by
advertisement. Like any publisher they will want to make sure that content on
their platform is "advertiser friendly".

------
ineedasername
Seems counter productive to the President's intent. If platforms can be held
liable for user posts, that will give them a strong incentive to remove
anything at all that might even come close to giving them legal liability. So
sure, maybe changing the law (or asking the FCC to reinterpret its strictures)
would "get back" at the companies President Trump thinks are doing something
wrong to him, but the net results would be severe limitations on what he could
say on all platforms.

~~~
akersten
Then he'll claim that he's being censored even more, which is probably exactly
what he wants to do to rile up his supporters.

~~~
serpix
except his supporters won't know about it since he is censored.

~~~
billstar
The president can't be easily muted in the same way that a non-famous person
could. Good or bad, the press will parrot what he says, in any forum.

------
akersten
I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an
overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private
entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias
(which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a
disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.

~~~
partyboat1586
Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens. It's an unfortunate
state of affairs for some that it happens to be a private company with a bias.
And for better of for worse it does have a bias.

~~~
akersten
If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are
free to start their own platform. They are also free to not moderate their
platform, or even moderate it with whatever bias they so choose.

This has happened a few times (Voat, Gab) and the utopia of a hands-off
content platform has never played out to anything other than a cesspool.
Popular platforms remain popular and useful because they have the power to
make editorial decisions.

I also assert that the world is not locked in to Twitter today, just like we
were not locked in to Digg a decade ago. Users will flock elsewhere if they
sense a need.

~~~
dvt
> If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they
> are free to start their own platform.

This is, of course, disingenuous. It's like saying, just a monolithic railroad
company was about to bulldoze your house in the mid 1800s, "If you're
discontent, you can always start your own railroad company." We're dealing
with a complex system of interconnected motivations. "Start your own Twitter"
is an anti-solution.

~~~
javagram
Wrong, because no one is bulldozing your house.

You’re on a street with a 100 houses and one of them is having a cool party.
But the cool kids don’t like you and don’t want you in their house. The other
99 houses (Gab, Mastodon, theDonald.win , bulletin boards, etc.) welcome you
in, but you don’t think their owners are cool and don’t want to hang with
them.

Should the government force the owner of the cool party house to let you hang
with the cool kids?

Many would say that violates freedom of association.

------
wnevets
Really curious to hear the rational from supposedly small government
republicans

~~~
orblivion
Some of them disagree with this thankfully.

But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly
finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

~~~
creato
Uh... are "progressives" opposed to private businesses having rights?

~~~
uberduper
Depends what they're doing with those rights. See Citizens United vs FEC.

------
dmode
100k Americans are dead from COVID. There are riots happening in Minnesota.
And here we are debating the latest oxygen sucking attention grab by our
reality TV president. Let's ignore him

------
refurb
As a random thought, I’ll bet Twitter leadership is absolutely frantic right
now figuring out next steps.

I’ve been on that side before and it’s not pretty! Lots of long nights for
those folks.

------
MintelIE
When the social media executives got before Congress and lied their asses off
they must have suspected that something like this might happen in the future.

------
foobarbazetc
That’s nice. Too bad there are laws and a constitution.

------
ilaksh
Again, parallel universes.

For half of the people out there, believe it or not, this is Trump sticking up
for people's free speech on Twitter.

For the other half, this is Trump attempting to eliminate free speech on
Twitter and other places.

In my opinion, eliminating the protections could have a negative effect on
free speech. But it also seems like a very bad outcome in general for the
companies that they would want to avoid. So it seems like this is being used
as a threat to try to get them to take free speech more seriously, so they can
avoid that policing.

Another thing is the website or whatever collecting instances of censorship.
That seems to indicate that they are genuinely trying to help reduce
censorship. Does it not?

------
chasing
All because Twitter dared to fact check him.

~~~
onetimemanytime
devil's advocate: why doesn't Twitter fact check everyone? Twitter is picking
sides on a comment made by a user so they should be held liable for that
content

~~~
ddoolin
Twitter isn't a public right. He chooses to use their platform so they choose
to annotate his lies. I don't see how this executive order would even change
exactly what started the whole thing.

~~~
friedman23
People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block
all communication maybe they should be.

~~~
evan_
How does adding a link prevent anyone, let alone the most powerful person in
history, from communicating?

------
fortran77
I think this executive order is an abuse of power.

However, I do think Twitter could have handled it differently. For example,
every time you're looking at posts from _any_ blue-checked elected official,
perhaps links could show up on the right hand side column for several fact-
check websites. It would be nice to have arrangements with major newspapers,
both left and right leaning, so un-paywalled news analysis can be one click
away, too. This would help some people who truly want to be better informed.

------
xmly
Why is this the First Amendment issue? Trump was not blocked from tweeting.
Twitter just added one small sign next to his tweets.

Even Trump owns his tweets and Twitter owns the rest of the webpage.

~~~
_-david-_
It doesn't have anything to do with blocking Trump or fact checking him. It
has to do with bias against conservatives. Trump had talked about this well
before he was fact checked.

From a few days ago (prior to Trump being fact checked):
[https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/23/21268433/president-
trump-...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/23/21268433/president-trump-
conservative-bias-social-media-twitter-facebook-google)

------
say_it_as_it_is
How can these changes improve social media? Is there a silver lining here?

------
growlist
If it were the other way round, the media would be howling for regulation.

------
madballster
For a second I thought this was a headline from Iran or Russia.

------
amalcon
Ignoring the mechanical-legal aspects of what Section 230 already does, the
discourse on this has been a shining example of logically inconsistent
philosophy.

The _Citizens United v. FEC_ decision indicates that corporations have free
speech rights similar to those of individuals. Logically, if you agree with
that part of the decision, then you should also agree that the government
can't punish Twitter for doing this, and vice versa.

Yet very few people seem to hold either of those combinations of views. There
are a few principled civil libertarians who are fine with both super-PACs and
what Twitter did here. There are a few principled fair campaign advocates who
think it's theoretically permissible, if inadvisable, for the government to
stop what Twitter did here.

Most people seem to take one of the inconsistent positions.

~~~
nullc
This tension comes from the fact that there don't exist any "traditional
public forum" online. __All __venues online are private spaces, yet some act
as extremely convincing replicas of public spaces.

While I don't agree with this weird S230 opposition, the general sentiment
that people expect to have a similar protection for free speech that they
enjoy in our public squares, street corners, libraries and parks in the online
alternatives to these things... isn't really a crazy one.

It's also a tenshion that exists in offline form. Increasingly there are
gigantic public "downtown" areas which are privately owned (on land taken from
the public through eminent domain then sold to developers), where people's
free speech is heavily curtailed.

The general idea that just because the physical manifestation (or legal
structure) behind our traditional public spaces is changing our effective
right to free speech shouldn't change seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Also the general idea that twitter itself should automatically be free from
regulation in how it restricts others due to its own free speech seems
extremely specious to me. Twitter is a business, it operates to make money.
While businesses have free speech right, commercial operations have a strictly
lower level of rights in many areas. Twitter has only refrained from banning
the president, who regularly and flagrantly violates their rules, because he
makes them money. If twitter consisted primarily of its owners speech no one
would visit it. It is effectively a place of public accommodation and its
value stems entirely from the public's use of it. We traditionally impose
significant regulation on how private businesses that serve the public
operate, including extensive rules ensuring equality of access and against
discrimination.

This executive order seems pretty foolish overall. But a law that set a
threshold where a service like twitter become a "public forum"\-- places where
the public use is the whole point-- and they had to meet a much higher
standard when they wanted to silence people or ideas (beyond "our AI picked
you at random, tough luck") and had provide effective modes of redress might
be important to preserving people's effective freedom of speech in the long
run.

------
divbzero
Post and discussion of the actual executive order:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23343313](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23343313)

------
coliveira
Another example of blatant political use of the justice system. If a company
becomes a problem to the Trump regime, they will use the full array of
existing laws to prosecute them, at the same time when they are dismantling
legislation that targets their allies.

------
zmmmmm
What I find weird here is that the president is transparently stating that he
is doing this to help is own political interests. I would have hoped that any
presidential action exercising executive power (of any kind) with the stated
intent to influence his own electoral chances in an imminent election would be
considered an illegal act, based on intent alone.

It is not dissimilar to the original immigration bans where they were struck
down initially because Trump openly expressed the intent that they were
designed to achieve an outcome based on race, even though in technical
implementation an argument could be made that they were not.

------
xmly
Why is this the First Amendment issue? Trump was not blocked from tweeting.
Twitter just added one small sign next to his tweets.

Even Trump owns his tweets' content and Twitter owns the rest of the webpage.

------
hedora
If I worked at Twitter, I’d write this below his tweet on the subject:

Fact check: As a member of the executive, not legislative branch, Trump does
not have the authority to modify existing legislation.

------
courtf
Twitter, Facebook etc created this problem (exemplified by Trump) and continue
to benefit from it. Social media has significantly amplified expressions
outrage and taken an active role in spreading those messages, which in turn
has given rise to all manner of demagogues and populists. If the day ever
comes that these companies are forced to atone for the corrosive effect they
have had on discourse and politics all over the world, it can't happen to a
more deserving group.

------
sizzle
Make social media a public utility

------
nautilus12
Asking obvious question: Who's building/has built the block chain based,
untamperable twitter alternative?

------
smkellat
After just under four years of scorched earth resistance we now get this new
EO. I am only surprised he waited this long.

~~~
kthxbye123
And to think, just this morning you were claiming the text of this order was
probably a forgery because it was so shoddy and inconsistent.

~~~
smkellat
I used to work at a sub-cabinet bureau that had much, much higher standards
than we’re seeing out of the executive mansion now. I’m disappointed.

------
thewindowmovie2
Is it not the case that the fact checking is not going to change any of
Trump's followers? If all the bullshit that he has been spewing over all these
years has not deterred his followers, showing facts will not. It is been clear
that Trump's only agenda is to make people turn against each other and profit
from it and he will keep using any chance he gets to do that.

~~~
pas
There are many people who are new on the Internet, or simply doesn't know much
about politics, etc.

I think adding context, trying to be more rational (even and especially with
using tools/technology) is something everyone, who isn't so lucky as to have
been born into a life of careless dumbness, values.

------
kbenson
You know, it would be pretty funny if Twitter banned Trump's account because
of some TOS terms have or something. If he actually causes them enough
problems over this such that they are already paying for it, it might be worth
it as a power play on their part.

Trump definitely depends on Twitter far more than Twitter depends on Trump. He
could move to Facebook/Instagram, but I just don't see that being a move he
would want to do, partly because the type of communication doesn't seem to be
the same, and partly because it would be a _huge_ admission of defeat, where
he couldn't bully a person or company into doing what he wanted.

Twitter would likely see a big dip in usage, at least for a short period, as
some Trump loyalists boycotted it, but I imagine a lot of them would be back.
There's also the rights of a private companies to control their own service
which is a traditional Republican belief, but I doubt that would matter much,
as the current political climate doesn't seem conducive to politicians
adhering to past beliefs, not matter whcih side of the divide they are on.

~~~
holler
why would Twitter ban their most popular user? not in a million years... they
need him just as much as he needs them.

~~~
kbenson
> they need him just as much as he needs them.

Not if he's threatening their business, and I think you overestimate how much
Trump brings to Twitter. I'm sure he drives a level and engagement and
discourse, but that's still going to be there to a large degree even if his
account isn't. It's not like people aren't posting news clips about him from
other websites all the time.

Trump is one of many thousands of popular people driving engagement on
Twitter, even if he's high up on the list (but he doesn't have the most
followers, he's not even in the top 5 apparently.[1]) On the other hand,
Twitter is the one preferred platform for Trump to speak to his followers.
Press briefings and official statements are a distant second. The fact that he
announced his official plans to counterattack Twitter on Twitter first says it
all.

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-
followed_Twitter_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-
followed_Twitter_accounts)

~~~
holler
> Twitter is the one preferred platform for Trump to speak to his followers

Funny you mention that, Trump doesn't realize the real power he has to help
solve his own problem AND benefit the rest of us, is by lending his voice to a
different platform. If, like me, you believe the solution to the stranglehold
that the current social cartel has had for the past decade is to build new,
competing platforms, and encourage their growth, then it's easy to see how
getting Trump to use a different site would be beneficial, regardless of what
he's spewing.

~~~
kbenson
> If, like me, you believe the solution to the stranglehold that the current
> social cartel has had for the past decade is to build new, competing
> platforms, and encourage their growth

I think that's half of it. The other is a lot of time. It seems pretty clear
to me that different age groups use social media in different ways, and I'm
not sure it's a behavior that stays with the cohort as it ages, or is
associated with that age itself.

My teenage children use whatever social network they feel like and don't
really care for Facebook or Twitter. Does that change as they get older, or
does it mean that in 10-20 years those companies will be less relevant (unless
they buy the up-and-comers, like Facebook did with Instagram)?

I think Trump definitely has the ability to put that to the test though, and
that you're right in that he's got a lot of pull to cause at least a short
term shift based on the narrative he expresses.

------
rwhitman
Biting the hand that feeds him. I think this is a strategic miscalculation.

------
bosswipe
In a world without Section 230 Twitter would be more likely to censor Trump to
avoid liability for what he says. But I think the real goal to intimidate
platforms into allowing right-wing disinformation propaganda, it's disgusting
behavior from a president.

------
atian
Where there is liquidity, you mustn't mess where it wants to go.

------
disordinary
It's sad but the internet has a lot to answer for, the ability for us to
access unfiltered and blatantly false information and for it to appear no
different to peer reviewed and true information is leading humanity to
disaster. Ideally we'd be able to have a chain of trust of information, the
same way we have a chain of trust for certificates, with peer reviews from
experts giving credence to articles and statements.

Some stuff is plausible but wrong, like taking certain antiviral drugs to
combat Covid. Others completely defy everything we know about physics, like 5G
spreading Covid. And some stuff is true, like staying at home breaking the
chain of transmission. But people believe all of the above and none of the
above appear different or are treated differently on social media sites.

Some of the opinions and statements that influential people say are dangerous
and either harm directly or cause others to harm and a lot of them build on
existing divisions further breaking apart our communities.

A few days ago we had an earthquake in my home city, our liberal prime
minister was having a live interview when it happened. On news sites when they
played the interview the comments were full of people saying it was Trump
blowing up tunnels which were being used to traffic children as sex slaves by
the liberal government.

That's obviously insane, not least because I live on a group of islands 3,000
kilometres away from the next country and that's one hell of a tunnel, but
also because that's not a thing that governments do in transparent and well
run democracies.

Unfortunately there's a subset of the population who are unstable and prone to
believe anything, and the fact that it's discredited probably drives them to
believe it more. But there's a much larger subset who are susceptible to
arguments but not critical of them and may be more inclined to see reason if
given information backing that up.

So, the question is how do you debunk blatant falsehoods while still balancing
peoples freedom to believe what they want.

------
dmode
Can someone just give me a magic potion where I don't have to hear about Trump
and his daily antics anymore ? This guy sucks the oxygen out of everything
without adding any value to humanity

------
AzzieElbab
Let us all hope Trump does not get into WoW. But seriously, politicians and
journalists have openly called for twitter to ban Trump and I am sure there is
more going on behind the scenes

------
kgwxd
A rule like that would effectively ensured Trump won't have an internet
platform. No company wants to be liable for the content he posts.

------
seanwilson
> "Currently, social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented
> viability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which
> they are not," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We are fed up with it. It is
> unfair, and it's been very unfair."

What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why
journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with
"many people are saying" style statements.

~~~
akersten
He has no examples, it's just word salad.

The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of
the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying
to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but
they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current
law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."

~~~
w3mmpp
> "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."

At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current
situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for
business.

~~~
akersten
I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all.

Some prominent _conservatives_ have been banned from the platform, like Alex
Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it was for
spreading outright lies about Sandy Hook.

Diving deeper into almost any of the examples that people dig up as 'anti-
conservative bias' reveals trolling, hateful attacks, or other bad behavior,
completely independent of the author's political views, and earnestly
deserving of removal.

~~~
w3mmpp
> I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all.

Are you a conservative yourself?

I'm gonna take a guess that you are not so how would you know?

It's a real question, no trick.

~~~
fzeroracer
My counter argument to yours is that Twitter has a major anti-progressive
bias. This can be shown by the number of people that have been banned due to
responding against racism.

Since you're not a progressive, you can't counter my claim as there's no way
you would know about any anti-progressive bias.

~~~
w3mmpp
Indeed I wouldn't dare, I don't follow any progressives (I think), don't read
their tweets, don't get the recommendations they do etc.

Now I can tell you as a conservative, because I experience it every day.

------
aazaa
This action concerns, among other things, U.S. Code § 230.

> Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name
> for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of
> Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230.
> Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users
> of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by
> third-party users ...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

Through his action, the president appears to be directing the executive branch
to use a more narrow interpretation of Section 230 than has been used
previously:

> ... Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow
> into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the
> guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those
> behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and
> silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service
> provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet
> the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.
> It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly
> lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed
> to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online
> provider.

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-
or...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-
preventing-online-censorship/)

(c)(2)(A) reads:

> (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive
> material

> (2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service
> shall be held liable on account of—

> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
> availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene,
> lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise
> objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
> or

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230)

To summarize, the president is directing his administration to disregard "Good
Samaritan" protections for services that don't strictly meet the exception
given in (c)(2)(A).

The phrases "good faith" and "otherwise objectionable" seem broad enough to
allow just about any form of censorship a company might want to engage in,
while continuing to enjoy Good Samaritan protection.

If so, what exactly does the administration gain here?

------
gok
The nice thing about Trump having the emotional self control of a toddler is
that we don't have to wonder if this was really part of some larger plan. We
know without a doubt that this was because Twitter subtly showed him an ounce
of disrespect. Tech companies should therefore realize the futility of trying
to negotiate with this administration.

------
anon776
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it Twitters first amendment right to
respond to Trump's tweets? Does not seem like this is censorship to me.

------
gkoberger
"There's nothing I'd rather do than get rid of my whole Twitter account." \-
Trump

He doesn't care about the truth, and is trying to take advantage of our desire
for neutrality and free speech to push lies. It's possible for us to be
nuanced, and not let him ruin Twitter/Facebook/etc with bad-faith arguments.

------
fortran77
Maybe Hacker News should post factchecking links under every Rustlang post.

~~~
effable
"fortran 77" \- username checks out.

On a more serious note, I have been dipping my toes into Rust and it seems
fun. I suppose, I'll have a more considered opinion of it once I actually
build something substantial with it.

------
Normille
It's not often I side with Donald Trump on anything. But I think it's high
time, the likes of Twitter, Facebook et al got a good kicking.

To be fair, the problem is not with the sites themselves. They are private
companies and [within the law] can do whatever the hell they like with regard
to who can use their platforms and what they can say while doing so.

The problem is that these type of sites [and especially Twitter] have been
elevated by the rest of the world and transformed from being outlets for
vacuous chatter into being the official conduit for 'news', for any lazy
journalist who can't be bothered to research a story properly.

Even on such esteemed organisations as the BBC and Reuters, it's becoming
increasingly common to see news articles in which the 'sources' are little
more than lists of what various parties said on Twitter. And on a smaller and
even local level, more and more companies are only contactable through their
Twitter accounts or Facebook pages. I even got message from the UK
Government's unemployment service a few days ago, informing me that they would
be announcing nee vacancies on their Twitter account, from now on.

Now, as I said, that's not Twitter or Facebook's fault. It's the rest of the
worlds fault for increasingly elevating them to this pseudo-official status.
But it does create the situation whereby anyone who's not on Twitter or
Facebook is increasingly disenfranchised from having their viewpoint heard or
from participating in the great and small issues of the day.

And what if Twitter or Facebook decide to ban a user or suspend an account?
That user has no recourse but to plead with the company in question to
reinstate them, which is entirely arbitrary decision. There is no legal
recourse, as there would be if some authority tried to remove a person's vote
or to ban them from speaking, writing or otherwise putting forward their
opinions in the 'real world'.

As chance would have it, I've run into this myself. About a year ago, I logged
into my Twitter account to find that it had been suspended as had my business
Twitter account --with no reason given and nothing that I had done [that I can
see] to have justified this. I never verbally attacked anyone or posted
anything dodgy. I can only think my accounts were mistakenly caught up in one
of Twitter's periodic automated sweeps, after which they proudly announce
they've removed X-million bot accounts.

The only recourse is to fill in a form asking them to review the account
suspension. Which, needless to say results in nothing but an autoreply,
assigning you a case number. And then... nothing.

Likewise, as chance would have it, just today I logged into a Facebook page
I'd set up for my business to find a message saying that had been suspended
for "suspicious activity". Again, nothing I can see that i've done that could
possibly justify that. In fact, I don't do FB at all. So I don't even interact
with that account apart from to occasionally post links to the latest 'thing'
I've made and am selling on Amazon. I've not even added any friends to my FB
account, so I couldn't have 'offended' any one! In order to lift that
suspension I was asked to verify my mobile phone number [OK... with great
reluctance] and then upload a photograph of myself, so they can 'verify' me
[WTF? Am i applying for a passport to the fucking internet now?

Now, I know those last few paragraphs sound like I'm just whining and crying
because I can't use Twitter or Facebook any more. I'm honestly not. I couldn't
give a flying f __k about either of them. I only created accounts on both
because [as I intimated above], with the state of the internet today, we 've
arrived at a point, where, for a lot of people, Twitter and Facebook ARE the
internet. It's where they talk to their friends, where they arrange their
social lives, where they do their shopping, where they read their news, where
they run their businesses and where they exist online. So, sometimes, you've
just got to swallow the rising vomit and at least establish a token presence
there, just so people know you exist.

Anyway, given that's the state we're in, should all that vast mass of human
commerce and interaction be dependent on the whims of a couple of monstrously
rich individuals and a couple of monstrously rich corporations? It's a
toughie.

On the one hand, I'm generally opposed to government interference in how
people run their lives or their businesses. On the other hand, I believe in
freedom of expression and freedom of access to the media and the government,
which isn't dispensed or withheld at the whim of a few individuals.

------
t0mas88
How long until a few big tech companies move their headquarters to Dublin and
wish mr Trump good luck in ever collecting any more taxes from them?

Or maybe Brussels like the Eclipse foundati did?

------
ForHackernews
Good. Here's hoping Trump and the social media companies destroy each other.
May a better world rise from the metaphoric ashes.

------
nsajko
From day one it seemed to me like Trump's main goal was desecrating the
federal state institutions. Seriously, the guy seems as if he cares only about
stepping on the constitution and laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't
POTUS executive orders only serve to direct the federal government, his
employees? Twitter is definitely not a federal agency. Why are a lot of people
treating this situation like Trump is able to circumvent the legislative
branch?

~~~
codezero
Part of the premise is directing the agencies not to spend money on those
platforms that violate the EO.

~~~
nsajko
But does the US government even now buy any of Twitter's advertisement?

~~~
codezero
I don’t know. Would be a pretty shallow threat if not maybe?

------
archagon
To repeat my comment from a different thread:

If we accept corporations as people, I wish some of the ones with actual power
had the backbone to do a bit of civil disobedience, instead of rolling over at
the first sign of trouble. Twitter should double down and add a fact-check
sticker to every single Trump lie, past and current — to hell with lawsuits
and the FCC. Otherwise, we'll "maybe parts of this sound reasonable" our way
straight into a goose-stepping, thought-shaping, Republican-ruled
dictatorship. Surely, even the people who scoffed at this idea a few years ago
can see this future taking shape.

I am aghast that there's _any_ support for this in the once-countercultural
Silicon Valley. It's abhorrent and shameful, and it makes me fear that maybe
the gravity well is already too large to escape. Meanwhile, people like
Zuckerberg and Musk are tripping over themselves to appease the ruling party.

(Just a reminder that earlier today, Trump retweeted a video declaring that
"the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat." I suppose this is one of those
good old fashioned Republican values that our liberal bias works so hard to
suppress.)

------
mesozoic
Unfortunately I've found axios to be too biased (largely by omission) to be
reliable.

------
corrupt_measure
Staying focused on the actual details of the tweet that spurred this order,
Twitter's response highlights the problems inherent with content moderation.

There are hundreds of documented cases of people being convicted of mail in
ballot voter fraud. In Paterson NJ there was an all mail election recently
that is causing significant problems. I shudder at the thought of that playing
out on a national scale.

Yet in spite of those facts, Twitter feels that Trump's warnings are somehow
wrong. In light of the facts I think his fear is justified.

Twitter is a private company but we restrict the activities of private
companies all the time. I see no reason why we shouldn't have a serious
conversation about placing special restrictions on internet platforms' ability
to censor users.

------
techntoke
Hurry up and finish a fast decentralized anonymous web before the US turns
into China.

~~~
ordu
It wouldn't be China. In China there is truth, truth and only truth. The truth
approved by government. US turns not into China, but into Russia, where there
is no truth, only lies. Literally. Because the only way to categorize all
sayings into truth and lies is to pick some political side and stick to it.
One cannot believe to any authority: politicians, scientists, journalists,
government officials... they are all lying. Some probably are not, but you
have no ways to find out who is.

------
marcell
I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading
into murky territory with their actions.

Twitter's "fact check" singles out a specific Trump tweet. It's clearly a
human intervention by Twitter staff, not user generated content. The subject
of Trump's tweet was a political dispute, and while Trump certainly had false
statements in his tweet, that's basically par for the course on Twitter.

This raises a bunch of questions. Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his
false statements? If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements
about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact
checks and warning labels?

We have seen this also with the coronavirus breakout. Medium and other
publishers removed posts based that were sanguine data analysis (nothing
inflammatory) because they were against the prevailing media sentiment. For
example this Medium post [1] was removed based on its content. It did not
contain anything inflammatory, violent, or otherwise unsavory. Medium just
didn't like what it said.

At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion
platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative
(like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.). They are certainly within
their rights do curate/moderate their platform, but if this continues, we need
to start thinking of these companies less like user driven platforms, and more
like opinionated publishers.

[1]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200321144004/https:/medium.com...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200321144004/https:/medium.com/six-
four-six-nine/evidence-over-hysteria-covid-19-1b767def5894)

~~~
JustSomeNobody
> Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements?

They aren't. They've labeled other tweets before.

> If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics
> (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning
> labels?

Presumably, yes.

~~~
epistasis
Economics is quite different than election interference, so I'm not sure that
Twitter would make any "fact check" statements when it comes to economics.

The idea of "facts" in economics can't extend very far beyond metics and other
numbers, as most of the rest is up to vigorous theoretical, political debate.
If this original poster is so keen on fact checking the "economics" of a
certain political sides, it seems likely that they are not concerned with
actual facts but rather deeply held theoretical and political beliefs that
they have elevated to "fact" status.

------
lgleason
A good documentary that outlines how social media becomes more of a publisher
is The Creepy Line.
[https://www.thecreepyline.com/](https://www.thecreepyline.com/) The movement
to rein in the abuse of Section 230 has been going on for a while, but is
finally starting to pick up steam. Odds are, given that this is an election
year, they had this ready to go in the background if Twitter tried pulling
something like they did yesterday, which is why it only took a day be signed.

------
buboard
_> Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into
titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of
promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket
immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints
that they dislike_

About time. Social media should have been commoditized and decentralized by
now, joining the group of email, DNS etc. Social media companies enjoyed
milking free user content for 15 years, it's about time people take hold of
their own intellectual property in the fediverse.

------
ComputerGuru
Another source with some remarks from a Democrat FCC commissioner:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-s...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-
social-media-executive-order/)

~~~
raldi
Democrat is not an adjective.

~~~
cardiffspaceman
It's a common usage, but mainly among non-Democrats. And it's not a
compliment.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_\(epithet\))

~~~
ComputerGuru
You’re barking up the wrong tree. I wrote “democratic,” thought it looked
wrong as it seemed more the adjective of “Democracy” rather than “member of
the Democratic Party,” didn’t want to look it up on my phone because I cannot
multitask for the life of me on my iPhone, and there you go.

Anyway, you do realize that the very fact that I was linking to "here's what
someone in a position to challenge or at least refuse to enforce this inanity"
implies that I'm scarcely trying to side with the party backing the trigger-
happy president, right?

~~~
runeb
You felt the need to refer to someone as a proponent of democracy?

~~~
ComputerGuru
Other way around, obviously.

------
efitz
I would love to see a law that for corporations, once the corporation exceeds
some commercial threshold (e.g. 1M customers or 10M/year revenue or whatever)
then you are no longer allowed to discriminate against your users for any
reason other than violation of non-discriminatory terms of service.

I don't think that companies that achieve near-monopoly status should have the
right to arbitrarily cancel, shadow ban, hide from search, delete content,
flag content, "fact check", label, or otherwise interfere with users' use of
the service.

This is not a "free speech" issue, it's a "when you have monopoly power and
positioning in the market, there are no alternatives" issue. Visa refusing to
process CC payments because they don't like your politics, is not a power that
I want them to have.

If you're a tiny boutique company, discriminate to your heart's content. When
you get big, I don't want you to have that power anymore. If you don't like
it, then eschew the current fashion of companies to value growth over all
else.

~~~
ianferrel
I'm not sure I agree with this, though I think it's an interesting idea.

The threshold you've suggested seems way too low. 1M customers or $10M/year
revenue isn't "near-monopoly", it's barely a player in the game.

~~~
efitz
Completely fair, and maybe the idea isn’t the right way to do it, but I am
frustrated with the cancel power that many companies wield in our society and
hadn’t seen this proposed anywhere. And corporations are controlled by people,
usually a small number of people with unbelievable ability to wield power:

[https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5839cf32e4b000af95ee5b68](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5839cf32e4b000af95ee5b68)

------
admiralspoo
This is long overdue. Social media companies grew their networks without
censorship, but when they got sufficient monopoly and network power started
censoring generally only in one direction.

~~~
jrockway
Here's how it breaks down for this particular case. People are afraid to vote
because they don't want to get COVID-19 while standing in line waiting at the
polls. So states are letting people vote by mail. The problem with that is
that Republicans tend to lose elections when everyone who is allowed to vote
votes. So Trump, in an attempt to win the election, is sowing seeds of
discontent with regards to mail-in ballots, claiming that fraud will be
widespread. The goal is to get people to pressure states to not allow voting
by mail, thus suppressing votes from people scared about COVID-19 (which tend
to be poorer people that can't afford a $200,000 hospital stay), and thus
leading to a Trump reelection. Twitter has stepped in to say "hey, voting by
mail is not a new thing and there wasn't really a lot of fraud".

That is not censoring a conservative viewpoint. It's just giving people some
facts. Here's Trump's opinion, here's some data, make your own decision.

I am sure that if Joe Biden started tweeting random conspiracy theories,
Twitter would fact check those. But he doesn't, so we don't get to see that in
action. Just because a conservative person in power tends to lie and start
conspiracy theories on social media, doesn't mean the platform is biased
against conservatives. It just means that they're not going to publish
falsehoods without a little asterisk.

------
obilgic
Some days I just have trouble getting out of bed, he is over 70 years old I'm
just fascinated with his agile work and energy to fight anything that comes
against him. His choices are debatable abut That is definitely some form of
leadership.

~~~
serpix
leadership is definitely not the word I would associate with this individual.

