
Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor - sharemywin
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891
======
chapium
This feels like blowing smoke into the media to distract from the two
headlines this week. Economic numbers are being hidden because they are
unflattering and US has passed 100k deaths.

~~~
pm90
Maybe. But it seems like the current POTUS is completely uninterested in the
job of Governing but takes delight in so called Culture Wars.

------
Vvector
It appears the route the Administration will take is removing CDA 230
protection status for Twitter. CDA 230 protects Twitter from being held
legally responsible for hosting the comments of the users. Without the 230
shield, anyone could sue Twitter for a comment they didn't like. The cost of
defending these lawsuits alone would bury Twitter in legal expenses.

IMO, such an executive order will be challenged in court, as there is no case
law that supports the CDA 230 removal.

[https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic](https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/infographic)

~~~
ryandvm
I don't get it. The entire CDA 230 thing strikes me as a kludge to begin with.

CDA 230 protects social media platforms from being sued for content submitted
by their users, but why in the hell is this even an issue in the first place?
We don't have laws that allow me to sue Walmart if somebody in Walmart says
something libelous about me. Why are social media platforms at particular risk
for this?

~~~
basch
Because their servers are the ones hosting, propagating, and broadcasting the
messages. They are the ones serving the messages to readers.

~~~
ryandvm
Okay, but if somebody send me a death threat via FedEx, it's not FedEx's
fault. How did we end up in the situation where there's even a legal precedent
for companies to be liable for the things their users do? Is there a legal
precedent? Does CDA 230 solve a problem that doesn't exist?

------
uberman
Twitter should politely respond by closing his account

~~~
pgrote
>Twitter should politely respond by closing his account

I've thought about this in the past. Why wouldn't they begin closing accounts
they think are troublesome? There is no legal right to a twitter account.
Except for public blowback, what would the net result be for twitter?

~~~
deweller
High profile individuals would think twice about using Twitter as a means of
communication. Users would go to the platform that has the content they want.

This would be a loss for Twitter. They need Trump as much (or more) than he
needs them.

~~~
taylodl
Maybe not. I stopped using Twitter because they allow Trump to say whatever he
wants without consequence and I _refuse_ to use Twitter until they treat Trump
the same as everyone else. So there's that.

------
pgrote
The method in which he is handling it is wrong, I think.

I get twitter, youtube, facebook, et. al. have their own rules and enforce
them. The sites couldn't exist without the protections of Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act. Their rules arguably work for something like porn
(which never seems to make it past youtube filters) and threats of violence.
What makes less sense to me is the arbitrary method in which opinions based
posts are handled.

It becomes clearer when you see the newly (last 2 years) rules enforced when
you realize it is advertising driving it all. If something rises to the level
of impacting advertising, action is taken.

They are censoring not to make political points; they cannot do that for
threat of losing 320 protection. They do it to protect revenue, which as
public companies they have to do.

~~~
maallooc
It's a difficult question and I welcome the President's move because it will
contribute to us with finding an answer how to deal with this kind of problem.

Even though I don't think there's a mail vote fraud / the vaccine causes
autism / the pandemic is planned etc. etc. but he has a point.

------
Miner49er
IANAL, but my understanding is that this would make it so that social media
sites are more liable when they remove posts, so they need to be more careful
in what they remove? Certain things should still be fine to remove (content
that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable), but they'll have to tread more carefully then before
or risk being classified as a publisher and risk being sued?

~~~
insickness
The delineation would be a legal foundation for removing posts rather than
their discretion.

------
mempko
You either believe social networks are like malls or like public parks. In a
mall, you can't say whatever you want, you get kicked out because it's private
property. In a park, you won't get kicked out.

If you believe social networks are like public parks, then they should be
owned like public parks no?

~~~
gremlinsinc
you run around naked in a public park you'll still get kicked out or thrown in
jail.

~~~
cabalamat
And if you say things that the law says you can't say on social media, you
should be stopped.

Note I said "the law", which is created by the democratic process (in theory
anyway. Stop laughing at the back.) This is as opposed to the whims of a
private company.

As for what things the law should forbid you from saying, that's another
matter, and orthogonal to this one.

------
dang
Many threads on this. Some with comments:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=trump%20executive%20order%20comments%3E0&sort=byDate&type=story)

At this point we should probably wait until something actually happens, and
then hopefully the discussion will have details to be grounded in.

------
taylodl
So? The president can sign all the executive orders he wants but if they
infringe on your constitutional rights, which this one appears to be in
violation of the First Amendment, then they're null and void. Oh sure, there's
a legal hassle, but the companies he's going after have deep pockets to fight
those legal battles and a vested interest in doing so.

------
Krasnol
We live in weird times where words like "censor" lose all the weight they had
and should have these times when they are being misused to describe
moderation.

We live in times where governments use censorship on wide scale for dangerous
means. Mixing both things here is an insult for those who suffer under true
censorship.

------
pchristensen
This article explains how it would probably work opposite of his goals -
[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-
executive-...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-executive-
order-social-media-liability-twitter-shadow-ban-bias-fact-check.html)

Basically, if content companies become liable for the content their users
post, they will have to become much more heavy handed in what they remove.
Trump has benefited more than anyone from how little social media companies
actually police content.

~~~
pm90
I don’t think the current POTUS is smart enough to see it either way, but
counterpoint: who prosecutes the offenses? FBI? DOJ? Both are lead by people
abbointed by the current POTUS and have been beaten down into submission to
his authoritarian impulses. If a lawsuit is brought, ultimately it would end
up in SCOTUS, which also has a 5-4 majority in his favor.

So IMO this is going to let him continue to abuse social media to spread
conspiracy theories while incentivizing social media companies to remove or
ban users that even slightly tie the line, or invent rules and accuse such
users of breaking them.

American institutions are not as strong as people think. They are squishy
organizations manned by humans; and thus they can be corrupted. All of this
stuff is very well studied by the way, it is straight out of the authoritarian
playbook.

For those who want to argue the other way, consider the simple fact that he
has not divested of his private businesses and continues to profit
spectacularly from them and it’s not even on the news anymore.

~~~
Vvector
> but counterpoint: who prosecutes the offenses?

CDA 230 protects Twitter against lawsuits for content their users post.
Without 230, anyone who felt libeled (i.e. Joe Scarborough) could sue Twitter
in civil court.

------
johndevor
We need a popular, distributed Twitter where people can choose what they want
and we can put this to rest.

~~~
happytoexplain
Multiple platforms of this kind exist. And I'm _glad_ they exist. But there's
obviously a reason no one of them becomes mega-popular. This paradox is the
biggest obstacle for the practical free speech argument (as opposed to the
legal one).

------
untog
This is so thoroughly depressing. There is a very real need for a debate about
the place social networks have in the spread of misinformation, but no-one
wanted to have it. Now we will anyway, but by debating it in the most
hysterical terms possible. No good will come of it.

~~~
pjc50
The ouroboros bites itself; having escalated all other debates to the most
hysterical terms, and allowed the injection of far higher volumes of nonsense
than it's feasible to fact-check, the fate of Twitter is going to be decided
in that febrile environment.

The success of Twitter after the Arab Spring was that it became a revolution-
causing technology. The downside of that is that it can cause a revolution
whether you need one or not, and the outcomes of revolutions are usually much
worse in the short term and often in the longer term.

(I note this is already flagged off the HN front page!)

~~~
bloogsy
> the outcomes of revolutions are usually much worse in the short term and
> often in the longer term

This is a pretty strong and unfounded statement. Would we even have the
relatively free and democratic societies we exist in now without the
revolutions of centuries past?

~~~
pjc50
The US is a bit biased by considering its revolution a great success - which
it was, for the white population. There was never a wholesale slave revolt,
but the revolt of the slaveowners was successfully suppressed.

Conversely the UK never had a popular revolution and transitioned to
constitutional monarchy (eg also Sweden).

France was very bad in the medium term; the Terror, subsequent invasion,
Napoleon etc. Perhaps only a fully free society at the 5eme republic.

Much of the world by sheer number of countries got its freedom either at the
end of WW2 or the Cold War.

Cuba and Haiti are still going badly.

------
carapace
I think this will end well. I'm not being sarcastic. I feel like this fight is
a good thing.

Somehow my intuitive sense is that Trump and the tech companies openly butting
heads over fundamental epistemology and values will result in a spectacular
show that will strengthen us in the end.

------
throwawayosiu1
This is a good thing!

Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit are pretty heavy handed when it comes to
"censoring" content. This is annoying because somehow "rightwing / wrongthink"
content is censored while "leftwing" content is fine as it is.

If they are not platforms and are publishers - they need to be treated as
such.

I feel this needs to be extended all the way down - Why stop at social media?
Let's go ahead and hit where this counts - Domain Registrars, DNS Hosts,
Payment Processors and Web hosts.

The sad part is - if they do, the internet as we know won't exist anymore. But
in all honesty, we are heading to it anyways - with all the internet companies
consolidating - I don't think I'll loose a lot of sleep if Twitter if fined -
They had it coming for a while anyways.

EDIT: If this comment does not follow the rules, I'm happy to delete it as
it's inherently political imo. Also I'm happy to provide examples of the above
claims as well.

~~~
happytoexplain
If you're referring to being downvoted, that feature does not target rule-
breaking. That role belongs to the flagging feature.

------
mschuster91
Twitter and Facebook should close down his accounts. Fight fire with fire.

------
notyourwork
Instead of speaking truth, the president attacks the messenger. This
president's actions are not representative of the entire country.

------
12xo
I believe that at the heart of this move is the far right's confusion on the
first amendment and the equal protection clause. They have perverted the
principles so far from their spirit and past rulings, that they now believe
being a-holes makes them a protected class... And yet, they still demand that
its their right to refuse to bake a cake for an actual protected class...
hmmm.

In the end. I foresee mountains of lawsuits against the right-wing media. Most
of which do not have the resources to defend. They are literally cutting off
their nose to spite their face. This is the definition of myopia and greed. So
very Trump...

Be kind. These are just my opinions, and like always, I could be wrong :)

------
sergiotapia
>"These platforms act like they are potted plants when [in reality] they are
curators of user experiences, i.e. the man behind the curtain for everything
we can see or hear,”

Nothing incorrect about this statement.

Worse still: if conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab), they are
blacklisted across every mainstream developer platform.

I'm glad there is legislation for this.

>would address complaints that the online platforms are deceiving people by
picking and choosing what content to allow or block instead of acting as
politically neutral platforms or moderators.

This is great news!

~~~
travisporter
If Gab is a conservative platform, your next comment "politically neutral
platforms or moderators" would not be able to exist right?

~~~
maallooc
The fact that "a conservative" runs a platform doesn't mean it's "a
conservative platform". Don't put words in someone's mouth.

~~~
happytoexplain
The GP said "conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab)".

The parent said "If Gab is a conservative platform".

This is obviously a reasonable way to interpret the GP's sentence. You're also
reasonable to disagree with that interpretation, but you're being unreasonably
combative when you accuse the parent of putting words in the GP's mouth.

~~~
maallooc
Because arguing something with your bias to make your argument viable is a
form of putting words in people's mouth.

------
sharemywin
I he might have a point. if the platform creates content that content wouldn't
be covered by section 230, I wouldn't think. Not a lawyer so don't know, but
maybe.

------
throwawaynjdjdj
It’s strange.

The actual fact check leaned HEAVY on “if voting fraud increases or not with
mail in ballots”. Speculation getting fact checked seems like it should be a
no-no.

The fact check on “everyone gets a ballot” undoubtedly and rightfully should
have been clarified. That was poorly worded bad information by the President.
Again though, third bullet down and what they are back peddling to as the
reason for it.

Twitter screwed this up.

~~~
happytoexplain
Unless I'm missing something, it's not a "this is wrong" flag. It's a "this is
contended - here's a source of information" flag (for better or for worse).

------
kolbe
I find the whole convoluted whack-a-mole approach to the problem of spreading
misinformation to be so pathetic. Much like drugs, so long as there is demand
for misinformation, we will always have a supplier. It doesn't matter how many
regulations you throw at the problem of spreading it. Elections are won and
lost on misinformation, and some elections can be "worth" tens of billions of
dollars to the winner.

If you want to stop the effects of spreading misinformation, attack the demand
side. Educate people. Or, on the more draconian side, don't let uneducated
people vote.

~~~
mschuster91
You don't need to do a whack-a-mole with irrelevant trolls, just go after the
biggest public figures spreading propaganda: Trump, Alex Jones and other alt-
right figureheads. Their names are known, their online presences are an easy
target.

German-Austrian alt-right organization "Identitäre Bewegung" all but collapsed
once they were booted off social media.

~~~
kolbe
This is not partisan to the right. And if you think it is, you're part of the
problem. Trump and Alex Jones do not accurately represent reality, I agree.
And America suffers because of it. But just yesterday, the hottest trending
topic was "Make Whites Great Again," because someone found a photo of a guy
who looked like the Minnesota cop wearing a MAGA hat, and edited America to
White, and Twitter went ballistic thinking it was the cop who killed that guy.
Buildings burned down and people got injured (maybe died) yesterday because of
it.

~~~
soylentcola
I don't typically keep track of Twitter drama so I had to look this up.
Apparently, the photo in question wasn't a 'shop, but rather a well-known
troll specifically looking to stir shit up.

~~~
kolbe
I'm not particularly sucked into the drama either, but I just want to note
that this is a problem that transcends partisan politics. And if someone says
the solution is to ban specific partisan targets, then they're more likely
people who are part of the problem than people who are genuinely looking to
fix it. This will never be fixed by people who think their side's
misrepresentations of reality are for the greater good, but the other side's
is destroying the world.

