
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship - braythwayt
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
======
minimaxir
Notable paragraph which was not present in the leaked draft:

> Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets
> in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported,
> Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s
> tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing
> to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion
> Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in
> charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his
> own tweets.

~~~
weiming
ﱞ

~~~
minimaxir
> A notable part of the pushback directed at this Twitter employee is that his
> team focuses on bots & platform manipulation (not the same as fact-
> checking). But because he's been publicly critical of the president on
> social media, Trump surrogates are claiming it was his decision.

[https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265675205680099328](https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265675205680099328)

Plus the response from Jack Dorsey yesterday:

> Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a
> company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll
> continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections
> globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.

[https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837138114830336](https://twitter.com/jack/status/1265837138114830336)

~~~
Simulacra
It's a valid point. Shouldn't the head of integrity not have a history of
negative bias? That's impossible in practice, but jeez Louise this guy said
some pretty offensive things. I think that in of itself should make him
ineligible. There cannot be a double standard here.

------
henriquez
This is unconstitutional and will be struck down. The president can’t just
decide to change the meaning of a law to make it do something it wasn’t
written to do, and assigning three unelected bureaucrats at the FCC to
regulate free speech on the Internet sets an extremely dangerous precedent
whether you agree with the politics in this case or not.

There are _legal_ approaches to address the real issue of online censorship:

1\. Actually amend the Communications Decency Act Section 230

2\. Exercise antitrust authority to break up platforms that exert monopoly
influence

3\. Encourage free market alternatives to established platforms

I believe that online censorship of political viewpoints is a real and serious
issue, but it needs to be addressed in a lawful manner. Between this and the
EARN IT Act, we are entering extremely dangerous territory for free speech
online and I fear the short sighted politicians and DOJ are missing the forest
for the trees when it comes to pushing these policies.

~~~
Simulacra
1\. The political optics of this will never let it happen. Not withstanding
those on the right and left who agree, but rather tech companies, their
mouthpieces, and oh boy the lobbyists. Be thankful for your government, it's
the best money can buy.

2\. WAY easier said than done. The FTC started investigating Microsoft in
1992, but it was not until 2001 that the courts settled the matter and
Microsoft settled. Nine YEARS. So no, this is absolutely not a top option for
the administration because they've got only four years left.

3\. Forgive me, I don't know where you are located, but this is kind of the
mantra for America. Companies from Google to GAB to that decentralized network
I can't remember the name of, have tried to compete. They can't - possibly
because the companies are too powerful.

Oh, and it's not unconstitutional, unless you have a specific clause in the
Constitution that I am not seeing? At best it's not within the boundaries of
Executive Orders; banning guns is definitely not within the boundaries but the
Left wants to do it anyway.

~~~
henriquez
It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. Only
the legislature can.

Unfortunately CDA is written in a way that broadly allows tech companies to
censor any content that doesn’t fit their commercial or political narratives.
It’s a poison pill to Internet discourse at the endpoint we’ve reached where
three or four companies control that vast majority of online speech.

In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public
utilities,” an admission of defeat for the free market ideals that we pretend
this country champions.

Only a change to the law or reimagining of the Internet can fix this. I don’t
share your pessimism that this is impossible. I think decentralized/P2P
platforms do have a place and a chance to unseat tech incumbents. Remember
what happened to Yahoo and AOL? I just don’t think that our current set of
tech companies are immune from the same sort of abandonment and irrelevance. A
moment is coming where everything changes.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
> It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law.

True, but it's within the executive branch's purview to... interpret the law a
bit, as they execute it. Of course, then it's on the judicial branch to
determine whether or not that was okay.

> In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public
> utilities,”

This is actually one of the most interesting parts of this, though it
definitely will be tested by the judicial branch here. Trump has decided
Twitter constitutes the modern equivalent of the "public square", where people
are entitled to speak freely. ...Apart from the fact that it's corporately
owned, I'd totally agree that that's true: Modern free speech has moved
entirely to media (TV, Internet, Radio, etc.) which are all owned by
corporations.

Now, where that gets interesting is that the government is required to allow
you to speak freely... corporations aren't, according to current
interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has vastly
expanded the application of the Bill of Rights before though. It's presumably
possible that a future court could decide that social media companies must
allow people their town square.

------
cmdshiftf4
Discussion in progress:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161)

------
tebruno99
Didn't the GOP just not a few months ago argue that a business couldn't be
forced to make a Cake for a Gay wedding?

Now they want to argue that they can force a business (Twitter) to do
something that business (Twitter) doesn't want to do?

~~~
Simulacra
Can you please point out where it forces Twitter to do anything?

I think you may have gotten off on the wrong exit. One was a religious freedom
case. The other is ordering the government to investigate Twitter for
violating Section 203. Two..totally different things. The Executive Order
can't force Twitter to do anything.

~~~
Simulacra
Can you please point out where it forces Twitter to do anything?

------
mike503
He has a platform for communicating with the people, just like every other
president. He’s chosen to use Twitter. Just like Fox News, another thing he’s
complaining about now that it isn’t guaranteed to be frictionless. He can say
anything he wants in press releases, on whitehouse.gov, etc.

------
pera
Interesting how they changed the wording of Section 5:

Yesterday's draft:

> _The working group shall also collect publicly available information
> regarding the following:_

> _(i) monitoring or creating watch-lists of users based on their interactions
> with content or users (e.g., likes, follows, time spent); and_

> _(ii) monitoring users based on their activity off the platform._

Final version:

> _The working group shall also collect publicly available information
> regarding the following:_

> _(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to
> follow, or their interactions with other users;_

> _(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of
> political alignment or viewpoint;_

> _(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior,
> when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or
> other anti-democratic associations or governments;_

> _(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media
> organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and_

> _(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn
> money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated._

~~~
robotron
"other anti-democratic associations or governments"

This is troubling to me. Can this be used to mean "anyone I label anti-
democratic"?

------
sixstringtheory
If you're planning on posting in these threads, scrub your bio here first to
avoid having your email messed with.

I've discovered some interesting new websites!

~~~
alfiedotwtf
Can you explain what you mean by that comment?

~~~
millzlane
I'm guessing he's mentioning it you're commenting in a DT thread to protect
your personal info. One of the tools 'THey' like to use is Doxxing.

------
quantified
Too bad you can’t have social media for just the good or OK parts of the
planet, the bad parts get it too.

------
tebruno99
Wouldn't taking away Section 230 thus making Twitter liable for content posted
on Twitter have the opposite effect that Trump is going for.

Twitter will be liable for content posted, therefor won't they start censoring
things so they can't be sued? This would make them also liable for Trump's
tweets if those tweets aren't removed...

~~~
ColanR
I don't think that's quite right. From what I can tell, it seems like social
media sites like twitter are being given two options, and they're being told
that the middle of the road between those options isn't ok anymore.

First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the
content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go
all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection)

Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments
about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal
protection under Section 230 still applies.

Idk if this is a decent analogy, but it seems comparable to the classic
anonymous swiss bank account. Either the bank completely protects all personal
information for everyone, or it has to move out of switzerland and give up all
its anonymity. (I know the analogy isn't accurate, but it seems like a decent
mental model.)

~~~
Simulacra
I think the hypothetical opposite would be interesting: What if Twitter was
run by Peter Theil, and they fact checked Joe Biden. I think we'd see
absolutely uproar by the democrats. The left believes twitter is on their
side, and how that came to be is much more interesting.

~~~
tebruno99
Maybe they are fact checking Biden and it doesn't seem like it cause they come
up empty. LOL

~~~
blarg1
or mayb they can't figure out what he's saying :)

------
anewdirection
About goddamn time. I am not on Trumps side on 99% of issues but this is
absolutely needed. The platform-publishers have failed to police themselves,
and have (too) publicly played favorites lately.

Please, if you disagree, reply with why. Besides ad-hominem attacking the
person, and if this particular incident is a good example (it is not), explain
why fb/twit/etc deserve dual protections?

~~~
uniqueid

        > (too) publicly played favorites lately.
    

So what? Why is that, of itself, bad?

My view is that private companies should not host and enable content that
makes the world a worse place to live.

Places like Gab or Voat have their view of what is acceptable, and I disagree
and condemn them for it. Places like HN have a code with which I largely
agree, and I commend them for it.

I neither expect, nor desire, companies like to twitter to provide "freedom of
speech." Not with the internet and web we currently have, whose technical
design overwhelmingly favors bad actors.

~~~
FpUser
>"My view is that private companies should not host and enable content that
makes the world a worse place to live."

And who is to decide what makes the world a worse place?

~~~
Dylan16807
The person doing the hosting.

------
Simulacra
If Twitter was run by Peter Theil and did this to Bernie Sanders, or Joe
Binden, the left would have a collective meltdown. Trump has a valid point:
Twitter has never done this before, why are they starting now?

~~~
braythwayt
I have taken down this same argument you made elsewhere on this topic:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23345380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23345380)

And I ask that in addition to your not arguing about something that didn’t
happen and how you hypothesize people you cannot name would react, that you
make the argument just once and not paper all over a topic with exact copies
of it.

~~~
Simulacra
If you're going to keep censoring and deleting, then you're just proving the
point. I don't understand.

------
Kapura
So basically, if noted independent and well-reasoned decision maker William
Barr decides that a platform is operating in ways that are 'deceptive,
pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service' they lose
protection under section 203(c). Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, that's hilarious because nobody can possibly argue that Twitter's ToS
enforcement has been anything close to consistent. The very fact that Trump
still has a personal twitter account is proof of that. They're being bit by
the dog they refused to muzzle.

~~~
arminiusreturns
>noted independent and well-reasoned decision maker William Barr

Laughing so hard at this. Did you forget a /s?

------
ilaksh
The argument I've heard here, I think, is that in fact this is supposedly a
trick, and not about preventing online censorship, but actually a sneaky way
to increase censorship.

My understanding is that this is the problem that people have with this, and
most people who are in that camp also hate Trump.

In my opinion, Trump's racism and other aspects are quite odious, but I want
to believe that in this case he actually is fighting against censorship.
Because it does seem that conservative viewpoints are being censored.

If this a trick, then we are more screwed than I thought. Because the left-
leaning group actually seems to be asking for _more_ censorship.

------
ocdtrekkie
Obviously I think the order is being done for the wrong reasons, and I doubt
the text of it itself will do much to reign in big tech. But I think Trump
inadvertently stumbled into a good thing, as tech industry power must be
curtailed.

Trump is worried about conservative accounts being censored or shut down with
no opportunity for appeal, for instance, but the very same demands for review
may help people locked out by broken algorithmic systems on purely non-
political errors.

And fundamentally, it's way overdue that we stop giving tech companies
immunity from prosecution for their platforms. Right now everyone is focused
on using Section 230 as a carrot that requires tech companies do things to
continue to receive it (EARN IT, etc.) but we really just need to remove it
entirely.

~~~
coffeefirst
This isn't quite right. 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments
and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every
dumb thing we say.

Not that it matters. Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually
do this. And Twitter (or your personal forum) can continue to boot trolls,
Nazis, or heads of state posting targeted harassment at widows, and do so in
good faith all day long.

What really happened is that the hard, valid questions about how much power
social media companies have, how they should ensure free speech without
enabling the worst elements of society, how appeals on moderation should work
etc, just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that
there is now no chance of making any progress on them.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
> 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without
> immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say.

This definitely isn't true. The reality is that you are never automatically
responsible for what someone else does. (It makes no sense!) Tech companies
would like you to believe that Section 230 is some fundamental bedrock to the
Internet, but it's not, it's just a get out of jail card for ad companies
acting badly.

> Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this.

There's probably some manner of activity executive departments such as the FTC
and FCC are capable of doing. Though it's definitely true that Congress-passed
laws (unfortunately, including Section 230 of the CDA) stand above the
regulatory power they have. But this order may be a precursor towards a larger
push to scale back or (ideally) remove Section 230 in legislation.

> just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there
> is now no chance of making any progress on them

I actually disagree here. The vast majority of issues that require legislative
attention aren't getting it because they're not loud enough to be put as
conditions upon other things happening. Legislatively a lot of issues are at a
complete standstill. But once it becomes a hot button issue, legislators are
more likely to pack it in here or there until something moves on it.

~~~
wan23
You're not responsible for what someone else does, but you are responsible for
what you do. If you accept a submission to your newspaper and publish it then
you may be liable for any libelous claims because you are the one who
published it. You think that HN is different because it automatically
publishes anything anyone writes, but that perception isn't shared by many
people who are old enough to remember a time before the World Wide Web.

