←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 7 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.482s | source | bottom
Show context
Traster ◴[27 May 20 13:09 UTC] No.23322571[source]▶
I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

replies(42): >>23322601 #>>23322660 #>>23322889 #>>23322983 #>>23323095 #>>23323271 #>>23325355 #>>23327443 #>>23327459 #>>23327625 #>>23327899 #>>23327986 #>>23328982 #>>23329094 #>>23329143 #>>23329230 #>>23329237 #>>23329375 #>>23329616 #>>23329658 #>>23329911 #>>23330257 #>>23330267 #>>23330422 #>>23330438 #>>23330441 #>>23331115 #>>23331430 #>>23331436 #>>23331462 #>>23331469 #>>23331944 #>>23332090 #>>23332213 #>>23332505 #>>23332858 #>>23332905 #>>23332934 #>>23332983 #>>23333360 #>>23341099 #>>23346876 #
1. sparkie ◴[27 May 20 13:39 UTC] No.23322983[source]▶
> dangerously factually incorrect information

Here's the problem. Who is doing the fact checking? Who fact checks the fact checkers?

The world isn't black and white. State press releases are not facts. There is no authority that is the arbitrator of truth.

replies(2): >>23323064 #>>23329160 #
2. raziel2p ◴[27 May 20 13:44 UTC] No.23323064[source]▶
As long as the sources can be checked, challenged, and counter-opinions can be voiced, I personally don't think it matters that much. It's the blind acceptance of statements and accusations that match our existing world view that we need to combat, I think.
replies(1): >>23323097 #
3. sparkie ◴[27 May 20 13:46 UTC] No.23323097[source]▶
And how do you challenge an opinion?

By giving your own.

In other words, we just need more speech, not more restrictions on speech.

-- reply to below because I'm restricted and at comment limit (ironic, eh?)

> Isn't that exactly what Twitter did? They left the speech up, and added a note below it expressing their opinion that a particular link demonstrates that the tweet was not factual.

Anybody can reply to a comment on twitter and cite the facts, and people can reply to those comments and contest or argue them. The specific difference is Twitter's "fact checking box" cannot be replied to - which makes them the ministry of truth.

All Twitter had to do was create a @twitterfactchecks handle and reply to the posts in question - perhaps promoting their reply to the top so that it is most visible, but then people could reply to @twitterfactchecks contesting their opinion (a fact check is always an opinion, if you didn't get what I was hinting at above.)

replies(2): >>23323191 #>>23323901 #
4. ceejayoz ◴[27 May 20 13:51 UTC] No.23323191{3}[source]▶
Isn't that exactly what Twitter did?

They left the speech up, and added a note below it expressing their opinion that a particular link demonstrates that the tweet was not factual.

5. ceejayoz ◴[27 May 20 14:32 UTC] No.23323901{3}[source]▶
> Anybody can reply to a comment on twitter and cite the facts, and people can reply to those comments and contest or argue them. The specific difference is Twitter's "fact checking box" cannot be replied to - which makes them the ministry of truth.

Surely you see the irony of your trying to regulate how Twitter formats their free speech on their own platform?

6. ibejoeb ◴[27 May 20 20:01 UTC] No.23329160[source]▶
Moreover, twitter has demonstrated its inability to do this already. From their repudiation of the claims made about mail-in ballots:

>Trump falsely claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election.

We don't know if the claim is false; it hasn't happened yet. It could have said unlikely, improbable, whatever. Making this statement, however, is just as charged as the one it opposes.

replies(1): >>23333456 #
7. efreak ◴[28 May 20 04:40 UTC] No.23333456[source]▶
From the article:

> Clicking through the new prompt from Twitter brings users to a fact-checking page debunking the president’s false claims with the header “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.” The page also offers a summary of the issue with bullet points providing context for the misleading tweets and links to stories by CNN, the Hill, the Washington Post and other news sources. Still, the prompt itself stops short of calling the tweet’s claims incorrect or misleading, instead opting for neutral language.