←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 5 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 1.155s | source
Show context
djohnston ◴[27 May 20 13:29 UTC] No.23322847[source]▶
The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.
replies(6): >>23322949 #>>23322950 #>>23322971 #>>23323003 #>>23323336 #>>23323566 #
nojito ◴[27 May 20 13:36 UTC] No.23322950[source]▶
twitter is a private organization. Regulating the speech of private organizations is a dangerous slope to be on.
replies(4): >>23322989 #>>23323043 #>>23323182 #>>23323344 #
alharith ◴[27 May 20 13:43 UTC] No.23323043[source]▶
Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.
replies(3): >>23323101 #>>23323141 #>>23323238 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[27 May 20 13:49 UTC] No.23323141[source]▶
> Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.

You absolutely can, and that's even been a norm in the US since CDA Section 230 was implemented specifically to make that possible, within certain bounds, which Twitter sits well within.

Admittedly, that's been progressively chipped away recently.

replies(1): >>23323298 #
2. alharith ◴[27 May 20 13:58 UTC] No.23323298[source]▶
Yes I am aware of CDA section 230. Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for protection under the act.

Joe Biden is for the idea: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

replies(1): >>23324754 #
3. dragonwriter ◴[27 May 20 15:26 UTC] No.23324754[source]▶
> or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking

The government being selective about which expressive choices by a platform operator are get favorable treatment under law rapidly gets into violations of actual Constitutional free speech protections, unlike the private actions that people are making fake “free speech” claims about.

replies(1): >>23326176 #
4. alharith ◴[27 May 20 16:55 UTC] No.23326176{3}[source]▶
By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law. In other words, the government passed a law that enabled others to limit free speech. Wonder if this angle has been tried in court yet?
replies(1): >>23327867 #
5. dragonwriter ◴[27 May 20 18:40 UTC] No.23327867{4}[source]▶
> By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law.

No, it's not. Permitting private bias without government consequence is the definition of free speech. Restricting it is contrary to free speech, and is permitted only to the extent that it fits within recognized Constitutional limitations on the right of free speech.