←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 4 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
bardworx ◴[27 May 20 13:47 UTC] No.23323101[source]▶
Maybe an ignorant question but how would classifying Twitter as a publisher solve the issue?

I’m guessing you mean that they should be held accountable for what people post there? Or is there a different angle I’m not seeing?

replies(1): >>23323362 #
1. alharith ◴[27 May 20 14:01 UTC] No.23323362{3}[source]▶
This article does a good job of explaining the issue (if you can stomach viewing an article on a conservative site, I know many here can't, but the information is good) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi...

Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

Also preempting the brigade downvoting anything that has the word 'conservative' in it by pointing out that Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

replies(2): >>23324392 #>>23324842 #
2. bardworx ◴[27 May 20 15:00 UTC] No.23324392[source]▶
Thanks for the links and diversity of sources.
3. orwin ◴[27 May 20 15:33 UTC] No.23324842[source]▶
I can rewrite your post:

```

This article does a good job of explaining the issue https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi...

Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history

This is not a conservative-only point of view: Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...

```

You are allowed to be informative without being obnoxious. I was not aware of this issue and the article on theamericanconservative have an interesting point of view. The tone you used however will make most people here ignore or dismiss you. Yes, there is an anti-conservative bias on HN, but most people will still read an argument even on breibart if it is good.

I understand the concern of the article but imho cancelling 230 might cripple them, and the propostion of state regulation will make them lost their power overseas. Will it allow other, european, asian or SA platforms to emerge? If the answer is yes it might have interesting side effects.

replies(1): >>23326132 #
4. alharith ◴[27 May 20 16:53 UTC] No.23326132[source]▶
Cancelling 230 IMO is the wrong thing to do as well, but it, at minimum, needs to be modified to lay out some sort of "minimum neutrality / anti-bias criteria" and provisions for holding these Tech companies accountable -- something like 3 strikes and you're out -- you lose your platform status -- hey! kind of how like they treat the rest of us! Bonus points if we can algorithmically determine it so they lose it without human input or consideration of context and then have to beg not to be "deplatformed" by yelling for help from an actual human on other social media sites.