Most active commenters
  • nwienert(3)

←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 24 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 2.41s | 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 #
kgin ◴[27 May 20 19:50 UTC] No.23328982[source]▶
I think it's even more concerning than that.

Threatening to shut down private companies -- not for limiting speech, not for refusing to distribute speech -- but for exercising their own right to free speech alongside the free speech of others (in this case the president).

There is no right to unchallenged or un-responded-to speech, regardless of how you interpret the right to free speech.

replies(4): >>23329367 #>>23329735 #>>23331811 #>>23333632 #
1. briefcomment ◴[27 May 20 20:30 UTC] No.23329540[source]▶
Can you read his mind? If not, how can you tell the difference between a tyrant and a troll (and even a savvy negotiator)? One way is to see what actually happens. My bet is that no social media company will be shut down because of this.
replies(5): >>23329603 #>>23329617 #>>23330548 #>>23330889 #>>23332398 #
2. paulgb ◴[27 May 20 20:35 UTC] No.23329603[source]▶
Making threats to use your power as commander-in-chief against the free speech of a private company is not "trolling" or "negotiation", it's creating a chilling effect on speech whether he goes through with it or not.

I doubt he would shut Twitter down (if only because he needs it more than it needs him), but I don't doubt for a second that he would use the executive branch to retaliate against them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

replies(4): >>23329785 #>>23330075 #>>23330720 #>>23332620 #
3. favorited ◴[27 May 20 20:36 UTC] No.23329617[source]▶
Of course no social media company will be shut down over this. Trump couldn't shut down Twitter even if he wanted to.
replies(1): >>23330463 #
4. timsneath ◴[27 May 20 20:50 UTC] No.23329785{3}[source]▶
To add to that, Twitter shares dropped significantly on opening and ended the day down -2.75%. By contrast, the S&P rose 1.5% today. In the absence of other confounding variables, this would suggest investors see a material effect of his words.
replies(2): >>23330087 #>>23330656 #
5. nwienert ◴[27 May 20 21:14 UTC] No.23330075{3}[source]▶
I don’t see a chilling effect. If anything it’s a heating and dividing effect, but certainly this isn’t making people quieter about the debate.. see this comment thread for proof.
replies(2): >>23330338 #>>23330468 #
6. nwienert ◴[27 May 20 21:15 UTC] No.23330087{4}[source]▶
I dropped Twitter stock not because I think they will be regulated (they may) but because I think this was just a stupid move, and shows they aren’t making good business decisions.
replies(2): >>23330608 #>>23330713 #
7. lazugod ◴[27 May 20 21:35 UTC] No.23330338{4}[source]▶
It's not chilling random Internet commentators. It's chilling actions by large platforms to have or keep any principles.
8. adventured ◴[27 May 20 21:46 UTC] No.23330463{3}[source]▶
The US Government could easily bankrupt Twitter. I doubt the Trump Administration is smart enough to figure out how to do this, but here is how easy it would be.

Twitter frequently selectively enforces its own terms of service. They punish some users and then intentionally let other users get away with atrocious behavior with no consequences. I've witnessed this across hundreds of various Twitter accounts over the last several years, so the number of times this happens must be rather epic. Numerous agencies of the US Government can choose to pursue Twitter for that. Twitter will find it impossible to correct their chaotic, selective, biased approach to how they treat their users so very differently. Angency N from the government slaps Twitter with an increasing fine each time they fail to properly, equitably enforce their terms of service. Start at $100 million and double it with every violation. Twitter will be bankrupt before a month is out.

Twitter would get on their knees and beg for mercy almost instantly. The US Government can break any corporation it wants to, anytime it wants to.

If the Trump Admin wants to be really devious, Nixonian, they'll target the executives operating the companies. Sending the IRS & Co. to make their lives a living hell. These companies will capitulate instantly.

Just ask the PRISM companies how this works in reality: you have no choice but to bow. It all depends on how nasty the Feds are prepared to get.

replies(4): >>23330727 #>>23332273 #>>23335076 #>>23335126 #
9. bananabreakfast ◴[27 May 20 21:46 UTC] No.23330468{4}[source]▶
This has nothing to do with people and their debate. This is a direct threat to a company to violate their free speech which, in itself, is a crime not unlike directly threatening violence against a person.
replies(1): >>23340082 #
10. dekhn ◴[27 May 20 21:53 UTC] No.23330548[source]▶
We can't read his mind but we can generate a fairly accurate model based on what he says. He has openly admired the powers of tyrants in multiple countries, and hinted that he would like to continue to be president after his term completes. Based on my read of his text, it seems like he sincerely believes things like "Kim Jong Un is a good guy and he deserves to continue running North Korea".

Of course no social media company will be shut down over this- Trump has absolutely zero power in this regard (I think half of Trump's frustration is in realizing how little power a president truly has).

Anyway, he doesn't think he is a king. He thinks he is an emperor.

replies(1): >>23336557 #
11. paulgb ◴[27 May 20 22:01 UTC] No.23330608{5}[source]▶
> shows they aren’t making good business decisions.

I mean, I could have told you that when the already part-time CEO announced he'd move to Africa for a year :)

replies(1): >>23331250 #
12. simonsarris ◴[27 May 20 22:05 UTC] No.23330656{4}[source]▶
That's silly, compare TWTR to other small cap tech and its pretty much in-line for the day (eg, PINS, CHWY, SHOP). It's also fairly in line for QQQ. There's no evidence that trump's tweet changed anything about Twitter's price movement today.
13. briefcomment ◴[27 May 20 22:10 UTC] No.23330720{3}[source]▶
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that he's telling Twitter to "cut their crap". I would bet about half the country sees it that way, and agrees with him too.
14. mthoms ◴[27 May 20 22:11 UTC] No.23330727{4}[source]▶
The end result would be a non-US company taking Twitter's place.

Then the US Gov't would be back at square one. Only worse.

15. ◴[27 May 20 22:27 UTC] No.23330889[source]▶
16. echelon ◴[27 May 20 23:05 UTC] No.23331250{6}[source]▶
Africa is going to be the next {China, India, Vietnam, ...} in terms of manufacturing, industrial growth, smart phone and payments penetration, etc.

Dorsey is being incredibly smart by trying to figure out how to break into the African market. He probably wants to do payments there. Get in early, win the market. It's genius.

Just look at what's happening with Belt and Road.

Africa is going to be huge.

If I had his money and influence, I would be doing the same.

17. gamblor956 ◴[28 May 20 01:19 UTC] No.23332273{4}[source]▶
And the courts would strike down all of that. Even the ultra conservative judges.

And on top of that would force the government to pay for Twitter's legal fees. And probably also for economic damages.

18. joubert ◴[28 May 20 01:33 UTC] No.23332398[source]▶
“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

— Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

19. nogabebop23 ◴[28 May 20 02:03 UTC] No.23332620{3}[source]▶
wait for tomorrow - he's already moving in this direction. THese are very concerning times...
20. T-A ◴[28 May 20 09:05 UTC] No.23335076{4}[source]▶
That was quick...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/trump-fur...

21. im_down_w_otp ◴[28 May 20 09:14 UTC] No.23335126{4}[source]▶
One would expect that if this happened Twitter would just cease US operations and move everything outside US Govt. jurisdiction?
22. tripzilch ◴[28 May 20 12:41 UTC] No.23336557{3}[source]▶
> He thinks he is an emperor.

.. and ultimately, it was Twitter who said he has no clothes.

Weird times.

23. nwienert ◴[28 May 20 17:37 UTC] No.23340082{5}[source]▶
It’s a threat to regulate them as a public utility certainly, but that’s been done before to phone companies (by the left) in the past.

It’s definitely a threat. But I don’t see any people backing down, and using “chilling” to me is just pathos to try and make one side seem right. It’s a disagreement on what to do and how to run our big platforms.

replies(1): >>23346045 #
24. Nevermark ◴[29 May 20 03:37 UTC] No.23346045{6}[source]▶
Trump didn’t just disagree with Twitter’s opinion of his tweets, or how Twitter operates.

He made threats to retaliate, clearly to chill speech he disagrees with.

They are not the same thing. Not even close. And businesses will have to take his behavior into account, especially if some people give him a pass for this.

Trump keeps moving the bar, or trying to, in terms of pushing back against any organizational or legal limits on himself.

It has been both amazing and depressing to see how quickly people start making excuses for him, and declaring his behavior acceptable when it is clearly corruption.