←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 10 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 1.254s | 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 #
yibg ◴[27 May 20 21:43 UTC] No.23330438[source]▶
Also, in this case no one is being censored. It's not like the president isn't allowed to post and is having his "freedom of speech" taken away. This is more like his speech is being responded to, and he doesn't like that others can challenge what he's saying. The very antithesis of free speech.
replies(1): >>23330737 #
1. isoskeles ◴[27 May 20 22:11 UTC] No.23330737[source]▶
Applied unequally. Reminds me of these old fact checks during the election:

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-fact...

> Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them, calling it “an expensive process.” The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals.

These sorts of "fact checks" are blatant horse shit that always go in one direction. Some "challenge", the very antithesis of any sort of good faith discussion on the facts.

replies(3): >>23330846 #>>23332034 #>>23332460 #
2. ◴[27 May 20 22:23 UTC] No.23330846[source]▶
3. yibg ◴[28 May 20 00:46 UTC] No.23332034[source]▶
So fact check the fact check. The response to perceived violation of free speech (fact checking) isn’t blocking speech.
replies(3): >>23332173 #>>23333426 #>>23334143 #
4. ◴[28 May 20 01:04 UTC] No.23332173[source]▶
5. hedora ◴[28 May 20 01:40 UTC] No.23332460[source]▶
Your argument seems to be that substandard fact checkers exist, so all fact checkers are substandard. I don’t see how it follows. In this case, it’s extremely well documented (and there is bipartisan agreement) that mail in ballots are not a substantial source of fraud.

States that allow no excuse mail in ballots are evenly split between red and blue.

Do you have a specific critique of statements Twitter made in this case?

replies(1): >>23334128 #
6. amadeuspagel ◴[28 May 20 04:33 UTC] No.23333426[source]▶
How should this work exactly? In addition to the reply system - someone can post a reply, to which others can in turn reply - we have a fact-check system - someone can post a fact-check which others can in turn fact-check? Isn't that kind of redundant?

The entire point of the "fact-check" - and what people object to - is the privileged position, that makes direct replies impossible.

7. isoskeles ◴[28 May 20 06:31 UTC] No.23334128[source]▶
Let's not play coy with this false discussion about mail-in ballots. We both know that's not what this is about.

Twitter does not fact-check Democrats. The end.

replies(2): >>23334308 #>>23334440 #
8. isoskeles ◴[28 May 20 06:33 UTC] No.23334143[source]▶
Other people aren't able to just slap a fact check directly on anyone's tweet, that all other viewers of the tweet are exposed to with or without clicking through to replies.

If you have something to say in good faith, let me know.

9. joshuamorton ◴[28 May 20 07:21 UTC] No.23334440{3}[source]▶
Twitter also doesn't fact check Republicans. It fact checks exactly one person, known for spreading misinformation.
10. isoskeles ◴[28 May 20 07:29 UTC] No.23334489{4}[source]▶
I don't use Twitter, so I couldn't point out a specific tweet. But offhand, let's say any tweet accusing the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. I'm sure there are hundreds.