←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 9 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 #
rmtech ◴[27 May 20 21:43 UTC] No.23330441[source]▶
A private company that has a monopoly on speech is no longer a private company, it's essentially an unelected and unaccountable part of the permanent government.

You need to think about entities based on their properties, not the labels that are attached to them. That ought to be obvious to people who program for a living; think of a private company with a speech monopoly as the good old .txt.exe scam.

You're attaching the label "not government" to Google, but in terms of properties it is like the government. YouTube has openly admitted to manipulating video results despite it costing them money to do so. Their monopoly position is so strong that the YouTube leadership rules us like a dictatorship.

I would prefer it if these tech monopolies were simply broken up. But failing that, they need to obey the first amendment or be shut down in the US.

Europe is a different beast, but I think the UK at least should adopt the US first amendment.

replies(4): >>23330499 #>>23330816 #>>23330869 #>>23331774 #
1. root_axis ◴[27 May 20 22:25 UTC] No.23330869[source]▶
I am so tired of this disingenuous line of argumentation. Twitter is not at all like a government, it is a private business that offers a free service which you are under no obligation to use, it has no army or legal authority over your life, stop acting like what gets posted or removed from twitter is anything other than a bullshit triviality.
replies(2): >>23331177 #>>23334271 #
2. VWWHFSfQ ◴[27 May 20 22:56 UTC] No.23331177[source]▶
How does this reconcile with the laws of many euro countries compelling website forums to delete content that they deem objectionable? Most recently France passed such a law[0].

> There are multiple levels of fines. It starts at hundreds of thousand of euros but it can reach up to 4% of the global annual revenue of the company with severe cases.

How can these euro countries claim to be free societies when they restrict the most basic element of personal freedom?

It's not just France. Several of the euro countries have laws like this.

[0]: https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/14/france-passes-law-forcing-...

replies(3): >>23331285 #>>23331299 #>>23334276 #
3. themacguffinman ◴[27 May 20 23:09 UTC] No.23331285[source]▶
Why does it need to reconcile? EU governments are allowed to make stupid or bad policies. That doesn't contradict the basic fact that Twitter is not at all like a government, even when it is forced by actual governments to remove content.
replies(1): >>23332226 #
4. root_axis ◴[27 May 20 23:10 UTC] No.23331299[source]▶
> How does this reconcile with the laws of many euro countries compelling website forums to delete content that they deem objectionable?

There's nothing to reconcile. A social media website is not at all like a government, I don't see what the laws in Europe have to do with that.

replies(1): >>23332227 #
5. VWWHFSfQ ◴[28 May 20 01:12 UTC] No.23332226{3}[source]▶
I'm referring to this statement:

> stop acting like what gets posted or removed from twitter is anything other than a bullshit triviality

Should we not care about something that gets removed from Twitter because the French or German or Chinese government didn't want it there?

replies(1): >>23332641 #
6. VWWHFSfQ ◴[28 May 20 01:12 UTC] No.23332227{3}[source]▶
I'm referring to this statement:

> stop acting like what gets posted or removed from twitter is anything other than a bullshit triviality

Should we not care about something that gets removed from Twitter because the French or German or Chinese government didn't want it there?

7. themacguffinman ◴[28 May 20 02:07 UTC] No.23332641{4}[source]▶
Whether or not you care about Twitter content removal is subjective, but the answer of whether you should care more if Twitter or the government removed the content is pretty clear: you should care more about the government every time. Latching onto "should we care" is kind of pedantic and misses the point.

The most Twitter can do is tell you to find somewhere else to publish your speech. The most the French / German / Chinese government can do is destroy your entire life and the lives of everyone who publishes or consumes your speech.

So when a government leader starts talking about suppressing critical speech, that's a lot more worrisome than Twitter deleting tweets. The abuse of power is hardly comparable. You might even say that in comparison, it's a bullshit triviality.

8. rmtech ◴[28 May 20 06:52 UTC] No.23334271[source]▶
I don't think you have understood my point.

When a company has a total monopoly over a sector, you are obliged to use the service they provide or you will simply go without that service entirely.

Twitter is not a clear example of this, because it doesn't really have a solid monopoly. But Google and Facebook certainly are - there really isn't a competitor to YouTube or Google Search, and there isn't a competing social network to Facebook.

9. rmtech ◴[28 May 20 06:54 UTC] No.23334276[source]▶
Those laws are democratically accountable though, so it's not the same thing as what I am talking about.