←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: 0.001s | 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 #
mc32 ◴[27 May 20 20:46 UTC] No.23329735[source]▶
Attaching a disclaimer to the speech of another though is not straightforward. Will they get into the business of fact checking everyone over certain number of followers? Will they do it impartially world-wide? How can they even be impartial world wide given the different contradictory points of view, valid from both sides? Cyprus? What’s the take there?
replies(14): >>23330175 #>>23330344 #>>23330620 #>>23330747 #>>23330844 #>>23330867 #>>23331723 #>>23332140 #>>23332537 #>>23332697 #>>23332814 #>>23333088 #>>23333519 #>>23333921 #
tw04 ◴[27 May 20 22:23 UTC] No.23330844[source]▶
I love the theoretical situation that doesn't exist as a justification for not doing the right thing. This isn't a "different points of view" - this is the leader of the United States LYING on their platform, and them choosing to provide a link to FACTUAL INFORMATION. There is no "contradictory point of view" - he claimed there was massive voter fraud and there's literally 0 proof to back up his claim and mountains of evidence to counter it.
replies(9): >>23331632 #>>23331719 #>>23331940 #>>23332067 #>>23332545 #>>23333074 #>>23333242 #>>23333404 #>>23336959 #
1. mc32 ◴[27 May 20 23:47 UTC] No.23331632{3}[source]▶
I think the claim is an exaggeration, but I don’t think that the method is fraud proof.

Let’s see fact checks on diet claims, exercise, claims about social solutions, claims about the economy, etc., etc. Let’s see fact checks on their own advertisers.

replies(3): >>23331731 #>>23332625 #>>23332791 #
2. dangoljames ◴[27 May 20 23:59 UTC] No.23331731[source]▶
Their advertisers are not operating from the office of the chief executive of one of the largest and most successful of nations.
replies(1): >>23331746 #
3. mc32 ◴[28 May 20 00:01 UTC] No.23331746[source]▶
So some forms of disinformation are more acceptable than others even if they have more immediate effects on people?
replies(2): >>23331952 #>>23332222 #
4. D-Coder ◴[28 May 20 00:33 UTC] No.23331952{3}[source]▶
This is the "Doesn't cure cancer!" response.

They don't have to be perfect. They don't have to save the world. They don't have to cure cancer. Any improvement is an improvement.

5. gamblor956 ◴[28 May 20 01:11 UTC] No.23332222{3}[source]▶
Yes. There are degrees of disinformation. Some are worse than others.

Life is not binary.

replies(1): >>23332453 #
6. serf ◴[28 May 20 01:39 UTC] No.23332453{4}[source]▶
where does twitter draw the line, and how does that line affect the usage of the platform?

If twitter created some arbitrary rule like "We're going to fact-check all state/government personnel.", then the state/government personnel would just change platforms.

it's a real issue -- it's potentially more dangerous to push politicians to lie on platforms that fact-checkers can't respond and provide feedback towards, and if twitter starts playing hardball against politicians that's exactly what will happen.

A ton of small echo-chamber communities that splinter off as a result of perceived hostility or discrimination from twitter (but really any social media group) and the general public may be more hostile/dangerous than having these groups of people being vetted by the public at large constantly on twitter or other popular platforms.

replies(2): >>23332784 #>>23333549 #
7. kelnos ◴[28 May 20 02:32 UTC] No.23332784{5}[source]▶
So... don't do any fact-checking because the people you're fact-checking might go to a platform where there's no fact checking? I hope you recognize how absurd that idea is.
8. kelnos ◴[28 May 20 02:34 UTC] No.23332791[source]▶
Yes, please, let's definitely see fact checking on all those things. I hope that's Twitter's longer-term plan. But I think starting with politicians, especially POTUS, is a pretty good place to start.
9. greendesk ◴[28 May 20 05:00 UTC] No.23333549{5}[source]▶
If these echo chambers move elsewhere, Twitter might be a more sought-after media.

Meanwhile, I make the claim that the echo chambers will stagnate rapidly outside a big platform. The echo chambers need constant exposure to gain new ideological members. If left to a private-club-platform, they will not showcase themselves.

Note that there is a strong adherence to the YCombinator’s code of conduct on the current platform - but we come back to discuss ideas here, not to a not-vetted forum. By making the level of adherence to fact checks, discussions will improve.