←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 2 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
1. gpm ◴[28 May 20 00:59 UTC] No.23332140[source]▶
> Attaching a disclaimer to the speech of another though is not straightforward.

Yes it is, it just involves adding an html element below it

> Will they get into the business of fact checking everyone over certain number of followers

Their choice, because of the first amendment they can do it to anyone or noone at their leisure or based on whatever criteria they like and as arbitrarily as they like.

> Will they do it impartially world-wide

Their choice, because of the first amendment they can choose to be as impartial or as partial as they like as locally or globally as they like.

> How can they even be impartial world wide given the different contradictory points of view, valid from both sides

The simplest solution is to not be impartial, but that's a decision that is wholly up to them and whatever they decide is protected by the first amendment

See how simple it is? They do whatever they feel like and the government is obligated to not interfere. The end.

(Other governments might object to some of these decisions, the US government most certainly has no legal power to)

replies(1): >>23332885 #
2. beager ◴[28 May 20 02:53 UTC] No.23332885[source]▶
Thank you. The naive, incorrect view is that private entities restrict your constitutional rights by refusing to host UGC or by editorializing/annotating it.

An evolved, but still incorrect view is that a private entity is legally or constitutionally obligated to apply their policy about hosting speech consistently across all users.