Most active commenters
  • free_rms(6)
  • ashtonkem(6)

←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 15 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 2.628s | 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 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[27 May 20 22:12 UTC] No.23330747[source]▶
as long as they are not using limited public goods (e.g. part of the EM spectrum to broadcast), then from my perspective they can do anything they want assuming it doesn't break another law.

now if they want to use limited public goods, well then there's a role for the FCC or something like it...

replies(2): >>23332064 #>>23332154 #
1. free_rms ◴[28 May 20 01:01 UTC] No.23332154[source]▶
Twitter is the place where the entire media and political classes hang out. They're all addicted to it. These people's opinions shape real-world politics and election outcomes.

Could that be a 'limited public good'? Due to the network effects, it seems like only one website at a time would hold this status.

replies(1): >>23332720 #
2. ashtonkem ◴[28 May 20 02:20 UTC] No.23332720[source]▶
No, you don’t get to declare something to be a limited public good after it gets popular.
replies(1): >>23332873 #
3. free_rms ◴[28 May 20 02:51 UTC] No.23332873[source]▶
Twitter deserves credit for creating their platform, absolutely. They created a platform where everyday people can interact with top media and politicians.

Now that it's here, and they're all on it.. "the coffee shop can throw you out" seems a little trite. I don't like Trump either, set him aside, what if we were on the wrong side of Twitter's politics?

replies(1): >>23332886 #
4. ashtonkem ◴[28 May 20 02:53 UTC] No.23332886{3}[source]▶
I fear letting the government regulate twitter more than I fear twitter deciding my politics aren’t acceptable. I can leave Twitter, but creating a back door for the government to regulate political speech has consequences that stretch much further than Twitter itself.
replies(1): >>23332908 #
5. free_rms ◴[28 May 20 02:57 UTC] No.23332908{4}[source]▶
I'm not talking about the government regulating speech, I'm talking about the government regulating against Twitter deciding your politics are unacceptable. Whatever they may be. More speech.

I'd be fine with retaining Twitter's right to add commentary, as they did to Trump, as long as it's clear who's saying what.

replies(2): >>23332988 #>>23333052 #
6. ashtonkem ◴[28 May 20 03:12 UTC] No.23332988{5}[source]▶
Giving the government the explicit ability to enumerate what speech is and is not worthy of protection from Twitter is not a very pro free speech idea. It does not take a large amount of imagination to see how the ability to decide what speech must be carried can be easily abused by the government.

Even without explicit abuse, this is effectively the government saying "you must transmit this information, no matter what", which is an unwelcome intrusion of governmental power, in my opinion.

replies(1): >>23333033 #
7. free_rms ◴[28 May 20 03:20 UTC] No.23333033{6}[source]▶
I mean, they already enumerate that child porn isn't allowed, but kitten pictures are. We're just negotiating the boundaries. I'm advocating for the widest possible boundaries, because I think it creates the least possibility for the selective abuse that you're worried about.

Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

What would be novel in twitter's case, is that rather than recognizing that the phone company is a natural physical monopoly and hence must not refuse service to the politically unpopular, twitter is more of a natural social monopoly because of network effects. It would be an expansion of the doctrine, but it's arguably justified to the extent that you can't just go 'start your own twitter'.

replies(1): >>23333062 #
8. bcrosby95 ◴[28 May 20 03:23 UTC] No.23333052{5}[source]▶
So, you want to make political beliefs a protected class?

Would that make political parties illegal?

replies(2): >>23333058 #>>23333355 #
9. ◴[28 May 20 03:24 UTC] No.23333058{6}[source]▶
10. ashtonkem ◴[28 May 20 03:25 UTC] No.23333062{7}[source]▶
> I mean, they already enumerate that child porn isn't allowed, but kitten pictures are.

Child porn is unprotected speech that does not enjoy first amendment protections. What you are advocating for is giving the government control over forms of protected speech, which is a whole different ball of wax. Creating precedent that the government should regulate acknowledged protected speech is not a good idea at all.

> What would be novel in twitter's case, is that rather than recognizing that the phone company is a natural physical monopoly and hence must not refuse service to the politically unpopular, twitter is more of a natural social monopoly because of network effects

Twitter is not a monopoly.

replies(1): >>23333080 #
11. free_rms ◴[28 May 20 03:29 UTC] No.23333080{8}[source]▶
I'm suggesting that Twitter might be a monopoly in the field of "being the watering hole for the entire media/political class". The argument hinges on network effects, I'm not saying it's ironclad, but I think we can all agree that you can't just start your own Twitter and have the same unique position of political influence.

If that's the case, the common carrier concept is helpfully already fleshed out for us in the law.

Good night.

replies(1): >>23333114 #
12. ashtonkem ◴[28 May 20 03:34 UTC] No.23333114{9}[source]▶
> I'm not talking about protected speech, or the first amendment.

You're not intending to, but by giving the government the ability to regulate political speech you are.

And yes; telling Twitter what they can do with political speech is governmental regulation of protected speech. You're giving the government to decide what forms of protected speech get extra special protection, which is a form of regulation.

> I am suggesting that Twitter might be a monopoly, and subject to the common carrier doctrine, on "being the watering whole for the entire media/political class".

So, I can declare any company a monopoly if they have cornered a specific user base, no matter how vague? Is Slack now a monopoly because they're popular in tech offices? Can I regulate declare Reddit a monopoly for sports fans and regulate it as such?

What is the general principle that will decide whether or not a company should be regulated as a monopoly? And how in the world do you define the "media" class in order to regulate companies like Twitter?

Only 22% of Americans use Twitter daily. That is not a monopoly, period.

> but I think we can all agree that you can't just start your own Twitter and have the same unique position of political influence.

Sure, but that's no argument for an expansion of government power.

replies(1): >>23333121 #
13. free_rms ◴[28 May 20 03:36 UTC] No.23333121{10}[source]▶
I know I already said good night, but you haven't engaged with that common carrier concept at all. Check it out. We've been through all of this already with Ma Bell.

Good night.

replies(1): >>23333291 #
14. ashtonkem ◴[28 May 20 04:08 UTC] No.23333291{11}[source]▶
I didn't bother, because the concept of "common carrier" is an extremely poor fit for what you're looking for.

The basic problem you're going to run into is that common carrier status was designed to ensure equal public access to limited resources. In most cases this will either be a physically limited resource (railways, pipelines, power lines, long haul fiber) or access to resources that were actually created by the government (radio frequencies, highways, licensed taxicabs). Common carrier status is frequently also applied where eminent domain was used to create the infrastructure in the first place.

Basically, common carrier was designed to solve the problem of limited infrastructure, and their application to telecommunications has been spotty. I would remind you that ISPs are not common carriers under US law. Ma Bell might've gotten broken up, but the power of the FCC to do that was actually repealed in 1996.

The problem is that social media networks aren't a limited resource, at all. The damn things keep popping up, closing, and buying each other. I've had well over a dozen social media website accounts so far at least, and that's probably under counting.

So any attempt to declare Twitter specifically a common carrier is going to have to center around this idea that they have a monopoly on media and political figures. Of course this is an extremely vague concept; how do you decide who is a "media" or "political" figure? And what percentage of them must be on a site before that site should become a common carrier? What if they’re on multiple social sites at once? And how exactly do you define what is and is not censorable wherever media figures are present? And how in the world would you codify this into law in a way that wouldn't be overturned as unconstitutional?

Honestly, the contortions required to make Twitter a common carrier are so strained, they strike me as something started with the end goal in mind.

15. ◴[28 May 20 04:20 UTC] No.23333355{6}[source]▶