Most active commenters
  • lordvon(4)
  • AnthonyMouse(3)

←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 11 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 2.474s | 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 #
ethagnawl ◴[28 May 20 00:50 UTC] No.23332067[source]▶
It's even worse than just spreading his usual distract-from-the-day's-real-news nonsense. He's actively dissuading _some number_ of people from voting.

As always with him, the proof is in the projection: he's accusing others of interfering in the election (states expanding mail in voting, Twitter, etc.) while he's actively doing it himself.

replies(1): >>23332940 #
lordvon ◴[28 May 20 03:04 UTC] No.23332940[source]▶
I think news organizations are unfortunately choosing to do non-news for ratings, though. And how is Trump interfering with the election? In principle, there are real risks with unjustified mail-in voting, and I think restrictions would protect the integrity of my vote. Do you have evidence Trump is doing this to interfere with the 2020 election?
replies(4): >>23333127 #>>23333151 #>>23333155 #>>23333407 #
quxbar ◴[28 May 20 03:41 UTC] No.23333155[source]▶
What risks to mail-in voting aren't already covered by mail fraud laws? AFAIK those laws are sufficient for normal crimes that one can easily commit by mail, so elections don't have any special treatment.

Personally, I'd like to vote by mail because there's a bit of a global pandemic going on. Preventing me from voting in a safe way (with a simple, well-tested solution, I might add) is an outright assault on my right to vote. So the integrity of your vote is really harmed far more by the willful incompetence of those in power.

replies(2): >>23333265 #>>23333905 #
1. lordvon ◴[28 May 20 04:03 UTC] No.23333265[source]▶
Well, take a look at the following examples of convictions made for ‘fraudulent use of absentee ballots’ (and other forms of voter fraud): https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/p...

I suppose the pandemic is a valid point for wanting to vote by mail, but concerns for voting integrity are still there. I think there should be an easy-to-implement contactless yet in-person way to vote (maybe similar to how you get a coronavirus test), which would avoid the rather drastic action of allowing universal mail-in voting. Know that there are many states who ban / regulate it for good reason.

replies(1): >>23333314 #
2. magicalist ◴[28 May 20 04:12 UTC] No.23333314[source]▶
> Well, take a look at the following examples of convictions made for ‘fraudulent use of absentee ballots’ (and other forms of voter fraud)

163 cases of "fraudulent use of absentee ballots" over 1988-2017. Probably a lot more useful to worry about the scantron machine accuracy.

replies(2): >>23333340 #>>23333971 #
3. lordvon ◴[28 May 20 04:17 UTC] No.23333340[source]▶
Those are the ones that just got caught. (And first page says it is a sampling not a comprehensive list...) It shouldn’t happen at all. And it will get worse with less stringent forms of mail-in voting, wouldn’t you agree?
replies(1): >>23333386 #
4. LordDragonfang ◴[28 May 20 04:26 UTC] No.23333386{3}[source]▶
A quick Google shows that paper ballots have a 1-4% inaccuracy rate in correctly recording voter intent. That's about 5 orders of magnitude higher, so we should stop using paper ballots entirely, since any amount of inaccuracy is unacceptible.
replies(1): >>23333446 #
5. lordvon ◴[28 May 20 04:38 UTC] No.23333446{4}[source]▶
Fraud should be prevented. Inaccuracies should be improved.
replies(1): >>23333744 #
6. bavell ◴[28 May 20 05:33 UTC] No.23333744{5}[source]▶
It seems the best way to do this is to move away from in-person voting.

As has been demonstrated at DEFCON for years now, voting machines used in dozens of states are laughably insecure and easily tampered with. Mail-in ballots would be much more difficult to pull off large scale voting fraud with due to their distributed nature.

replies(1): >>23333777 #
7. AnthonyMouse ◴[28 May 20 05:37 UTC] No.23333777{6}[source]▶
Don't they still use the same voting machines for the mail in ballots?

And the distributed nature is the problem. At the polls you have representatives of both major parties there to make sure nothing untoward is happening. How are you supposed to secure something that happens literally anywhere?

replies(1): >>23334437 #
8. AnthonyMouse ◴[28 May 20 06:07 UTC] No.23333971[source]▶
> 163 cases of "fraudulent use of absentee ballots" over 1988-2017.

That's more than five cases a year, of those that have been caught. Five stolen elections a year seems like a lot.

> Probably a lot more useful to worry about the scantron machine accuracy.

The scantron machine isn't purposely trying to alter the election results so the errors it makes aren't all in the same direction.

9. jimsug ◴[28 May 20 07:21 UTC] No.23334437{7}[source]▶
I don't know whether the distributed nature is a problem, though.

Voter intimidation is a lot easier, for example, if you know where and when to turn up.

You would probably find it easier to tamper with a voting machine if you know where they're going to be, and if more people have access to them, too.

replies(1): >>23339253 #
10. AnthonyMouse ◴[28 May 20 16:32 UTC] No.23339253{8}[source]▶
> Voter intimidation is a lot easier, for example, if you know where and when to turn up.

But for the same reason it's a lot easier to prevent. If you show up at the polls to intimidate voters you get arrested. If you do it to other members of your household, or your employees or union members, nobody there is independent. Anybody who reports it still has to live or work with those people the next day, so people don't report it.

> You would probably find it easier to tamper with a voting machine if you know where they're going to be, and if more people have access to them, too.

Not when there are election monitors there watching you. With paper ballots you fill out your ballot behind a screen, but you drop it into the machine in front of everybody.

Also, many of the voting machine vulnerabilities are as a result of submitting specially crafted ballots. Which is another reason you want to give people their ballot and have them fill it out by hand and submit it immediately, instead of giving them an unlimited amount of time and access to a computer and a printer while "filling out" their ballot.

Of course the better solution in either case is to use voting machines without security vulnerabilities, but there aren't always enough ponies for everybody.

replies(1): >>23344070 #
11. jimsug ◴[28 May 20 23:02 UTC] No.23344070{9}[source]▶
> If you show up at the polls to intimidate voters you get arrested.

Yes, if this is consistently and fairly enforced, I agree - only doubting that it is because I honestly don't know, and hopefully never have to find out firsthand.

> many of the voting machine vulnerabilities are as a result of submitting specially crafted ballots

Yeah, fair enough. I don't know enough about the vulnerabilities, but if this is the case, I agree.