Trump threatens to 'strongly regulate' or 'close down' social media platforms after Twitter fact check

submitted by hugehassle from usatoday.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

He seriously needs to write some executive orders regulating them at least to the degree that media publications are regulated. He should also put in regulations that expose how much censorship is going on.

Let them operate how they want, but don't let them hide it. No buisness is allowed to perpetrate fraud the way these companies do with covert manipulation.

[–]Drewski 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is a bad idea, government regulation of social media will only backfire and result in smaller platforms being restricted and censored. The whole platform vs publisher angle is a red herring. A website should be able to moderate (as Saidit does) or even outright manipulate and censor (as with YouTube and Twitter) on it's own, private platform. I don't agree with censorship, which is why I don't use most of these big social media monopolies and encourage others to leave as well. Giving the government the authority to police private websites (even if it's ostensibly for the right reasons) is not the solution.

[–]Canbot 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

You are responding to a caricature of what you think the argument is and not to what I said. These websites should not be allowed to covertly censor people. That is completely different than not being allowed to censor. One is honest gatekeeping and maintenance, the other is fraud. What the social media giants are doing now is social manipulation through fraud. There is also no reason why they should have the special privileged of a platform when they are publishers. It is not a "red herring" it is an extremely important legal distinction and it should be done right. That you don't care doesn't matter. They currently have the ability to slander, defame, libel, and lie and claim immunity. That is fucking nuts. No one should have that kind of power.

[–]Drewski 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If I understand the distinction that you're making, you think that the government should force social media companies to be transparent and stop engaging in manipulation. While I agree that this behavior is bad, I still disagree that the government should step in to enforce it. Giving them this power will inevitably abused against smaller websites and social media platforms. I don't consider the right to have the government not interfere with the way a website governs itself a special privilege or power.

I think we both agree that the tech monopolies are bad for open discourse and communication, but differ in that government intervention is the right way to fix it. I return to my original point; get your friends and family on open platforms that support free speech, don't expect the government to step in and fix the broken ones.

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Giving them this power will inevitably abused against smaller websites and social media platforms.

This is a completely baseless accusation. That is like saying we shouldn't have any laws because the laws will be abused. It is nonsense. Of course laws can be abused, but it is absurd to argue that this means we shouldn't have the laws to begin with.

I don't consider the right to have the government not interfere with the way a website governs itself a special privilege or power.

You don't think special exemptions from current laws is a special privilege? I think you might be special. Of course it is. And if you were honest about it you wouldn't be rewording it so deceptively. You clearly gave up on trying to have an honest conversation and went on to bullshiting.

I agree that creating alternative platforms is the ideal goal, but that doesn't change anything. We already have laws against fraud, slander, libel, etc. We need to start holding these companies responsible.

[–]Drewski 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws, only that laws should protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of government whenever possible. Laws applying to speech are especially dangerous, because they can be used and interpreted arbitrarily to control conversations that the powers that be find unacceptable. Luckily, the United States has many laws protecting speech, even speech that many people find distasteful or hateful. If you look at places like China, India, or even Europe and the UK, hate speech laws are being used to stifle and intimidate people that the authority doesn't agree with. You may think this is off topic, but I believe laws used to regulate private websites and platforms would inevitably be used to the same effect. Even if you trust the people in power now (I sure don't), what about the next set of officials and legislators?

What exemptions do platforms have from current laws? If you provide some examples, maybe I could respond. Just because we don't share the same viewpoint, doesn't mean I'm not trying to have an honest conversation. If you disagree with the way I've worded something, why not address that directly, instead of saying that I'm special or a bullshitter?

Laws against slander, libel, etc apply to the person who is making a statement, not the website or platform on which it is posted. If platforms are held responsible for everything said by their users, do you really think that is conductive to free speech and open communication? Or might instead it be used to stifle dissenting opinions and statements that go against the overreaching narrative?

[–]jamesK_3rd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well i absolutely hope he tries and i absolutely hope everyone finally puts limitations on these executive actions.

They'd be fawning all over of it were Obama trying to regulate the Internet. Trump, for being a NYC Democrat, drives the DNC and other socialists democrats to rabidly froth at the mouth when he says the sky is blue and they clearly know it's a pale pastel

Ultimately what Trump is proposing is bad, but most administrative executive actions are garbage. Congress should be legislating, not the president. The U.S. isn't Europe, yet anyway..

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Couldn't have said it better!

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That's right Drewski. We are just willing victims if we keep using these platforms. However, monopoly prevention laws should be enforced strictly.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

However, monopoly prevention laws should be enforced strictly.

This is what actually needs to happen. Monopoly prevention and antitrust regulation at most. Giving any president or person ultimate say of what content is acceptable on any platform is a dangerous idea, you might be comfortable when the system works for you but it will screw you over hard when someone you don't like gets the power and starts acting against your interests!

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lol, THEY ARE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. This is setting a precedent. Find alternatives and build them, like saidit, don't have big daddy government sign treasonous laws to help government censor more easily. Two edged sword.

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

yea... I'll be happily surprised if this doesn't actually hurt the small guys like saidit instead of the so-called targets who have tons of lawyers and lobbyists to protect themselves with. Sounds like the beginning of the internet crackdown to me.

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Saidit censors just the obvious things like CP and incitement of violence towards other people..So, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

but anything can be construed as political censorship by a bored lawyer... and the suit doesn't need to be won to kill the site

its not like this didn't happen plenty of times before congress introduced the bill that gave web sites immunity.. just look at all the people on reddit who think getting voted down is "censorship".