This comment thread is full of people who A) decide not to say anything, probably because they are not sure and B) very vocal people who are extremely sure that the other side is completely corrupt.<p>I feel like the polarization is harmful.<p>Interested to hear any background like why he would say the mail in is full of fraud or something and why people are so sure it is not.
It was recently affirmed in court that the first amendment applies to the government, not corporations. See PragerU v Youtube. I'm curious what he thinks he's going to do though. Any guesses?
> Social media platforms' legal right as private companies to delete or otherwise regulate speech – or, in this case, tweets – is well established.<p>I'm curious how this will work out for tweets by the USA president.<p>Twitter will easily delete anything the Chinese, French, or German government deems "unacceptable" speech. They've never deleted anything that the USA government has requested (the USA government has never requested anything to be deleted).<p>What's the difference here? What's the double-standard?
Related discussions: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286</a> and <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322112" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322112</a>
A alleged draft of the order has been leaked: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333496" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333496</a>
Social media should be considered publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.
POTUS got "personally attacked" by Twitter and is now attacking back. The US is now a dictatorship?<p>How many citizens have lost any faith in the US government? Trump has created long-lasting damaged in the US democracy.
Oh man, if Trump got upset over that tweet, I can only imagine what would happen if they put something like "Confirmed/Believed to be false by these sources...." on his other tweets that have been confirmed to be false/incorrect/lies.<p>Interesting times. We'll see what happens.
I hope twitter decides they can’t comply with whatever is in the executive order, and simply bans his account instead.<p>In other news, after a certain threshold, when someone lies on TV, there is an FCC mandate that the broadcaster adds a disclaimer saying the person is spreading false information. There was a lawsuit over this, because stations were broadcasting Trump speeches without adding the disclaimer, and the executive branch isn’t enforcing the rule.
It will be very interesting to see if this method of finger in the scales by Twitter stands up. I’m glad to see that they have been forced to apply the same treatment to China, But section 230 simply has to go.
In normal times I'd have faith in our institutions to block this blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power. But 2 of the seats in the Supreme Court were filled by the administration itself.
Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.