Hacker News Reader

At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.).

What does "neutral discussion platform" even mean? My understanding is that Fox News, New York Times, CNN, etc, all benefit from protections against what users post in places like comments sections, etc.

This whole "neutrality" aspect seems like a talking point meant to attack social media platforms from a strawman perspective of "Only 'neutral' platforms are allowed protections from liability" that doesn't seem to actually be related to the law itself.

I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions.

I wouldn't consider basic moderation activities as "murky territory".

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. It’s comical to think that anyone has the ability to be the arbiter of truth and specifically in this case, the truthiness of the statement is completely unverifiable as it’s a forecast.

BTW, don’t think voter fraud with mail in votes is possible? Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless

The GOP knows it’s an issue better than anyone since they leverage it heavily.

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants.

You aren't describing "neutrality" you are describing "feigning ignorance". And even if this could be considered "neutral" why is that something to push for (not just on Twitter but on every private business/platform/etc in existence) and what does this have to do with the law in question?

It is exactly describing neutrality on truthiness. There literally is no other definition. You take no side on truth.

I wouldn’t, nor have I seen anyone, suggest that this is something to push for on every private business/platform/etc in existence. The point to be made is twofold:

1) Have the large social media platforms developed into general spheres of public discourse and thus have become central to ongoing function of public life? If so, then ANY active control over the narratives allowed on the platforms if is of critical concern to the function of Democracy.

2) Separate from point #1 which is broader than Section 230, is whether or not control over the narratives allowed on the platforms is equivalent to editorial moderation at publishers, changing them from being governed by Section 230?

To be clear, I don’t know the answers to either of these questions. But I sure as shit know that I would prefer major realms of public discourse to be free of some bull shit “arbiter of truth” controlling the presentation of people’s thoughts in them.

Again, this entire mess is because they chose not to enforce their own TOS when it comes to the President's account. Twitter is trying to control the damage, and opted for something that doesn't solve the problem, infuriated the President, and will result in greater problems going forward.

This is a pretty rational argument. Where does one draw the line with "fact checks". I don't like Trump at all. Which is why I don't like seeing "My political tribe disagrees with you" down votes. Shouldn't we be better than that? In general the HN crowd tends to be for free speech and less with platforms censoring or restricting people. Now yes Trump says downright false things all the time, and IMO is a dangerous person. But let's take him out of the equation and look at this objectively.

> Why is Twitter singling out Trump for his false statements?

They aren't. They've labeled other tweets before.

> If AOC or Bernie Sanders make false or misleading statements about economics (which they frequently do), will those also receive fact checks and warning labels?

Presumably, yes.

Economics is quite different than election interference, so I'm not sure that Twitter would make any "fact check" statements when it comes to economics.

The idea of "facts" in economics can't extend very far beyond metics and other numbers, as most of the rest is up to vigorous theoretical, political debate. If this original poster is so keen on fact checking the "economics" of a certain political sides, it seems likely that they are not concerned with actual facts but rather deeply held theoretical and political beliefs that they have elevated to "fact" status.

It does make a lot of sense to fact check the most viewed tweets first, doesn’t it? If you want to stop the spread of misinformation through your platform, you don’t start with the tweets of a rural politician with 8 followers.

Twitter ceased to become a platform when they changed the content of The President's tweet. They literally editorialized his content. That act made them a publisher.

They also cut off the corners on his profile picture, listed a bunch of replies from users in a particular order (almost definitely not curated by humans, but it _could_ be?), reserve the right to make those replies more or less visible in relation to the tweet, added some widgets which make it very easy to report (and hide) an abusive tweet... The content he provided is a <=280 character string. It is reproduced verbatim.

[flagged]