Hacker News Reader

Comment by MattPalmer1086 | Hacker News Reader

It's not censoring for a private company to refuse service to someone.

I don't agree with government compelling speech for a private company either.

But if the government is in talks w/ the social media about setting their policy, and they use that policy to ban other politicians, is that not censorship?

If the government leans on Twitter to silence a user, then yes, that would be censorship. There is no evidence this has happened, however; the substack post you referenced is drivel.

The White House admits that they're in regular communication with social media platforms and are flagging problematic posts on facebook. What about that is drivel?

> Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.

> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...

Just because Twitter has the right to remove content doesn't mean that removing it isn't censorship.

Would you hold that opinion if someone was declined access to a platform because of their skin color?

No. I do agree that discrimination based on protected characteristics should not be allowed.

There's obviously a conversation to be had on what should be protected.

But when is a private company's refusal of service break the line of editorializing their product?

Why is Twitter the speaker when MTG tweets, but Verizon is not the speaker when I call my mom?

Good question. I'd say it has to do with how public the communication in question is, but I'd be interested in other opinions.

Because Verizon isn't broadcasting your conversation to the world.

Your conversation with your mom is private communication, while your tweets are broadcast communications.

You've stated a fact. Why does this fact make Twitter the speaker whose free speech rights take precedence?

It's apples and oranges and therefore are not and should not be regulated in the same way

I think that fact is pertinent, but it may also be helpful to think of the distinction between a publisher and a technology. If I write a book called “Vaccines Kill and Trump is Still President”, it feels fair and correct to me that Random House has the right to pass on publishing it but that nobody could stop me from reading it to someone over the phone or mailing it to someone.

The pragmatic answer is: because the law says so.

The technical answer is: Verizon can't hear what you're saying to your mom, so they don't know/care the content.

The social answer is: ultimately there's no real difference between the two. If you use your Verizon phone to make harassing calls to your mom and she reports those calls to Verizon, or if you do something else that violates your agreement with Verizon, they too have the right to terminate your service:

"We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (1) if you: (a) breach this agreement or violate our prohibited usage policies..."

Now, because you pay Verizon, and Verizon likes money, they may be more inclined to tolerate certain behavior as long as you pay your bill on time. That's their choice, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com