It is impossible to run anything like Twitter in Germany without being sued into oblivion for defamation etc and get struck with criminal charges for something a user posted. Germanys equivalent of cease and desist letters (Abmahnungen) make running a big site with user generated content very unattractive.
Or accidentally trigger a three-strike rule or infringe some odd sentence in the 300k pages of regulations that concern your business... Europe is not going to have a big tech company (or even mid-sized for that matter) until this legal approach changes in an extreme way.
Germany is a startup-friendly? In addition to the free speech issues mentioned above, it makes me giggle a bit when I take a look at their 45% tax rate.
On the other hand, Ireland does look like a sweet destination. Since they probably already have an office there (double Dutch sandwitch?), it wouldn't even be hard to do.
Dreams aside, probably no company is stupid enough to abandon a 330M big market that has plenty of cash to spend.
Has there been a thread on HN that discusses the actual EO?
Let's for the sake of discussion ignore that it's some other political figurehead implementing this law, would it be acceptable? Is twitter a news outlet by editing or annotating a persons message and is it correct to say these companies are forming a monopoly/cartel on free speech. Does twitter's size and impact on the general populace mean it needs different rules to operate?
I'm much more interested in the stances and opinions of people regarding the status quo around social media and their function to the people and much less interested in the drama that ensues every time something leaves trump's mouth.
There is a natural ebb and flow to societies and civilizations. Things were happening in Athens, Miletos, Alexandria, Baghdad - the intellectual centers of gravity changed over time as rulers had various levels of enlightenment, religious freedom varied etc.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1]
Freedom of Speech does not protect you from the consequences of said free speech.
> Private entities can do what they want.
Private entities can also get sued into oblivion by other private entities that believe they were wronged. Section 230 prevents that in exchange of some conditions and concessions as long as they are followed.
If twitter wants the freedom to do what they want, they will also have to accept the freedom to get sued into oblivion.
The key and broader issue here is that Twitter has become a global channel for official governmental communication.
As such Twitter should come up with a clear and transparent policy on this (have they?). It's not specific to Trump.
IMHO, tweets by heads of states should not be subjected to any moderation, and perhaps replies should not be allowed.
Now, what someone tweets in one country may be an offence in another country so it is possible that Twitter might still have to make certain tweets by heads of states unavailable in some other countries.
Replies to official tweets don't really serve any purpose apart from creating a buzz or polemic, i.e. to spread in a viral way but rarely for constructive reasons.
Those tweets are unidirectional top down broadcasts in practice but they reach many more people than the official government website and they do it almost instantly.
Readit News
On the other hand, Ireland does look like a sweet destination. Since they probably already have an office there (double Dutch sandwitch?), it wouldn't even be hard to do.
Dreams aside, probably no company is stupid enough to abandon a 330M big market that has plenty of cash to spend.
Let's for the sake of discussion ignore that it's some other political figurehead implementing this law, would it be acceptable? Is twitter a news outlet by editing or annotating a persons message and is it correct to say these companies are forming a monopoly/cartel on free speech. Does twitter's size and impact on the general populace mean it needs different rules to operate?
I'm much more interested in the stances and opinions of people regarding the status quo around social media and their function to the people and much less interested in the drama that ensues every time something leaves trump's mouth.
900+ comments and counting[0].
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23342161
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1]
Private entities can do what they want.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
> Private entities can do what they want.
Private entities can also get sued into oblivion by other private entities that believe they were wronged. Section 230 prevents that in exchange of some conditions and concessions as long as they are followed.
If twitter wants the freedom to do what they want, they will also have to accept the freedom to get sued into oblivion.
As such Twitter should come up with a clear and transparent policy on this (have they?). It's not specific to Trump.
IMHO, tweets by heads of states should not be subjected to any moderation, and perhaps replies should not be allowed.
Now, what someone tweets in one country may be an offence in another country so it is possible that Twitter might still have to make certain tweets by heads of states unavailable in some other countries.
This is not a simple issue but it will only grow.
Can surf the *.gov for that, or watch tv.
Or ist that the full spectrum dominance across all channels?
MLM?
Those tweets are unidirectional top down broadcasts in practice but they reach many more people than the official government website and they do it almost instantly.