McCarthy's Fast Start: Big Tech is a Top Target (axios.com) 312
House Republicans plan to launch a new investigative panel this week that will demand copies of White House emails, memos and other communications with Big Tech companies, Axios reported Monday, citing sources. From the report: Speaker Kevin McCarthy plans a quick spate of red-meat actions and announcements to reward hardliners who backed him through his harrowing fight for the gavel. The new panel, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, is partly a response to revelations from Elon Musk in the internal documents he branded the "Twitter Files."
The subcommittee will be chaired by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan -- a close McCarthy ally, and a favorite of the hard right. The probe into communications between tech giants and President Biden's aides will look for government pressure that could have resulted in censorship or harassment of conservatives -- or squelching of debate on polarizing policies, including the CDC on COVID. The request for documents will be followed by "compulsory processes," including subpoenas if needed, a GOP source tells Axios. In December, Jordan wrote letters to top tech platforms asking for information about "'collusion' with the Biden administration to censor conservatives on their platforms."
The subcommittee will be chaired by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan -- a close McCarthy ally, and a favorite of the hard right. The probe into communications between tech giants and President Biden's aides will look for government pressure that could have resulted in censorship or harassment of conservatives -- or squelching of debate on polarizing policies, including the CDC on COVID. The request for documents will be followed by "compulsory processes," including subpoenas if needed, a GOP source tells Axios. In December, Jordan wrote letters to top tech platforms asking for information about "'collusion' with the Biden administration to censor conservatives on their platforms."
But not Trump's admin of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddly enough, they won't be looking into Trump's admin for any occurrences before the Biden admin...
Re:But not Trump's admin of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the cheaters from Georgia?
Re: (Score:3)
At least Biden is righting the wrongs from the end of the previous administration.
Like Trump's illegal tax break for the rich? Oh wait, he's ignoring that completely.
Re: (Score:3)
Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss just got a medal for helping our side to win the 2020 election
They got a medal for standing up to bullies. Good for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the old myth, beloved by Farkers, that Dems "fix" the wrongs of prior Repub regimes.
Unfortunately for such a head-in-the-sand position, we still have kids in cages. DeJoy is still ruining the USPS. Assange is still being prosecuted (something Obama wouldn't do, but Trump and Biden have no problems with). Biden is continuing Trump's regressive Cuba policy. Police continue to be militarized. Etc. etc....
The Dems job is to normalize the atrocities of Repubs. Obama maintained all of Bush's worst polic
Re: (Score:3)
For years now, most of what I read in the news is like a WWE wrestling event. Teams Red and Blue are run by people who believe we solve problems by attacking each other. The fact that anyone supports this behavior is reprehensible.
How dare a single political party garner votes from stockbrokers on Wall Street, pig farmers in Iowa, coal miners in West Virginia, impoverished/homeless in Seattle, cattle fa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. Now, you go back to where your immigrant parents came from!
No, you're not full-blooded Native American.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey. We stole this country fair and square after the natives were stupid enough not to immediately toss us back into the ocean like we would now. After all, those terrible, terrible ILLEGAL immigrants.
Wait, Natives didn't have laws against it because it just never occurred to them, how silly and backwards!! If they had only had folks such as yourself around...um....gosh, things would look a little different wouldn't they? These conversations always crack me up because of the complete lack of self-awareness
Re:But not Trump's admin of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Prove that you're not lying. Please show how ever single fucking court case the Former Guy and his buddies brought that were ALL THROWN OUT OF COURT were, in fact, true.
Re:But not Trump's admin of course (Score:4, Informative)
Well, as most are behind a Nexus-Lexis paywall or similar, I only read a couple, others I read about. There was a definite lack of evidence in them.
One case I read had a woman's affidavit about suspicious behavior - sounded like it could be an issue until you read the defendant's response. The judge noted that the woman had arrived late, not received the training about processes, did not avail herself of the process to bring up her complaint at the time, and did not make specific allegations of persons involved, the time they took place, or the problems observed. All facts.
In another case, the judge ruled that in order to proceed in court, the plaintiff has to allege wrongful conduct and submit evidence, and that the plaintiff had done neither. Is that factual or procedural? Sounds factual to me (or maybe lack-of-fact-ual)
In an infamous filing, Trump's lawyers made allegations about a county in another state. Again, that sounds like a pretty important issue of fact.
Re:But not Trump's admin of course (Score:5, Insightful)
They were overwhelming thrown out for procedural reasons, not matters of fact.
You mean the procedural reason of filing a court case without any shred of evidence, and actually admitting that they had none?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They were thrown out for lack of any evidence whatsoever. That may be "procedural" but you don't tie up the court's time investigating flat-earth level of conspiracy theories without actual evidence. You don't need much evidence to have the court pay attention, you don't need the reasonable doubt level for sure. But you need *some* evidence before the courts will let you dictate their actions. None of the cases brought to courts had any evidence that wasn't quickly dismissed as unreliable, hearsay, or ju
Re: But not Trump's admin of course (Score:2)
This is where Biden should release emails from the Trump admin showing this as well. He can as they are asking the white house for possible collusion in emails.
The Twitter files should nothing of anything more from Biden, Clinton, Obama than Trump. Release them all and make it public in the release.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"he's fully aware of what's going on in the moment" Where do you get that bullshit from. Biden may have faults but being on top of things isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he as usually correct in pointing out the problems we have in the country but I found that he really lacked any coherent policies on how to address it and that stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of where those problems come from.
Trump is a populist, through and through, which generally means he is going to simplify most issues Americans face down to someone to blame or an easy answer to what is a complex set of interwoven issues because that shit while accurate is boring.
I would ask what so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would ask what sound policies was he promoting ...
Calling out NATO nations for not living up to their defense spending obligations.
Actually reducing border crossings (ex stay in Mexico while asylum request processed, getting Mexico to put their Army on the border, etc).
Recognizing that the Nixon/Kissinger theory of liberalizing China through interaction with the West has failed, and that China is an aggressive economic foe and responding accordingly. Ie a more balanced trade policy, open in both directions, barriers in both direction, but not longer open
Re:But not Trump's admin of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling out NATO nations for not living up to their defense spending obligations.
Not a policy, not legislative and was nothing put to paper and got no actual concessions, just soundbites.
Actually reducing border crossings (ex stay in Mexico while asylum request processed, getting Mexico to put their Army on the border, etc).
While not legislative I would agree that is a policy. It's effect is still a bit questionable though.
Recognizing that the Nixon/Kissinger theory of liberalizing China through interaction with the West has failed, and that China is an aggressive economic foe and responding accordingly. Ie a more balanced trade policy, open in both directions, barriers in both direction, but not longer open in on direction but barriers in the other.
Not a policy and no China trade agreement ever materalized and bailing the US out of the TPP without another multilateral agreement (like he promised) turned out to be a bad move overall. Going after China unilaterally had little effect, as was expected and the trade defecit increased. Tarrifs also really a pretty ineffective policy. China is actually the perfect example of all rhetoric and no real policy.
"Space Force", all those space base activities really did need consolidation under on organization. Although I would have preferred a more Coast Guard model than an Air Force model. Something that can switch between military and law enforce/regulatory as needed.
The "Space Force" as a policy win makes my point even better, this is barrel scraping levels of political wins. Theres no evidence so far that what SF is doing was not getting done or couldn't under the Air Force Space Command as it was. This is netrual at best.
As a point of comparison in 2 years we have the Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, a border policy bill and via the export controls and other measures Biden has done more damage to China's industries and taken actual measures far more than thr Trump admin did with real effects.
Re: But not Trump's admin of course (Score:4, Informative)
> Biden's border policy is really a defacto open border. He has nothing other than talk about an app.
Straight up false. Continuing title 42 (temporary pandemic emergency) is illegal with current facts and a bipartisan bill was shot down last congress. The existing policy is the same as last admin pre-covid, but it's on hold as title 42 was extended until summer by scotus.
Except Mexico is actually helping pay for the border security under Biden.
Re:But not Trump's admin of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, Trump was a huge fan of Xi Jinping (and other dictataors) until his trade deal fell through. Then he became anti-China for ego reasons, not because he finally started listening to people who said to not trust China. Trump *still* thinks Kin Jong-un is a good guy, Trump loves all those dictators who were able to rule by decree without being held in check by their legislatures and courts; probably jealousy.
The number one accomplishment for Trump though, the reason he got elected in the first place, was to stack the SCOTUS so that Roe-v-Wade might eventually be overturned. That succeeded faster than people though. Face it, a lot of anti abortion people held their nose and voted Trump for this reason; he was the evangelical darling despite his utterly un-Christian lifestyle and demeanor (thus his chief religious advisor was a "prosperity theologian"). He never won the election based upon his economic conservatism (which is all about free trade) but the hope that he might help out the social conservatives.
The irony is, after getting Roe v Wade overturned Trump in his petulism is blaming the anti-abortion wing for the losses in 2022 (how dare they lose and embarrass him personally!). Trump is just great at blaming everyone but himself, even blaming Melania for suggesting Oz might be a good candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Which of his policies were "sound"?
Please justify it to someone who, due to his "trade wars are easy to win" saw the single malt Scots whisky they buy jump from $48 on sale to $75 on sale.
Now begins the circus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now begins the circus (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been said before, but I'll say it again: elect clowns, get a circus.
There are morons on the right that still think Benghazi was some evil Hillary plot to... well nobody ever gets that far because they just heard "Hillary" and therefore logic and reason shut down, leaving only emotion to do the decision making.
This committee is Benghazi 2.0 - a partisan hack clown show meant to do exactly what you say - allow partisan hacks that have been in congress for a decade or more to continue with their hackery. Jim Jordan, set to receive the chairman's gavel on the powerful Judiciary committee, has never authored a piece of legislation in his time in Congress. Not a single one.
That's a remarkable record for a 9-term congressman; I'm not sure how you hold a job as a legislator for 18 years and never perform the primary function of that job - writing legislation.
So glad I don't live in Ohio anymore.
Re:Now begins the circus (Score:5, Interesting)
As a centrist who believes in individual liberties, I don't have a "team" in the current American political landscape. But nice try projecting your own issues on to others.
I used to, but both parties have decided that catering to their extreme ideologues is more important. The republicans have embraced authoritarianism and identity grievance politics while not actually taking any policy position besides "we think what Trump thinks" [ballotpedia.org], while the democrats have decided that they can't spend enough money, but they're really gonna try. And considering that I find Trump to be a reprehensible narcissistic sociopathic liar completely undeserving and unqualified for the position that doesn't do anything unless he can profit from it at my expense as a taxpayer and citizen; that reduces my choices substantially.
In order to clarify a bit better in language you can probably understand, Trump is to my electoral preferences as Hillary is to yours - a total non starter that I will never entertain as an option I could endorse with my vote. What will probably blow your mind is that Hillary was also a total non-starter that I would never entertain as an option I could endorse with my vote as it seems you only see the political discussion in this country as a "choose A or B, and only from A or B" proposition.
Currently I'm more in favor of not tossing out democracy to let power-hungry 1940s throwbacks and coup-plotting insurrectionists get in charge to increasingly shit on non-white non-male non-christian non-heterosexual segments of the population, but that's just me figuring that people should be able to live their lives without government getting sticking their noses in the middle of it, no matter what pronouns you choose to identify with, or who you choose to have a consensual sexual relationship with.
Republicans can't really say the same, now can they?
Re: (Score:2)
Two-year trainwreck? Which? Don't you mean the previous four year complete disaster, run by an ignorant racist?
Re:Now begins the circus (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but I like the questions so here's my answer:
1. Because it was a House investigation, there's always going to be a bit of a partisan focus on the proceedings. Kevin McCarthy fucked up by trying to have the GOP boycott the committee after he wasn't allowed to put material witnesses to the events in question onto it to grind gears and cause a spectacle. Any blame for not having an adversarial process / cross examination / etc. lies at his feet for being stupid and listening to political neophytes like Trump. They had every opportunity to first have a bipartisan, bicameral committee to investigate, but they blocked that because they just didn't want any investigation. And you can't really blame them for trying - it was always going to be nothing but bad for them and they knew it.
The J6 committee did honest work to get to the bottom of how that terrible day came about, and uncovered a whole lot of shit that still requires accountability. We saw that it wasn't just an ill-advised speech a mile away from the Capitol on the day that the election is fully finalized and done - there was a concerted effort to bring people to the capitol, to bring the "right" people to the capitol, and then send them to the Capitol complex with the intention of disrupting government function; and those efforts began before the election even happened.
The committee also uncovered a wide conspiracy of election fraud - the whole alternate elector schemes stemming from the "Coup Memo" that Eastman wrote and in his own emails admits would be illegal, the phone calls attempting to pressure state officials to "find" votes, the involvement of various Senators and Congress critters in trying to cast doubt on the will of the people, in order to throw a contingent election to the House in order to move the goalposts from 50%+1 of 270 electoral votes to instead 50%+1 of 50 state delegations, which Republicans had more of.
There were advance teams that started taking down barriers (however feeble they were) and assaulting US Capitol Police before the speech was even done, in order to clear the way for the masses still getting riled up at the Ellipse. There were guys in military gear, who had planned on violence weeks ago and had caches of weapons stored across the river, with boats ready to deliver them.
There were reports of many people with weapons and equipment that would have never been allowed into the secure perimeter around the rally, including reports of people with guns. And then on top of that, you have credible reports of the President trying to get the United States Secret Service to remove the magnetometers so anyone could come in with anything at all.
There has been convictions of seditious conspiracy in a court of law - this means that there was a factual seditious conspiracy proven beyond a reasonable doubt which was involved in that shit show - and I'm glad that we've uncovered to a great extent who was involved in it. Now we just need those people to face accountability - a goal that I would hope would be bipartisan, but apparently is not.
2. Big Tech Censorship: yes, censorship is concerning, but only because of the state of the social media sector that mirrors so many other problems we face right now. I don't see this so much as a censorship issue, as much as an antitrust issue. When you only have 2 or 3 players in an industry, you're going to get bad behavior. If a private platform wants to exercise censorship of what they are publishing, they should be free to do that. The problem is really that we don't have enough market choice in order to route around any damage that results from that censorship, and that it's pretty easy for 2 or 3 players to magically come up with the same policies and deny collusion.
This isn't limited to tech companies - everyone is shocked by the rising prices of food these days and want to blame inflation on Biden even though it was already off to the races before he took office, but the reality is there is on
Re:Now begins the circus (Score:4, Insightful)
I will acknowledge that selectively excluding people that were involved in the very thing being investigated was the proper thing to do, regardless of party affiliation.
McCarthy could have chosen other members that didn't have very obvious conflicts of interest and direct involvement in the thing being investigated. How is that hard to understand?
Do you think it would be proper to have the getaway driver in the jury box for a bank robbery trial?
*yawn* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
For the most part I would not say that Republicans and Democrats hate social media for the same reasons, but there might be enough overlap for something to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
They have a beef with a so called job creator buying a company in order to fire people https://www.latimes.com/busine... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, as of the last Congress, Congressional subpoenas have been leading to (sometimes highly visible raid-style) arrests. So, I would not recommend ignoring these subpoenas, although Merrick Garland may change the DOJ's approach to congressional subpoena enforcement, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
More performative drama from the do-nothing-good crowd. And, we already know subpoenas are merely a suggestion and can be safely ignored. The GOP is no more, the imposters are merely actors entertaining their base.
This comment [imgur.com] sums up things quite well.
For two years (Score:5, Insightful)
All I heard from the GOP was Biden inflation, Biden gas prices, Biden Ukraine, Biden student loans, Biden border, Biden socialism.
Now with a slim majority, the top GOP agenda is Hunter Biden's dick pictures?
Does the GOP offer solutions on how to fix the many issues they've been complaining about?
Inflation (Score:2, Insightful)
The only two economic levers the government has to tame inflation is to:
1. Increase interest rates - which everyone is complaining about but should have been done a decade ago
2. Decrease government spending - which *nobody* in congress wants to do
Re:Inflation (Score:4, Insightful)
You missed: increase taxes. That takes money out of the economy too.
The notion that inflation is exclusively the product of money supply mismanagement comes from studying macroeconomic models, but those models *assume* microeconomic factors away for purposes of study. They don't really justify the assumption that microeconomic factors like supply chain disruptions have no real effect on inflation.
So there's probably more that government can do about inflation, both in the short and long term, than tweak the money supply, although that is clearly something government *can* do that will do the job (albeit with other consequences).
Re: (Score:2)
You missed: increase taxes. That takes money out of the economy too.
Absolutely. I left it out because the amount the government is spending is much, much more than the amount it takes in taxes. Increasing taxes doesn't work when you turn around and dump MORE money into the economy.
The notion that inflation is exclusively the product of money supply mismanagement comes from studying macroeconomic models, but those models *assume* microeconomic factors away for purposes of study.
Here's the macroeconomic analysis. Supply chains were absolutely constrained. In the last two years, the US federal reserve, during a slowing economy and with supply chain disruptions, *doubled* the amount of money circulating in the economy. This was to support the federal government's program o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does the GOP offer solutions on how to fix the many issues they've been complaining about?
No, but to be fair neither does the "Democratic" wing of the Party.
It's all pointless partisan bickering designed to keep the citizenry distracted while they sell the nation's future to the highest bidder.
As always, I welcome any evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Now with a slim majority, the top GOP agenda is Hunter Biden's dick pictures?
It takes extreme partisanship to attempt to frame government meddling in operation of both free press and social media to benefit specific presidential candidate as "dick picture". This is like saying that Watergate is about trespassing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now with a slim majority, the top GOP agenda is Hunter Biden's dick pictures?
Two questions for you:
1) How do you feel about the J6 committee hearings?
2) Do you consider big tech censorship to be a legitimate concern?
Re:For two years (Score:4, Insightful)
Unworkable. It would lead to the death of all the social platforms, including Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let the rich get richer and deregulated, then their money will (somehow) trickle down onto the masses like a burst piniata*.
* Slashdot doesn't allow tilde n's.
Re:For two years (Score:5, Informative)
What is problematic and worth investigation, is what appears to be monetary influence on Joe Biden via his son Hunter from out enemy governments like China.
You mean the same country which fast tracked multiple patents to the con artist's daughter [forbes.com] as soon as he was in office?
Foreign influence over our politicians in office (started when Joe was VP or maybe before?)...is something everyone should be concerned about.
Such as having an undisclosed, secret bank account [yahoo.com] in an enemy government? Or having an undisclosed partnership [businessinsider.com] with a government-controlled entity?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody gives a damn about Hunter's dick pics.
The GOP does. That's what the "twitter files" boils down to. Pictures of Hunter Biden's dick, pictures of him doing coke and prostitutes.
What is problematic and worth investigation, is what appears to be monetary influence on Joe Biden via his son Hunter from out enemy governments like China.
Joe Biden held no government office when the email exchange happened and neither has Hunter. Hunter's words were "big guy" and we don't know who that specified. No deal even took place.
Foreign influence over our politicians in office (started when Joe was VP or maybe before?)...is something everyone should be concerned about.
This is what needs investigation.
Hunter's gun charges and appearance of underage sex would be investigated and prosecuted if it were anyone normal citizen...but what the congress needs to look into, is undue foreign influence on a sitting president via his son's dealings with antagonistic foreign governments.
Underage sex? Better ask Jim Jordan about that one. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Joe wasn’t employed by the government at the time and neither was Hunter.
Re:For two years (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a crime to use government resources for personal gain.
If that's the problem, then we should expect to see no lack of investigation into all the self-enriching that happened by the First Family from 2016 through 2020, no?
After all, it's a crime to use government resources for personal gain, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the Twitter Files boils down to receipts of multiple meetings between national-security apparatus and twitter content moderation team decision makers and clearly show that Hunter Biden laptop story was suppression was prompted by the government. At that point it doesn't matter if it is dick pictures or clear proof of Biden corruption, it becomes 1A violation of a national news organization.
You do realize that when the Hunter Biden laptop thing happened, Trump was President, and Biden was just a candidate?
Because you're saying that the Trump administration pressured Twitter to suppress possible dirt on Biden. Which... kinda boggles the mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But the head of the FBI at the time was appointed by Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Feel free to read the court transcripts where no such thing happened. https://ago.mo.gov/docs/defaul... [mo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
it becomes 1A violation of a national news organization.
Twitter is not a "national news" organization.
You don't think government agencies regularly discuss isues with real news organizations? How many times has CNN or CBS or ABC NOT run a story or delayed running a story because it might endanger national security or compromise sources or tip off the adversary something is up?
Re:For two years (Score:4, Interesting)
If it was a violation of the First Amendment, then the aggrieved party (Twitter) has standing to sue for enforcement of their rights.
No such lawsuit happened, because no violation of the constitutionally protected freedom of expression happened.
You really think Twitter wouldn't have wanted the headlines of being the social media company that stands up for users' rights to an overbearing government, combined with the surely 9-digit sum of money they would win in such a lawsuit?
There was no legal compulsion to act on the part of the government (which is illegal under case law) revealed in anything released thus far, Twitter was a willing participant. It sounds like you have a beef with the old management at Twitter, in which case the problem (at Twitter) has already been corrected through extra-governmental means.
Re:For two years (Score:4, Informative)
That's fair but any R/Conservative who thought the Russia election interference investigation and the Ukraine funds investigations were "witch hunts" has to either retract those statements and admit they had merit or accept that investigating laims of Biden "monetary influence" in China is based on even shakier ground based on the contents of those emails which is based almost entirely on intuition and inference, there is zero direct evidence to think Joe Biden had anything really questionable based on that. Fair is fair.
Re: (Score:2)
" is what appears to be monetary influence on Joe Biden via his son Hunter from out enemy governments like China."
I'd love to see one piece of significant evidence that Joe Biden has been influenced. That would have to involve something about Joe himself; things that only involve his son don't show a damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But is there any evidence for that? Then it should be investigated.
Do we have enough evidence to safely assume that we would find evidence on that laptop? Then a search warrant should be issued.
Do we have nothing and hope that there may be evidence on a laptop that may - or even may not - exist?
What we know about the business activity of the Biden family is enough to question possible conflicts of interest. And it is no excuse that it is just "not as bad" as the Trump family. The problem is that th
Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
For a party that purports to have such a love for the Constitution, as a whole they don't seem to understand the 1st Amendment at all. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies; you violate their arbitrary terms of service and they can delete posts or boot you from their eco-system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And now the REAL witch hunts start. For a party that purports to have such a love for the Constitution, as a whole they don't seem to understand the 1st Amendment at all. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies; you violate their arbitrary terms of service and they can delete posts or boot you from their eco-system.
OK, so you think that if some act would violate the Constitution if the govt did it, it's perfectly okay if they instead hire/force/influence a private company to do it for them? "We're not torturing people at Gitmo, we're only paying Blackwater to do it on our behalf, so it's perfectly okay"? "We're not censoring speech we don't like, we're only pressuring Facebook to do it for us"? Well, newsflash: no, it's not.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
But look at the laws that have been passed in conservative states. They set high thresholds for number of users that exempt conservative sites from oversight. In Florida Disney was explicitly exempted from oversight.
It is as that this will be a missed opportunity to set a more positive future in our relationship with social media. Real regulation, that is not just simply repealing the protections provided by the DCMA, can happen.
Re: (Score:2)
you violate their arbitrary terms of service and they can delete posts or boot you from their eco-system.
Yes [imgur.com], yes [imgur.com] they can [imgur.com].
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Informative)
When nice people from the FBI show up and tell a private actor to censor content, especially when there is pretty plainly an underlying 'nice platform your have there same if something happened to it current' its not a private entity any more - they are effectively government agents. Unless you don't believe in the reasoning in basically any modern 4th amendment jurisprudence.
Complete fabrication. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/23... [cnn.com]
But so far, none of the released messages explicitly show the FBI telling Twitter to suppress the story. In fact, the opposite view emerges from sworn testimony by an FBI agent at the center of the controversy. And in interviews with CNN, half a dozen tech executives and senior staff, along with multiple federal officials familiar with the matter, all deny any such directive was given.
“We would never go to a company to say you need to squelch this story,” said one former FBI official who helped oversee the government’s cooperation with companies including Twitter, Google and Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you making the claim that this FBI agent is lying to a judge under sworn deposition to a Federal District Court which is not only career ending but a felony and would put him in prison? If self preservation is his goal one of those is far more severe than the other...
Re: (Score:2)
Do show any evidence that the government used it's authority or threats of legal action to force Twitters hand.
Even in the Twitter files themselves the government was giving Twitter some information and specifically stated "No action is required". They requested some action but that is far far different than using force to enact it.
If anything the Twitter files showed the Hunter Biden action was entirely a Twitter internal decision and one that actually had quite a bit of conflict inside Twitter on what sh
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
The rigged the covid debate, they rigged the stop the seal debate, and they have rigged the jan 6 debate. The twitter files pretty much prove it.
"Rigged". By rigged do you by chance mean "didnt kowtow to your dear leader's lies"?
And the Twitter files don't "prove" a thing. They are piecemeal communications removed from context and released by a conservative with a well known bone to pick with Democrats only to specific, sympathetic conservative journalists https://www.wired.com/story/tw... [wired.com] .
Of course I imagine you still think the 2020 election was rigged so understanding what "proof" is doesnt seem like something you're capable of.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Informative)
Did they ask Twitter to remove some things, or did they use their authority to force Twitter to remove, because those are kinda worlds apart and conflating them is kind of disengenuous.
Re: (Score:3)
Asking is not a 1A violation, at all, full stop.
That depends on whether you mean asking or "asking." Subborning a private company to do what the government cannot do itself when it comes to a constitutional right constitutes a violation, as it brings in the state-action clause. The increasingly common claim is that Big Tech (and the major social media platforms in particular) control enough of the economy and "national conversation" (think how the Fair Use Doctrine used to be applied as a result of there only being a handful of national TV networks) to c
Re: (Score:2)
{Private Company} does {negative action as a consequence of the national-security establishment interference} against {non-protected-class I do like}:
Fixed that for you.
Re: Here we go... (Score:2)
Yeah, Iâ(TM)m going to go out on a limb here and conclude that most of the posters here who are glossing over the fact that the FBI was pressuring social media companies to censor American citizensâ(TM) posts, are doing so because they politically dislike the people who were censored.
This is incredibly short sighted and reveals the modern slashdot community to be a night and day opposition to the old school, civil libertarian-minded folks. Just like Berkeley went from protests carrying âoeFre
Jim Jordan was the best choice (Score:3)
If anyone knows how to create a cover up it's Jim Jordan. He's great at it and made a whole career out of it. So he's perfect for figuring out how the white house is covering things up.
Re:Jim Jordan was the best choice (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure why they chose a groomer to head a committee. I mean, it's not like they keep saying there's a problem with groomers.
Re: Jim Jordan was the best choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians are all vampires...
It's funny how... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how McCarthy's clearly stated agenda isnt to pass legislation that helps America, it's to punish the Democrats https://thehill.com/opinion/ca... [thehill.com] .
Hopefully that doesnt include cutting off aid to Ukraine as the extremists in his party who he has already ceded so much to want.
Re: (Score:2)
Two questions for you (yes I'm asking several people the same questions. I'm curious):
1) How do you feel about the J6 committee hearings?
2) Do you consider big tech censorship to be a legitimate concern?
Re:It's funny how... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) How do you feel about the J6 committee hearings?
Loved it. Members of the "party of law and order" suddenly not liking law and order.
2) Do you consider big tech censorship to be a legitimate concern?
Why should the government be getting involved in the affairs of private companies? Don't conservatives have a hands off approach in that area?
Re: It's funny how... (Score:2)
To help answer your question, which seems a little bit like having evaded my second question (but for which I will assume you meant to answer âoenoâ, you donâ(TM)t consider big tech censorship concerning): the US government has an obligation to foster a legal and regulatory environment that encourages the broadest possible exercise of, and protections for, individual political expression.
If you disagree, I would ask you to explain how and why specifically!
Re: (Score:2)
Big tech is a private platform and can choose what content they to host. Some conservative had a problem with this and started a competitor. Which is fine. Other conservatives went crying to the government to force these companies to publish content said companies don’t agree with, effectively violating their right to free speech.
Re: It's funny how... (Score:2)
I see. That narrative seems to bear little resemblance to the evidence Iâ(TM)ve seen, but I appreciate your response and think Iâ(TM)ve gained insight into your position. Thank you again!
Re: (Score:2)
The user ArchieBunker more or less stated the answers I would give to those questions already as a reply to your post
Re: It's funny how... (Score:2)
Could I ask for you to clarify whether you believe big tech censorship is a legitimate (regulatory/legal) problem, at present?
Re: (Score:2)
I think Republican efforts to force big tech to host content on their privately owned servers is a problem both legally (incredibly clear violation of 1st amendment rights of these companies) and morally.
Re:It's funny how... (Score:5, Informative)
I remember when the GOP thought Russia was an enemy. Now they spend their July 4th vacations there. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/06... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when the GOP thought Russia was an enemy. Now they spend their July 4th vacations there. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/06... [npr.org]
I remember when Reagan called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire [umd.edu]. Would be nice to know what Rs think of that comment.
Re:It's funny how... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reagan has several policies that would get him called a woke leftist today.
Re: It's funny how... (Score:4, Informative)
Recent studies purport to show that Russian intelligence was almost entirely absent from Twitter in 2016
[citation needed] I can't find any such thing, all I find is a lot of reports on how russian intelligence manipulated the election via social media including twitter in 2016. e.g.:
https://www.justice.gov/archiv... [justice.gov]
https://www.intelligence.senat... [senate.gov]
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Recent studies purport to show that Russian intelligence was almost entirely absent from Twitter in 2016
[citation needed] I can't find any such thing
Sure:
No, I asked for evidence that Russian intelligence was absent from Twitter in 2016, you presented evidence that their actions had little effect. Further: (FTFA [washingtonpost.com])
Re: (Score:3)
This has been explicitly and say-it-out-loud the case for the GOP since at least 2010:
Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Politico, 10/28/2010 [politico.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I remember when American conservatives were the most stalwart in defending democracy. Between the 2020 elections and Ukraine it's clear many have given up on that though.
Re:It's funny how... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although Putin would have ended up in charge millions of people could have probably gone on about their daily lives with little real impact had we stayed the fuck out of conflict we have no business in.
Want to pretend you would say that about Iraq and Afghanistan?
Children in charge (Score:3)
"Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government"
Is there anything at all good about the American system of government?
What is the use of two elected houses? All it does is encourage this sort of bullshit.
Kick the hornet's nest, see what happens. (Score:2)
For example, every major tech firm offers reimbursement f
Re:Kick the hornet's nest, see what happens. (Score:4, Informative)
Big Tech is netural towards right wing views. Their actual bias is complete sociopathy in favor of making money.
Complete sociopathy in favor of making is a right wing value. It just so happens that many of our supposed left wing politicians really aren't leftist at all.
every major tech firm offers reimbursement for travel expenses to employees needing abortions. Some may consider that a liberal pro-choice view...I view it as a means of retaining top talent in established red state offices
Yeah, that's not right or left wing, as I think you suggested. It's just pragmatism.
The oil industry, for example, has been heavily into lobbying and crafting policy and ensuring friendly candidates get elected. The tech industry has found that to be gross and tacky and has always learned how to get by with as little political graft as they can.
I very strongly disagree on every basis I can think of. Microsoft, Oracle, and all the other biggest tech companies [observer.com] (which could afford to do meaningful lobbying) have always done plenty of it. They all wanted those sweet military contracts, and they got them. This really paid off big for Microsoft, which the DoJ unequivocally stated was guilty of basically every kind of anticompetitive act. AG John Ashcroft stated that it would not be in our best interest to prosecute, and they got away without so much as a handslap. Today, Microsoft is selling fragile AR gear to the military, and Windows is a critical part of the panopticon [dhs.gov]. So is Oracle, in more ways than being the vendor behind the Real ID data management. Most major corporations literally operate their own PAC! The whole idea that they don't involve themselves in lobbying is beyond naivete.
Facebook could move to Ireland tomorrow.
That's even more ludicrous. Didn't you notice that Ireland is now taxing tech companies? They figured out how to keep the money.
Names Are Important (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Two questions for you (and everyone else leaving these types of comments):
1) How do you feel about the J6 committee hearings?
2) Do you consider big tech censorship to be a legitimate concern?
Re:Jim Jordan - Paedophile from Benghazi (Score:4, Funny)
Jim Jordan talks about groomers in schools, but he's one of them. https://www.si.com/more-sports... [si.com]
Re:Big Tech are monopolies (Score:4, Informative)
Research the Fairness Doctrine.
Up until the mid 80's, any broadcast communication crossing a state border were required to present the opposing position for important issues. (I am paraphrasing here, read up on it for details)
Rush Limbaugh started his show the very same year that Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. Fox news was started the following year. It is fairly safe to say that the conspiracy news that became the basis of Rush, Fox, and other mostly (but not exclusively) right wing media is only possible because the fairness doctrine is gone.
Personally, I think the best modern approach would be to require any search results that are provided without subscription should include at least 10-25% of the results that are alternate results (opposing views). It seems to me that even if the results include notes saying "required by law" this sort of thing will help limit the echo chambers that creates the danger to society and specifically to civil servants doing their jobs.