US Supreme Court Seems Wary of Curbing US Government Contacts With Social Media Platforms (reuters.com) 113
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared skeptical of a challenge on free speech grounds to how President Joe Biden's administration encouraged social media platforms to remove posts that federal officials deemed misinformation, including about elections and COVID-19. From a report: The justices heard oral arguments in the administration's appeal of a lower court's preliminary injunction constraining how White House and certain other federal officials communicate with social media platforms.
The Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual social media users, sued the administration.
They argued that the government's actions violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now called X. The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.
They argued that the government's actions violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now called X. The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.
Re: (Score:3)
Has a President or members of the Administration using the bully pulpit ever been seen as anti-constitutional? Surely an Administration has the right to lecture, cajole and whine. If Federal agents are showing up and forcing Mark Zuckerberg to type "I will not repost Nazi slogans" two hundred times, well sure, at that point lines have been crossed. But finger wagging, even vigorous finger wagging?
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting question. The actual text reads
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.
Is merely asking considered a rights infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no explicit or implicit threat, then not really. I mean, I suppose a President or their representative could say "Industry X, clean up your act, or I'll use my executive powers and/or petition Congress to pass new laws to force you to clean up your act." The latter is more strident, certainly is a threat, but not one that implies any unconstitutional threat (unless, of course, specific remedies are not available via Executive Powers or Congress refuses to play ball). In the case of the bully pulp
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>"Is merely asking considered a rights infringement?"
If you believe you or your organization will be punished or have retribution in any form, now or in the future, for not complying with the notification/request/desire, then yes.
And that is what makes this difficult. It isn't solely about what the government did, but how it might be interpreted by the recipients as well.
A good analogy is homicide vs. murder. It is pretty easy to define/prove homicide. One person killed another. But murder (and the d
Re: (Score:2)
But murder (and the degree of murder) is a lot harder, because it depends on the operation of the mind of killer and the context.
Please tell me you know nothing about law without telling me that you know nothing about law.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but you need only convince 12 people of the intent of the crime. It's not some sort of rocket that if you do things in the wrong sequence or forget one little detail, boom, all your hopes of doing whatever was intended is dashed.
And yes, beyond reasonable doubt is that fun thing folks love to point out and that's why trail lawyers are speakers. Their entire thing is to convi
Yes, but what level of homicide? (Score:2)
That's where the complexity lies, and how the scale of the final punishment is determined. The driver who kills a cyclist due to careless driving gets a very different sentence to the same driver when it is shown that they set out to murder the cyclist...
Re: (Score:2)
>"That's not how that works. If it was, then the fear of taxes going up would fall into your definition. What is actually considered isn't if there will be retribution or not, because none of that matters, they're the Government"
Yes, it does matter.
The Constitution is the law and principles above all other actions and laws. It is what the SC uses to examine laws AND actions of the government. If they believe that passing a tax law is constitutional, then the enforcement of the law is legit (as long as
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, it depends on how you ask.
Consider, robber holds you at gunpoint and "asks" you to hand over your wallet vs. someone asks "can you spare some change" vs. charity sends you a request in the mail.
I suppose sometimes when you're the 900lb gorilla in the room, it's hard to ask without an inferred "or else" even if you don't intend it.
At the same time, harmful misinformation is rampant in social media and I don't believe the Biden administration intends any sort of "or else" when it asks.
Re:Too funny (Score:4, Insightful)
>"At the same time, harmful misinformation is rampant in social media and I don't believe the Biden administration intends any sort of "or else" when it asks."
Some might believe that, others might not.
The Founders clearly intended that the government NOT interfere in any way with the freedom of "the press", which was generally the "voice of the people." This was the only way the citizens could keep tabs on the workings and check the power of the government for informed voting. That certainly extended to personal and group communication as well.
We clearly have a case of the government trying to influence public communication. Making that even worse was their labeling things "misinformation" that were proven to be NOT "misinformation."
Now, if a government agency wanted to post information about a topic on THEIR OWN site or behalf, that would be fine. And if they want to have a press release about something, that is fine too. But those are are very different than proactively "notifying" non-government organizations about their opinions about citizen's postings/communication.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, harmful misinformation is rampant in social media and I don't believe the Biden administration intends any sort of "or else" when it asks.
The government is an organization designed to operate within constitutional limits and laws enacted by Congress. Hence, all government "asks" and "actions" bear "or else" mark. When IRS sends you a letter with "ask", you can be rest assured there is "or else" attached to it.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Has a President ... using the bully pulpit ever been seen as anti-constitutional?
I think this one guy, a couple of years ago in January ...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's kind of where concepts like conspiracy come into play. Clearly wagging your finger at Facebook and X and telling them to stop spreading naughty stuff doesn't even represent much of an implicit threat. Strongly implying to your supporters that they can prevent Congress from certifying the electoral votes seems a fundamentally different activity.
Presidents lecture and cajole all the time. The notion of the "bully pulpit" pretty much goes back to the beginning of the United States. That's not to s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>"I think this one guy, a couple of years ago"
Oh, you mean the forcing people to be injected with a vaccine?
Show one instance where someone was held down against their will and given a vaccine. Just one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Show one instance where someone was held down against their will and given a vaccine. Just one.
There were plenty of examples of people getting fired for refusing COVID vaccinations. "coercion" == "achieved by force or threat"
Re: (Score:2)
And that's perfectly OK. Choices have consequences, and one of those consequences might be "we don't want to be around you anymore", AKA freedom of association.
The whole idea of "I won't take the vaccine, and my life shouldn't change at all because of that" is unmitigated bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
For the sniffles?
The government has NO PLACE forcing medical treatments on people. NONE.
If the threat was severe enough, it wasnt by any stretch of any imagination, people would line up by themselves to get jabbed.
Your stupid "choices have consequences" drivel could be applied to a boss telling his secretary to give him a blowjob or lose her job.
Its a twisted disgusting way of seing things which makes you a dispicable person.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic I could "Force" someone to get a vaccine by offering a $10 coupon for pizza since then if they don't take advantage of it they're out some pizza.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not get crazy.
Verb, to "force":
* to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or another person) to do something
* to drive or propel against resistance
My example certainly meets those standards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>"I think this one guy, a couple of years ago"
Oh, you mean the forcing people to be injected with a vaccine?
I noticed you conveniently omitted the "in January" part of my reply (below) to try and imply a different guy was in charge at that point -- the guy whose "Warp Speed" project actually developed those vaccines btw. At least the next guy recommended injecting vaccines and not bleach or UV light. But, you know, you do you.
Has a President ... using the bully pulpit ever been seen as anti-constitutional?
I think this one guy, a couple of years ago in January ...
Re: (Score:2)
Noting to clarify that "Warp Speed was the first guy's project, not the next guy's -- sorry that wasn't written clearer.
Re: (Score:1)
>"I noticed you conveniently omitted the "in January" part of my reply (below) to try and imply a different guy was in charge at that point"
Yeah, that is the "witty" part
>"the guy whose "Warp Speed" project actually developed those vaccines btw."
Developing was fine. Trying to force people to take it wasn't.
>"At least the next guy recommended injecting"
It wasn't just a "recommendation", and you know it.
>"vaccines and not bleach or UV light."
Taken out of context. They were indeed using UV light
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that is the "witty" part
Don't quit your day job. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought government could not censor like this (Score:3)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
But Justice Roberts tells us that "the government" is not monolithic, so it's not really the government doing anything.
Re:I thought government could not censor like this (Score:4, Insightful)
>"But Justice Roberts tells us that "the government" is not monolithic, so it's not really the government doing anything."
That isn't what he said. From the article:
---
Justice John Roberts told Benjamin Aguinaga, Louisiana's solicitor general, that the government is "not monolithic" and when the government applies pressure, a platform or media outlet "have people they go to, probably in the government, to say, 'Hey, they're trying to get me to do this,' and that person may disagree with what the government's trying to do."
---
My interpretation is that he was saying that the government isn't a single voice ordering social media what to do, so there presumably might would be checks by asking someone else or a different department if there is disagreement. And that wasn't a ruling, it was just questioning. For all you know, he could be playing devil's advocate with the question.
The reality is I am not so sure there is any due process in the process of the government "warning" or "requesting" platforms about so-called "misinformation" (of which much of it certainly was not). And one media company very well might interpret it as an order, another might use it as an excuse to do what they already wanted to ban.
Re: (Score:2)
"so-called "misinformation" (of which much of it certainly was not)."
And its corollary, "much of it certainly was". As always, we argue about where to draw the line.
Re: (Score:2)
>"And its corollary, "much of it certainly was".
Agreed. I am a big fan of open/transparent user-driven moderation and discussion.
>"As always, we argue about where to draw the line."
As long as it is not the government drawing the line. Bad enough when near-monopolies do it to push their own politics.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on general principles.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem. The government doesn't have a right to label what is and isn't "misinformation" outside of fraud protections. It's not illegal to lie in the US except under very specific circumstances (under oath, etc.) Private companies have every right to determine what is and isn't on their platforms, and are protected by Section 230 from any liability for such. But the moment the government influences that determination either through suggestion of influence either positive or negative, the plat
Re: (Score:2)
Was the company being threatened by the govt, or did people in the company welcome the govt because they were worried about what was happening?
Re: (Score:1)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do it. The Executive Branch can often find some nook and cranny of USCode on which to base various actions that Congress itself is prohibited from doing overtly.
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do it. The Executive Branch can often find some nook and cranny of USCode on which to base various actions that Congress itself is prohibited from doing overtly.
That's non-sensical. The US Code consists of laws that have been passed by Congress. Congress cannot delegate powers that it does not possess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do it. The Executive Branch can often find some nook and cranny of USCode on which to base various actions that Congress itself is prohibited from doing overtly.
Is it just limited to Congress? Can the police pay a third party to conduct a search without a warrant?
If that were so, why bother getting a warrant?
Re: (Score:2)
"If that were so, why bother getting a warrant?"
That's done today by agencies buying location data they couldn't justify getting a warrant for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no.
Executive authority stems from Article II of the Constitution, and from the powers delegated by the Congress to the Executive through legislative law and bestowed regulatory authority.
When a regulatory body in the Executive Branch publishes new regulations, they are subject to both Congressional review under the Congressional Review Act, as well as judicial review through lawsuits.
The Executive Branch does not create law, and no laws enforced came to be without an act of Congress. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
Justice Thomas can't hear you from his inside his cushy free motor home https://apnews.com/article/sup... [apnews.com] and Justice Alito is away on a free Alaskan vacation https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not letting Sotomayor off the hook either with her book sales. https://apnews.com/article/sup... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And as soon as you, or anyone else, can actually relate that to trying to influence any decisions, it becomes relevant. Many have tried and failed. So it is just partisan noise.
Re: (Score:3)
How could that be proven though? That's kindof the problem, the SC is pretty much above any oversight, they set their oversight rules. There is something of an information wall between the SC and the usual methods we use to do this, there is no SC "Inspector General" that audits this stuff, the responsiblity is up to themselves which is... questionable at best. I think the fact that public opinion of the SC is rock bottom is a real problem.
It's been brought up how much potential conflict of interest when
Re: (Score:2)
the SC is pretty much above any oversight
True, as we've seen with their, "I didn't know I had to report that money" shenanigans. But then, there's always impeachment [history.com].
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's been brought up how much potential conflict of interest when Thomas and Alito are receiving these gifts from these people and judging on cases they are either directly or indirectly a part of."
But they were NOT part of any cases directly or indirectly. That was my point. Even so, I agree it is bad optics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thomas' lack of recusal in anything January 6th when his wife was involved pretty heavily in Trumps circles via the text's that came out in those investigations is a pretty bad one in my opinion. Also from the LWT segment
Here’s a fun fact for you: that was in early June of 2019. Guess where he was at the end of that month? On Harlan Crow’s Indonesian yacht trip. That’s the comfortable laugh of a man looking forward to a free trip and — fingers crossed — a free shirt to go with
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
In 2008 Alito accepts a free Alaskan vacation. Later on the person paying for the vacation has a case before the court. In any other court or jurisdiction a judge would have recused themselves due to conflicts of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I was focused on Thomas. But I do agree that yes, Alito should have recused himself. Fortunately it didn't affect the outcome of the case (7-1).
Re: (Score:2)
And why are those 9 people above the ethics rules put onto every other federal judge in the country? Why shouldn't they be beholden to the exact same rules, when they are the final arbiter of all questions of law in the country?
Why are you ok with that very obvious angle of possible corruption?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Why are you ok with that very obvious angle of possible corruption?"
Oh, I am not. Not at all. And it is good we do have a method of impeachment if it becomes needed. But I don't think I am seeing "corruption" in the mentioned examples with Thomas. I did see one instance of Alita not having recused himself, which I think should be challenged.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
You are correct. The factual circumstances in the case just doesn't seem to fit the description.
Re: I thought government could not censor like thi (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them.
It is (by definition) against the law for the government to violate your rights. But not every request for speech by the government is an attempt to illegally compel that speech. Some companies may not want their users to be misinformed regarding communicable diseases, for insurance.
Re: I thought government could not censor like th (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them.
It is (by definition) against the law for the government to violate your rights. But not every request for speech by the government is an attempt to illegally compel that speech. Some companies may not want their users to be misinformed regarding communicable diseases, for insurance.
But if the government is compelling (or just arm-twisting) private entities to censor your speech where they could not legally do it themselves aren't your rights being violated?
Re: I thought government could not censor like th (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is my understanding. Show me the arm twisting. Tax audits? Criminal investigations into unrelated conduct? Eliminating tax breaks and land use variances?
I don't recall the evidence but if the government starts implying to you that they want something done and they expect your cooperation I imagine you may feel compelled to comply without being told explicitly what might happen if you don't.
Re: I thought government could not censor like th (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In order to make that argument, you're going to need to show retaliation, the retaliatory threat, or even a credible implication of a threat.
To my knowledge, none of those exist.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
Apparently, since the police do it all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
Apparently, since the police do it all the time.
Do you have an example of police legally hiring 3rd parties to do things that would be illegal for them to do directly?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Interesting stuff . It's pretty narrow (people who voluntarily give information to third parties) but it's good to see that courts have been restricting its use and abuse
Re: (Score:2)
https://thehill.com/opinion/te... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?
If you are talking first amendment rights and freedom of speech then you are also talking a logical extension to freedom of association. You can’t have the government compel speech and the public square used to be public, not privately owned. These rights also only apply to what the government is limited in doing, not private individuals. What we really need are government run alternatives to social media, then all constitutional rights would be baked right in as the are in current laws like the ri
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct. However if there is never any threat of punitive action, much less actual punitive action to suppress speech either at the direction of the government or at the hands of government itself; then speech is not being restrained in any way.
You can't sue someone for violating your rights, unless they actually violate your rights. Asking you to take lies off the website you run isn't a threat, unless there is an "or else" involved - you can feel free to tell them to suck hard cheese, just as I'
Imagine the tension for Alito et al (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're literally playing Calvinball.
Re: (Score:2)
Puh-lease. Roberts, Alito, and crew are literally making it up as they go along, demanding or ignoring plain text and meaning whenever it suits their political agenda.
They're literally playing Calvinball.
Such as their recent 14th Amendment nonsense.
Re:Imagine the tension for Alito et al (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what happens when "the ends justify the means" takes over. These guys find the result they want, and then reverse-build the decision that creates the result.
No "originalist" or "textualist" would have agreed with that bullshit 14th Amendment decision. The framers, through the recorded congressional record of the debates, were very clear what they meant by the 14th Amendment, and very specifically about section 3.
Re: (Score:2)
No "originalist" or "textualist" would have agreed with that bullshit 14th Amendment decision.
Why do you think that matters? We have gone off the rails quite some time ago. The Truth is whatever it is desired to be and any facts showing otherwise are completely ignored. TL;DR, the coming dictatorship is cemented in place. Reagan laid the groundwork for this shit, but he was ultimately just a pawn. The Bush crime family will either produce the future dictator or be second in command.
For those of you who don't grok Calvinball: (Score:2)
Calvinball is described on the Wiki thusly (emphases added):
Preparing the ground (Score:2, Troll)
I don't usually do conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be surprised if the goal of this lawsuit from two republican states really is to get a statement from the Supreme Court affirming the govt's right to interfere with social media. That would allow Trump to crackdown on criticism if he wins the presidency.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't usually do conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be surprised if the goal of this lawsuit from two republican states really is to get a statement from the Supreme Court affirming the govt's right to interfere with social media. That would allow Trump to crackdown on criticism if he wins the presidency.
Was wondering the same thing. However, cracking down on dissent is clearly unconstitutional. If I call the con artist the loser that he is and that post gets removed, clearly the First Amendment is violated. Just because I hurt your feelings by calling you a loser doesn't entitle you, or anyone, to censor the comment.
That is different than telling people to ingest something which can kill you [usatoday.com] while saying it's safe and it's really the government hiding the "evidence".
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things can kill you in a high enough dose. Invermectin is an FDA approved drug. It apparently doesn't work to kill covid at a safe dose, but at an approved dose it won't kill you any more often than a vaccine will. The problem is not taking invermectin under a doctor's care, lots of drugs are prescribed for off-label uses. The problem was taking a dose designed for de-worming horses. If you read that story in USA Today, nowhere would you find that made clear.
There are a lot of things where gover
Re: (Score:2)
Encouraged platforms to remove posts? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the thing with the Twitter files that cuts against this case is the fact that Twitter turned down or ignored like 99%+ of all those requests so from their POV there really isn't much "pressure" being exerted here by the outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to provide any citations for this 99% and who were the other 1%?
The ‘Twitter Files’ have opened the company's censorship decisions [thefire.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I can't find it now so I will retract that percentage. I think it was specifically talking about a bulk of requests and not compliance in total which looks like it was closer to 50% overall pre-Musk
Twitter Has Complied With Almost Every Government Request For Censorship Since Musk Took Over, Report Finds [forbes.com]
Re:Encouraged platforms to remove posts? (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything, at least to me, the amount of internal discussion and disagreement and downright chaos inside Twitter again, cut's against the narrative that they felt any real legal pressure to comply.
In the post above I did retract the 99% percentage since I cannot source the original claim I read it but even what I did find was a 50% compliance rate pre-Musk which in itself speaks to the idea that Twitter had it's own discretion on how to moderate.
. The government did take steps to coerce them, e.g. claiming (dubiously) to the press that they were letting disinformation run wild, undermining the security of the nation.
I mean, they are allowed to state that right? You'd have to prove they were lying about it. Did they say the same thing about Facebook?
That brought pressure from their advertisers to comply with whatever the government demanded, including banning lots of content that they did not, internally, believe to be misinformation.
Ehh, I don't think social media needs the government for incentive to ban content, the advertisers do that already more stringently than the government demands. Also the suggestion that Twitter felt government pressure via advertisers is cut against by the fact that Twitter's overall user count and revenue's continued growing throughout this period.
While I don't like the whole "government decides what misinformation is" I haven't seen strong evidence any social media site feels pressure to do things they wouldn't normally do. A good portion of the governments requests are in fact valid in that they violated the TOS. Sure, in that case they are playing tattle tale but if it's actually true where is the issue? Hard to say
Re: (Score:2)
One possible issue might arise from a scenario in which some people with Position A violate the TOS and an external entity flags them and the platform removes them and then some other people with Position B violate the TOS but no one is watching. This is true even if all the removals are 100% in compliance with the TOS with
Re: (Score:2)
That's very true and a real concern. Wrapped up in the general almost impossible challenge of misinformation at all. The word itself contains the very issue.
Overall though I don't think that is enough to deny the ability to monitor these things at all, I think it can be managed with oversight and transparency. I would be in favor for setting the bar pretty high to classify any requests or notices given.
Too many ex-spooks work for social media companies (Score:2)
https://dailycaller.com/2023/0... [dailycaller.com]
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal (Score:2, Interesting)
So why would causing panic and disinformation be any more legal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically, claiming that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, is in fact dangerous misinformation that undermines our national security and integrity.
Must feel nice to have you idiotic comment stand and not automatically removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT illegal.
https://reason.com/2022/10/27/... [reason.com]
Not the Platform's Freedom that is at Stake (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Encouraged" (Score:2)
Sir, I encourage you to stop, or I will shoot you.
Two sides of the coin. (Score:2)
Their seems to be two sides of the coin going on.
1)Social media can ignore what the government says (this kind)
2)Social media has to listen to what the government says (where they can't delete what they don't like )
Forcing shooting threatening (Score:2)
Seems to me each one of the posts saying an administration shouldn't encourage, cajole or ask ends with a yet unrealized forcing and shooting and threatening.
You folks are terrified. And you're willing to do say these things are the reason you fear (and you do fear) because you see the world through violent eyes and expect to be treated violently, thereby justifying your violent thoughts. You are certainly seeing the world you desire into existence. Forgive, forget anger, and be free. Stop being fearful lik
Re:Time to recycle older lies? (Score:4, Insightful)
The company does (Score:1)
As for coercion, if you think the President of the United States has enough power to coerce the owner of Facebook or even X.com you're nuts. CEOs are way more powerful than being president.
It's like that line from Lex Luther when he's asked why he'd give up on being president, "Do you know how much power I'd have to give up to be president?".
Re: (Score:2)
They filled all the social media companies with ex CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI agents
Got them in position of decision making for content.
Created a network and working group where the governement could update and tell them what to censor.
And in the case of Twitter, that we know of and have evidence for, the government PAID the social media company millions for the all the work they had to do to censor people.
Re: (Score:1)
The antidote to disinformation is counter-information. The messy debates of determining truth are NOT through censoring one side because the information is deemed wrong, or a view ALSO shared by a foreign adversary, or inconvenient for the state, etc...
Bad ideas are countered by good ideas. The white house has a very large megaphone where they can bypass social media entirely.
Nothing justifies what they are doing. It's the most grave assault on the first amendment we've seen in the digital era, and even
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If these people are so determined to enforce unlimited free speech, they can see the consequences. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat, and all that.
The funny thing is this kind of hate speech only works in a bubble where moderators can heavily curate it and stop outside influences. For example, r/TheDonald before it was removed on Reddit had extremely severe moderation handing out perm bans for even the slightest misstep outside of their group think often within only a minute or two. Truth Social follows the same format. Most every conservative forum is the same because the reality is when you let people actually bring up points based on reason and
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously never been to Reddit. And you're obviously unaware of what was going on at Twitter pre-Musk. Lefties and righties live in echo chambers that they carefully curate lest anybody realize that the world is more complex.
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously never been to Reddit
I’ve looked into subreddits of all persuasions for over a decade.
Lefties and righties live in echo chambers that they carefully curate lest anybody realize that the world is more complex.
It’s true that a large portion of the population simply absorbs talking point anecdotes and just regurgitates them without introspection, however this is more prevalent on the right. The knee jerk reaction to exclude people from subreddits on the “left” like r/politics is nearly always due to bigotry, hatred, and racism. I regularly see comments from right wing people that don’t get any kind of ban, unlike r/c
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that Nazis still have a hard-on for killing Russians. In an unexpected twist, they are decorated with medals by liberals in public ceremonies today.
What? I'm going to need some context to understand this statement.