Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 783 posts

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#101

Post by JustBreath »

romeros wrote: post #68
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

Who gets to decide what information is "disinformation" and what is the right information? Any view that you do not approve of is not disinformation. Also, you are smart enough to recognize disinformation.. but you think everyone else around you is too gullible and would fall prey to "disinformation"

This is the fundamental and intrinsic reason for concepts of free speech.

The power to control what can and can't be shared between people corrupts just like any other power.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#102

Post by afavour »

viggity wrote: post #82

The Hunter Biden laptop story was actively suppressed on Twitter and Facebook specifically because the FBI told them it was Russian information, despite the fact that the FBI had verified it was legit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files

The link you’ve provided does not back up the assertion you’ve made.

> Twitter, along with Facebook, implemented measures to block its users from sharing links to the story, and Twitter further imposed a temporary lock on the accounts of the New York Post and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, citing violations of its rules against posting hacked content. The Washington Post reported that this was a result of the company's scenario-planning exercises to combat disinformation campaigns

> Musk tweeted that Twitter had acted "under orders from the government", though Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story,

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#103

Post by tiahura »

Pxtl wrote: post #56
moduspol wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond t…

The Trump administration lost any benefit of the doubt with their judicial appointments when they outraged the legal establishment (eg American Bar Association) by frequently ignoring the most qualified candidates for judicial appointments in favor of ideologically Republican ones.

As an ABA member, I can assure you 90% of members couldn’t care less about their “qualified” list.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#104

Post by stephencanon »

hgsgm wrote: post #30
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

Who did TFG send his demands to? His rally crowds have no power to act, and consented, so there is no coercion.

Wait, you think that when a random official says something, it carries the weight of the US Government, but when _the president_ says it, it does not? I'm not sure that you've thought this through fully.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#105

Post by swayvil »

romeros wrote: post #68
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

Who gets to decide what information is "disinformation" and what is the right information? Any view that you do not approve of is not disinformation. Also, you are smart enough to recognize disinformation.. but you think everyone else around you is too gullible and would fall prey to "disinformation"

We can't trust individuals to distinguish misinformation from "I don't like it" or whatever else.

So we shouldn't. Route around the unsolvable problem. Find another way.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#106

Post by GeekyBear »

axus wrote: post #35
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. It's not illegal for them to say whatever they want, and imply powers they don't have, but it's still coercive and an abuse of powers we've granted them. Hopefully this ruling applies to more types of government speech.

> I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things.

The Government cannot demand that political speech be censored without running afoul of the First Amendment.

If you recall, the courts didn't allow Trump to block critical accounts on Twitter.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#107

Post by ethanbond »

viggity wrote: post #82

The Hunter Biden laptop story was actively suppressed on Twitter and Facebook specifically because the FBI told them it was Russian information, despite the fact that the FBI had verified it was legit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files

From that exact Wiki article:

> Musk tweeted that Twitter had acted "under orders from the government", though Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story, tweeting, "Although several sources recalled hearing about a 'general' warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence—that I've seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story."[22][27] His reporting seemed to undermine a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories.[22][36]

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#108

Post by Pxtl »

edgyquant wrote: post #88
Pxtl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Trump administration lost any benefit of the doubt with their judicial appointments when they outraged the legal establishment (eg American Bar Association) by frequently ignoring the most qualified candidates for judicial appointments in favor of ideologically Republican ones.

Neither you or are the Bar Association have any right to tell the president who is most qualified for a role he appoints. Maybe you don’t like it or it’s “wrong,” but the Bar Association is a bunch bureaucrats not an arbiter of platonic truth or good.

Obviously it's his prerogative to choose who he and the Senate want, but then nobody should be outraged when the impartiality of his appointed judges is questioned.

edit: I'm rate-limited so can't reply, so here's my reply below:

It's a matter of degrees. For example, when Biden made it clear that he was hiring Ketanji Brown Jackson in part because she was a progressive black woman, she still had a massive amount of relevant experience and professional reputation. There's the understanding that while she obviously has a political bias, she's still a good judge. She had worked in district court, appeals court, she'd even worked as a public defender. She had an exceptionally long list of cases and legal opinions she could point to for her experience.

Meanwhile, contrast to Amy Coney Barrett, who had never been a judge before Trump appointed her into the Court of Appeals as a fast-track to the Supreme Court. She'd never tried a case all the way to verdict. She'd never argued an appeal. Her background was purely in academia.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#109

Post by NotYourLawyer »

LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

When Trump complained about “Obama judges” he was rightly ridiculed. Why is ok to cast aspersions on judges nominated by Trump?

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#110

Post by dogleash »

dporter wrote: post #65
vxNsr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TFG what is this referring to?

It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.

Huh. Didn't know that. Sounds fairly lost in the political ragebait sauce.
Post reply on HN