Earlier quoted context omitted.
> TFG what is this referring to?
It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.
[dead]
Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
111–120 of 783 posts
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#112The 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
What do you think the FBI's goal was with that behavior?
That behavior didn't occur, as the Twitter Files themselves indicated. FBI gave a general warning prior to the election around hacked materials, Twitter (and many others) thought the laptop story might be one such example and reacted according to their own corporate policies/scenario planning. There is zero evidence that the government acted on the laptop story in any way, and even the Biden campaign/Biden family (private parties) only made requests specifically on posts sharing images of Hunter's penis, not on articles about the laptop itself.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#113> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and th…
But Flaherty specifically didn’t get what he wanted (that’s why he was mad!) so I think it’s misleading to say the power only goes from government to Facebook. If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.
> If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.
I don’t see how you got there. I see literal demands for action in the tone of someone giving orders to a subordinate.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who did TFG send his demands to? His rally crowds have no power to act, and consented, so there is no coercion.
> His rally crowds have no power to act Jan 6 would like a word. (There's every indication Trump was internally pressuring as President , too, not just via rallies as candidate . https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90 ) > Who did TFG send his demands to? TFG definitely sent in the same sort of requests. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru... > When the White House called…
It's like when a rightist explains that Donald was a great president because he didn't "drone strike people like Obama did." The doublethink is ridiculous.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> after all, it anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get Not when that someone is the government or its representative. The act of asking can itself be a violation of your rights as there’s an implication that if you do not comply their may be some unknown ramifications. Judges are savvy enough to know that threats need not be verbalized to be received.
what was the implied threat?
Repeal of section 230. Remember when they brought all the CEOs to testify in front of congress?
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#116Earlier 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?
"dude who used a swear word"? You left a bit out here. He is a representative of the government demanding that a private company censor speech supporting policies it opposes and speech about the president's family among other things. "A February 2021 message in which Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account related to Hunter Biden's daughter said, 'Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved…
“Lock her up”
I didn’t know that impersonating a public figure was acceptable according to twitter’s terms of service.
Perhaps there was special consideration that permitted an impersonator to remain on the platform?
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#117I don't understand how Missouri and Louisiana have any standing here. 1. They aren't the victims. 2. The individual posters were censored by Facebook et al, not the government, so even they might not have standing. The social networks obviously have standing, but have they complained? "Facebook likes the President" isn't something you should be able to sue the President for.
The judgement itself is worth reading; it is not nearly as polemical as it being made out to be. It goes into detail on the question of how the states of Missouri and Louisiana have standing here; the “letter of the law” answer is that there is extensive precedent for determining whether states have standing in cases like this and the judge determined this case clearly passes the tests set by those precedents, while the “spirit of the law” answer (also given in the ruling) is that millions of citizens of Missouri and Louisiana have had their constitutional rights (both state and federal) interfered with by the plaintiffs, and as states are charged with upholding their citizens’ rights, they have standing to seek injunctions to protect those rights.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is literally what the government was found to be doing by a court.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#119>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…
> sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed, a batch of federal judges who the bar association determined were Not Qualified, because they were found to be lacking in "integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament." The past two GOP presidents have eschewed bar association recommendations entirely and i…
>It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed
Minor nitpick - Judge Terry Doughty's confirmation was bi-partisan. There were 98 votes in favor, no votes against, and only 2 abstaining. Even Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the confirmation.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#120The 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
What do you think the FBI's goal was with that behavior?
The same could be asked for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...