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

131–140 of 783 posts

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

#131

Post by efitz »

This thread baffles me.

There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc.

A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens.

Freedom of speech is literally the first thing in the Bill of Rights. The government did a bad thing. Why defend them?

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

#132

Post by Clubber »

Pxtl wrote: post #108
edgyquant wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All judges are picked for their political bias, that's how it works. Democrats pick judges who are more left leaning, conservatives pick justices that are more right leaning. To pretend it's just one way is incorrect.

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

#133

Post by krona »

GeekyBear wrote: post #106
axus wrote: post #35

Earlier 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.

Facebook is employing former CIA agents to moderate content/determine misinformation policies. https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-e...

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

#134

Post by tremon »

Pxtl wrote: post #43
tremon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been plenty of free platforms that have not turned out like that. HN, for example.

Dang works very hard to censor this site quite heavily and maintain the kind of discourse he and his team want. As is his right. HN is not a example of libertarian social media.

The GP didn't ask for examples of libertarian social media. The GP asked for examples of forums/platforms from a "free society" that had not turned into a cesspool.

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

tome wrote: post #61
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?

FTI, TFG means "that former guy" and refers to Donald Trump: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TFG

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by afavour »

efitz wrote: post #113
afavour wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I invite you to have a conversation with my six year old child and then reflect upon the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they are vocalised.

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

#137

Post by gjsman-1000 »

mullingitover wrote: post #57
Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

Mandatory reminder that many of the "but the Crusades" arguments are also misleading. Sure, ~1.0-1.7 million people died in the Crusades according to modern scholarship. However, the Crusades were an extremely diverse set of conflicts that spanned a 196-year period, with both sides having their own atrocities.

The last 196-years of secular government has killed, let's just say, way more than ~1.0-1.7 million people. Even the nice ones like France, which killed ~1.5 million Algerians from 1954 to 1962, so small by comparison to other atrocities you probably didn't even hear about it. That's before even considering the Reign of Terror, Communist Governments of all kinds, US Forced Sterilization in the name of science for decades, and on and on.

And as for the Spanish Inquisition, despite the horrible memory, modern estimates now show the total death count was about 3,000-5,000 people over a 350 year time span. At worst, 14 executions per year. Secular courts were far less forgiving. Even Wikipedia has updated their numbers accordingly.

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

#138

Post by brasic »

hgsgm wrote: post #19
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…

If this a jury trial, or will the same judge makes the final trial ruling? The cited behavior is egregious, with Flaherty issuing orders and requesting specific takedowns, and doing so in an unprofessional and threatening manner that shows he is unfit for office. It's clear overreach beyond broadcasting the Executive's concerns about public health and requesting that companies do their part to help. The injunction ma…

The plaintiffs have not demanded a jury, so yes, this judge will make the final ruling, although it will certainly be appealed. Docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-bid...

To a first approximation, the appellate system is the only real mechanism for oversight of federal judges not engaging in outright misconduct. This is why packing the federal judiciary with intemperate partisans is so dangerous.

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

#139

Post by freedomben »

nonrepeating wrote: post #31
Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

Interesting point, and one that's difficult to dispute. Belief in the supernatural or divine is baked into human nature. There's significant research showing that human capacity for faith is genetic. So, as we're building a secular society, it's worth asking: what happens to that need for the divine? Failing to account for basic human nature drove vast amounts of suffering in the 20th century, I fear that making a si…

This rings true to me, but it reinforces my existing beliefs, so my awareness of the dangers of confirmation bias demands that I not trust it without some due diligence.

Does anybody have any citations to backup this point?

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

#140

Post by chimeracoder »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #63
axus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they did it to me, it's bad, but to Facebook it's OK? In some court cases the actual harm matters, and sometimes it's the principle that matters.

if the random government bureaucrat "demanded" something of you you didn't want to do, and you laughed him or her out of the room, both actions are okay it seems Facebook was more polite than that, instead just ignoring the random government bureaucrat when it suited them also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case.

> also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case.

Traditionally, yes, although that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling last week in a case in which the plaintiff experienced no harm (not to mention admitted to perjury).

Post reply on HN