Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

Post by artificialLimbs » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:12 PM UTC

artificialLimbs wrote: post #160

ethanbond wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

[flagged]

Post by gcoakes » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:13 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #140

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 by beachwood23 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:15 PM UTC

hospitalJail wrote: post #123

Clubber wrote: post #2

Good news, now if we can just get rid of all the domestic spying and police overreach, we might resemble a semblance of a free society rather than an analog of it.

Given Apple and Google have the ability to record every word you say(maybe not store it for 300M people, but they can certainly filter it for specific words that could begin recording once triggered... "Hey Google/Siri/Alexa/Cortana"), the issue is that we don't want the US government doing it, but private companies can? Heck if you buy any IOT device with a mic, you should give up any idea you have privacy. I'm over…

Post by tzs » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:16 PM UTC

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.

Post by chipsa » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:17 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #152

noslenwerdna wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

he's actually not a representative at all, we elect those he's a random government bureaucrat who didn't appear to have any actual power besides sending angry letters, and who Facebook felt totally comfortable ignoring the article presented a great example proving me right here: even he admits facebook ignored his impotent wails when it didn't suit them to satisfy him