Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by noslenwerdna » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:18 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

I didn't say representative, that's a misleading paraphrase.

I said representative of the government. Those can be police officers, FBI agents, or bureaucrats making demands of private companies.

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

#182

Post by 1970-01-01 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:18 PM UTC

The free speech misinformation directly led to deaths of citizens. It is no different from any other speech that causes mass panic and confusion. I don't understand why this decision was allowed to become detached from reality.

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

#183

Post by zuminator » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:19 PM UTC

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"

But disinformation isn't just incorrect information. Disinformation is false information seeded with an intent to mislead the population. The person who "gets to decide" what is disinformation is effectively the person who is planting the disinformation.

Once the disinformation starts to propagate then the downstream propagandists may believe they are spreading legitimate truths, but ultimately by definition the disinformation can be traced to a source that intended to deliberately disinform.

Also, not everyone around us needs to be gullible for disinformation to work. In the US for example we live in a country where national elections are routinely decided on razor thin margins, where just a couple of percent or less can flip the results. We also live in a nation where 32% of people believe in ghosts [0]. So there are enough gullible people for the type of disinformation that wouldn't persuade a reasonable person to still yield powerful results.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/style/do-you-believe-in-g...

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

#184

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:20 PM UTC

gcoakes wrote: post #173

chimeracoder wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Which one are you referring to? A lot happened last week in the SCOTUS, and I haven't heard of this specific concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis

> When Smith's suit was filed at the federal district court in 2016, she had not begun designing websites, nor had she received any requests to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. In 2017, her lawyers ADF filed an affidavit from Smith stating that she had received such a request several days after the initial filing, and appended a copy of the request. Smith never responded to the request, and has stated that she feared she would violate Colorado's law if she were to do so. However, the name, email, and phone number on the online form belong to a man who has long been married to a woman, and who stated that he never submitted such a request, as reported by The New Republic on June 29, 2023, a day before the Supreme Court's decision was released.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sham-customer...

> That narrative was thrown into question last week after The New Republic published an article on Stewart, who denied ever having reached out to Smith. It quoted him saying he was a web designer who has been married to a woman for years.

> “I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” the man identified only as Stewart told the magazine. “I’m married, I have a child — I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

Perjury is probably a stretch, and it's unlikely to affect the ruling any.

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

#185

Post by worksonmine » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:20 PM UTC

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.

Content from .gov sites was labeled disinformation. One could consider the censorship at the time an act of disinformation. Remember the lab leak? Fauci with his smug smile behind Trump knowing full well the NIH sponsored gain-of-function research on Coronavirues in Wuhan of all places. Now that the dust has settled it's no longer a conspiracy theory but the most likely origin. CNN claims them not covering it at the time was "because Trump".

What is even disinformation in this climate other than a comfort blanket for those unable to form an actual argument?

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

#186

Post by rabite » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #174

efitz wrote: post #131

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…

First off, I think all of us have learned the unfortunate downsides to a libertarian approach to free speech over the past 20 years. Any free speech purist would do well to remember what their legal recourse would be if somebody made elaborate false-allegations about you that harmed your career and marriage - we have many legal tools that protect us from harmful lies. It is not remarkable that there are people who be…

[flagged]

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

#187

Post by atlantic » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #10

FeteCommuniste wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is HN “free?” How heavy of a hand do the mods have here? (I genuinely don’t know the answer to that question.)

It's very heavy in terms of tone, less in content. Definitely workable for nazis if they're careful. You can advocate eugenics and genocide-lite if you're polite and abstract enough. You're more likely to get in trouble for calling someone a nazi than you are for promoting nazi policies, as long as you don't use any slurs.

Could you clarify the term "nazis"? Presumably, you don't mean a member of the German National Socialist party, which was dissolved in 1945. But if you mean "people whose views I disagree with", then perhaps you could be a little more specific.

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

#188

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

gcoakes wrote: post #173

chimeracoder wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Which one are you referring to? A lot happened last week in the SCOTUS, and I haven't heard of this specific concern.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supre...

> A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday could refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her.

A pre-emptive request backed up by a fake customer does not equal standing (in a sane court but SCOTUS left sanity behind a couple of justice appointments ago.)

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

#189

Post by gjsman-1000 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

LexiMax wrote: post #170

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We now live in the most peaceful time in human history. I would say we live in the most widespread Uneasy Peace in human history. And unlike religious peace which had occasional conflicts, a break in the peace now would mean annihilation. Is general peace, risk of annihilation better than occasional petty wars without annihilation? > And just to be clear, we're contrasting this time of unprecedented peace with enti…

> Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general. This is the rule, not the exception. Throughout history, instances where religious war was waged or religious atrocities occurred, there was often an underlying political logic to them. Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is…

> What followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was one of the most peaceful 99 years on the European continent since Pax Romana.

Yeah... on the continent. They were merciless to indigenous populations across the globe during that century. Big improvement there - instead of fighting each other, we'll invade everyone else with the full takeover of India in 1858, and the New Imperialism of the 1870s which added 8.8 million square miles of land to European possession.

> This is the rule, not the exception. Throughout history, instances where religious war was waged or religious atrocities occurred, there was often an underlying political logic to them. Religion has less to do with the underlying morality of the scripture and more to do with what religious leaders of the time say it is, and their interpretation can be...flexible.

Nah, ask a historian. The history of Europe over the last 1500 years or so is long, but you can only name a few incidents and examples. And even then, you can't show of a change where one thing was widely unacceptable and became acceptable to this day. The Catholic Church, for example, still condemns premarital sex and always has.

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

#190

Post by dashundchen » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

artificialLimbs wrote: post #178

Pxtl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was stolen revenge-porn of the President's son. Come on, do you remember how bad "The Fappening" went for Reddit? How Hulk Hogan's stolen sex tape went for Gawker? Twitter didn't need FBI to tell them that they didn't want Hunter Biden's cock all over their site.

The porn and drugs were bad, but peddling influence with foreign adversaries is a pretty big deal.

You're right, which is why it's insane Saudi Arabia handed $2 billion in investment funds to Jared Kushner months after he left the White House as a "Senior Advisor", against the advice of the fund's advisors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-in...

If you want to be shocked by influence peddling, just review what and Mr. Kushner did business with while actually being employed by the government.

https://trumpfamilyinfluencepeddling.com/jared-and-ivanka/

> Jared Kushner Held Contacts With Foreign Officials He Did Not Officially Report Or Clear With The National Security Council. “H.R. McMaster, President Trump’s national security adviser, learned that Kushner had contacts with foreign officials that he did not coordinate through the National Security Council or officially report.” [Washington Post, 02/27/18]

> Jared Kushner’s Family Courted “State-Connected Investors” To Bail Out A Kushner Property In Regions In His Government Portfolio While Working In The White House. “And since Mr. Kushner entered the White House, his family has courted state-connected investors in China and the Middle East — both regions that were in Mr. Kushner’s government portfolio — to bail out the firm’s headquarters at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.” [New York Times, 10/11/19]