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

191–200 of 783 posts

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

#191

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

worksonmine wrote: post #164
hotpotamus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the FBI's goal was with that behavior?

FBI seems schizophrenic at times, confirming and denying based on politics. Remember the e-mail server in 2016? First advising against criminal charges, only to open an investigation months later. Epstein was covered up and considered a conspiracy theory until it wasn't a few years later. Everything is politics today and the people in charge seem to have difficulties navigating in this context, and it's only getting…

Not at all. Remember that FBI is also a political entity subject to the whims of congress and its willingness to appropriate funds for it. In other words, they are always walking a tightrope of expectations from opposing sides; there is always pressure.

I am not sure if you remember Comey saga, but remember how carefully some of the statements were worded to satisfy those various sides ( iirc, he wasn't supposed to say Clinton was a suspect and he didn't but instead said something that sounded close to it so press ran with it anyway -- and he could placate both sides saying he did their bidding ).

Its not schizophrenic when you understand how much of a political capital is spent there.

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

#192

Post by stefantalpalaru »

Pxtl wrote: post #125
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

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.

[dead]

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

#193

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#194

Post by zpeti »

ceejayoz wrote: post #150
lordfrito wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on this. Something tells me the people here arguing that Flaherty wasn't coercive or threatening would be arguing just the opposite if this was the Trump administration. Apparently it's about time for our collective citizenry to relearn some generational lessons from history, preferably not the hard way.

> Something tells me the people here arguing that Flaherty wasn't coercive or threatening would be arguing just the opposite if this was the Trump administration. The Trump administration was doing the same thing. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru... > When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue…

I think you’ll find, that except for hardcore trumpists not many on the right support trump doin this.

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

#195

Post by causi »

commandlinefan wrote: post #159
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…

> Why defend them? Because a depressingly large percentage of people would actually like to see the first amendment overturned.

It's become quite rare for me to see people who defend speech they don't agree with, and rarer still any speech they find repugnant. It isn't liberty vs authority anymore; it's just team red and team blue. One might be wrong-er than the other but neither think people they hate should be able to open their mouths in anything but agreement.

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

#196

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

brasic wrote: post #167
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…

Read the entire injunction. It’s only seven pages. Then tell me with a straight face that you think it’s a good thing for free speech. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18... It amounts to “no one from these 8 government agencies may communicate with anyone working at these three non profits, 20 social media companies or any similar organization” I’m not defending the behavior alleged here but…

What was the justification for the ban on the hunter Biden stories? Why not just issue a statement- the White House has a press office that could just deny things. They went around their messaging in an unusual way.

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

#197

Post by ceejayoz »

rabite wrote: post #186
Pxtl wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[flagged]

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

#198

Post by mynameishere »

commandlinefan wrote: post #159
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…

> Why defend them? Because a depressingly large percentage of people would actually like to see the first amendment overturned.

Well, people would like the Bill of Rights to be "selectively enforced" like all federal laws.

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

#199

Post by engineer_22 »

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…

-> Government workers should be free to contact private organizations and speak to them freely and make requests of them. "The government would like this content taken down for public good" is not making a law, it's making a request. It's making their opinion known, and government functionaries are allowed to have professional opinions. Something like "In my professional opinion as a public health worker, this content is dangerous advice that will get people killed, and in the interest of public safety it would be best if readers were protected from it." That is a reasonable thing for a government-employed professional to do and say.

A fair point, and I don't disagree at all with this. I only wish to share with you my opinion as a fellow citizen:

I'd just as much prefer to use a social media platform that doesn't bend the knee to the government. Let the people decide for themselves what is useful information or not. We live in a representative democracy - this form of government is itself a safeguard against an ill-informed populace.

Tangentially, not a small part of the problem may be the government's proclivity to lie to the people. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..."

EDIT: It might be a useful exercise to consider /why/ we are interested in the freedom of speech issue at a foundational level. I think that due to the speed of modern communication, in a crisis like COVID-19 where people are debating what /must/ be done and there are disagreements, we find that the common road is a hard one to walk and we run out of ways to rationalize a compromise. Maybe this leads us to want a fast fix, limit personal responsibilities so the government has the space to make things nice again.

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

#200

Post by tzs »

quickthrowman wrote: post #156
hgsgm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the Senate ran a party-line unpresidented and unconstitutional multi-year campaign to block Obama's nominations from entering office without even a hearing, and then packed the courts with their own judges, it absolutely is relevant who appointed a judge.

How is it unconstitutional? Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says that the President shall nominate, with the advice and consent of the Senate […] judges. The Senate did not consent, so Merrick Garland was not given a confirmation hearing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

It's pretty hard to argue that the Senate gave advice if they didn't even hold a hearing to consider the matter.
Post reply on HN