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

31–40 of 783 posts

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

#31

Post by nonrepeating »

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 similar mistake will do the same.

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

#32

Post by chasd00 »

doitLP wrote: post #20

> 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…

> “… I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today."

I think I would drive to the airport, go through security, and fly to DC just to throw a drink in that dumbass’s face and laugh.

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

#33

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

hgsgm wrote: post #30
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?

Who did TFG send his demands to? His rally crowds have no power to act, and consented, so there is no coercion.

in which direction do you imagine the power dynamic OP mentioned went?

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?

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

#34

Post by koolba »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23
doitLP wrote: post #20

> 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…

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?

> 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.

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

#35

Post by axus »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23
doitLP wrote: post #20

> 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…

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?

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.

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

#36

Post by shitlord »

WithinReason wrote: post #6
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.

Only thanks to heavy moderation.

Yes, but the key difference is that White House staffers aren't personally pressuring dang.

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

#37

Post by hgsgm »

I 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.

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

#38

Post by throw0101c »

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…

> 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.

See for example another nominee:

> On December 1, the Eleventh Circuit ordered the case to be dismissed because Cannon "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction" over it.[64][65][66][67][68] The Eleventh Circuit stated that Trump needed to show that the case met all four criteria under the Richey test for equitable jurisdiction over lawsuits for seized materials, but failed to do so for any criteria.[69][70][71] The Eleventh Circuit found that under Cannon, "the district court stepped in with its own reasoning" multiple times to argue in favor of Trump, sometimes even taking positions that Trump would not argue before the appeals court.[72][73][74] The Eleventh Circuit also found that when Trump did not explain what materials he still needed returned, or why, the "district court was undeterred by this lack of information".[69][75][76]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon#Trump_v._United_...

The panel that over-ruled Cannon were also majority-Trump nominees:

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/thorough-...

* https://archive.fo/aR3KZ

So it may be 'just' that particular judges are incompetent (which you would hope would be discovered in some kind of vetting process).

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

#40

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

axus wrote: post #35
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?

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 as some random government bureaucrat demanding it: the fact that the company felt comfortable ignoring said random bureaucrat when it suited them seems to indicate they didn't feel coerced at all
Post reply on HN