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

351–360 of 783 posts

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

#351

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

curiousllama wrote: post #292
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #16

edit: link to pdf[1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/75e9f7a3-da4e-45af-... The two big pieces that appear to be driving this coverage are, if true, the following: "suppressing negative posts about the economy", "suppressing negative posts about President Biden" and, apparently, parodies There are others, but you could technically claim there is some non-POTUS benefit there so it does not look self-servi…

This'll come out in discovery, but I didn't see anything particularly crazy in the complaint. I didn't see any examples of economic posts at issue, despite it being in the summary. And the parody accounts seemed to be focused either on (1) non-public figures, like Biden's granddaughter or (2) have resulted in sincere confusion, such as when Twitter actually asked the CDC if a 'parody' account was Fauci's real handle.

You are absolutely right the discovery part and I admit it will likely be something now I will follow more closely ( not completely unlike gems that came out of recent Microsoft/Sony deposition ) despite its political flavor.

I disagree here, but I just dislike government overreaching so I also might be overreacting on principle ( and assuming the worst rarely steered me wrong in that realm ).

A parody is a parody is a parody. The backstory is irrelevant for one reason and one reason only. The moment POTUS seemed to implicate himself and his administration in deciding what is kosher, he opened himself to, justifiable, scrutiny and, more importantly, likely eventual mistakes. It can be defended, but the more subtle point is that it should not have happened to begin with.

Not if you want to preserve the system that has even a semblance of pretending to adhere to the original founding principles of this nation.

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

#352

Post by CWuestefeld »

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…

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”

Except that it doesn't say that. It's quite clear that such communication is still perfectly fine when it's for normal gov't operations; I'll quote it below[1].

The folks objecting to this don't make much sense to me. The injunction forbids the gov't from doing the things that the plaintiff complains about. If the gov't isn't currently misbehaving, then the injunction is a No-Op: the government's claimed current state of doing nothing wrong will just continue as is (putatively) already is.

What is lost due to the injunction?

[1] Here are the exceptions to the injunction:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction:

1. informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies;

2. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;

3. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies about criminal efforts to suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;

4. informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States;

5. exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern;

6. informing social-media companies of postings intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures;

7. informing or communicating with social-media companies in an effort to detect, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity;

communicating with social-media companies about deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech ….

[EDIT: fixed formatting]

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

#353

Post by NicoJuicy »

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…

Freedom of speech shouldn't be freedom of hate speech.

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

#354

Post by roflyear »

Auracle wrote: post #347
roflyear wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)

They have plenty of ways to do so without using intermediaries at social media companies.

That's implying compelling speech which is not the discussion.

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

#355

Post by roflyear »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #348
roflyear wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)

The rights apply to people not the govt lol Edit: Amazing, a perfect factual comment is downvoted.

I'm just saying there are times where you may want the government to be able to express opinions....

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

#356

Post by say_it_as_it_is »

These are private platforms. They can censor whatever speech they want. They decide whether to listen to big bad government with an axe over its head or simply get their head cut off, right? I mean, they could have just chosen to be crushed with legal battles from the government, right? Free speech and free will in America, right?

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

#357

Post by entriesfull »

Just a reminder that Hitler and Stalin would be so jealous at the amount of power these governments have compared to them:

1. Force twitter, fb, blah blah to shadowban anyone that criticizes their lies

2. Backdoor any device made by Google, Apple, etc.

3. Warrantless wiretap

4. Shove out more lies and goto step 1.

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

#358

Post by causi »

Zetice wrote: post #337
causi wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why one's judgment of the situation should depend on whether the government was successful in intimidating Facebook. What matters is that they tried.

Coercion requires a stick, I see no stick here. The judge literally cited Biden saying, "they're killing people" as coercion, which is a bald-faced lie.

Do implied threats count as coercion? Does a threatening tone? Does someone in a position of power making demands they don't actually have the power to enforce count as coercion? I don't know. The judge seems to think they do.

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

#359

Post by roflyear »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #350
roflyear wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)

I am satisfied for the space of the government’s unenforceable opinions to be circumscribed.

Which restrictions are you cool with?

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

#360

Post by uLogMicheal »

snowwrestler wrote: post #228
efitz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes but what you don’t see is the many many requests in the same tone that come into social media (and traditional media!) companies from corporations, celebrities, even regular old citizens who are mad their drunk driving arrest got reported (for example). The idea that an imperious tone somehow proves a power imbalance is hilarious to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of these requests from regular peop…

This is not talking about "regular old citizens". This is the government and the government has power. Your comment is basically a Straw man.
Post reply on HN