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

#421

Post by Clubber » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #394

Clubber wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation" Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases. https://www…

Republicans have threatened it as well: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/502... S.5020 - A bill to repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Sponsor: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] you're now free to respond to the substance of the post you replied to: it was, in fact, a GOP controlled Senate which performed the action in question

Someone asked what the implied threat was to social media companies if they didn't comply with takedown request from the government. I said they (the government) threatened to revoke section 230. Someone replied with "well it was the GOP controlled congress," of which I replied that the Democrats also threatened revoking section 230.

Just to back this up, the ACLU also warned against the dismantlement of section 230 as a serious threat to freedom of speech, and I agree with them on this topic.

Here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-warns-harm-free-spe...

And Here: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th...

And Here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-letter-congress-opposing...

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

#422

Post by elishah » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

causi wrote: post #195

commandlinefan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's become quite rare for me to see people who defend speech they don't agree with ...

I think framing this as being about speech with which one disagrees, or finds repugnant, is a bit disingenuous. It omits consideration of the possibility of speech that is genuinely harmful. For a few examples:

- My friends and I decide it'd be cool to put you in jail, so we report you as committing a serious crime that you didn't, and all give matching testimony that leads to your conviction.

- Pfizer starts selling a new drug that cures cancer. Except it turns out that they completely fabricated all the studies showing its effect, and actually the pills are nothing but placebos.

- A mugger with his hand in his pocket stops you at night and says, "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you." You give him your wallet and he leaves.

I hope you would agree that these situations are... not ideal, and that the law should be able to discourage them. Despite the fact that all of these are, indisputably, speech.

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

#423

Post by crazygringo » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

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…

Because freedom of speech isn't absolute, and whether "the government did a bad thing" is the very question being asked, to which reasonable people may disagree.

With over a million COVID deaths in the US, there's a very valid question to be raised as to when emergency public health requirements take precedence over a right to spread misinformation/disinformation.

Freedom of speech isn't of much use when you're dead.

I'm not arguing which side was right, but I am saying it shouldn't baffle anyone, because it's a complex question with real tradeoffs on both sides. It's not simple black-and-white in the way you're presenting it.

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

#424

Post by kyrra » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #324

kyrra wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree here, I want to add a caveat that the linked article is technically a "commentary" pieces, not a news-side piece (aka: it's published on the opinion pages). But even given that, the opinion pages of the WSJ is just as fact-filled as the news side, but just highlights that the person writing it may not be a disinterested party. The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the n…

> The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the news side leans liberal. As with most News Corp outlets, the news side of the WSJ leans pretty far to the right (it did so even before it was a News Corp outlet, though not as much), it only seems “liberal” by comparison with its own opinion section. That said, unlike, say, Fox News, the WSJ news side at least makes an effort to adhere to t…

Most US media leans left, which is why WSJ news side even looks to be conservative compared to their peers.

For example: https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journali... Somewhere between 87-94% of political donations from journalists goes to Democrats. Wikipedia links some more polls that show similar things (though not as stark): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...

When you have a profession that leans one way, most reporting likely follows. So while WSJ news seems conservative, it's positions compared to the general public's views leans slightly left. (Though after reading WSJ for many years now, it highly depends on the reporter).

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

#425

Post by kurthr » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

jp191919 wrote: post #404

dragonwriter wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the news side leans liberal. As with most News Corp outlets, the news side of the WSJ leans pretty far to the right (it did so even before it was a News Corp outlet, though not as much), it only seems “liberal” by comparison with its own opinion section. That said, unlike, say, Fox News, the WSJ news side at least makes an effort to adhere to t…

An interesting site if you are concerned about media bias- https://www.allsides.com/media-bias

An excellent example of the Overton Window.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

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

#426

Post by stcroixx » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #338

stcroixx wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech for citizens is important to me and I'm on no political side. This seems like a great thing to me. I don't want the government doing what they're been doing or doing it again in the future, regardless of who that government is. Ideally, these losers would have enough morals to police themselves or not do this in the first place, but here we are. Might not be a perfect ruling, but in spirit it's against go…

If the government says vaccine misinformation is killing thousands of people on air on the evening news and Facebook agrees and starts banning people posting it and those folks have to share their misinformation on their own sites rather than Facebook how has your freedom been infringed? Likewise if the communique takes place via a memo. You have a right to communicate what you please you don't have a right to have y…

The government has no authority to decide for me whether something is misinformation. They can share their opinions and I'll be the judge of what I trust. If Facebook reaches the same conclusion independently, without being coerced by the government, I'd react according to how I feel about the specific issue. Maybe I'd stop using the platform. I'm not claiming NYT or FB needs to publish my views, I don't expect that at all. What I don't want is the government telling them what they can and can't publish.

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

#427

Post by shkkmo » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

brasic wrote: post #272

curiousllama wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I don't agree with the top level comment here, but this isn't a reverse-free-speech issue. Courts are absolutely free to restrain what public officials can say. E.g., a regulator cannot say "if you don't burn this book, we'll tax you out of existence" while a person could say "if you don't burn this book, I'll vote to have you taxed out of existence"

A narrowly tailored prohibition on specific speech aimed at specific government officials may be permissable in some cases. This injunction is carelessly worded to apply to millions of people and to preclude essentially all communications related to "protected free speech". The breadth and vagueness is specifically what I'm objecting to.

Did you read the injunction? it isn't vague at all. The injunction only prohibits actions which should be illegal in the first place.

Can you name a specific action that you think this injunction prohibits or potentially prohibits that you think should be allowed?

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

#428

Post by nashashmi » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

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…

Now imagine if the same words were used by the trump admin personnel! Left media would scream words like bullying. This gives complete justification and vindication of how the trump admin behaved! Untouchable.

This country is officially over.

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

#429

Post by afavour » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

evandale wrote: post #401

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t give a rat’s ass about the free speech rights of the government . Why on earth would I? The government is already massively constrained in what it can say and that’s entirely appropriate because the purpose of free speech is to protect the right of the weak to speak even when the strong disagree with them. You may disagree with the ruling but if you’re on the side of free speech, you should definitely cheer i…

lol I gotta say I've been trying to read the defenders of this and take them seriously but your incredulity matches mine... .. and people are replying to you and _still_ defending the government and think they should have unilateral power over their people I'm kind of speechless about how many people think this ruling is a bad thing.. like who in the hell out there believes the government should have OPINIONS? Can on…

> It's as stupid of a concept as a corporation having an opinion.. opinions are reserved for PEOPLE and I have no idea how you could come up with an argument to change my mind on that.

I guess I don’t understand your point here unless we’re being ultra-literal and saying a corporation can’t have an opinion because it doesn’t have a physical brain developing individual thought.

An example of “corporate opinion” off the top of my head: Facebook is in favour of advertising. I guess it's just a shorthand for "the executive board and shareholders of Facebook share the collective view that advertising is good" but I don't think anyone is particularly confused about what is meant when someone says Facebook is favour of something.

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

#430

Post by Manuel_D » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

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…

I would be even more be supportive if the political sides were reversed. Imagine a Trump White House was threatening social media companies, and pressuring them to restrict posts on climate change, civil rights, or some other progressive cause. Why wouldn't I support it if the political sides were reversed?

The First Amendment doesn't just protect people from being imprisoned by the government for their speech. It also prohibits the government from pressuring or coercing private individuals and companies into censoring content. Otherwise, the government could just pressure private entities into doing whatever censorship they want. This isn't a ban on speech, this is a ban on government coercion.