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

#461

Post by echelon » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:48 PM UTC

CyberDildonics wrote: post #388

echelon wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather the platforms be treated as common carriers - unable to censor by themselves. Corporations having the right to censor is no better than the government. It would fix a lot of misalignment in terms of advertiser spend, too. In a common carrier world, the government censoring private individuals would go against our first amendment rights. Pretty clear cut. Ideally we eventually reach p2p social networking pr…

I'd rather the platforms be treated as common carriers That's called the internet. Corporations having the right to censor is no better than the government. Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one. There is only one government that applies to someone at any one time and they have a monopoly on violence. In a common carrier world, the government censoring private individuals would go against…

> Yes it is, there are lots of corporations and anyone can start one.

Please tell me how to start a Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, or Twitter and reach their scale and engagement. Preferably up and running with billions of users by tomorrow.

Your suggestion is implausible and denies the reality that these entities are entrenched and more or less here to stay.

> If you hate censorship so much why are you on hacker news?

You want me to leave because I hate censorship? Same argument as "If you don't like America, then leave." Systems can be improved. Just because we don't like the status quo doesn't mean we want to throw everything out. This is a shallow dismissal of the free speech argument.

> There are plenty of sites that let anyone post whatever they want and they turn into people spamming nazi propaganda. You can find these sites and see if you like them better than the mainstream sites of the internet.

Again, clearly not what I'm advocating for here. Not all discourse turns to "Nazism" (as liberals say) or "kiddie diddling" (as conservatives say). I operated forums back in their 2000-2010 heydey that had a free speech policy. People behaved, and we all learned a lot. The only reason corporations have the market share now is that they blitzscaled to critical mass.

My argument stands. The ideal social media system is a p2p protocol that nobody can exert undue control or influence over. That everyone can tailor as they so please.

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

#462

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #431

ceejayoz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is not how a preliminary injunction works. The court has ordered that the governmment stop doing the in-dispute things until the dispute is resolved - in either direction - in court. The standard for such an injunction is n…

In particular, they need to find if there was any actual coercion or threat made by the gov't agencies to remove the speech they asked to. For example, when the FBI was asking Twitter to take down videos (of content that violated Twitter's own TOS), Twitter could've told them to go pound sand. But it would be a different story if the FBI indicated that Twitter "ought to" do it or face increased scrutiny, perhaps.

I don't see why there needs to be any coercion. The offense here is not against the social networks, it's against the people whose speech was suppressed.

Whether that suppression was done with threats, requests, subtle hints, or an automated system, if the government's intent was to suppress speech, the means employed make no difference.

Edit: imagine an extreme case in which a social network independently created an automated system for government employees to remove posts. Would it be constitutional for the government to use that system?

Clearly not, despite the lack of any coercion.

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

#463

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

axus wrote: post #51

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So if they did it to me, it's bad, but to Facebook it's OK? In some court cases the actual harm matters, and sometimes it's the principle that matters.

Laura at the DMV could tell me to disallow ISIS from buying stuff from my company and there's no way I could consider that an actionable threat of any kind.

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

#464

Post by hiidrew » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:51 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 couldn't find the list on my first skim. Then found in the footnotes, in case anyone is curious:

"2 “Social-media companies” include Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and like companies"

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

#465

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

calgarymicro wrote: post #455

shkkmo wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a nationwide injunction restricting the government from nearly all contact with various companies and nonprofits. Good thing that such an injunction was not issued. Given all the emphasis you place on paraphrasing things correctly, this seems to be a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the injunction.

Is it? Reading over pages 4 and 5 of the injunction[0], based on points 4, 5, 9, and 10, it seems government employees are now barred in any way from discussing any social media content or company policy protected by the 1st amendment with the companies or nonprofits. > (4) emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressu…

> Reading over pages 4 and 5 of the injunction[0], it seems government employees are now barred in any way from discussing any social media content or company policy that isn't explicitly illegal with social media

Whether or not any involved content is “explicitly illegal”, they are explicitly permitted to discuss that content so long as it is related to threats to public safety and security of the US, content that may be misleading voters on voting processes, or about content that isn’t Constitutionally protected, among other exceptions; see the explicit exceptions on pp. 5-6. As framed, the exceptions are cumulative and trump the restrictions, so, e.g., a BOLO for content whose context was efforts to protect the public safety and security of the US would permissible under the injunction even if the content was itself Constitutionally protected free speech.

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

#466

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

chipsa wrote: post #335

ceejayoz wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the First Amendment protect the right to say "I think this should be taken down"? (Side note: The Angus King stuff is a misrepresentation. The screenshots are from a spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCK... - in which a column indicates how the account first came to the King campaign's attention, not the reason they think they warranted action.)

If you're a private citizen, yes. If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect the right of the government to speech, because the government doesn't have rights. What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government?

> If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech.

This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titan...

It'd probably also apply to the President saying "lock her up" about a private citizen. Is that unconstitutional pressure from an elected official?

> What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government?

It means stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

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

#467

Post by shkkmo » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:52 PM UTC

calgarymicro wrote: post #455

shkkmo wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a nationwide injunction restricting the government from nearly all contact with various companies and nonprofits. Good thing that such an injunction was not issued. Given all the emphasis you place on paraphrasing things correctly, this seems to be a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the injunction.

Is it? Reading over pages 4 and 5 of the injunction[0], based on points 4, 5, 9, and 10, it seems government employees are now barred in any way from discussing any social media content or company policy protected by the 1st amendment with the companies or nonprofits. > (4) emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressu…

"Nearly all contact" != "social media content or company policy that isn't explicitly illegal with social media companies"

The types of contact that are still allowed are still the vast majority.

The types of contact that are prohibited are those that are potentially viewed as part of efforts to suppress free speech.

I really don't understand the objection unless you support the efforts to suppress this free speech.

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

#468

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:53 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…

The Bill of Rights is not ranked by importance.

Did you read the article?

>The ruling was criticized by Jameel Jaffer, an adjunct professor of law and journalism who is executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. "It can't be that the government violates the First Amendment simply by engaging with the platforms about their content-moderation decisions and policies," Jaffer told The New York Times, calling it "a pretty radical proposition that isn't supported by the case law."

> While the government must be careful to avoid coercion in its efforts to combat false information, Jaffer said that "unfortunately, Judge Doughty's order doesn't reflect a serious effort to reconcile the competing principles."

> Stanford Law School Assistant Professor Evelyn Douek told The Washington Post that the "injunction is strikingly broad and clearly intended to chill any kind of contact between government actors and social media platforms."

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

#469

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #454

causi wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therefore, the question is not what decision the social-media company would have made, but whether the Government “so involved itself in the private party’s conduct” that the decision is essentially that of the Government. The government asking them to remove specific posts and accounts and demote others is pretty clearly that.

How so? If someone asks me for something, and I have EXPLICIT LEGAL PROTECTION TO SAY NO, how coercive should that be to me?

How coercive? If you're right, the government can still make a court case that takes a good part of a decade and costs you ten million dollars to win.

That's just the straightforward stuff. That's without the IRS deciding your corporate profit statements deserve extra scrutiny, and the FCC deciding to question whether you really qualify for section 230, and and and...

You can be right. They can still make your life very difficult if they decide to. And it will be very hard to prove that that's what they're doing. And even if you can, you probably aren't going to get the money back that the court cases cost, and you definitely aren't getting back the time and management attention it cost.

So, not legally coercive. But still kind of coercive, even though legally it has no force.

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

#470

Post by ipaddr » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #429

evandale wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Facebook is made up of many parts. Some parts find advertising to be directly opposite of their goals. The react team may not like ads being force in their docs for example. If own shares through a pension I may not like advertising.

The CEO decides who manages which roles and divides authority. Opinions comes from these power structures. They could be divided on issues or unified. They speak for the company.

Google is so big you often have conflicting goals from different power structures.