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

51–60 of 783 posts

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

#51

Post by axus »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #40
axus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#52

Post by unethical_ban »

shitlord wrote: post #36
WithinReason wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only thanks to heavy moderation.

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

They don't feel the need to, because HN mods do their job and there aren't millions of people spreading verifiable misinformation here unchecked.

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

#53

Post by RobotToaster »

shitlord wrote: post #36
WithinReason wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only thanks to heavy moderation.

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

Do we know that for sure?

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

#54

Post by ajkjk »

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?

TFG?

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

#55

Post by LatteLazy »

hgsgm wrote: post #26
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…

4. Which movies were censored, by whom? 5. That's clearly the Legislature's job. The Legislature is not the Executive. They make new law, not apply existing law.

I am not sure it is legislators job to censor free speech? And if they passed such a law and it was somehow constitutional, it would then be the president's job to enforce it, so they are very much in the same boat wouldn't they?

The current movie (and TV and music) censorship regimes are all based on an agreement between producers that they will not produce/distribute etc material that is legal but "bad" and in exchange the government will take no action against them like tax hikes etc.

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

This is how the US has handled all sorts of "censorship that's not technically censorship" since day 1. The actions here seem to be basically the same thing but in our era it's social media not rap music or sitcoms.

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

#56

Post by Pxtl »

moduspol wrote: post #25
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…

> 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. They don't, they just choose to do so. It's the same way pundits, authors, and broadcasters often get labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" while similarly left-wing ones don't get labeled. It's an editorial choice to call the reader's attention to it and imply relevance. Beyond t…

The Trump administration lost any benefit of the doubt with their judicial appointments when they outraged the legal establishment (eg American Bar Association) by frequently ignoring the most qualified candidates for judicial appointments in favor of ideologically Republican ones.

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

#57

Post by mullingitover »

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…

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

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

#58

Post by SQueeeeeL »

bena wrote: post #47
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

Always could. Because everyone else can see if the theater is on fire or not.

Damn, the US is doomed if we have a systematic expectation of individuals validating people telling them to panic

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

#59

Post by stainablesteel »

chasd00 wrote: post #41
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, Nazis were very aggressive about suppression of speech they didn’t like. Furthermore, it was one of, possibly the very most, free-speaking societies in the world that played a key role—first economically, then militarily—in stopping them.

Yes, the censor and safethink crowd at Twitter have more in common with fascist regimes than anyone else.

they have an evolved use of irony where they project with their accusations, luckily more people seem to have become savvy to noticing this

the incompatible logical extremes of safety vs freedom is starting to line up with historical precedent again

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

#60

Post by hanniabu »

RobotToaster wrote: post #48
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

It's a myth that it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

What about yelling bomb on an airplane
Post reply on HN