531–540 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like when a rightist explains that Donald was a great president because he didn't "drone strike people like Obama did." The doublethink is ridiculous.
Or when hosting a private email server is worthy of being locked up but only if you are Hilary Clinton specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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” That's plain false. From middle of page 5 there's the list of things explicitly not banned, it starts with "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction:".
Adding a list of carve outs doesn’t make the ban ok.
Which ban is not ok, specifically?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/opini... https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion
Can you please just summarize? There's way too many definitions and this isn't helpful. I gave you my opinion on what an opinion is, now why can't you return the favour instead of throwing thousands of words back in my face with no nuance or context? If you're not interested in the conversation that's fine too, but just say so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your conception of what constitutes an “opinion” is different than any other one I’ve ever encountered.
What's your conception of an opinion? To me am opinion is a belief you have that's not based on facts. Why do you want your government to have a belief not based on facts? Furthermore, why would you want the government to push this belief on its people? Lastly why would you care about the opinion (remember: an opinion is a belief that isn't based on facts) of a corporation to the point that you'd defend their right t…
* online advertising allows consumers to learn about new products and services
* advertising incentivizes user data collection in order that it may be more effective.
From just these two facts one could easily come to a pro- or anti-advertising position based on their values and the relative weights they choose to put on each fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What implied threats, what threatening tone? What position of power? If you read the examples cited, nothing even remotely comes close to a layperson interpretation of coercion, and I believe the legal definition is more rigorous, not less.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What implied threats, what threatening tone? What position of power? If you read the examples cited, nothing even remotely comes close to a layperson interpretation of coercion, and I believe the legal definition is more rigorous, not less.
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.
There's no way Biden's quote is coercive. Zero way whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Speech does not censor speech We know from the Twitter document dumps that government officials on both sides of the aisle have been demanding that speech (and speakers) critical of them, their preferred policies and/or their political party be censored. > intimidation requires an actual threat Threatening to yank section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if platforms don't ramp up their censorship is an actual…
Come on, none of the people involved in this case had the power to “yank” Section 230. I feel like you don’t have a solid handle on how government actually works, which is hampering this discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Absolutely nothing you stated is legal now. The government would not have to intervene asking for censorship in any of these cases. They would press charges and have a court order to remove the non-protected speech.
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that those things are legal. Just giving a few examples of speech that is harmful, rather than merely distasteful.
> The government would not have to intervene asking for censorship in any of these cases.
Hm, I think that may be pinning quite a lot on some questionable definition of "censorship."
In these examples the law would be banning some specific speech from me, Pfizer, and the mugger, and punishing us if we engaged in that banned speech anyway. Isn't that what censorship is?
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." They literally did not. This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision on the merits. This is why the court is clear they are allegations, etc. There is a ton of issues with this injunction and rationale, and it will almost ce…
The injunction is quite harsh and I agree that it's likely to be seriously modified in its final form. As fare as predictions go do you think the gov will come out clean or it'll end with "gov did a bad thing"? And if so will _you_ come back and say "i guess the government did do a bad thing"?