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

#561

Post by evandale » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #534

evandale wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I won't be replying any further to this thread. Reading it back I had the realization that once we've gotten to the point where we're debating the meaning of the word "opinion" it is so far off-topic as to be useless to the discussion at hand, frankly. All the best.

Alright, I thought I was trying to end the debate and find common ground but you didn't want to tell me in your own words the definition you use for opinion.

You had me define it in my own words and was able to tell me I'm wrong but you never gave me the same chance.

There's a reason why people throw their hands up and say "it's just my opinion!" when they're blatantly wrong about something. It's a phase used to indicate they don't care about facts and they don't have to defend their position, which I thought was the common definition of opinion: a position one holds even when the facts say they're wrong.

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

#562

Post by chipsa » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #526

chipsa wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elected officials are not government employees. It is not, in fact, turtles all the way down. They may be paid by the government, but the government does not dictate when they get hired and fired. It's possible that someone may be both an elected official and a government employee, but that's fairly rare (something like: Congressman and member of the military reserve, in which case they're only a government employee…

> Elected officials are not government employees. [citation needed] The IRS disagrees, but obviously different legal contexts have different definitions, but I am aware of none supporting the distinction you are trying to make.

Example: Hatch Act provides that persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen, but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns.

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court held “that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”

Obviously, speech and debate clause controls for Federal Congress members.

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

#563

Post by afavour » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

evandale wrote: post #545

afavour wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I guess we are being ultra-literal. Which is fine! > I'm in favour of more bike lanes in my city but I don't consider that an opinion ...I do not understand why not. To my perception that is very much the definition of an opinion. But anyway, we clearly have a bunch of different definitions in play here. I think we can safely agree to disagree.

It's not an opinion because IMO you need a why for an opinion. There's an implicit why most of the time. But Facebook supporting marketing because they make more money with marketing can be a verified fact - there's no opinion element in it and I don't think Facebook supporting marketing by itself is an opinion. If you like rain because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factua…

Alright, this will be my last contribution here. But:

To start, "I like rain" is a factual statement derived from your opinion, not an opinion itself. So let's change it for "rain is good":

> If you think rain is good because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factual reason.

> If you think rain is good because it sounds pleasant that's an opinion.

You're making distinctions that don't exist.

Thinking rain is good because it waters your garden is based on the fact that it will help your garden grow.

Thinking rain is good because it sounds pleasant is based on the fact that you enjoy the sound of the rain.

Both of these ignore counter-factuals. Sure, you think rain is good because it waters your garden, I think rain is bad because I live at the bottom of the hill and all that rainwater frequently floods my house. I think rain is bad because I dislike the sound.

Your opinion is based on the fact most relevant to you, my opinion is based on the fact most relevant to me. Choosing which facts are most important is a personal choice that results in an opinion. They're all opinions! To finally bring the thing full circle:

> But Facebook supporting marketing because they make more money with marketing can be a verified fact

It is an opinion supported by fact. A Facebook exec could make the argument that they could make more money by dropping advertising and instead charge a monthly membership fee. There are definitely fewer facts available to back up that opinion but it would still be a valid one.

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

#564

Post by hayst4ck » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #88

Pxtl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither you or are the Bar Association have any right to tell the president who is most qualified for a role he appoints. Maybe you don’t like it or it’s “wrong,” but the Bar Association is a bunch bureaucrats not an arbiter of platonic truth or good.

Institutional ethics are a counter force to tyranny.

In a democracy a professional organization does have a right to check power as does every individual citizen.

Where do you think checks and balances come from? A two party state defeats a traditional notion of checks and balances. Our founding fathers warned against it.

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

#565

Post by nashashmi » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:54 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #483

nashashmi wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trump admin personnel behaved the same way. The platforms were free to ignore it in the same way. The Trump administration is being prosecuted over entirely different acts.

My comment was not about how they are being prosecuted. But just about the ethics of doing something like that. Especially when the prior admin are heavily perceived as bullies. And they were supposed to be different.

The fact that the Biden admin behaved the same way vindicates them from accusations that Trump admin behaved unjustly or they should be disciplined for such inappropriateness.

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

#566

Post by chr1 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:55 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…

Government agencies secretly communicating with people is not a free speech, There are many more cases when government employee can't talk about work with other people, so i don't see a reason to be horrified.

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

#567

Post by revelio » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:55 PM UTC

lancesells wrote: post #375

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…

I agree for the most part, but the only thing that keeps me wholesale from this is the idea that all social media posts are US citizens. What if, and I'm not suggesting it is, 100% of the posts in question where from foreign actors looking to disrupt the US? Is the government in no way allowed to step in? Is that even censorship?

By foreign actors do you just mean foreign people in general or something more specific. Because using the word "actors" give what you say an ominous overtone, but I can't figure out how it's not that you believe in some generic but wide ranging conspiracy of non-Americans to disrupt America with .... opinions. Those things that Americans are famously lacking and reluctant to espouse.

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

#568

Post by unyttigfjelltol » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #143

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…

> 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…

The standard actually is the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits (not "might"-- it's probable per the judge), and in practice a preliminary injunction hearing in a major case can take the form of a mini-trial. The judge wrote 155 pages that, at first blush, appear to be a very serious and thoughtful effort. The judge summarized on page 154 thus:

"The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country." [1] (emphasis mine)

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

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

#569

Post by staticman2 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

dvt wrote: post #515

staticman2 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" I don’t give a rat’s ass about the free speech rights of the government...the purpose of free speech is to protect the right of the weak to speak even when the strong disagree with them." That doesn't sound right to me. You basically just argued "The purpose of a right to free speech is to protect the right of free speech." It's circular reasoning. Why should free speech be a right? Out of curiosity I pulled up an…

> That doesn't sound right to me. You basically just argued "The purpose of a right to free speech is to protect the right of free speech." It's circular reasoning. Why should free speech be a right? That's not what GP argued, and you're being quite uncharitable. Their argument goes something like this: 1) Free speech is meant to protect those that don't have a monopoly on speech 2) The government has a monopoly on—o…

" 1) Free speech is meant to protect those that don't have a monopoly on speech "

You lost me here.

How can the government have a monopoly on speech if we're talking about the government being prevented from saying things by a judge?

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

#570

Post by nashashmi » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #510

nashashmi wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Now imagine if the same words were used by the trump admin personnel! You don't need to imagine. This happened. > Left media would scream words like bullying. That you don't know this happened says everything. > This gives complete justification and vindication of how the trump admin behaved! Untouchable. No. > This country is officially over. Incorrect, again.

Why no?

This country’s reputation is built upon the idea of collaboration and compromise. Both administrations behaving with such obtuseness means this is a new chapter.