Live data from Hacker News

Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

arstechnica.com

661–670 of 783 posts

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

#661
post #533

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…

FYI the purpose of an entire branch of government (judiciary) is to have opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion

Judicial opinions != Personal opinions

It ain't the same ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same freakin' sport.

Equating the two is like equating a sea sponge and a dish sponge. "Well, they're both sponges!"

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

#662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint is about the government removing speech from social networks, even if they did so with just a wink and a hint. And I don't understand the argument that the social networks' willingness to cooperate makes the government's actions more acceptable. That's a bit like allowing the government to confiscate property without a trial, if the bank is cooperative.

It was not "remove this", it was "this probably violates your TOS", so that could be the difference between asking social media companies to take stuff down for only the Government's interest versus both the Government's and the platform's interests. The FBI isn't going to Klan website hosts and asking them to take down Klan content because those hosts don't forbid hosting that sort of speech.

And what was the government expecting to happen as a result of saying "this probably violates your TOS"?

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

#663
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I think all of us have learned the unfortunate downsides to a libertarian approach to free speech over the past 20 years. Any free speech purist would do well to remember what their legal recourse would be if somebody made elaborate false-allegations about you that harmed your career and marriage - we have many legal tools that protect us from harmful lies. It is not remarkable that there are people who be…

-> Government workers should be free to contact private organizations and speak to them freely and make requests of them. "The government would like this content taken down for public good" is not making a law, it's making a request. It's making their opinion known, and government functionaries are allowed to have professional opinions. Something like "In my professional opinion as a public health worker, this conten…

I didn’t downvote but was tempted.

> I'd just as much prefer to use a social media platform that doesn't bend the knee to the government. Let the people decide for themselves what is useful information or not. We live in a representative democracy - this form of government is itself a safeguard against an ill-informed populace.

Over the past decade or two with social media we have increasingly seen people are NOT good at deciding what information is useful. A large percentage of the population believes wild folklore, conspiracy theories, etc. We used to live in a truth based society (with occasional issues when lies were presented as truth). We now have a post-truth society where alternative facts are invented at will and displace reality. Worse many of the peddlers of misinformation are just not harmlessly misinformed but know they are lying.

In times of extreme crisis, we do need a quick fix. There simply isn’t time to waste placating people who think injecting bleach will protect them from an airborne illness in a pandemic. We could have spent a decade giving everyone a Master’s in Microbiology and Epidemiology and still not convinced antivaxxers, because they aren’t swayed by facts but by beliefs that feel truthy to them.

The entire point of representative democracy is to avoid the pitfalls of direct democracy which prevents expert analysis and decisions. Modern society is complex enough it has to be guided by subject matter experts. Can you imagine if the simple majority of users of your software got to decide every product decision from now on? Or worse, you had to get approval from the 5% of users that are mad the app doesn’t display Sasquatch’s location?

Personal responsibility has never alone been adequate to deal with the externalities government is uniquely able to fix - war, natural disaster, famine, and pandemics. Collective action is required for these challenges (and more mundane ones like pollution and other externalities). Any society has to be able to balance between the rights of individuals such that a tiny vocal minority can’t overly endanger the continued existence of society. Doing that well, so that nobody is run roughshod over and everyone gets a voice is important. But in extremis we don’t care to compromise with people who are endangering the herd. Humans never have had much tolerance for that.

I say all this knowing authoritarian governments are often able to do their worst abuse in times of crisis. But politely asking Facebook to take down or spread-limit some misinformation that statistically will lead to death isn’t tyranny.

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

#664
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." 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…

>> This is why the court is clear they are allegations

"Plaintiffs have shown that not only have the Defendants shown willingness to coerce and/or to give significant encouragement to social-media platforms to suppress free speech with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and national elections, they have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues, such as gas prices, parody speech, calling the President a liar, climate change, gender, and abortion"

Doesn't sound to me like the court is clear they are allegations.

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

#665
post #370
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction. I don’t see how you got there. I see literal demands for action in the tone of someone giving orders to a subordinate.

Are they subordinate if they can disobey those order with no reprecussions?

Is a demand not still inappropriate even if it's correctly rebuffed? If I ask for someone to violate policy at work and they refuse, I can still expect I might be investigated on the basis of the attempt

I mean, sure, in terms of jurisprudence here the lack of actual tort may indeed mean that there is no legal outcome, but evidence a desire to do something is a pretty good justification for investigating if there were cases where you did do it. And in the court of public opinion, it's very damning. I certainly won't be saying "no harm, no foul"

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

#666
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is anyone on the right arguing for any speech restriction? If so, they are by far the minority in that camp. Only one side is afraid of open debate and pure freedom of speech. Why could that be?

Book bans, the "Don't say gay" law, requiring medical professionals to spout specific claims about the "harms" of pregnancy termination and a raft of other stuff too.

Do you claim those are not censorship?

I'm not taking a side here. Government censorship is bad. Full stop.

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

#667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not talking about "regular old citizens". This is the government and the government has power. Your comment is basically a Straw man.

The government has power. Craig the office drone asking for "misinformation" to be taken down at behest of his boss does not have the power "The government" does. Or am I now supposed to believe that if you anger Sheila at the DMV the IRS will audit you?

> The government has power. Craig the office drone asking for "misinformation" to be taken down at behest of his boss does not have the power "The government" does. Or am I now supposed to believe that if you anger Sheila at the DMV the IRS will audit you?

Craig's boss is the highest executive power in the country. Most of their work is handled by aides and subordinates like Craig, with authority delegated from their office. The boss only directly makes the important decisions. You are being disingenuous by claiming Craig is a innocent, powerless trigger-happy drone. And if you have lived in small towns, expect to receive worse service or discrimination from Sheila in future. The highest power in the country cannot be held to the same standard as a county clerk (and frankly speaking, most DMV employees need more training in customer service and have their compensation tied to overall productivity and performance, lots of fat to be trimmed there, both literal and metaphorical).

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

#668
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…

Suddenly a Louisiana plant judge cares about the effects of the White House on free speech? If you need to make an announcement about fairness, it's in bad-faith if you ignore how it's 100% politically motivated maneuvers made-up by GOP thinktanks to neuter democrat power.

You betcha they'll ignore that law or destroy it once they're back.

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

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you've still failed to articulate the credible implied threat Facebook felt from the Biden administration's requests, or how that ties in with the GOP-controlled senate bringing the CEOs before them: did they do that because the Biden administration ordered them to, as a result of Facebook ignoring one of the requests? It's a laughably bipartisan conspiracy theory, and thus nobody would actually feel threa…

Bringing up an example of something that your disfavored party does, is not a counter argument to the idea that the government pressured companies. In fact it actually proves the point, you just also thing the other party infringed on people's rights as well.

the discussion is not about that idea of yours, and "the government" is not a monolithic entity

the discussion was around whether Facebook felt there was an implied threat there credible enough to act on it out of fear

obviously, they didn't, and wouldn't, because such a threat would have required that Biden control the GOP Congress somehow, which he didn't

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

#670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you've still failed to articulate the credible implied threat Facebook felt from the Biden administration's requests, or how that ties in with the GOP-controlled senate bringing the CEOs before them: did they do that because the Biden administration ordered them to, as a result of Facebook ignoring one of the requests? It's a laughably bipartisan conspiracy theory, and thus nobody would actually feel threa…

It's been articulated, you just choose to ignore it.

ah yes, that classic proof, "I already proved it!" [with no citations, while entirely failing to respond to any clarifying questions]

can be applied in all cases!

Post reply on HN