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

701–710 of 783 posts

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

#701

Post by singleshot_ »

brightlancer wrote: post #632
leereeves wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm obviously not saying the means never make a difference in any case. I'm talking about this case. I'm saying that using minimal means does not make an unconstitutional action acceptable; you're pointing out that using excessive means can make a constitutional action unacceptable. That's a different situation and not really a reply to my comment or this case. To make it more relevant, can you point to a single case…

> To make it more relevant, can you point to a single case where a court has ruled that a constitutionally limited action was permitted simply because the means were unintrusive? I think that's self-contradictory: if the court permitted it, then it did not cross the limits. If you meant this more broadly, then we should understand that ALL government actions are constitutionally limited and the more an action infring…

(Note: US centric post)

There’s actually a pretty regimented set of rules for the sort of sliding scale you’re talking about. Put succinctly, if the government wants to regulate against your fundamental rights, they have to have a really really good interest and their mechanism must be as narrowly tailored as possible. Less fundamental rights might be regulated against based on an interest that isn’t as strong, or a mechanism that isn’t as narrow, maybe one that is only connected to the interest by a “rational basis”, even if it wasn’t the intent that the legislature had.

Most people other than Rudy Giuliani call these ways of analyzing whether a law is constitutional strict scrutiny and rational basis scrutiny. For intermediate rights, the standard is (wait for it) intermediate scrutiny.

I am only scratching the surface of this subject but you are absolutely right to intuit that the linkage between the means and and the interest.

Either that or you already knew all this but hey.

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

#702

Post by Clubber »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #700
Clubber wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First you said articulated, not proof, so you're moving the goalposts to be argumentative and aren't discussing in good faith. Second, you seem to be under the impression that unless everyone caves to coercion 100% of the time, then it isn't coercion, which is obviously a fallacy. Just because someone doesn't pay when they are blackmailed doesn't mean they weren't blackmailed. Both political parties threatened to rew…

You are the one claiming there was a credible threat, so it's upon you to show it. Empirically, Facebook's denials when it suited them suggests they did not feel any such threat. The fact that they sometimes agreed is not an affirmative indication of such a threat, as they could have easily done so on the merits of the requests. The fact that the proposed action would require Biden to collude with the GOP congress to…

Let me restate your position to make sure I have it:

1. Because Facebook didn't comply with every request, they never felt coerced and neither did any other social media company, therefore no social media company was coerced.

2. The Democrats who threatened to repeal or modify 230 and the Republicans who threatened to repeal or modify 230 would never repeal or modify 230 because of party politics, therefore this wasn't a realistic threat and therefore not form of coercion.

Does that sum up your argument?

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

#703

Post by DropInIn »

stcroixx wrote: post #591
DropInIn wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your fine with a foreign power using bullying tactics to silence your fellow citizens, undermining thier right to free speech? Because that's what you're actually arguing for.... And if you still support that position despite being informed of this fact, then I have to question exactly who You are working for....

Goal posts moved. I don't know anything about bullying - if that’s going on, prosecute that for what it is. Sounds like a possible law enforcement issue that needs to be investigated. I’ve worked at enough tech companies to know I don't want them trying to handle it. Freedom of speech is about protecting ideas you may hate and find utterly horrible. And a big middle finger to you for that last dig there. My family fo…

Russian and Chinese troll farms...

Do I really need to say more?

They are engaged in active disinformation and harrassment campaigns funded directly by government.

Or are you being willfully daft?

And I then there's the Israeli and Iranian efforts, let alone the hundred other government funded agencies with thousands of agents whose sole purpose is to bully and intimidate.

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

#704

Post by stcroixx »

revelio wrote: post #577
michaelmrose wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government says vaccine misinformation is killing thousands of people on air on the evening news and Facebook agrees and starts banning people posting it and those folks have to share their misinformation on their own sites rather than Facebook how has your freedom been infringed? Likewise if the communique takes place via a memo. You have a right to communicate what you please you don't have a right to have y…

Yeah that works great up until the people who distribute memos act like Facebook, and then the people who sell you ink, and then the phone companies, and then .... Really why is this so hard to understand. There's nothing special about tech firms in this story except the naivety of their executives, who have ended up looking like utter tools in this whole sorry charade. These idiots systematically suppressed discussi…

I think it’s very, very generous to excuse this behavior as that of naive rubes. These people are simply currying favor with those in power hoping for something in return.

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

#705

Post by halfjoking »

theossuary wrote: post #276
halfjoking wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC yelled "VACCINATE YOUNG PEOPLE" using fraudulent data. https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/status/1674920880219234304 I agree they should be charged with manslaughter for all the blood clots, heart disease and cancers they caused among young people.

You're going to have to do better than linking to a verified Twitter user if you want most people to take you seriously. Just the fact you get your news from Twitter makes me think you're just spouting what you heard in your echo chamber.

Twitter and Substack are the only places a post like this isn’t censored:

https://twitter.com/jathorpmfm/status/1677001591407116296

On Reddit/Facebook it just gets banned. I regularly read /r/Covid19 to see the fraudulent studies they push so I can counter them with my own studies. Like the Twitter guy says it’s their side that doesn’t want debate.

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

#706

Post by peteradio »

afavour wrote: post #695
peteradio wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your toddler doesn't represent the United States Government.

What impact does that have on the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they’re vocalised?

You don't see a difference between a toddler being demanding with a parent and the federal government demanding something of a corporation? What kind of Republican's wet dream do you live in where those power dynamics are akin?

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

#707

Post by mistermann »

JasonFruit wrote: post #684
mistermann wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good point...you would think tech folks would be better at identifying relative vs absolute frames of reference, but then the problem space is heavily propagandized and there is only so much time in the day.

What would an absolute frame of reference with regard to political opinion look like? I'm having a hard time conceiving such a thing, since not only does the range of opinion shift over time, but issues move into and out of relevance unpredictably.

It ain't easy!!

It would be something like "select * from [reality]", except there are various problems like physically manifest reality is not the entirety of it, and our records of reality are often technically from the fantasy realm and the truth has been lost to time without our knowledge.

In the case of allsides.com, they're only comparing ~mainstream US media outlets against each other, but there are many cultures that would consider even left leaning US culture to be insanely far right.

In a more serious world, competent philosophers/linguists/historians/anthropologists/etc would deconstruct and expose these organizations for what they really are: propaganda outlets.

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

#708

Post by shadowgovt »

aksss wrote: post #698
shadowgovt wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally believe the government can certainly pass information on to private corporations and then the private corporations can then choose what to do. Whether the situation went past that is what this court case would be about, and nothing has been decided on that topic yet.

> the government can certainly pass information As you acknowledge, that's not remotely the issue here.

It is, in fact, the position of one of the parties in this lawsuit that this is all that's at issue here.

We'll see what the situation is on the other side of the case (and possibly the appeal, no matter which side wins).

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

#709

Post by [deleted] »

Clubber wrote: post #702
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the one claiming there was a credible threat, so it's upon you to show it. Empirically, Facebook's denials when it suited them suggests they did not feel any such threat. The fact that they sometimes agreed is not an affirmative indication of such a threat, as they could have easily done so on the merits of the requests. The fact that the proposed action would require Biden to collude with the GOP congress to…

Let me restate your position to make sure I have it: 1. Because Facebook didn't comply with every request, they never felt coerced and neither did any other social media company, therefore no social media company was coerced. 2. The Democrats who threatened to repeal or modify 230 and the Republicans who threatened to repeal or modify 230 would never repeal or modify 230 because of party politics, therefore this wasn…

[deleted]

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

#710

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Clubber wrote: post #702
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the one claiming there was a credible threat, so it's upon you to show it. Empirically, Facebook's denials when it suited them suggests they did not feel any such threat. The fact that they sometimes agreed is not an affirmative indication of such a threat, as they could have easily done so on the merits of the requests. The fact that the proposed action would require Biden to collude with the GOP congress to…

Let me restate your position to make sure I have it: 1. Because Facebook didn't comply with every request, they never felt coerced and neither did any other social media company, therefore no social media company was coerced. 2. The Democrats who threatened to repeal or modify 230 and the Republicans who threatened to repeal or modify 230 would never repeal or modify 230 because of party politics, therefore this wasn…

your argument was summarized above, and it simply doesn't present a plausible scenario:

the dude swearing at Facebook had no power to repeal section 230, no power to control the GOP Senate into doing so, and no plausible path to convincing the GOP to censor the sort of content in question (content the GOP itself supports, content they oppose censoring)

in short: the "threat" you described isn't realistic or plausible, least of all by Facebook, and a claim of coercion requires that the threat be plausible, not imaginary and contrived

Post reply on HN