Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man, people are being really rude here just for me asking a question.
“Honest question bro!”
Not what I meant at all. You're deciding to interpret things as bad faith.
Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
721–730 of 783 posts
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#722Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just saying there are times where you may want the government to be able to express opinions....
No? What!? Name a scenario in which the government would put forth an opinion on something.. governments, like corporations, can't have opinions.
Sure. "We think that info may put someone on our security team at risk, can you please take it down?"
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#723Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)
They don't have enough channels to do that? They have to do it via veiled threat to a speech platform to delete users posts? How can anyone defend this behavior? Just because it's your guy doing it? If Trump was telling Twitter to delete posts that hurt his re-election chances would you feel this same way?
Not the context I was replying to.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#724Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#725Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)
Sure, in addition to all of their organs of dissemination, of which they have plenty of options, they can also have their own Twitter and Facebook accounts. What they can’t do is ring up Twitter and Facebook and say, hey, that’s misinformation, do something about it. Or have government embeds giving guidance. That’s hilariously very ayatollesque behavior!
I don't think so. For example, if there is info on twitter that puts a government employee at risk, I think it's appropriate for someone to point that out to twitter.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#726Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can start a site and say what you want. Again, nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. There is a huge cost to do this. That's why platforms should be common carriers in absence of social media being turned into a set of protocols. > You aren't entitled to have a wide audience. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything? You're making these arguments personal. There's a science to virali…
nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. Too bad. Also there are plenty of 'free speech' websites out there already and they are cesspools. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything You can't stop mixing something being technically possible with what you actually want, which is to broadcast something people don't want to see to a large audience. It doesn't work that way. What I don't want is a…
[deleted]
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#727Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can start a site and say what you want. Again, nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. There is a huge cost to do this. That's why platforms should be common carriers in absence of social media being turned into a set of protocols. > You aren't entitled to have a wide audience. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything? You're making these arguments personal. There's a science to virali…
nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. Too bad. Also there are plenty of 'free speech' websites out there already and they are cesspools. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything You can't stop mixing something being technically possible with what you actually want, which is to broadcast something people don't want to see to a large audience. It doesn't work that way. What I don't want is a…
[deleted]
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#728Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can start a site and say what you want. Again, nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. There is a huge cost to do this. That's why platforms should be common carriers in absence of social media being turned into a set of protocols. > You aren't entitled to have a wide audience. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything? You're making these arguments personal. There's a science to virali…
nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. Too bad. Also there are plenty of 'free speech' websites out there already and they are cesspools. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything You can't stop mixing something being technically possible with what you actually want, which is to broadcast something people don't want to see to a large audience. It doesn't work that way. What I don't want is a…
[deleted]
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#729Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can start a site and say what you want. Again, nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. There is a huge cost to do this. That's why platforms should be common carriers in absence of social media being turned into a set of protocols. > You aren't entitled to have a wide audience. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything? You're making these arguments personal. There's a science to virali…
nobody is going to visit a website without critical mass. Too bad. Also there are plenty of 'free speech' websites out there already and they are cesspools. What does "entitlement" have to do with anything You can't stop mixing something being technically possible with what you actually want, which is to broadcast something people don't want to see to a large audience. It doesn't work that way. What I don't want is a…
[deleted]
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#730Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't think anybody called for the Trump admin to be disciplined for denigrating Facebook and Twitter, certainly not to the extent that we're seeing here.