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

741–750 of 783 posts

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

#741

Post by tekknik »

peteradio wrote: post #706
afavour wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What kind of Republican's wet dream do you live in where those power dynamics are akin?

Have we already forgotten that it’s the left pushing for the censorship?

When will the left quit trying to flamebait and start focusing on repairing the divisions caused by attempting to demonize the other side.

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

#742

Post by Clubber »

ModernMech wrote: post #696
Clubber wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In October, the American Bar Association rated Barrett "well qualified" for the Supreme Court opening, its highest rating.[115] The ABA confines its evaluation to the qualities of "integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament The ABA rated her as well qualified. I'm doing to defer to them. I do understand your point that she had never had a judgeship before her appeals appointment in 2017, of which sh…

I think looking back at the alacrity with which she was appointed, the speed at which Roe was subsequently overturned, not to mention the stated rationale of the POTUS at the time, we can all be confident that the true reason for her appointment wasn't her qualifications as a jurist.

>we can all be confident that the true reason for her appointment wasn't her qualifications as a jurist.

Of course that's true. All judges are picked for their political bias. If you want to argue that she's unqualified, I refer you to the ABA assessment which disagrees.

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

#743

Post by GeekyBear »

ceejayoz wrote: post #656
GeekyBear wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's quite common for elected officials to criticize private citizens and businesses. They can criticize all they like. What they can't do is order the political speech of citizens be censored.

> What they can't do is order the political speech of citizens be censored. Agreed. That doesn't appear to have happened. Even the worst examples the Twitter Files sort of reporting could dig up is some loud huffing and puffing followed by a :rolleyes: emoji and inaction from various social networks.

> That doesn't appear to have happened

That appears to be exactly what has been happening.

It seems we disagree on this point.

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

#744

Post by membrcovidb »

michaelmrose wrote: post #715
membrcovidb wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Vaccines aren't gene therapy because MRNA involves chucking components at your cell for it to post process into stuff not permanently writing changes to the blueprints of the cells themselves. It neither makes any change to the cells themselves nor persists beyond the material being processed out of your system. Gene therapy involves making modifications to cells. Presenting MRNA as gene therapy makes people afraid t…

[flagged]

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

#745

Post by stcroixx »

DropInIn wrote: post #703
stcroixx wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are plenty of authoritarian nanny states that agree with you that government censorship is the answer to these problems. For now, in the US, that's still illegal and we'll continue to oppose you on this til the end.

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

#746

Post by hiatus »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #652
atlantic wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you clarify the term "nazis"? Presumably, you don't mean a member of the German National Socialist party, which was dissolved in 1945. But if you mean "people whose views I disagree with", then perhaps you could be a little more specific.

You notice there how I was specific about "nazi policies" right? It's to avoid a discussion like this one. I don't care about party affiliation per se, I am talking about advocating specific policies and worldviews. Things like ethnonationism, eugenics, categorizing certain minorities as inherently criminal, white natalism: things that, if you could present them to a 1945-style straw nazi they'd say "yup that's us."…

> Because I do disagree with them, and don't want them here? Is that not the case for you

So you would prefer that they congregate in their own private echo chambers, rather than come to a place with differing ideals where their own convictions could be challenged? How can we ever bridge the gap if we push people into their own bubbles?

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

#747

Post by quickthrowman »

hayst4ck wrote: post #735
quickthrowman wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US isn’t an abstract ‘democracy’, it’s a functioning democracy with a specific set of rules. I don’t agree with Mitch McConnell’s decision to refuse to have a hearing for Merrick Garland. I’m just saying it’s not against the Constitution as it is written. If the Obama Administration thought they had a legal right to force a hearing on Merrick Garland in the Senate, they would’ve filed a lawsuit to force the issue…

> The US isn’t an abstract ‘democracy’, it’s a functioning democracy with a specific set of rules. Democracy isn't something you "are," democracy is something you do. Democracy is the sum of beliefs, actions, and understanding of the people in a "democratic" society. So you cannot talk about us being a democracy without respect to the idea that democracy is a spectrum. You used the word "functioning" democracy which…

> You can say a judge has the authority to exercise discretion, and when they make a ruling they are justified by their position and the process that got them there, but that ignores the greater context of the reasoning behind their rulings. A judge that takes a bribe is ruling from a place of corruption. A judge that rules based on loyalty to a party rather than loyalty to a set of ideals is what separates cargo cult justice, from justice.

I think the Federalist Society is one of the most dangerous organizations in the US. I’m with you on this.

> We have a president who attempted a coup and he is being legally threatened for things that they think they can win, rather than the thing that is the most dangerous and criminal. He isn't being prosecuted for the coup, he's being prosecuted because of the coup. That should be terrifying.

You’re preaching to the choir. It is terrifying, 1/6 was the scariest day in US history in my lifetime and I was alive for 9/11.

> Obama was the first black president and didn't rock the boat. The GOP declared war on America and the democratic party was and is in denial about it. You can be in shock or denial, or be confronted with a new situation you don't know how to handle and that explains what happened without the explanation being "it was justified because there was no action." Trump is clearly criminal and it's taken what, 6 years to see the potential for any consequences at all?

You keep saying ‘justified’ when all I was claiming is that it was ‘not illegal’. There’s a distinction there that you aren’t acknowledging. All I’m claiming is that it was within the letter of the law.

Again, the Obama administration was highly aware of how important getting Merrick Garland seated was, if they thought they had a legal right to force a hearing, they certainly would have. It was his last year in office, no re-election to worry about. They didn’t pursue legal remedies because what the GOP did was legal. It’s patronizing to Obama to claim he didn’t pursue it because he was the first black president.

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

#748

Post by mc32 »

roflyear wrote: post #725
mc32 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, like when Cops get doxxed, you mean?

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

#749

Post by roflyear »

mc32 wrote: post #748
roflyear wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, like when Cops get doxxed, you mean?

Not exactly, no.

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

#750

Post by Zetice »

coolhand2120 wrote: post #731
Zetice wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People shouldn't be allowed to speak their piece when that piece can be bright-line traced to people dying. But fine, let's allow people to speak their piece because bright lines are hard to draw, starting with Twitter, who should be completely free to follow or not follow what the US government says, which is literally what happened here . This will be overturned on appeal, because the bar for this kind of order is…

> People shouldn't be allowed to speak their piece when that piece can be bright-line traced to people dying. Authoritarian governments love it! All for public safety, that’s the spirit! “You can’t say that, someone might hate it enough to attack me! Doesn’t matter how true it is!” -any dictator

…someone might believe it enough to kill themselves or others.

Absolutism helps no one, and you already rely in the government to protect you in a number of “authoritarian” ways, so it’s not like you have a moral opposition to the idea.

Post reply on HN