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

91–100 of 783 posts

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

#91

Post by afavour »

doitLP wrote: post #20

> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and th…

But Flaherty specifically didn’t get what he wanted (that’s why he was mad!) so I think it’s misleading to say the power only goes from government to Facebook. If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.

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

#92

Post by fwlr »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #39

Does this mean I can yell fire in a crowded theater again? Apparently not limiting my free speech is more important than the impact of my disinformation.

The “fire in a crowded theater” metaphor, in addition to being more a legal myth than a legal principle, is not quite the right perspective to understand this ruling. That said, if we try to use that metaphor to understand this ruling, it is sort of like “a judge has ruled that the federal firefighting organization is no longer allowed to pressure movie theaters to bar entry to moviegoers whom the firefighters suspect will shout fire in the theater”. In this metaphor, the bulk of the ruling is an extensive documentation of the many instances of firefighters and government organizations with names like “Conflagration Interdiction Committee” sending names of specific people to major theaters with comments like “this person regularly posts charts of the flammability of upholstery, do something about it” and then that person gets barred from that theater days later.

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

#93

Post by mymac »

chasd00 wrote: post #32
doitLP wrote: post #20

> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and th…

> “… I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." I think I would drive to the airport, go through security, and fly to DC just to throw a drink in that dumbass’s face and laugh.

Not the smartest move unless you want to spend some time in jail for assault.

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

#94

Post by edgyquant »

mullingitover wrote: post #57
Guthur wrote: post #18

The problem i believe we are coming to is that all secular governance eventually replaces the role once taken by church and religious philosophy. It starts to become the arbiter of moral truth and with out any real moral center it can only but fail spectacularly. The second and third political theories of racial and social idealogies more rapidly succumb to this due to a more overt desire to place the state at this m…

Historically, religion doesn't have a great track record with its use of moral authority.

The other poster is correct that this an incorrect secular talking point. “Secular” regimes have murdered tens of millions of people in this past century alone

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

#95

Post by merpnderp »

LatteLazy wrote: post #3

>But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction imposing limits... 1. Him being a trump nominee makes me suspicious, but also sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. 2. Granting a preliminary injunction is a long way from winning a case. 3. There is pressure and th…

The courts have historically taken a dim view of the government's "chilling of free speech."

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

#96

Post by hooande »

koolba wrote: post #34
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

> after all, it anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get Not when that someone is the government or its representative. The act of asking can itself be a violation of your rights as there’s an implication that if you do not comply their may be some unknown ramifications. Judges are savvy enough to know that threats need not be verbalized to be received.

what was the implied threat?

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

#97

Post by unethical_ban »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #84
unethical_ban wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't feel the need to, because HN mods do their job and there aren't millions of people spreading verifiable misinformation here unchecked.

[citation needed]

You want me to verify that dang hasn't gotten a message from executive agencies? Don't attack me for that assertion, attack the person I responded to.

You want me to verify that there aren't coordinated disinformation campaigns festering all over this site? Well, I can read, so I'm fairly confident.

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

#98

Post by noslenwerdna »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #23
doitLP wrote: post #20

> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and th…

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get : e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

"dude who used a swear word"?

You left a bit out here. He is a representative of the government demanding that a private company censor speech supporting policies it opposes and speech about the president's family among other things.

"A February 2021 message in which Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account related to Hunter Biden's daughter said, 'Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.'"

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

#99

Post by LexiMax »

edgyquant wrote: post #72
mullingitover wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sad that that is the effect and that papers need to list who nominated a judge. It matters because Trump appointed, and the GOP Senate confirmed, a batch of federal judges who the bar association determined were Not Qualified, because they were found to be lacking in "integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament." The past two GOP presidents have eschewed bar association recommendations entirely and i…

No this doesn’t matter. The president and senate are who pick and approve the judges not the bar association.

This is non-responsive to their point.

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

#100

Post by plagiarist »

tremon wrote: post #5
mschuster91 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There have been plenty of free platforms that have not turned out like that. HN, for example.

Every politicized topic gathers dozens of comments from lunatics who are deliberately ignoring reality. This very week someone on HN told me black people are disproportionately not accepted to colleges because of "genetics." Perhaps HN is on its way.
Post reply on HN