Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
1–10 of 783 posts
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#2Good news, now if we can just get rid of all the domestic spying and police overreach, we might resemble a semblance of a free society rather than an analog of it.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#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 there is pressure. "Social media companies should suppress X" is fine. "if they don't I will audit the fuck out of their taxes" is not. The "bully pulpit" has long been used for this purpose and is the president's only real power beyond bombing things and vetoing stuff...
4. How does this affect executive actions pressuring 101 other companies to do things that are MUCH more questionable (everything from giving the NSA access to private data to bullying companies into censoring movies)?
Edit:
5. Plenty of Senators have gone on record demanding platforms make changes or face some or other legislative punishment. I wonder how/if this affects that?
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#4Good news, now if we can just get rid of all the domestic spying and police overreach, we might resemble a semblance of a free society rather than an analog of it.
[flagged]
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#5Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#6Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#7Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#8Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#9This goes beyond the President using his “bully pulpit” to urge a social action. From the article:
>Several of the messages came from Rob Flaherty, former deputy assistant to the president and director of digital strategy, who criticized Facebook over its handling of COVID misinformation.
>Doughty said that one Flaherty 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."
>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."
In my opinion there is a big difference between the President saying in a speech that social media should do something versus what is revealed here.
Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been plenty of free platforms that have not turned out like that. HN, for example.
Is HN “free?” How heavy of a hand do the mods have here? (I genuinely don’t know the answer to that question.)
It's very heavy in terms of tone, less in content. Definitely workable for nazis if they're careful. You can advocate eugenics and genocide-lite if you're polite and abstract enough.
You're more likely to get in trouble for calling someone a nazi than you are for promoting nazi policies, as long as you don't use any slurs.