Biden Administration Faces Preliminary Injunction Against Putting Pressure on Social Media

[tabzer]

You're in a thread that's about two deep red states suing the Biden administration. You know that, correct?

Ah. So you admit that the problem is not what, but who. That's clarifying. I wish it was your team that sued him, and we'd all be happy.

 

[Foxi4]

On that we agree, unless it's not criticism but rather a form of wartime propaganda coming in mass quantities from a Russian troll farm. Beyond that, I should be able to point out that Trump Jr. is very likely gay, just as you should be able to point out that Hunter Biden was once a crackhead.

Who gets to decide the limiting factor here? It’s free speech, not sometimes free speech. The “universal rules” you mentioned are “the law”, we already have that. If the U.S. Government is particularly worried about Russian propaganda then they better bolster their own propaganda arm right back - I don’t care so long as they leave my Internet alone.

I am talking boilerplate stuff, 3-5 rules, and only things that aren't already commonly covered. Examples being, "no unsubstantiated medical/scientific/military information," "no unsolicited medical/legal advice," etc. Still though I can understand the trepidation, so fair enough. I do believe, however, there should be some mechanism by which sites that host almost exclusively extremist content are held liable as publishers. Beyond the site host simply pulling the plug out of moral/ethical concerns, anyway, because there's a lack of that going around these days.

Your terms are not acceptable. I like how you suddenly warm up to the idea of repealing 230 protections when you don’t like the content though. I thought I was the one who wanted to hold sites liable for the content they publish if they fail to adequately live up to the expectations we have of the public square, but suddenly we seem to be fellow travellers, just for very different reasons. How curious. Right conclusion and wrong train of thought strikes again.

 

[tabzer]

Blech!

I admit that you are consistent, but you won't be topping me anytime soon, even if Biden gets legal clearance to do so.

 

[RAHelllord]

I admit that you are consistent, but you won't be topping me anytime soon, even if Biden gets legal clearance to do so.

No worries, I'll gladly let Biden top you all day every day.

 

[tabzer]

No worries, I'll gladly let Biden top you all day every day.

I know you'd like that, but legal clearance doesn't mean it's going to happen. Feel free to report my message for threatening to destabilize the US government.

 

[Xzi]

Ah. So you admit that the problem is not what, but who. That's clarifying. I wish it was your team that sued him, and we'd all be happy.

No, actually. The government's been doing this since at least 2000. Republicans want to have the option removed for POTUS right now, but they never wanna play by their own rules. I'm consistent on when and how they should use the power.

Who gets to decide the limiting factor here? It’s free speech, not sometimes free speech.

Russians don't have first amendment rights. Take it up with Putin.

I like how you suddenly warm up to the idea of repealing 230 protections when you don’t like the content though.

Oh I'm not talking just content "I don't like," I'm talking the fourth reich slowly rising up from the corners of the internet filled with piles of jizz-stained socks. Not only should we be repealing the protections of those sites, I'd be fine with all their members being doxxed too.

 

[Foxi4]

It's the governments job to regulate public life in sich a way that the public can lead their life in a safe manner. The free market has repeatedly shown that it can not self regulate in a way that is beneficial to every person of the public, but that it will only regulate itself to benefit the people at the top.
Every owner of a social media platform is interested in their personal bottom line over the well-being or safety of their users.
Both Zuckerberg and Musk have repeatedly shown to be willing to lie in public about their algorithms, the enforcement of their community guidelines, who they sell user data to, who they take money from, and who they're kowtowing to. Facebook has repeatedly boosted right-wing propaganda and misinform over years because that increased their clicks, and has ignored requests to enforce their community guidelines fairly against those. Twitter similarly has very openly started to give preferential treatment towards the right-wing and their propaganda and misinformation.

The government has plenty of authority to make calls to regulate on a multitude of subjects, for example pandemic relevant misinformation by virtue of having an entire agency staffed with medical experts in all fields. It should very much be their job that they can approach platforms that don't usually hire medical experts to give advice on current topics and whether those topics might pose a public risk or not. Expecting a community manager at Twitter to correctly identify medical misinformation is quite frankly stupid, particularly concerning a novel virus pandemic. Expecting a medical expert at the CDC to correctly identify medical misinformation is a no-brainer instead.

As long as social media platforms have a perverse incentive to make money by any means necessary they need to be regulated in such a way that the users can be reasonably safe to use the platform, and that includes things like fighting blatant misinformation. Companies do need a venue in case they feel there is government overreach, but there very much needs to be a balance in place that doesn't put all the responsibility on the end user and is quicker to react than a multi-year long litigation.

That’s a nice thought, but it’s actually not what the government is for. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” - that’s all there is to it. The government stepping in and telling Facebook that a given post is not compliant with their health regulations is a violation of free speech, whether you agree with this interference or not.

The government can issue public health recommendation to its heart’s content, but it is not permitted to silence the critics of those recommendations. An expert from the CDC is not shielded from peer review by a force field - the public at large should be free to comment on the recommendations and other doctors should be allowed to post their own opinion on the matter. What people choose to do is up to their individual agency - that’s freedom.

Speech is not a “public health risk” - we’d all be safer in padded cells away from the dangers of the outside world, but liberty trumps safety. I will gladly be free and possibly in danger than a safe slave. I’m not even *against* most pandemic recommendations, I’m against the government interfering in public discourse. It is a dangerous precedent steamrolled through under the guise of the greater good.

Russians don't have first amendment rights. Take it up with Putin.

I have a feeling that sooner or later, the Russians will. They have a lot of practice in beheading their own rulers, much like the French.

Oh I'm not talking just content "I don't like," I'm talking the fourth reich slowly rising up from the corners of the internet filled with piles of jizz-stained socks. Not only should we be repealing the protections of those sites, I'd be fine with all their members being doxxed too.

I’m glad to see that your standards are flexible like that, I’ll make a mental note and remember that next time I say that perhaps 230 isn’t such a great solution in regards to liability.

 

[tabzer]

See @Xzi. I read that as:

No, actually. But nevermind.

You can't convince me that it's not about "the right-wing" by saying "no, but what about the right wing?"

 

[Xzi]

I’m glad to see that your standards are flexible like that, I’ll make a mental note next time I say that perhaps 230 isn’t such a great solution in regards to liability.

They're quite rigid, actually. There's nazis, and there's everybody else.

 

[tabzer]

Thanks @Xzi

/thread

 

[pustal]

Who gets to decide the limiting factor here? It’s free speech, not sometimes free speech. The “universal rules” you mentioned are “the law”, we already have that.

Have you? Because you have a whole TV network caught on the court of law commenting themselves that they lied, knowing they where lying for political gain, with no criminal implication whatsoever, only to rule in favor of a lawsuit against them, or worse, to take a deal on it.

If you know the truth, admit you know the truth and still lie for personal gain against society's best interest, is that freedom to you? I call it libertinism.

 

[Foxi4]

They're quite rigid, actually. There's nazis, and there's everybody else.

I think we have slightly different methods, but fair enough. I suppose Hitler wouldn’t have started WWII if only we banned his Facebook account in time.

Have you? Because you have a whole TV network caught on the court of law commenting themselves that they lied, knowing they where lying for political gain, with no criminal implication whatsoever, only to rule in favor of a lawsuit against them, or worse, to take a deal on it.

If you know the truth, admit you know the truth and still lie for personal gain against society's best interest, os that freedom to you? I call it libertinism.

People are free to consume that content if they so please. Your comment would have merit if we didn’t have defamation/libel laws, but we do, and they’re being put to use when “stretching the truth” crosses the line between editorial bias and intentionally causing damages. For the record, the gross majority of defamation, libel and slander cases are civil suits, and while criminal libel exists on the books, it is rarely prosecuted in modern practice.

 

[tabzer]

I think we have slightly different methods, but fair enough. I suppose Hitler wouldn’t have started WWII if only we banned his Facebook account in time.

Shoot. Hitler was defeated, but now there are 500 more.

 

[Xzi]

You can't convince me that it's not about "the right-wing" by saying "no, but what about the right wing?"

This is how I know you have poor reading comprehension. The not-so-subtle message between the lines was that I didn't have any major qualms about the way GWB or Trump used this specific power (takedown requests). As long as it's utilized solely for public health/safety and restricting foreign propaganda efforts, I don't care who is granted that power. The executive branch spying on Americans is a big no-no, but that's largely its own thing.

I suppose Hitler wouldn’t have started WWII if only we banned his Facebook account in time.

If the method of coordination with groups Hitler relied on his entire life was suddenly taken away, it certainly would've changed things. Again I'm talking sites that host 80%+ extremist content, so Facebook wouldn't be included even though it is a cesspool of right-wing boomers.

 

[Foxi4]

If the method of coordination with groups Hitler relied on his entire life was suddenly taken away, it certainly would've changed things.

It feels like we had this conversation 5 minutes ago when in reality it’s been days. Polls indicate that Trump’s deplatforming galvanised his base, it did not erode it. I understand that the concept is counterintuitive, but it effectively solidified the notion that he’s being unfairly targeted. It had *the opposite* effect to what you’re suggesting, his supporters support him *more*. By taking away his megaphone you have kneecapped yourself as you no longer have the ability to respond to him, you can’t “prove him wrong”, or whatever it is his opponents are trying to do. His core audience still attends rallies as if nothing had happened, and in greater numbers. The correct way to combat “misinformation” is to demonstrate that it’s not true - truth is the strongest weapon against a lie. If you instead choose to simply restrict access to information altogether, that’s immediately suspect and in fact lends credence to the information you’ve restricted, along the lines of “well, if they don’t want me to read this then there must be something to it”. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, until you try to hide it - then it’s not just a cigar anymore.

 

[RAHelllord]

That’s a nice thought, but it’s actually not what the government is for. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” - that’s all there is to it. The government stepping in and telling Facebook that a given post is not compliant with their health regulations is a violation of free speech, whether you agree with this interference or not.

With all due respect, that's the first amendment of the US constitution and not the purpose of a government. I would also like to point out that you quoted a regulation that the government enshrined, in order to guide it's population. The declaration of independence sums it up quite well what the purpose of a government is, much more so than the actual law texts.

The government can issue public health recommendation to its heart’s content, but it is not permitted to silence the critics of those recommendations. An expert from the CDC is not shielded from peer review by a force field - the public at large should be free to comment on the recommendations and other doctors should be allowed to post their own opinion on the matter. What people choose to do is up to their individual agency - that’s freedom.

There's a difference between criticism and misinformation, and figuring out the difference is trivial for experts in the field. I am also not at all arguing that the government should be immune or shielded from criticism, I am arguing that blatantly obvious misinformation should not be spread in public places as if it were correct information. Someone being wrong in good faith is also not the same as someone lying on purpose to push an agenda.

Speech is not a “public health risk” - we’d all be safer in padded cells away from the dangers of the outside world, but liberty trumps safety. I will gladly be free and possibly in danger than a safe slave. I’m not even *against* most pandemic recommendations, I’m against the government interfering in public discourse. It is a dangerous precedent steamrolled through under the guise of the greater good.

That is an incredibly jump from "the government should be able to advise on topics a private company might not have the experts on payroll to make judgments confidently" to "the government should be able to censor anything and everything on a whim with no recourse". I put the goal post precisely where I meant to put it, you digging it out and planting it a mile downwind is just hilarious.
No, speech made in good faith is never a threat to public safety, speech made in bad faith can be. Whether it's direct harm or just a total waste of time trying to correct the misinformation either is a waste of resources where a small bit of preventative measures will go a long way.

Can't wait to see you argue about how other regulations for the safety of the population are also bad. Pollution levels in water shouldn't be regulated, lead use in children's toys shouldn't be regulated, asbestos in living quarters shouldn't be regulated, work place safety shouldn't be regulated.
The free market can sort those out themselves, they've shown they can be trusted to do that with the best interest of the individual in mind.

 

[tabzer]

This is how I know you have poor reading comprehension. The not-so-subtle message between the lines was that I didn't have any major qualms about the way GWB or Trump used this specific power (takedown requests). As long as it's utilized solely for public health/safety and restricting foreign propaganda efforts, I don't care who is granted that power. The executive branch spying on Americans is a big no-no, but that's largely its own thing.

I was supposed to read that you "didn't have any major qualms about the way GWB or Trump used this specific power (takedown requests). As long as it's utilized solely for public health/safety and restricting foreign propaganda efforts" in that. I suppose it was my reading comprehension that was lacking. /s

Or, more concisely, we are back where we started:

"I don't see an issue in the CDC or military sending requests for certain things to be removed on public health or national security grounds."

Which I interpret as another way of saying,"It's okay if a government controls information for the sake of preserving itself."

Like I originally implied. Your fascination with making this topic about red vs blue, instead of the actual issue, hurts everyone who has the patience to give you attention.

 

[pustal]

People are free to consume that content if they so please.

People are not free when the the person that has as their job to report the facts of the day tells them lies. You are not free if you live in a lie. You're a prisoner of that lie.

Your comment would have merit if we didn’t have defamation/libel laws, but we do, and they’re being put to use when “stretching the truth” crosses the line between editorial bias and intentionally causing damages. For the record, the gross majority of defamation, libel and slander cases are civil suits, and while criminal libel exists on the books, it is rarely prosecuted in modern practice.

And yet here we are. People died thanks to that lie, it is still possible that you may have a civil war thanks to that lie and there is no criminal consequence whatsoever even when there there is tangible concrete evidence they knew they were lying. How can you tell me that it has no merit? There is no accountability, period. If there is law but is not enforced, did the tree fall in the forest?

 

[tabzer]

People are not free when the the person that has as their job to report the facts of the day tells them lies. You are not free if you live in a lie. You're a prisoner of that lie.

What? Are you saying that someone is not free if their job description doesn't match the actual work, and that they are stuck with that job forever or something? You seem to have a point you are trying to make. I just can't read it.

 

[Foxi4]

With all due respect, that's the first amendment of the US constitution and not the purpose of a government. I would also like to point out that you quoted a regulation that the government enshrined, in order to guide it's population. The declaration of independence sums it up quite well what the purpose of a government is, much more so than the actual law texts.

This is a thread about a U.S. Court decision, so it pertains to how the United States operate as a country. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say that it’s the government’s job to ensure you “live safely” - that’s a choice you make based on your calculation of what is or is not safe. I will tell you what it does say.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Those unalienable rights happen to be enumerated in the Constitution, and if the Government encroaches on any of them, you should *get rid of it* and establish a new one that works in a manner that allows you to exercise your rights, which in turn will effect both your safety and your happiness. All of this is contingent on *the consent of the governed*. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are not interpreted as stemming from the government - they’re interpreted as unalienable.

There's a difference between criticism and misinformation, and figuring out the difference is trivial for experts in the field. I am also not at all arguing that the government should be immune or shielded from criticism, I am arguing that blatantly obvious misinformation should not be spread in public places as if it were correct information. Someone being wrong in good faith is also not the same as someone lying on purpose to push an agenda.

…and in your mind the government, known for its subtlety, is the right tool to make those distinctions. Coincidentally, criticism of CDC recommendations was broadly frowned upon regardless of whether it was posted by experts in the field or laymen. For the record, this is textbook appeal to authority - I do not need to be an epidemiologist to have an opinion.

That is an incredibly jump from "the government should be able to advise on topics a private company might not have the experts on payroll to make judgments confidently" to "the government should be able to censor anything and everything on a whim with no recourse". I put the goal post precisely where I meant to put it, you digging it out and planting it a mile downwind is just hilarious.
No, speech made in good faith is never a threat to public safety, speech made in bad faith can be. Whether it's direct harm or just a total waste of time trying to correct the misinformation either is a waste of resources where a small bit of preventative measures will go a long way.

The government can post advisories on their own websites, it does not need to hold meetings and send intimidating mail to social media companies as a thinly-veiled suggestion that certain kinds of content are not welcome. It’s inherently threatening, people don’t tend to go against such polite suggestions when they come from the federal government.

Can't wait to see you argue about how other regulations for the safety of the population are also bad. Pollution levels in water shouldn't be regulated, lead use in children's toys shouldn't be regulated, asbestos in living quarters shouldn't be regulated, work place safety shouldn't be regulated.

Reductio ad absurdum. Drinking water contaminated with heavy metals will give you heavy metal poisoning, reading a Tweet made by a dum-dum will not.

The free market can sort those out themselves, they've shown they can be trusted to do that with the best interest of the individual in mind.

Most times yes, it can. It’s a shame that it hardly exists since the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the New Deal, but that’s a different topic.

People are not free when the the person that has as their job to report the facts of the day tells them lies. You are not free if you live in a lie. You're a prisoner of that lie.

Nobody glued my eyeballs to the screen. I consume media from a variety of outlets, and I recommend that others do the same - the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. With that being said, I’m not going to cudgel people for not consuming media from a specific source, or only consuming media from another - that’s their deal, they’re free to do so.

And yet here we are. People died thanks to that lie, it is still possible that you may have a civil war thanks to that lie and there is no criminal consequence whatsoever even when there there is tangible concrete evidence they knew they were lying. How can you tell me that it has no merit? There is no accountability, period. If there is law but is not enforced, did the tree fall in the forest?

How many people have died during the Iraq war because the government told them Saddam had WMD’s? Where are they, by the way? Have we found any yet? The government did hang the guy in the end, y’know - by proxy of the newly-installed Iraq government, but still.

Which part of “the government also routinely lies to you and the only way to arrive at the truth, or something asymptotically approaching truth, is to be able to discuss things freely” is confusing? I can’t believe I’m in a position where I have to defend the notion of freedom of speech being a good thing.