3 ms·

> Platforms that have grown into de facto public squares are large enough that there is a public interest in how they regulate speech, given that the vast major

> Platforms that have grown into de facto public squares are large enough that there is a public interest in how they regulate speech, given that the vast majority of people are on the big tech platforms while the others are negligible and are choked out by network effects. They are now a gray area between state and what is typically understood by private entity. In the lawsuit against Trump for blocking people on Twitter, the court ruled that Twitter was a public square for the express reason that government policy was discussed and promoted there. Therefore, Trump (as a government figure) could not block people. Further, the current Press Secretary Psaki has described how they're directing Facebook to monitor and remove both people and content which was otherwise legal but simply unacceptable to the Administration. The first situation demonstrates the gray area but the second makes a case that Facebook was acting as an arm of the government.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> In the lawsuit against Trump for blocking people on Twitter, the court ruled that Twitter was a public square for the express reason that government policy was discussed and promoted there. Therefore, Trump (as a government figure) could not block people. No it didn't. It ruled that trumps account was acting as an official government account, and so trumps account fell under stricter regulations that govern how the government can communicate. Twitter was still able to ban his account though, because Twitter isn't the government! > Further, the current Press Secretary Psaki has described how they're directing Facebook to monitor and remove both people and content which was otherwise legal but simply unacceptable to the Administration. No, Facebook used the government as a source of official information. They then chose to remove other information. The government wasn't telling Facebook to remove stuff. The choice to make the CDC authoritative was Facebooks choice. They aren't acting as an arm of the government.
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  The White House claims to be an active participant and directing their attention to things to be removed. In case you missed that press conference, here's a transcript and video: > QUESTION: Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies? And are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation? Because we've seen from the start, there's not a lot of action on some of these platforms. > PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with the social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 Team. > Quote continuing: Given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation specifically on the pandemic. In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken or we're working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we've increased disinformation research and tracking. Within the Surgeon General's Office, we're flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. Unless you believe Psaki is lying which I hadn't considered. Ref: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_were_flagging_problematic_posts_for_facebook_that_spread_disinformation.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_wer...
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Unless you're claim here is that Psaki is threatening Facebook, there's nothing remotely illegal happening here. Facebook is like "hey, tell us about misinformation" and the government is like "hey we think this is misinformation". And then Facebook reviews the posts they flagged and removes some of them. The argument you're making is akin to "Its illegal for Psaki or a white house staffer to ask for airtime on CNN, because that violates CNN's first amendment rights" (or perhaps more subtly "because then CNN is acting as an arm of the government", but that's still wrong).
    - caseysoftware 5y ago
      My claim was simply that the White House directed information/accounts to be removed. Your response was "The government wasn't telling Facebook to remove stuff." which - according to the video I cited - is clearly untrue. I'd love to understand your point but I'm not going to engage further with someone pedaling misinformation.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        Your claim was that Facebook was "acting as an arm of the government." That's simply untrue. And they weren't telling it to remove stuff. They were asking it to, after fb set up a way for the government (among other groups) to flag misinformation. You're glossing over those difference, but they matter.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    I kind of lost the thread with this comment. The White House can make pretty much any request of Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook, in turn, can decide whether to act on those requests. The social media aspect is new, but otherwise, this is bog standard big corp <-> fed gov politics. Every prior president has used the bully pulpit to encourage very large companies to do things, and followed up/paired those requests with a concert of relevant activity within the executive branch. FB/Twitter are not "acting as an arm of the federal government" except in the most sensational and hyperbolic foaming-at-the-mouth-talking-head sense; in the same sense as, for example, saying that Carrier was an arm of the federal government during the Trump years.
- caseysoftware 5y ago
  > No it didn't. It ruled that trumps account was acting as an official government account, and so trumps account fell under stricter regulations that govern how the government can communicate. Twitter was still able to ban his account though, because Twitter isn't the government! Again, I suspect you missed a bit: "U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 that comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKCN1LE08Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKCN... When governments use social media as a way to communicate, it changes their standing as at least one court has ruled so far.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The key part being "under the presidents account." The president using twitter does not change twitter. The president is held to standards of the government, which is not allowed to block people. But the rules that affect the government don't affect twitter, they only apply to government officials using twitter. Twitter is still allowed to block people who reply to the president, or, as they did, ban the president.
    - caseysoftware 5y ago
      The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Was there a more recent case+ruling that is more relevant and clarifying? Can you share a reference on that? Thanks.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Yes, hence they provided a brief asking the court to rule a certain way, and the court did, by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account. There isn't any newer or better ruling, you're just misunderstanding this one.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> In the lawsuit against Trump for blocking people on Twitter, the court ruled that Twitter was a public square for the express reason that government policy was discussed and promoted there. Therefore, Trump (as a government figure) could not block people. No it didn't. It ruled that trumps account was acting as an official government account, and so trumps account fell under stricter regulations that govern how the government can communicate. Twitter was still able to ban his account though, because Twitter isn't the government! > Further, the current Press Secretary Psaki has described how they're directing Facebook to monitor and remove both people and content which was otherwise legal but simply unacceptable to the Administration. No, Facebook used the government as a source of official information. They then chose to remove other information. The government wasn't telling Facebook to remove stuff. The choice to make the CDC authoritative was Facebooks choice. They aren't acting as an arm of the government.

caseysoftware 5y ago
The White House claims to be an active participant and directing their attention to things to be removed. In case you missed that press conference, here's a transcript and video: > QUESTION: Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies? And are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation? Because we've seen from the start, there's not a lot of action on some of these platforms. > PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with the social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 Team. > Quote continuing: Given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation specifically on the pandemic. In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken or we're working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we've increased disinformation research and tracking. Within the Surgeon General's Office, we're flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. Unless you believe Psaki is lying which I hadn't considered. Ref: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_were_flagging_problematic_posts_for_facebook_that_spread_disinformation.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_wer...
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Unless you're claim here is that Psaki is threatening Facebook, there's nothing remotely illegal happening here. Facebook is like "hey, tell us about misinformation" and the government is like "hey we think this is misinformation". And then Facebook reviews the posts they flagged and removes some of them. The argument you're making is akin to "Its illegal for Psaki or a white house staffer to ask for airtime on CNN, because that violates CNN's first amendment rights" (or perhaps more subtly "because then CNN is acting as an arm of the government", but that's still wrong).
  - caseysoftware 5y ago
    My claim was simply that the White House directed information/accounts to be removed. Your response was "The government wasn't telling Facebook to remove stuff." which - according to the video I cited - is clearly untrue. I'd love to understand your point but I'm not going to engage further with someone pedaling misinformation.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Your claim was that Facebook was "acting as an arm of the government." That's simply untrue. And they weren't telling it to remove stuff. They were asking it to, after fb set up a way for the government (among other groups) to flag misinformation. You're glossing over those difference, but they matter.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  I kind of lost the thread with this comment. The White House can make pretty much any request of Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook, in turn, can decide whether to act on those requests. The social media aspect is new, but otherwise, this is bog standard big corp <-> fed gov politics. Every prior president has used the bully pulpit to encourage very large companies to do things, and followed up/paired those requests with a concert of relevant activity within the executive branch. FB/Twitter are not "acting as an arm of the federal government" except in the most sensational and hyperbolic foaming-at-the-mouth-talking-head sense; in the same sense as, for example, saying that Carrier was an arm of the federal government during the Trump years.
caseysoftware 5y ago
> No it didn't. It ruled that trumps account was acting as an official government account, and so trumps account fell under stricter regulations that govern how the government can communicate. Twitter was still able to ban his account though, because Twitter isn't the government! Again, I suspect you missed a bit: "U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 that comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKCN1LE08Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter-idUSKCN... When governments use social media as a way to communicate, it changes their standing as at least one court has ruled so far.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The key part being "under the presidents account." The president using twitter does not change twitter. The president is held to standards of the government, which is not allowed to block people. But the rules that affect the government don't affect twitter, they only apply to government officials using twitter. Twitter is still allowed to block people who reply to the president, or, as they did, ban the president.
  - caseysoftware 5y ago
    The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Was there a more recent case+ruling that is more relevant and clarifying? Can you share a reference on that? Thanks.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not. Yes, hence they provided a brief asking the court to rule a certain way, and the court did, by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account. There isn't any newer or better ruling, you're just misunderstanding this one.