4 ms·

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 tra

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
  sigh I did not say there were "acting as an arm of the federal government" to quote myself: "makes a case that Facebook was acting as an arm of the government" "Makes a case" means literally "make an argument in favor of" and not "definitively is"

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
sigh I did not say there were "acting as an arm of the federal government" to quote myself: "makes a case that Facebook was acting as an arm of the government" "Makes a case" means literally "make an argument in favor of" and not "definitively is"