4 ms·

> Nominal proponents Could you be slightly more specific?

zmgsabst 4y ago
Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.
- cyberlurker 4y ago
  They passed laws making those social media companies censor them?
  - ssizn 4y ago
    They didn’t have to.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    They had officials coordinate with social media companies to coordinate takedowns of accounts and messages which disagreed with them.
    - cyberlurker 4y ago
      So, public health officials asked social media companies to stop accounts from spamming that vaccines cause autism? There was no law and no threat, just public and private coordination. I have no problem with that. Sorry, this is not even close to censorship.
      - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
        If a member of the government asks their friend in a social media company to quietly take down a post, they are using influence and corruption (of the company) to impose government censorship. If they ask the legal representatives of the company to make a policy decision to take down a post, there is the implied threat of regulation, and it is government coersion. Both are legally violations of the first amendment.
        nradov 4y ago
        I think it's bad public policy for government to coerce social media companies into censoring information, however it's not clear whether that legally amounts to a First Amendment violation. There are no clear legal precedents in that area. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the Missouri v. Biden case. https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/05/05/missouri-louisiana-ags-file-suit-against-president-biden-top-admin-officials-for-allegedly-colluding-with-social-media-giants-to-censor-and-suppress-free-speech https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/05/05/missouri-louisiana-a...
- Claude_Shannon 4y ago
  You have freedom to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Just as you have freedom to pay for the consequences of that.
  - djbebs 4y ago
    Bad example
  - bediger4000 4y ago
    Exactly! Good example!
  - curtainsforus 4y ago
    That metaphor was originally used to justify criminalizing protesting wars.

Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.

cyberlurker 4y ago
They passed laws making those social media companies censor them?
- ssizn 4y ago
  They didn’t have to.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  They had officials coordinate with social media companies to coordinate takedowns of accounts and messages which disagreed with them.
  - cyberlurker 4y ago
    So, public health officials asked social media companies to stop accounts from spamming that vaccines cause autism? There was no law and no threat, just public and private coordination. I have no problem with that. Sorry, this is not even close to censorship.
    - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
      If a member of the government asks their friend in a social media company to quietly take down a post, they are using influence and corruption (of the company) to impose government censorship. If they ask the legal representatives of the company to make a policy decision to take down a post, there is the implied threat of regulation, and it is government coersion. Both are legally violations of the first amendment.
      - nradov 4y ago
        I think it's bad public policy for government to coerce social media companies into censoring information, however it's not clear whether that legally amounts to a First Amendment violation. There are no clear legal precedents in that area. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the Missouri v. Biden case. https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/05/05/missouri-louisiana-ags-file-suit-against-president-biden-top-admin-officials-for-allegedly-colluding-with-social-media-giants-to-censor-and-suppress-free-speech https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/05/05/missouri-louisiana-a...
Claude_Shannon 4y ago
You have freedom to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Just as you have freedom to pay for the consequences of that.
- djbebs 4y ago
  Bad example
- bediger4000 4y ago
  Exactly! Good example!
- curtainsforus 4y ago
  That metaphor was originally used to justify criminalizing protesting wars.