3 ms·
Flagging because the original article is completely content-free grandstanding.
by rashkov 4y ago
Flagging because the original article is completely content-free grandstanding.
- zozbot234 4y agoThey link to a court filing by the Att'ys General of Missouri and Lousiana. That's anything but "content free".
- rashkov 4y agocan we agree that it’s mostly content free then? The text of the posted article is on par with cable television news, and I mean that derisively. I think we can do better here on HN. Feel free to submit a link to the PDF directly, or at least something that talks about the merits of the case.
- nazgulsenpai 4y agoSo we can't discuss it and it's no longer on the main page? Seems like there's alot of comments about the content as well.
- rashkov 4y agoWhat is there to discuss without details? Should we accept the partisan framing presented by the article that there that the current administration across all levels of government are “secretly” instructing social networks to censor content, and go from there without any evidence or nuance? I think we can have a better discussion than that. Now, someone pointed out that I overlooked a link to the court filing. That’s my mistake. That would maybe spur a better discussion.
- pstuart 4y agoThey argue in bad faith and there is no consensus to be had. Drives me crazy and I still try despite knowing this.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]