4 ms·

When did number two happen?

naasking 4y ago
From the article: > public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so,
- ineptech 4y ago
  The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action." Pretty misleading to cut that out. Edit: TFA goes on to contrast those cases with a different case, Missouri v. Biden, which I didn't mention because it's the entire topic of the article I'm charitably assuming we've all at least skimmed before coming here to argue about, but I'm adding it now due to naasking's uno reverse card.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action." Pretty misleading to cut that out. That's not relevant to the question I was answering, which was about what/when threats allegedly happened. Furthermore, the article goes on to describe judges that did find it sufficient. Is it misleading of you to leave that out?
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    So the judges said that the government ordering private companies to censor, and threatening them with consequences if they don't comply is not a 1st amendment violation? Sounds like we need some new judges.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      That's not a fair summary of what happened in those cases. The article doesn't even argue those judges were wrong! It just says, in essence, "Here's a list of cases where judges said this didn't happen, as opposed to Missouri v Biden where a judge said it did, which we will spend the rest of the article discussing." And the person I'm responding to for some reason listed the former rather than the latter in responding to someone looking for examples, and somehow I'm the one getting downvoted. Dammit, there's a reasonable discussion to have over this. Biden said, "Misinformation on Facebook is killing people." Facebook said, "Oh crap, the president is calling us out, that looks bad so let's block stuff." Is that censorship? Maybe! It kinda is, and it kinda isn't! We could argue about it! But not while we're arguing over semantic crap like this. It felt like a good and useful thing to do, to point out when something is taken egregiously out of context like that, but now I really regret even wading in.
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        It is absolutely a fair summary: > According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word.
        ineptech 4y ago
        sigh Here's why the the two linked cases were dismissed: > "Plaintiffs lack standing. And even if that were not the case, the content of their claims— and the sources those claims cite and depend upon—does not plausibly suggest they are entitled to the relief they seek." > "[The plaintiff] has not plausibly pleaded that any action by President Biden or Surgeon General Murthy was causally related to Facebook and Twitter’s decisions to enforce their misinformation policies against [him]" Summarizing that as the courts finding that "the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts" is not even misleading, it's just false. And it's not particularly relevant to the actual subject of the article, which is the Missouri v Biden case brought by the three people named in the first sentence.
- smt88 4y ago
  > statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action As far as I can tell, this is a straight-up lie. The Tablet article links to two other articles[1][2] that don't support this at all. All of the language used to describe the Biden Administration's actions is "request" and "advise". I can't find any direct quotes from any of the above people threatening anyone with legal action. The NY Times article even says that Facebook completed ignored basic requests from the administration without any consequences or threats. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/us/politics/biden-facebook-social-media-covid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/us/politics/biden-faceboo... 2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
  - naasking 4y ago
    Biden straight up said that social media companies are killing people by not censoring certain content. The article goes into this in some detail if you want more context, but if the President is saying that you are killing people, that's a pretty clear threat that they are looking to regulate you if you don't get in line.
    - smt88 4y ago
      It's not a clear threat at all because it isn't a threat. They talk about things that are killing people all the time without putting forward any unconstitutional legislation. Provide a direct quote. If it's true, it will be easy for you to do.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > They talk about things that are killing people all the time without putting forward any unconstitutional legislation. Oh give me a break. COVID was declared a national emergency and plenty of legislation was put forward to combat it, mitigate it or otherwise reduce harm. The president specifically saying social media companies are killing people in the context of a national emergency is a not so subtle veiled threat. I'm not sure what direct quote you want, this was all over the news and if you just Google it you'll find hundreds of articles: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/biden-social-media-platforms-killing-people-misinfo-78891898 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/biden-social-media-platf... Edit: consider if the US was at war with a serious enemy and the president was making comparable claims about social media companies allowing treasonous misinformation to spread that's endangering the nation and try and tell me with a straight face that that's not a veiled threat.
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
If you were a landlord that wanted to evict non-paying tenants the CDC directly punished you during covid. Directly. Massively outside of their scope of authority.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Not to mention the 5th Ammendment violation.
- smt88 4y ago
  That issue has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment and seems completely off-topic for this thread.
  - troon-lover 4y ago
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
Throughout the last 2 years. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/internal-documents-reveal-cdc-worked-with-big-tech-to-censor-covid-19-speech/ar-AA104Gfo https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/internal-documents-rev...

From the article: > public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so,

ineptech 4y ago
The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action." Pretty misleading to cut that out. Edit: TFA goes on to contrast those cases with a different case, Missouri v. Biden, which I didn't mention because it's the entire topic of the article I'm charitably assuming we've all at least skimmed before coming here to argue about, but I'm adding it now due to naasking's uno reverse card.
- naasking 4y ago
  > The rest of that quote is, "...[according to judges] still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action." Pretty misleading to cut that out. That's not relevant to the question I was answering, which was about what/when threats allegedly happened. Furthermore, the article goes on to describe judges that did find it sufficient. Is it misleading of you to leave that out?
- fallingknife 4y ago
  So the judges said that the government ordering private companies to censor, and threatening them with consequences if they don't comply is not a 1st amendment violation? Sounds like we need some new judges.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    That's not a fair summary of what happened in those cases. The article doesn't even argue those judges were wrong! It just says, in essence, "Here's a list of cases where judges said this didn't happen, as opposed to Missouri v Biden where a judge said it did, which we will spend the rest of the article discussing." And the person I'm responding to for some reason listed the former rather than the latter in responding to someone looking for examples, and somehow I'm the one getting downvoted. Dammit, there's a reasonable discussion to have over this. Biden said, "Misinformation on Facebook is killing people." Facebook said, "Oh crap, the president is calling us out, that looks bad so let's block stuff." Is that censorship? Maybe! It kinda is, and it kinda isn't! We could argue about it! But not while we're arguing over semantic crap like this. It felt like a good and useful thing to do, to point out when something is taken egregiously out of context like that, but now I really regret even wading in.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      It is absolutely a fair summary: > According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word.
      - ineptech 4y ago
        sigh Here's why the the two linked cases were dismissed: > "Plaintiffs lack standing. And even if that were not the case, the content of their claims— and the sources those claims cite and depend upon—does not plausibly suggest they are entitled to the relief they seek." > "[The plaintiff] has not plausibly pleaded that any action by President Biden or Surgeon General Murthy was causally related to Facebook and Twitter’s decisions to enforce their misinformation policies against [him]" Summarizing that as the courts finding that "the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts" is not even misleading, it's just false. And it's not particularly relevant to the actual subject of the article, which is the Missouri v Biden case brought by the three people named in the first sentence.
smt88 4y ago
> statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action As far as I can tell, this is a straight-up lie. The Tablet article links to two other articles[1][2] that don't support this at all. All of the language used to describe the Biden Administration's actions is "request" and "advise". I can't find any direct quotes from any of the above people threatening anyone with legal action. The NY Times article even says that Facebook completed ignored basic requests from the administration without any consequences or threats. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/us/politics/biden-facebook-social-media-covid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/us/politics/biden-faceboo... 2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
- naasking 4y ago
  Biden straight up said that social media companies are killing people by not censoring certain content. The article goes into this in some detail if you want more context, but if the President is saying that you are killing people, that's a pretty clear threat that they are looking to regulate you if you don't get in line.
  - smt88 4y ago
    It's not a clear threat at all because it isn't a threat. They talk about things that are killing people all the time without putting forward any unconstitutional legislation. Provide a direct quote. If it's true, it will be easy for you to do.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > They talk about things that are killing people all the time without putting forward any unconstitutional legislation. Oh give me a break. COVID was declared a national emergency and plenty of legislation was put forward to combat it, mitigate it or otherwise reduce harm. The president specifically saying social media companies are killing people in the context of a national emergency is a not so subtle veiled threat. I'm not sure what direct quote you want, this was all over the news and if you just Google it you'll find hundreds of articles: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/biden-social-media-platforms-killing-people-misinfo-78891898 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/biden-social-media-platf... Edit: consider if the US was at war with a serious enemy and the president was making comparable claims about social media companies allowing treasonous misinformation to spread that's endangering the nation and try and tell me with a straight face that that's not a veiled threat.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

If you were a landlord that wanted to evict non-paying tenants the CDC directly punished you during covid. Directly. Massively outside of their scope of authority.

hellojesus 4y ago
Not to mention the 5th Ammendment violation.
smt88 4y ago
That issue has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment and seems completely off-topic for this thread.
- troon-lover 4y ago

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

Throughout the last 2 years. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/internal-documents-reveal-cdc-worked-with-big-tech-to-censor-covid-19-speech/ar-AA104Gfo https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/internal-documents-rev...