4 ms·

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 acti

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.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > 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. That's an incorrect summary, again neglecting the relevant information provided by the article. Those cases were dismissed due to lack of standing because the judges surmised that the evidence presented was insufficient, and so they couldn't move on to discovery to really prove those claims. However, the other cases, like Missouri, have moved forward and the evidence they uncovered through discovery does substantiate some of the claims in the dismissed cases, namely that government officials were directing social media companies to censor certain content. Per the article: > But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage. The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

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.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > 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. That's an incorrect summary, again neglecting the relevant information provided by the article. Those cases were dismissed due to lack of standing because the judges surmised that the evidence presented was insufficient, and so they couldn't move on to discovery to really prove those claims. However, the other cases, like Missouri, have moved forward and the evidence they uncovered through discovery does substantiate some of the claims in the dismissed cases, namely that government officials were directing social media companies to censor certain content. Per the article: > But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage. The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitter and a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.