3 ms·

> statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal act

by 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.
- _23sd 4y ago
  You seem to be saying that if the government characterizes X as misinformation that is killing people, that is a "pretty clear threat that they are looking to regulate you". If that's accurate, how is the framing of "We believe X is misinformation, do with that advice what you will" versus "We believe X is misinformation, and if you don't act on that, we will penalize you in some way" valid at all? Wouldn't the first statement always be equivalent to the second one?
  - naasking 4y ago
    "Killing people" is a pretty important distinction don't you think? Is the government not in the business of protecting the public? If there's a threat to the public, doesn't the government typically intervene? So no, those two statements are not equivalent, but if you add that additional qualifier that the misinformation is killing people, that becomes a much more serious charge which then implies intervention is a likely outcome.

by smt88 4y ago

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.
_23sd 4y ago
You seem to be saying that if the government characterizes X as misinformation that is killing people, that is a "pretty clear threat that they are looking to regulate you". If that's accurate, how is the framing of "We believe X is misinformation, do with that advice what you will" versus "We believe X is misinformation, and if you don't act on that, we will penalize you in some way" valid at all? Wouldn't the first statement always be equivalent to the second one?
- naasking 4y ago
  "Killing people" is a pretty important distinction don't you think? Is the government not in the business of protecting the public? If there's a threat to the public, doesn't the government typically intervene? So no, those two statements are not equivalent, but if you add that additional qualifier that the misinformation is killing people, that becomes a much more serious charge which then implies intervention is a likely outcome.