4 ms·
I'm no lawyer, but the article seems to imply is that the government forced these private companies to comply with silencing critics with some sort of punishmen
by crayboff 4y ago
I'm no lawyer, but the article seems to imply is that the government forced these private companies to comply with silencing critics with some sort of punishment. I imagine that probably would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
But I didn't see that explicitly stated that there was a punishment threatened. Instead it seems like the following happened:
- the government intel experts gave the tech companies presentations of disinformation techniques and campaigns
- the government identified some people privately they felt might be exhibiting extreme disinformation tactics
- after several months the government started making a big deal about disinformation in the public to try to influence popular opinion about disinfo on social media in general
- fear of popular opinion backlash is what drove these companies to deplatform some people
I'm not sure if that qualifies as violating someone's first amendment rights (which, remember, only protects against the government from punishing you, not private organizations silencing you).
Though please correct me if I'm missing something! I'm trying to understand this stuff better.
- anoonmoose 4y agoIf the government had forced the private companies to comply, it would be the private companies who had standing to sue, not the end parties who are currently suing, I would imagine.
- crayboff 4y agoProbably, unless you could maybe prove that the private companies were acting as agents of the government.if that was the case then I guess it would be the government's responsibility. I think I remember seeing on the internet that was a thing that could happen. And the internet never lies, of course.