5 ms·

The article mentioned direct government action to censor, remove content and/or people from platforms, no?

by kansface 4y ago

freejazz 4y ago
I did not see that in the article, feel free to quote it. I'd bet it isn't because it'd be a slam dunk 1st Amd case
- pessimizer 4y ago
  This would be worthwhile if you hadn't read the article and already decided that twitter execs meeting with DHS weekly to discuss specific accounts and what should be done about them is not censorship.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    The US gave a report of what was misinformation and requested that social media companies respond with a report of what, if anything, was done about it. What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > The US gave a report of what was misinformation The US does this weekly, and about specific people and subjects that it wants to communicate its concern over. > What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay. Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?
      - freejazz 4y ago
        >"Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?" I'm not convinced there were. I don't think the Biden admin would do that as its flatly unconstitutional. Sending a list of misinformation, weekly, daily, monthly, whatever, is flatly constitutional.
        pessimizer 4y ago
        > I don't think the Biden admin would do that as its flatly unconstitutional. It's important to recognize this as a religious belief.
        freejazz 4y ago
        It's not really a matter of a religious belief, it speaks more to their desire for political expediency, which would be thrown out the window if they actually did violate the first amendment. Not that I expect you to bring a realistic view of the current political climate to this conversation.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

The article mentioned direct government action to censor, remove content and/or people from platforms, no?

freejazz 4y ago

I did not see that in the article, feel free to quote it. I'd bet it isn't because it'd be a slam dunk 1st Amd case

pessimizer 4y ago
This would be worthwhile if you hadn't read the article and already decided that twitter execs meeting with DHS weekly to discuss specific accounts and what should be done about them is not censorship.
- freejazz 4y ago
  The US gave a report of what was misinformation and requested that social media companies respond with a report of what, if anything, was done about it. What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > The US gave a report of what was misinformation The US does this weekly, and about specific people and subjects that it wants to communicate its concern over. > What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay. Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?
    - freejazz 4y ago
      >"Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?" I'm not convinced there were. I don't think the Biden admin would do that as its flatly unconstitutional. Sending a list of misinformation, weekly, daily, monthly, whatever, is flatly constitutional.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > I don't think the Biden admin would do that as its flatly unconstitutional. It's important to recognize this as a religious belief.
        freejazz 4y ago
        It's not really a matter of a religious belief, it speaks more to their desire for political expediency, which would be thrown out the window if they actually did violate the first amendment. Not that I expect you to bring a realistic view of the current political climate to this conversation.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]