6 ms·

> Khanna's message is clearly not a government official demanding that Twitter censor something (indeed, he's suggesting the opposite). I never claimed it was,

by rhaksw 4y ago

> Khanna's message is clearly not a government official demanding that Twitter censor something (indeed, he's suggesting the opposite). I never claimed it was, and yes I think he nailed what should have been said at that moment. You're assuming that I'm arguing there were government misdeeds exposed by this release, but if you reread the chain above you'll find that I (1) felt this is not merely a "big redirection", (2) find government comms interesting, and (3) only speculated about a potential bombshell, which need not be a legal issue. (3) is based on us not having all of the data. Musk is probably trolling us all per usual. He's got an even bigger megaphone now than before, so I'm interested to hear what he is saying. > This isn't like a disagreeing on a judgment call sort of thing; it is factually not the case that the Biden campaign was governmental in nature. Is Trump still influential within the Republican party? It's fine if you don't think so. Again I'm not saying that whoever wrote the "Biden team" email should be investigated as if they were a government official in 2020. I don't even know if the content of the messages would merit action if they were a government official. I'm saying, Biden was influential, and that makes these conversations interesting, particularly in light of what Josh Hawley has been sharing regarding this admin's communications with Facebook [1]. Plus, one of the government agencies, CISA, was established under Trump, so it's not even like this is a partisan issue. Both democrats and republicans will censor you if given the chance. We need to represent ourselves on the free speech issue. They are simply not incentivized to support the first amendment as written. Government officials regularly openly state that they want the private sector to voluntarily censor constitutionally protected speech [2], and the reason they do that is because they can't legally force private entities to censor protected speech. Per jurisprudence (I don't know which case, sorry), it is also illegal for the government to get around the limits of the first amendment by compelling private entities to limit speech. I guess that would be hard to prove, but that's the other shoe that everyone in free-speech land seems to be expecting to drop at some point. Reason being, when you censor a little, it tends to grow and grow until you're censoring criticism of your censorship, and it starts to consume everything. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfJZ2MTDEWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfJZ2MTDEWY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s

sanderjd 4y ago
Your comment starts out pretty well, I already went back and realized that you just said the comms are "interesting", and I agree. But then you seem to lose the thread later, talking about the first amendment, which just is not implicated at all by the emails from the Biden campaign.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  Glad to have clarified some things. Regarding the first amendment stuff, I suppose the turning point for you was this line, > Biden was influential, and that makes these conversations interesting, particularly in light of what Josh Hawley has been sharing regarding this admin's communications with Facebook. Perhaps you don't see the connection because you're unfamiliar with what Senator Hawley's been up to. If that's the case, I'd recommend checking out that video, his questioning of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas during a hearing on threats to national security. Here is the full video of the hearing [1] [2]. Otherwise, if you already knew about that, the connection is clear from where I stand. Political candidates seek to influence social media's moderation policies and/or actions both before and after taking office. Both Trump and Biden are on the record commenting on this stuff, and I think it's up for debate whether anyone in either of their administrations is punishably culpable for indirectly abridging the first amendment via their efforts. We haven't seen all of the evidence. Again, public officials are on the record almost every day cheering on the private sector for removing constitutionally protected speech that politicians are legally restricted from removing. Here is a particularly revealing admission from former CIA analyst and now House Representative (D-MI 8th District) Elissa Slotkin, > "We had all kinds of exploration into this on a bipartisan basis and couldn't manage what the private cable companies in the united states did in one week after the invasion. The Russians go into Ukraine and all these private cable companies decided, you know what, I'm not going to be responsible for peddling this stuff, and they cut them off and now you can't see that R.T. on Howard Johnson's, you know on the TV. So I think the other super interesting thing about what's going on between Russia and Ukraine is the role of the private sector and how that's affecting national security right when visa and Paypal and McDonald's willingly without any guidance or or push from the white house shut down operations in Russia that has more daily effect on the lives of a Russian citizen than probably at this point anything we're doing in sanctions so i think that is just it's an aside that the private sector is in this space with us and i think has a growing role in playing a part in national security for us." [3] See also comments from Emma Llanso, Director of Free Expression at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) at 29:00 in the Tech Policy Podcast #331: Section 230’s Long Path to SCOTUS, > "So when we think about the big picture and systemic role that section 230 plays, understanding those dynamics, that the whole reason Cox and Wyden framed the whole section for Section 230 as the 'Good Samaritan' protection for blocking and filtering of content, it was some of this recognition that there is a job here that we want to see these intermediaries do, and that job is taking down or restricting access to other people's constitutionally protected speech. And that is not something Congress can do directly. That is not a law that Congress can pass, to require intermediaries to take action against lawful speech. That's not to say Congress has not considered passing some such laws, the whole duty of (care?) concept is another podcast, but at the core of it, we're talking about, is there illegal speech at issue, and so much of the abuse that we want to see addressed by intermediaries, we need them to basically voluntarily take action against." [4] Such voluntary censorship can help politicians get elected, and if they support the private sector's removal of things that might cast them in a bad light, both before and after taking office, then I find that concerning. Actions that come after taking office may or may not be punishable, and that is why similar influence exerted during campaigns is interesting to follow. Time for USA vs. Netherlands! [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?524139-1/senate-homeland-security-hearing-national-security-threats https://www.c-span.org/video/?524139-1/senate-homeland-secur... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaMzQddu8xc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaMzQddu8xc [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s [4] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/331-section-230s-long-path-to-scotus/id1074084805?i=1000584460602&uo=4 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/331-section-230s-long-...

by rhaksw 4y ago

sanderjd 4y ago

Your comment starts out pretty well, I already went back and realized that you just said the comms are "interesting", and I agree. But then you seem to lose the thread later, talking about the first amendment, which just is not implicated at all by the emails from the Biden campaign.

rhaksw 4y ago
Glad to have clarified some things. Regarding the first amendment stuff, I suppose the turning point for you was this line, > Biden was influential, and that makes these conversations interesting, particularly in light of what Josh Hawley has been sharing regarding this admin's communications with Facebook. Perhaps you don't see the connection because you're unfamiliar with what Senator Hawley's been up to. If that's the case, I'd recommend checking out that video, his questioning of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas during a hearing on threats to national security. Here is the full video of the hearing [1] [2]. Otherwise, if you already knew about that, the connection is clear from where I stand. Political candidates seek to influence social media's moderation policies and/or actions both before and after taking office. Both Trump and Biden are on the record commenting on this stuff, and I think it's up for debate whether anyone in either of their administrations is punishably culpable for indirectly abridging the first amendment via their efforts. We haven't seen all of the evidence. Again, public officials are on the record almost every day cheering on the private sector for removing constitutionally protected speech that politicians are legally restricted from removing. Here is a particularly revealing admission from former CIA analyst and now House Representative (D-MI 8th District) Elissa Slotkin, > "We had all kinds of exploration into this on a bipartisan basis and couldn't manage what the private cable companies in the united states did in one week after the invasion. The Russians go into Ukraine and all these private cable companies decided, you know what, I'm not going to be responsible for peddling this stuff, and they cut them off and now you can't see that R.T. on Howard Johnson's, you know on the TV. So I think the other super interesting thing about what's going on between Russia and Ukraine is the role of the private sector and how that's affecting national security right when visa and Paypal and McDonald's willingly without any guidance or or push from the white house shut down operations in Russia that has more daily effect on the lives of a Russian citizen than probably at this point anything we're doing in sanctions so i think that is just it's an aside that the private sector is in this space with us and i think has a growing role in playing a part in national security for us." [3] See also comments from Emma Llanso, Director of Free Expression at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) at 29:00 in the Tech Policy Podcast #331: Section 230’s Long Path to SCOTUS, > "So when we think about the big picture and systemic role that section 230 plays, understanding those dynamics, that the whole reason Cox and Wyden framed the whole section for Section 230 as the 'Good Samaritan' protection for blocking and filtering of content, it was some of this recognition that there is a job here that we want to see these intermediaries do, and that job is taking down or restricting access to other people's constitutionally protected speech. And that is not something Congress can do directly. That is not a law that Congress can pass, to require intermediaries to take action against lawful speech. That's not to say Congress has not considered passing some such laws, the whole duty of (care?) concept is another podcast, but at the core of it, we're talking about, is there illegal speech at issue, and so much of the abuse that we want to see addressed by intermediaries, we need them to basically voluntarily take action against." [4] Such voluntary censorship can help politicians get elected, and if they support the private sector's removal of things that might cast them in a bad light, both before and after taking office, then I find that concerning. Actions that come after taking office may or may not be punishable, and that is why similar influence exerted during campaigns is interesting to follow. Time for USA vs. Netherlands! [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?524139-1/senate-homeland-security-hearing-national-security-threats https://www.c-span.org/video/?524139-1/senate-homeland-secur... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaMzQddu8xc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaMzQddu8xc [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s [4] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/331-section-230s-long-path-to-scotus/id1074084805?i=1000584460602&uo=4 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/331-section-230s-long-...