13 ms·

> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failin

by doitLP 3y ago

> Doughty said that one Flaherty [White House director of digital strategy] message in February 2021 accused Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims." Flaherty also wrote in a July 2021 email to Facebook, "Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." Sure sounds like a relationship where the power only goes one direction and the Flaherty was very comfortable demanding whatever he wanted.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get: e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?
- tome 3y ago
  FTI, TFG means "that former guy" and refers to Donald Trump: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TFG https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TFG
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Who did TFG send his demands to? His rally crowds have no power to act, and consented, so there is no coercion.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    in which direction do you imagine the power dynamic OP mentioned went? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > His rally crowds have no power to act Jan 6 would like a word. (There's every indication Trump was internally pressuring as President, too, not just via rallies as candidate. https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90 https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90) > Who did TFG send his demands to? TFG definitely sent in the same sort of requests. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru... > When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a pussy ass bitch” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down. > That exchange — revealed during Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Twitter by Rep. Gerry Connolly — and others like it are nowhere to be found in Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” releases, which have focused almost exclusively on requests from Democrats and the feds to the social media company. > “It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      It's like when a rightist explains that Donald was a great president because he didn't "drone strike people like Obama did." The doublethink is ridiculous.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Or when hosting a private email server is worthy of being locked up but only if you are Hilary Clinton specifically.
        plagiarist 3y ago
        What she did to national security is despicable. She should have relied on WhatsApp like normal people with security clearances use for secure communication.
  - stephencanon 3y ago
    Wait, you think that when a random official says something, it carries the weight of the US Government, but when _the president_ says it, it does not? I'm not sure that you've thought this through fully.
- koolba 3y ago
  > after all, it anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get Not when that someone is the government or its representative. The act of asking can itself be a violation of your rights as there’s an implication that if you do not comply their may be some unknown ramifications. Judges are savvy enough to know that threats need not be verbalized to be received.
  - hooande 3y ago
    what was the implied threat?
    - Clubber 3y ago
      Repeal of section 230. Remember when they brought all the CEOs to testify in front of congress?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        "they" didn't. a GOP-controlled congress did, and that party remains the most opposed to section 230
        Clubber 3y ago
        Democrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation" Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-hold-social-media-companies-responsible-for-health-misinformat https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-... It's obvious government infringement on free speech from both sides when you take off your red or blue colored glasses.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
- axus 3y ago
  I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. It's not illegal for them to say whatever they want, and imply powers they don't have, but it's still coercive and an abuse of powers we've granted them. Hopefully this ruling applies to more types of government speech.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I'd look at it as some random government bureaucrat demanding it: the fact that the company felt comfortable ignoring said random bureaucrat when it suited them seems to indicate they didn't feel coerced at all
    - axus 3y ago
      So if they did it to me, it's bad, but to Facebook it's OK? In some court cases the actual harm matters, and sometimes it's the principle that matters.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        if the random government bureaucrat "demanded" something of you you didn't want to do, and you laughed him or her out of the room, both actions are okay it seems Facebook was more polite than that, instead just ignoring the random government bureaucrat when it suited them also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case.
        chimeracoder 3y ago
        > also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case. Traditionally, yes, although that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling last week in a case in which the plaintiff experienced no harm (not to mention admitted to perjury).
        gcoakes 3y ago
- vxNsr 3y ago
  > TFG what is this referring to?
  - dporter 3y ago
    It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.
    - thepangolino 3y ago
      [dead]
    - dogleash 3y ago
      Huh. Didn't know that. Sounds fairly lost in the political ragebait sauce.
    - zen_1 3y ago
      Huh, so like Voldemort then. Fun.
    - vxNsr 3y ago
      yiiikes, when I see something like that, I lose all respect for the person speaking
- ajkjk 3y ago
  TFG?
  - dporter 3y ago
    It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      It's such an odd thing. I don't think I've ever heard people refusing to say Stalin or Hitler's names. Andrew Jackson isn't alluded to with euphemisms, despite being a piece of shit who perpetrated genocide among other crimes. Nixon doesn't get this for his crimes and shitty policies, nor Truman for the a-bombs or FDR for mass internment of American citizens. It seems like an idea people got from Harry Potter refusing to say Voldemort.
      - krapp 3y ago
        When you've seen enough threads derail, go unhinged and burst into flames at the mere mention of his name, it makes sense.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        If the conversation is about Trump I don't think there's any hiding that, nor any avoiding of flame wars. Honestly I think it's a reddit meme from Harry Potter fans.
        code_duck 3y ago
        More of a Twitter thing from my observations, and nobody is thinking about Harry Potter at all.
        ajkjk 3y ago
        Seems like "TFG" made it kinda derail here instead.
- noslenwerdna 3y ago
  "dude who used a swear word"? You left a bit out here. He is a representative of the government demanding that a private company censor speech supporting policies it opposes and speech about the president's family among other things. "A February 2021 message in which Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account related to Hunter Biden's daughter said, 'Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.'"
  - freen 3y ago
    “Lock her up” I didn’t know that impersonating a public figure was acceptable according to twitter’s terms of service. Perhaps there was special consideration that permitted an impersonator to remain on the platform?
    - noslenwerdna 3y ago
      I don't know if we should hold out Trump as the standard to judge other behavior. Trump saying that was also wrong, but that is off topic.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    he's actually not a representative at all, we elect those he's a random government bureaucrat who didn't appear to have any actual power besides sending angry letters, and who Facebook felt totally comfortable ignoring the article presented a great example proving me right here: even he admits facebook ignored his impotent wails when it didn't suit them to satisfy him
    - chipsa 3y ago
      He's not a member of the House of Representatives, but the word "representative" is larger than merely that.
    - noslenwerdna 3y ago
      I didn't say representative, that's a misleading paraphrase. I said representative of the government. Those can be police officers, FBI agents, or bureaucrats making demands of private companies.
- xdennis 3y ago
  > anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get Try demanding that a lady give you her purse and see how far that takes you. Attempting a crime is often a crime regardless if you succeed.
chasd00 3y ago
> “… I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." I think I would drive to the airport, go through security, and fly to DC just to throw a drink in that dumbass’s face and laugh.
- mymac 3y ago
  Not the smartest move unless you want to spend some time in jail for assault.
afavour 3y ago
But Flaherty specifically didn’t get what he wanted (that’s why he was mad!) so I think it’s misleading to say the power only goes from government to Facebook. If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.
- efitz 3y ago
  > If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction. I don’t see how you got there. I see literal demands for action in the tone of someone giving orders to a subordinate.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    I mean, it's also the tone of a kid not getting what they want from their non-subordinate parent.
  - afavour 3y ago
    I invite you to have a conversation with my six year old child and then reflect upon the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they are vocalised.
    - peteradio 3y ago
      Your toddler doesn't represent the United States Government.
      - freedude 3y ago
        You make a good point. The United States Government is more like a demanding toddler throwing a tantrum than a 6 year old throwing a tantrum. The difference is the 6 year old is potty trained.
      - afavour 3y ago
        What impact does that have on the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they’re vocalised?
calgarymicro 3y ago
Worth noting that this is a something of a misrepresentation of Flaherty's email[0] by the judge. Flaherty said > All, especially given the Journal's reporting on your internal work on political violence spurred by Facebook groups, I am also curious about the new rules as part of the "overhaul." Referring to this[1] WSJ article that details explicit calls to violence on FB. He then specifically quotes part of FB's response in his question > I am seeing that you will no longer promote civic and health related groups, but I am wondering if the reforms here extend further? So Flaherty was absolutely not accusing Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims", he was accusing FB of hosting actual calls to violence. [0]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/174/1/missouri-v-biden/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/174/1/missouri... [1]https://archive.is/6q67O https://archive.is/6q67O
nashashmi 3y ago
Now imagine if the same words were used by the trump admin personnel! Left media would scream words like bullying. This gives complete justification and vindication of how the trump admin behaved! Untouchable. This country is officially over.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  Trump admin personnel behaved the same way. The platforms were free to ignore it in the same way. The Trump administration is being prosecuted over entirely different acts.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    My comment was not about how they are being prosecuted. But just about the ethics of doing something like that. Especially when the prior admin are heavily perceived as bullies. And they were supposed to be different. The fact that the Biden admin behaved the same way vindicates them from accusations that Trump admin behaved unjustly or they should be disciplined for such inappropriateness.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      I don't think anybody called for the Trump admin to be disciplined for denigrating Facebook and Twitter, certainly not to the extent that we're seeing here.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  > Now imagine if the same words were used by the trump admin personnel! You don't need to imagine. This happened. > Left media would scream words like bullying. That you don't know this happened says everything. > This gives complete justification and vindication of how the trump admin behaved! Untouchable. No. > This country is officially over. Incorrect, again.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    Why no? This country’s reputation is built upon the idea of collaboration and compromise. Both administrations behaving with such obtuseness means this is a new chapter.

by doitLP 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

which direction are you imagining? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request? after all, anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get: e.g. TFG felt comfortable demanding that his political rivals be imprisoned, did he get it?

tome 3y ago
FTI, TFG means "that former guy" and refers to Donald Trump: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TFG https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TFG
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hgsgm 3y ago
Who did TFG send his demands to? His rally crowds have no power to act, and consented, so there is no coercion.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  in which direction do you imagine the power dynamic OP mentioned went? the one originating from the dude who used a swear word? or the one originating from the company who felt comfortable ignoring the dude and the request?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > His rally crowds have no power to act Jan 6 would like a word. (There's every indication Trump was internally pressuring as President, too, not just via rallies as candidate. https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90 https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90) > Who did TFG send his demands to? TFG definitely sent in the same sort of requests. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-tru... > When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a pussy ass bitch” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down. > That exchange — revealed during Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing on Twitter by Rep. Gerry Connolly — and others like it are nowhere to be found in Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” releases, which have focused almost exclusively on requests from Democrats and the feds to the social media company. > “It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    It's like when a rightist explains that Donald was a great president because he didn't "drone strike people like Obama did." The doublethink is ridiculous.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Or when hosting a private email server is worthy of being locked up but only if you are Hilary Clinton specifically.
      - plagiarist 3y ago
        What she did to national security is despicable. She should have relied on WhatsApp like normal people with security clearances use for secure communication.
- stephencanon 3y ago
  Wait, you think that when a random official says something, it carries the weight of the US Government, but when _the president_ says it, it does not? I'm not sure that you've thought this through fully.
koolba 3y ago
> after all, it anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get Not when that someone is the government or its representative. The act of asking can itself be a violation of your rights as there’s an implication that if you do not comply their may be some unknown ramifications. Judges are savvy enough to know that threats need not be verbalized to be received.
- hooande 3y ago
  what was the implied threat?
  - Clubber 3y ago
    Repeal of section 230. Remember when they brought all the CEOs to testify in front of congress?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      "they" didn't. a GOP-controlled congress did, and that party remains the most opposed to section 230
      - Clubber 3y ago
        Democrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation" Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-hold-social-media-companies-responsible-for-health-misinformat https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-... It's obvious government infringement on free speech from both sides when you take off your red or blue colored glasses.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
axus 3y ago
I'd look at it the same as a police officer demanding things. It's not illegal for them to say whatever they want, and imply powers they don't have, but it's still coercive and an abuse of powers we've granted them. Hopefully this ruling applies to more types of government speech.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I'd look at it as some random government bureaucrat demanding it: the fact that the company felt comfortable ignoring said random bureaucrat when it suited them seems to indicate they didn't feel coerced at all
  - axus 3y ago
    So if they did it to me, it's bad, but to Facebook it's OK? In some court cases the actual harm matters, and sometimes it's the principle that matters.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      if the random government bureaucrat "demanded" something of you you didn't want to do, and you laughed him or her out of the room, both actions are okay it seems Facebook was more polite than that, instead just ignoring the random government bureaucrat when it suited them also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case.
      - chimeracoder 3y ago
        > also, in American courts, it is the actual harm that matters. No harm, no standing, no court case. Traditionally, yes, although that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling last week in a case in which the plaintiff experienced no harm (not to mention admitted to perjury).
        gcoakes 3y ago
vxNsr 3y ago
> TFG what is this referring to?
- dporter 3y ago
  It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.
  - thepangolino 3y ago
    [dead]
  - dogleash 3y ago
    Huh. Didn't know that. Sounds fairly lost in the political ragebait sauce.
  - zen_1 3y ago
    Huh, so like Voldemort then. Fun.
  - vxNsr 3y ago
    yiiikes, when I see something like that, I lose all respect for the person speaking
ajkjk 3y ago
TFG?
- dporter 3y ago
  It stands for “The Former Guy.” Some people won’t say Trump’s name.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's such an odd thing. I don't think I've ever heard people refusing to say Stalin or Hitler's names. Andrew Jackson isn't alluded to with euphemisms, despite being a piece of shit who perpetrated genocide among other crimes. Nixon doesn't get this for his crimes and shitty policies, nor Truman for the a-bombs or FDR for mass internment of American citizens. It seems like an idea people got from Harry Potter refusing to say Voldemort.
    - krapp 3y ago
      When you've seen enough threads derail, go unhinged and burst into flames at the mere mention of his name, it makes sense.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        If the conversation is about Trump I don't think there's any hiding that, nor any avoiding of flame wars. Honestly I think it's a reddit meme from Harry Potter fans.
        code_duck 3y ago
        More of a Twitter thing from my observations, and nobody is thinking about Harry Potter at all.
      - ajkjk 3y ago
        Seems like "TFG" made it kinda derail here instead.
noslenwerdna 3y ago
"dude who used a swear word"? You left a bit out here. He is a representative of the government demanding that a private company censor speech supporting policies it opposes and speech about the president's family among other things. "A February 2021 message in which Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account related to Hunter Biden's daughter said, 'Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.'"
- freen 3y ago
  “Lock her up” I didn’t know that impersonating a public figure was acceptable according to twitter’s terms of service. Perhaps there was special consideration that permitted an impersonator to remain on the platform?
  - noslenwerdna 3y ago
    I don't know if we should hold out Trump as the standard to judge other behavior. Trump saying that was also wrong, but that is off topic.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  he's actually not a representative at all, we elect those he's a random government bureaucrat who didn't appear to have any actual power besides sending angry letters, and who Facebook felt totally comfortable ignoring the article presented a great example proving me right here: even he admits facebook ignored his impotent wails when it didn't suit them to satisfy him
  - chipsa 3y ago
    He's not a member of the House of Representatives, but the word "representative" is larger than merely that.
  - noslenwerdna 3y ago
    I didn't say representative, that's a misleading paraphrase. I said representative of the government. Those can be police officers, FBI agents, or bureaucrats making demands of private companies.
xdennis 3y ago
> anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get Try demanding that a lady give you her purse and see how far that takes you. Attempting a crime is often a crime regardless if you succeed.

chasd00 3y ago

> “… I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today." I think I would drive to the airport, go through security, and fly to DC just to throw a drink in that dumbass’s face and laugh.

mymac 3y ago
Not the smartest move unless you want to spend some time in jail for assault.

afavour 3y ago

But Flaherty specifically didn’t get what he wanted (that’s why he was mad!) so I think it’s misleading to say the power only goes from government to Facebook. If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.

efitz 3y ago
> If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction. I don’t see how you got there. I see literal demands for action in the tone of someone giving orders to a subordinate.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  I mean, it's also the tone of a kid not getting what they want from their non-subordinate parent.
- afavour 3y ago
  I invite you to have a conversation with my six year old child and then reflect upon the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they are vocalised.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    Your toddler doesn't represent the United States Government.
    - freedude 3y ago
      You make a good point. The United States Government is more like a demanding toddler throwing a tantrum than a 6 year old throwing a tantrum. The difference is the 6 year old is potty trained.
    - afavour 3y ago
      What impact does that have on the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they’re vocalised?

calgarymicro 3y ago

Worth noting that this is a something of a misrepresentation of Flaherty's email[0] by the judge. Flaherty said > All, especially given the Journal's reporting on your internal work on political violence spurred by Facebook groups, I am also curious about the new rules as part of the "overhaul." Referring to this[1] WSJ article that details explicit calls to violence on FB. He then specifically quotes part of FB's response in his question > I am seeing that you will no longer promote civic and health related groups, but I am wondering if the reforms here extend further? So Flaherty was absolutely not accusing Facebook "of causing 'political violence' by failing to censor false COVID-19 claims", he was accusing FB of hosting actual calls to violence. [0]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/174/1/missouri-v-biden/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/174/1/missouri... [1]https://archive.is/6q67O https://archive.is/6q67O

nashashmi 3y ago

Now imagine if the same words were used by the trump admin personnel! Left media would scream words like bullying. This gives complete justification and vindication of how the trump admin behaved! Untouchable. This country is officially over.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
Trump admin personnel behaved the same way. The platforms were free to ignore it in the same way. The Trump administration is being prosecuted over entirely different acts.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  My comment was not about how they are being prosecuted. But just about the ethics of doing something like that. Especially when the prior admin are heavily perceived as bullies. And they were supposed to be different. The fact that the Biden admin behaved the same way vindicates them from accusations that Trump admin behaved unjustly or they should be disciplined for such inappropriateness.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    I don't think anybody called for the Trump admin to be disciplined for denigrating Facebook and Twitter, certainly not to the extent that we're seeing here.
jasonlotito 3y ago
> Now imagine if the same words were used by the trump admin personnel! You don't need to imagine. This happened. > Left media would scream words like bullying. That you don't know this happened says everything. > This gives complete justification and vindication of how the trump admin behaved! Untouchable. No. > This country is officially over. Incorrect, again.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  Why no? This country’s reputation is built upon the idea of collaboration and compromise. Both administrations behaving with such obtuseness means this is a new chapter.