5 ms·

Facebook is employing former CIA agents to moderate content/determine misinformation policies. https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-ex-cia

by krona 3y ago

Facebook is employing former CIA agents to moderate content/determine misinformation policies. https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-ex-cia-to-decide-misinformation-policy-is-very-very-worrying/ https://thehill.com/hilltv/3566225-reporter-facebook-using-e...

GeekyBear 3y ago
I don't know that former government officials are the same level of problem that demands from (then) current government officials are. For example: > We released a list of 354 names Maine Senate Angus King wanted taken down for reasons like “Rand Paul visit excitement,” “followed by [former Republican opponent Eric] Brakey,” and my personal favorite, “mentions immigration.” For balance we also released a letter from a Republican official at the State Department, Mark Lenzi, who tells Twitter about 14 real Americans “you may want to look into and delete.” https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter This behavior clearly violates the First Amendment.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Doesn't the First Amendment protect the right to say "I think this should be taken down"? (Side note: The Angus King stuff is a misrepresentation. The screenshots are from a spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCKX7YFNEvXmm7Lil3Z5unKivX5SA5avFE9tF95kgkbDVJpeRhX4lCig/pubhtml# https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCK... - in which a column indicates how the account first came to the King campaign's attention, not the reason they think they warranted action.)
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Not when your are a government official demanding that political speech be censored.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      "you may want to look into and delete" isn't a demand. Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. They usually don't get what they want, as they don't typically have the right to enforce their desires. For example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-blames-Richard-Marx-tweet-praising-neighbor-assaulted-suspicious-package.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-b... > Rand Paul blasted Twitter on Tuesday for not immediately taking down Richard Marx’s tweet from Sunday in which he offered to buy drinks for the Kentucky neighbor who assaulted the Republican senator in 2017. He can demand. They can say no. Both are First Amendment protected actions.
      - GeekyBear 3y ago
        > Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. Sorry, but that just won't fly. > A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-violated-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-follo https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r... Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        Blocking isn't censorship; it does not prevent you from speaking. Blocking wasn't permissible because it restricted access by citizens to official announcements; it's like banning someone from coming to a town hall meeting or visiting Congress's website.
        GeekyBear 3y ago
        > Blocking isn't censorship Trump was blocking those who replied to his comments with takes that were critical of himself or of his policies. He was silencing critics. It wasn't allowed.
  - chipsa 3y ago
    If you're a private citizen, yes. If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect the right of the government to speech, because the government doesn't have rights. What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech. This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titans-defend-size-their-companies-congress-n1235190 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titan... It'd probably also apply to the President saying "lock her up" about a private citizen. Is that unconstitutional pressure from an elected official? > What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government? It means stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional Well, maybe, if you ignore the Constitutional carte blanche for Congressional proceedings of the Article I Speech and Debate Clause.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        If you prefer, it'd make a whole bunch of press conferences unconstitutional. It's quite common for elected officials to criticize private citizens and businesses. To be concrete: Ted Cruz (and a bunch of others) publicly pressured the NFL over players kneeling at games, in a clear attempt to suppress First Amendment expression by said players, without any hint of consequences.
snowwrestler 3y ago
What is your theory in posting this? That people who work for the CIA must give up their right to free speech and future private employment? This just reads like unprincipled scare mongering to me.

by krona 3y ago

GeekyBear 3y ago

I don't know that former government officials are the same level of problem that demands from (then) current government officials are. For example: > We released a list of 354 names Maine Senate Angus King wanted taken down for reasons like “Rand Paul visit excitement,” “followed by [former Republican opponent Eric] Brakey,” and my personal favorite, “mentions immigration.” For balance we also released a letter from a Republican official at the State Department, Mark Lenzi, who tells Twitter about 14 real Americans “you may want to look into and delete.” https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter This behavior clearly violates the First Amendment.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Doesn't the First Amendment protect the right to say "I think this should be taken down"? (Side note: The Angus King stuff is a misrepresentation. The screenshots are from a spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCKX7YFNEvXmm7Lil3Z5unKivX5SA5avFE9tF95kgkbDVJpeRhX4lCig/pubhtml# https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS1PbfNEqDCK... - in which a column indicates how the account first came to the King campaign's attention, not the reason they think they warranted action.)
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  Not when your are a government official demanding that political speech be censored.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    "you may want to look into and delete" isn't a demand. Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. They usually don't get what they want, as they don't typically have the right to enforce their desires. For example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-blames-Richard-Marx-tweet-praising-neighbor-assaulted-suspicious-package.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9619449/Rand-Paul-b... > Rand Paul blasted Twitter on Tuesday for not immediately taking down Richard Marx’s tweet from Sunday in which he offered to buy drinks for the Kentucky neighbor who assaulted the Republican senator in 2017. He can demand. They can say no. Both are First Amendment protected actions.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      > Politicians demand censorship all the time, as is their right. Sorry, but that just won't fly. > A federal appeals court in Manhattan says President Trump cannot block critics from his Twitter account, calling it "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." In a 29-page ruling on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-violated-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-follo https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-r... Trump may have wanted to silence criticism, but he didn't get away with it, even on his own personal account.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Blocking isn't censorship; it does not prevent you from speaking. Blocking wasn't permissible because it restricted access by citizens to official announcements; it's like banning someone from coming to a town hall meeting or visiting Congress's website.
        GeekyBear 3y ago
        > Blocking isn't censorship Trump was blocking those who replied to his comments with takes that were critical of himself or of his policies. He was silencing critics. It wasn't allowed.
- chipsa 3y ago
  If you're a private citizen, yes. If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect the right of the government to speech, because the government doesn't have rights. What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech. This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titans-defend-size-their-companies-congress-n1235190 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titan... It'd probably also apply to the President saying "lock her up" about a private citizen. Is that unconstitutional pressure from an elected official? > What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government? It means stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional Well, maybe, if you ignore the Constitutional carte blanche for Congressional proceedings of the Article I Speech and Debate Clause.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        If you prefer, it'd make a whole bunch of press conferences unconstitutional. It's quite common for elected officials to criticize private citizens and businesses. To be concrete: Ted Cruz (and a bunch of others) publicly pressured the NFL over players kneeling at games, in a clear attempt to suppress First Amendment expression by said players, without any hint of consequences.

snowwrestler 3y ago

What is your theory in posting this? That people who work for the CIA must give up their right to free speech and future private employment? This just reads like unprincipled scare mongering to me.