3 ms·

I don't see why one's judgment of the situation should depend on whether the government was successful in intimidating Facebook. What matters is that they tried

by causi 3y ago

I don't see why one's judgment of the situation should depend on whether the government was successful in intimidating Facebook. What matters is that they tried.

Zetice 3y ago
Coercion requires a stick, I see no stick here. The judge literally cited Biden saying, "they're killing people" as coercion, which is a bald-faced lie.
- causi 3y ago
  Do implied threats count as coercion? Does a threatening tone? Does someone in a position of power making demands they don't actually have the power to enforce count as coercion? I don't know. The judge seems to think they do.
  - Zetice 3y ago
    What implied threats, what threatening tone? What position of power? If you read the examples cited, nothing even remotely comes close to a layperson interpretation of coercion, and I believe the legal definition is more rigorous, not less.
    - causi 3y ago
      Therefore, the question is not what decision the social-media company would have made, but whether the Government “so involved itself in the private party’s conduct” that the decision is essentially that of the Government. The government asking them to remove specific posts and accounts and demote others is pretty clearly that.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        How so? If someone asks me for something, and I have EXPLICIT LEGAL PROTECTION TO SAY NO, how coercive should that be to me?
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        How coercive? If you're right, the government can still make a court case that takes a good part of a decade and costs you ten million dollars to win. That's just the straightforward stuff. That's without the IRS deciding your corporate profit statements deserve extra scrutiny, and the FCC deciding to question whether you really qualify for section 230, and and and... You can be right. They can still make your life very difficult if they decide to. And it will be very hard to prove that that's what they're doing. And even if you can, you probably aren't going to get the money back that the court cases cost, and you definitely aren't getting back the time and management attention it cost. So, not legally coercive. But still kind of coercive, even though legally it has no force.
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        That would imply the person or group doing the asking somehow have unilateral control over those distinct agencies. At what point down the career ladder do you become just another drone who shouldn't be considered to have power over distinct government agencies? Surely Rachel in the Post office can't have you audited. But maybe the president can talk to enough people to encourage that to happen. So where is the limit?
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Well, a "White House director of digital strategy" is presumably not Rachel in the post office. He's someone in the White House, which means he's in a position to have a quiet conversation with the president. "They're not playing ball" might be all it would take. I mean, yes, you're right, the White House director of digital strategy, taken by himself, can go jump in the lake as far as Facebook or Twitter are concerned. Even given all the people under him, that's still true. The question is, to what degree is he speaking for the people over him? How many layers are there between him and the president? I'd guess somewhere from 0 to 2, though I admit that's a guess. Can he cause trouble on his own? No. But the one giving him orders may be able to give orders to others.
        3y ago
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Zetice 3y ago
        You're not recalling the example I and the judge also cited, which was the Biden quote. There's no way Biden's quote is coercive. Zero way whatsoever.
afavour 3y ago
I was specifically responding to the OP's point that this demonstrates power flowing from government to Facebook. The fact that FB ignored the request and did not suffer consequences demonstrates that power does not in fact flow that way. You're welcome to judge the appropriateness of the event as a whole however you want! I'm not over the moon about it either. I wasn't arguing that it's wonderful this interaction occurred.

by causi 3y ago

I don't see why one's judgment of the situation should depend on whether the government was successful in intimidating Facebook. What matters is that they tried.

Zetice 3y ago

Coercion requires a stick, I see no stick here. The judge literally cited Biden saying, "they're killing people" as coercion, which is a bald-faced lie.

causi 3y ago
Do implied threats count as coercion? Does a threatening tone? Does someone in a position of power making demands they don't actually have the power to enforce count as coercion? I don't know. The judge seems to think they do.
- Zetice 3y ago
  What implied threats, what threatening tone? What position of power? If you read the examples cited, nothing even remotely comes close to a layperson interpretation of coercion, and I believe the legal definition is more rigorous, not less.
  - causi 3y ago
    Therefore, the question is not what decision the social-media company would have made, but whether the Government “so involved itself in the private party’s conduct” that the decision is essentially that of the Government. The government asking them to remove specific posts and accounts and demote others is pretty clearly that.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      How so? If someone asks me for something, and I have EXPLICIT LEGAL PROTECTION TO SAY NO, how coercive should that be to me?
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        How coercive? If you're right, the government can still make a court case that takes a good part of a decade and costs you ten million dollars to win. That's just the straightforward stuff. That's without the IRS deciding your corporate profit statements deserve extra scrutiny, and the FCC deciding to question whether you really qualify for section 230, and and and... You can be right. They can still make your life very difficult if they decide to. And it will be very hard to prove that that's what they're doing. And even if you can, you probably aren't going to get the money back that the court cases cost, and you definitely aren't getting back the time and management attention it cost. So, not legally coercive. But still kind of coercive, even though legally it has no force.
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        That would imply the person or group doing the asking somehow have unilateral control over those distinct agencies. At what point down the career ladder do you become just another drone who shouldn't be considered to have power over distinct government agencies? Surely Rachel in the Post office can't have you audited. But maybe the president can talk to enough people to encourage that to happen. So where is the limit?
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Well, a "White House director of digital strategy" is presumably not Rachel in the post office. He's someone in the White House, which means he's in a position to have a quiet conversation with the president. "They're not playing ball" might be all it would take. I mean, yes, you're right, the White House director of digital strategy, taken by himself, can go jump in the lake as far as Facebook or Twitter are concerned. Even given all the people under him, that's still true. The question is, to what degree is he speaking for the people over him? How many layers are there between him and the president? I'd guess somewhere from 0 to 2, though I admit that's a guess. Can he cause trouble on his own? No. But the one giving him orders may be able to give orders to others.
        3y ago
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Zetice 3y ago
      You're not recalling the example I and the judge also cited, which was the Biden quote. There's no way Biden's quote is coercive. Zero way whatsoever.

afavour 3y ago

I was specifically responding to the OP's point that this demonstrates power flowing from government to Facebook. The fact that FB ignored the request and did not suffer consequences demonstrates that power does not in fact flow that way. You're welcome to judge the appropriateness of the event as a whole however you want! I'm not over the moon about it either. I wasn't arguing that it's wonderful this interaction occurred.