5 ms·

I’m reading it a bit differently. Yes the censorship of political speech related to political figures is bad but we’re coming out of a period where much more fu

I’m reading it a bit differently. Yes the censorship of political speech related to political figures is bad but we’re coming out of a period where much more fundamental rights were violated due to a slightly stronger than usual respiratory virus. The seriousness of the covid reaction is an order of magnitude greater than any alleged biden corruption. Until people are ready to reevaluate what happened, we’re still in danger of a return of extreme restrictions - since there are plenty of other things that have high death rates such as cars, drugs, and obesity.

nullc 3y ago
An important thing here though is that it doesn't matter that the views the government was imposing were right or wrong. 1A prohibits the imposition. The fact that the NYT article only touches on one point has turned the HN thread into a debate over if tweets about masking, vaccine cardiac side effects, or whatever were right or wrong. But that's immaterial to the law here and it's important because there is clear polarization between posters on the underlying facts. But we don't have to agree on the substance of the censored speech to recognize that the state's use of coercion to suppress views it disagreed with is plainly unlawful. The 1A doesn't only apply when we agree with the speech being protected -- in fact it's most important when we don't: Speech almost everyone agrees with is going to get communicated no matter what the government does to censor it, it's unpopular views that are the most in need of 1A protection. So I think NYT does us a disservice by falsely portraying this as being about 'covid misinformation', as it invites everyone to substitute a discussion about the states power to censor here with yet another debate on covid -- a debate itself which has been tainted by politics and censorship.
- Guvante 3y ago
  COVID matters as we generally agree that during public health crisises it is reasonable for the government to overstep bounds a little to reduce loss of life. Objectively it is different. Additionally you are going to have a hard time justifying that the federal government shouldn't do anything about disinformation. We cannot allow foreign adversaries to include our politics by saying "but the first amendment". So while we cannot be too broad with our actions and any action should be carefully monitored for violation it isn't fundamental that the government cannot say "please don't give a platform to disinformation". Generally speaking most of the things involved weren't deleted but deplatformed. Most commonly by not recommending them or adding a warning to them. Deletion did occur but my understanding was it wasn't a significant portion of the actions taken by platforms.
  - WhiskeyChicken 3y ago
    > ...we generally agree that during public health crisises it is reasonable for the government to overstep bounds a little to reduce loss of life. No, "we" don't agree in the slightest. In fact, in my view, a "crisis" is exactly when government boundaries are most important and need to be strictly enforced, not relaxed, in order to prevent significant abuse.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      We shouldn't allow the government to act quickly? That is nonsensical, going slower during a crisis makes zero sense. You can argue what boundaries should be relaxed and how far to relax them but "hold the government to a tighter standard ahead of time during a crisis" is the opposite of helpful. We normally hold the government to a strict limit due to there being no time limit.
      - WhiskeyChicken 3y ago
        > That is nonsensical, going slower during a crisis makes zero sense. I never said anything about "going slower," I disagreed with your assertion that "we all agree" that government should be allowed to "overstep bounds" in a crisis. I am unsure why you think speed of action implies violating boundaries. Speed up your crisis response all you want, but do so within established boundaries. > You can argue what boundaries should be relaxed and how far to relax them I can argue whatever I want. And my argument is that no boundaries whatsoever should be "relaxed" for any reason. Ever. > We normally hold the government to a strict limit due to there being no time limit. No, we hold the government to strict limits because we have seen throughout history what governments that are not held to strict limits do to people during times of "crisis" and "emergency."
        Guvante 3y ago
        At the time we worry less and give deference to the government. Sue later if they screwed up. Exactly what is going on is what you want, you don't need to add "they shouldn't have done anything in the first place" as if they very act of trying to prevent misinformation that was actively leading to the spread of a contagious virus was fundamentally flawed.
res0nat0r 3y ago
The Fifth Circuit really isn't credible currently as they just make up rules as they go along depending on if it fits the politics they like. This sums it up nicely: https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1700512323318824971 https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/17005123233188249... > The Fifth Circuit Court has now held that it's unconstitutional for the federal govt to influence platforms' moderation decisions, while also holding it's constitutional for Texas to compel platforms to leave up content they want to take down. Impossible to square that circle.
- subsistence234 3y ago
  It's as if this crazy court ruled on one hand that the USPS can't refuse to deliver your mail just because they don't like your opinions, but at the same time the court ruled that Texas is allowed to force the USPS to deliver everyone's mail regardless of their opinions?

nullc 3y ago

An important thing here though is that it doesn't matter that the views the government was imposing were right or wrong. 1A prohibits the imposition. The fact that the NYT article only touches on one point has turned the HN thread into a debate over if tweets about masking, vaccine cardiac side effects, or whatever were right or wrong. But that's immaterial to the law here and it's important because there is clear polarization between posters on the underlying facts. But we don't have to agree on the substance of the censored speech to recognize that the state's use of coercion to suppress views it disagreed with is plainly unlawful. The 1A doesn't only apply when we agree with the speech being protected -- in fact it's most important when we don't: Speech almost everyone agrees with is going to get communicated no matter what the government does to censor it, it's unpopular views that are the most in need of 1A protection. So I think NYT does us a disservice by falsely portraying this as being about 'covid misinformation', as it invites everyone to substitute a discussion about the states power to censor here with yet another debate on covid -- a debate itself which has been tainted by politics and censorship.

Guvante 3y ago
COVID matters as we generally agree that during public health crisises it is reasonable for the government to overstep bounds a little to reduce loss of life. Objectively it is different. Additionally you are going to have a hard time justifying that the federal government shouldn't do anything about disinformation. We cannot allow foreign adversaries to include our politics by saying "but the first amendment". So while we cannot be too broad with our actions and any action should be carefully monitored for violation it isn't fundamental that the government cannot say "please don't give a platform to disinformation". Generally speaking most of the things involved weren't deleted but deplatformed. Most commonly by not recommending them or adding a warning to them. Deletion did occur but my understanding was it wasn't a significant portion of the actions taken by platforms.
- WhiskeyChicken 3y ago
  > ...we generally agree that during public health crisises it is reasonable for the government to overstep bounds a little to reduce loss of life. No, "we" don't agree in the slightest. In fact, in my view, a "crisis" is exactly when government boundaries are most important and need to be strictly enforced, not relaxed, in order to prevent significant abuse.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    We shouldn't allow the government to act quickly? That is nonsensical, going slower during a crisis makes zero sense. You can argue what boundaries should be relaxed and how far to relax them but "hold the government to a tighter standard ahead of time during a crisis" is the opposite of helpful. We normally hold the government to a strict limit due to there being no time limit.
    - WhiskeyChicken 3y ago
      > That is nonsensical, going slower during a crisis makes zero sense. I never said anything about "going slower," I disagreed with your assertion that "we all agree" that government should be allowed to "overstep bounds" in a crisis. I am unsure why you think speed of action implies violating boundaries. Speed up your crisis response all you want, but do so within established boundaries. > You can argue what boundaries should be relaxed and how far to relax them I can argue whatever I want. And my argument is that no boundaries whatsoever should be "relaxed" for any reason. Ever. > We normally hold the government to a strict limit due to there being no time limit. No, we hold the government to strict limits because we have seen throughout history what governments that are not held to strict limits do to people during times of "crisis" and "emergency."
      - Guvante 3y ago
        At the time we worry less and give deference to the government. Sue later if they screwed up. Exactly what is going on is what you want, you don't need to add "they shouldn't have done anything in the first place" as if they very act of trying to prevent misinformation that was actively leading to the spread of a contagious virus was fundamentally flawed.

res0nat0r 3y ago

The Fifth Circuit really isn't credible currently as they just make up rules as they go along depending on if it fits the politics they like. This sums it up nicely: https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1700512323318824971 https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/17005123233188249... > The Fifth Circuit Court has now held that it's unconstitutional for the federal govt to influence platforms' moderation decisions, while also holding it's constitutional for Texas to compel platforms to leave up content they want to take down. Impossible to square that circle.

subsistence234 3y ago
It's as if this crazy court ruled on one hand that the USPS can't refuse to deliver your mail just because they don't like your opinions, but at the same time the court ruled that Texas is allowed to force the USPS to deliver everyone's mail regardless of their opinions?