8 ms·

These are some of the very same government entities that were caught working with their surrogates at social media companies to censor speech that they declared

These are some of the very same government entities that were caught working with their surrogates at social media companies to censor speech that they declared misinformation. In their vernacular, misinformation may be 100% true information that goes against the narrative that they want to promote.

stainablesteel 3y ago
this story writes itself like a children's book "beware of false information" said the people who keep the biggest secrets
- Ialdaboth 3y ago
  By the way, notice how they pivoted from "false information" to "misinformation" years ago. It's transparently hilarious.
  - vuln 3y ago
    Don’t forget “disinformation”
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - logicchains 3y ago
    [flagged]
rtkwe 3y ago
This again? They pointed out posts they believed violated places like Twitter's TOS and in the case of Twitter most of the time Twitter left them up and took no action against the material. A pretty shoddy censorship campaign in my opinion, it was blown up by Elon and the partisan actors he released the data to to support a political point they've been griping about for ages.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > This again? You're talking about something that has been ruled by two courts as a massive first amendment violation, and is heading to the Supreme Court (if they even want it), as if it were a conspiracy theory. And what political point are you even talking about, where do you learn to use this tone about serious issues, and why the fixation on celebrities like Musk?
  - trust_bt_verify 3y ago
    “ A federal district court in California dismissed the claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. The court of appeals ruled that although “it is possible to draw a causal line from the OEC’s flagging of the November 12th post to O’Handley’s suspension,” there was no “state action” for O’Handley to challenge under the First Amendment. California certainly exercised governmental authority when it flagged O’Handley’s tweet, the 9th Circuit reasoned, but it took no explicit action restricting his speech. And although Twitter did limit O’Handley’s speech, the court explained, it was following its own rules, rather than acting on the state’s behalf.” https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-user-argues-california-violated-his-first-amendment-rights/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-us... This case? Where did _you_ learn this tone of victimization when discussion issues with no references? I assume Musk was brought up as he has framed this issue in the same way the GP commenter did and he is the current owner of the company in question. You can dismiss that as celebrity fixation but it only undermines your own comment.
    - jtbayly 3y ago
      You didn't do a very good job trusting or verifying: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/supreme-court-considers-limits-on-white-house-contacts-with-social-media/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/supreme-court-co... > The 5th Circuit appeals court saw things differently, finding that Biden administration "officials made express threats and, at the very least, leaned into the inherent authority of the President's office. The officials made inflammatory accusations, such as saying that the platforms were 'poison[ing]' the public, and 'killing people.' The platforms were told they needed to take greater responsibility and action. Then, they followed their statements with threats of 'fundamental reforms' like regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions that would ensure the platforms were 'held accountable.'... Given all of the above, we are left only with the conclusion that the officials' statements were coercive."
ejb999 3y ago
Not just 'working with' - demanding what speech should be taken down, AND paying them to do it.

stainablesteel 3y ago

this story writes itself like a children's book "beware of false information" said the people who keep the biggest secrets

Ialdaboth 3y ago
By the way, notice how they pivoted from "false information" to "misinformation" years ago. It's transparently hilarious.
- vuln 3y ago
  Don’t forget “disinformation”
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- logicchains 3y ago
  [flagged]

rtkwe 3y ago

This again? They pointed out posts they believed violated places like Twitter's TOS and in the case of Twitter most of the time Twitter left them up and took no action against the material. A pretty shoddy censorship campaign in my opinion, it was blown up by Elon and the partisan actors he released the data to to support a political point they've been griping about for ages.

pessimizer 3y ago
> This again? You're talking about something that has been ruled by two courts as a massive first amendment violation, and is heading to the Supreme Court (if they even want it), as if it were a conspiracy theory. And what political point are you even talking about, where do you learn to use this tone about serious issues, and why the fixation on celebrities like Musk?
- trust_bt_verify 3y ago
  “ A federal district court in California dismissed the claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. The court of appeals ruled that although “it is possible to draw a causal line from the OEC’s flagging of the November 12th post to O’Handley’s suspension,” there was no “state action” for O’Handley to challenge under the First Amendment. California certainly exercised governmental authority when it flagged O’Handley’s tweet, the 9th Circuit reasoned, but it took no explicit action restricting his speech. And although Twitter did limit O’Handley’s speech, the court explained, it was following its own rules, rather than acting on the state’s behalf.” https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-user-argues-california-violated-his-first-amendment-rights/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-us... This case? Where did _you_ learn this tone of victimization when discussion issues with no references? I assume Musk was brought up as he has framed this issue in the same way the GP commenter did and he is the current owner of the company in question. You can dismiss that as celebrity fixation but it only undermines your own comment.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    You didn't do a very good job trusting or verifying: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/supreme-court-considers-limits-on-white-house-contacts-with-social-media/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/supreme-court-co... > The 5th Circuit appeals court saw things differently, finding that Biden administration "officials made express threats and, at the very least, leaned into the inherent authority of the President's office. The officials made inflammatory accusations, such as saying that the platforms were 'poison[ing]' the public, and 'killing people.' The platforms were told they needed to take greater responsibility and action. Then, they followed their statements with threats of 'fundamental reforms' like regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions that would ensure the platforms were 'held accountable.'... Given all of the above, we are left only with the conclusion that the officials' statements were coercive."

ejb999 3y ago

Not just 'working with' - demanding what speech should be taken down, AND paying them to do it.