8 ms·

> whether Biden administration officials may contact social media platforms to combat what they say is misinformation. What a delightful euphemism for federal

by zachmu 3y ago

> whether Biden administration officials may contact social media platforms to combat what they say is misinformation. What a delightful euphemism for federal intelligence agencies strong-arming social media companies to censor American citizens, thanks NYT

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mc32 3y ago
This is a cudgel that will be used by both/all sides as they see fit to stifle narratives and manipulate platforms they disagree with. The only option is to pursue freedom of speech because any method to define what is acceptable and not will be manipulated by those who can. As you can tell by the greyness of this comment, some people have a problem with not being able to manipulate speech. For reference, look at the definition and usage of the word terrorism over the last 30 years. Compare 1990s' usage with today's usage. You would think people knew what terrorism meant back then --like defining acceptable speech today. What will it mean tomorrow?
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  Few free speech advocates ever seem to lead with the crux of not-actually-Voltaire's "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" by defending the kinds of speech people actually disapprove of.
  - VectorLock 3y ago
    Self-described "free speech arm of the free speech movement" found out that defending _all speech_ really isn't the best idea.
- root_axis 3y ago
  > The only option is to pursue freedom of speech Nobody actually wants this though. Everyone agrees there are certain types of speech that should be moderated or banned. Different factions have different opinions about what the moderation should apply to, but everyone wants to moderate. For example: literally every popular website in existence.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    Yes, I know what you're going to say, "nobody" does not mean literally nobody, but in this case there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned.
    - root_axis 3y ago
      I would argue they're not prominent, there are some fringe individuals who might hold this philosophy, but not any organization that actually runs a site where users can speak, and certainly nobody involved in politics regardless of their political beliefs.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned Do you have an example that’s been presented coherently? Every one I’ve seen creates caveats for, at their worst, speech they don’t like, and at their best, spam. (The latter seeming like a small exception until we get around to precisely defining it.)
    - dessimus 3y ago
      >there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned. Yes, "no speech should be banned" right up until it's about posting the publicly available flight logs tracking a private jet, and then its not cool.
      - mc32 3y ago
        You know, as long as it's not the government dictating it. Or, look at it this way, if this stifler of free speech were to add the flight logs of prominent opponents of his, I bet some of the complainers complaining about his suppression would clamor for suppression.
  - koolba 3y ago
    > Everyone agrees there certain types of speech that should be moderated or banned. Setting aside direct calls to violence, there’s plenty of free speech absolutists that are fine with idiots saying whatever they’d like to whoever they’d like.
- shadowpho 3y ago
  >The only option is to pursue freedom of speech because any method to define what is acceptable and not will be manipulated by those who can. Sorta like 4chan? I wonder why it’s not popular… The reality of the internet is you need to moderate.
  - mc32 3y ago
    The question is about the government getting to say what should and should not be moderated beyond what is already illegal.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      Anybody, including the government, should be allowed to contact a publisher, point to something it is publishing on its site, and ask, “Hey, do you think that might violate your terms or editorial standards?” and leave the ultimate decision to the publisher. My understanding is that this is all that happened with Twitter.
      - cgriswald 3y ago
        I agree that is the ideal situation but I don’t know that it’s a good way to do things. It is significantly more likely the answer will be “Yes, we should remove that” regardless of whether it violates their editorial standards if the question comes from power, even if no threat is implied or intended and the wording is exactly the same.
      - mc32 3y ago
        The public, yes. The government? No. They ought allow any positive and negative or neutral speech about them or their policies or policies they are responsible for or contemplating. And definitely not if it has anty8ng to do with elections and interfering with elections of their own, or others'.
        ryandrake 3y ago
        So if someone posts that age-old hoax/troll claiming “Remember! Election Day for Party X is one day later!” The government should not be able to warn the social media company about election hoaxes they are hosting?
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> euphemism for federal intelligence agencies strong-arming social media companies to censor American citizens Specifics matter. If a hurricane is coming and a meme is countering FEMA’s advice, I’d want them to be able to pick up the phone and let Facebook know. They shouldn’t be allowed to compel anyone, explicitly or implicitly. But the notion that any communication between the government and social media platforms is censorship is as extreme as arguing that the government should have takedown powers.
- zachmu 3y ago
  I agree that specifics matter, but we don't need to argue about semantics. Thanks to the twitter files we know how this played out in practice. And it wasn't how you're describing: it was federal agencies acting as de facto censors of Americans posting information they didn't like. This happened at scale, to hundreds of thousands of posts. That's what "contacting social media companies" is referring to here, and it's a disgusting euphemism on the part of NYT. https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867 https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Thanks to the twitter files we know how this played out in practice. And it wasn't how you're describing: it was federal agencies acting as de facto censors Sorry, where in the Twitter files did it show this? What I saw was campaigns on both sides giving Twitter feedback, and then Twitter employees independently deliberating.
    - vundercind 3y ago
      I’ve seen a few cases from that and they absolutely looked like agencies pointing things out and sometimes Twitter’d go “oh yeah, that’s bad and against our TOS” and take action, and other times they’d go “nah, it’s ok” and… not take action. Also curious to see if there’s evidence that what I’ve seen were outliers rather than the norm, and in fact Twitter was normally just doing whatever was asked of them even if it wasn’t actually a clear violation of Twitter’s rules being pointed out.
elpool2 3y ago
It's fairly accurate though. The preliminary injunction in that case blocked government agencies from even talking to social media companies (though some of that got reversed by the 5th circuit).

by zachmu 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mc32 3y ago

This is a cudgel that will be used by both/all sides as they see fit to stifle narratives and manipulate platforms they disagree with. The only option is to pursue freedom of speech because any method to define what is acceptable and not will be manipulated by those who can. As you can tell by the greyness of this comment, some people have a problem with not being able to manipulate speech. For reference, look at the definition and usage of the word terrorism over the last 30 years. Compare 1990s' usage with today's usage. You would think people knew what terrorism meant back then --like defining acceptable speech today. What will it mean tomorrow?

ribosometronome 3y ago
Few free speech advocates ever seem to lead with the crux of not-actually-Voltaire's "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" by defending the kinds of speech people actually disapprove of.
- VectorLock 3y ago
  Self-described "free speech arm of the free speech movement" found out that defending _all speech_ really isn't the best idea.
root_axis 3y ago
> The only option is to pursue freedom of speech Nobody actually wants this though. Everyone agrees there are certain types of speech that should be moderated or banned. Different factions have different opinions about what the moderation should apply to, but everyone wants to moderate. For example: literally every popular website in existence.
- Vecr 3y ago
  Yes, I know what you're going to say, "nobody" does not mean literally nobody, but in this case there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned.
  - root_axis 3y ago
    I would argue they're not prominent, there are some fringe individuals who might hold this philosophy, but not any organization that actually runs a site where users can speak, and certainly nobody involved in politics regardless of their political beliefs.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned Do you have an example that’s been presented coherently? Every one I’ve seen creates caveats for, at their worst, speech they don’t like, and at their best, spam. (The latter seeming like a small exception until we get around to precisely defining it.)
  - dessimus 3y ago
    >there are (somewhat) prominent views that do literally mean no speech should be banned. Yes, "no speech should be banned" right up until it's about posting the publicly available flight logs tracking a private jet, and then its not cool.
    - mc32 3y ago
      You know, as long as it's not the government dictating it. Or, look at it this way, if this stifler of free speech were to add the flight logs of prominent opponents of his, I bet some of the complainers complaining about his suppression would clamor for suppression.
- koolba 3y ago
  > Everyone agrees there certain types of speech that should be moderated or banned. Setting aside direct calls to violence, there’s plenty of free speech absolutists that are fine with idiots saying whatever they’d like to whoever they’d like.
shadowpho 3y ago
>The only option is to pursue freedom of speech because any method to define what is acceptable and not will be manipulated by those who can. Sorta like 4chan? I wonder why it’s not popular… The reality of the internet is you need to moderate.
- mc32 3y ago
  The question is about the government getting to say what should and should not be moderated beyond what is already illegal.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Anybody, including the government, should be allowed to contact a publisher, point to something it is publishing on its site, and ask, “Hey, do you think that might violate your terms or editorial standards?” and leave the ultimate decision to the publisher. My understanding is that this is all that happened with Twitter.
    - cgriswald 3y ago
      I agree that is the ideal situation but I don’t know that it’s a good way to do things. It is significantly more likely the answer will be “Yes, we should remove that” regardless of whether it violates their editorial standards if the question comes from power, even if no threat is implied or intended and the wording is exactly the same.
    - mc32 3y ago
      The public, yes. The government? No. They ought allow any positive and negative or neutral speech about them or their policies or policies they are responsible for or contemplating. And definitely not if it has anty8ng to do with elections and interfering with elections of their own, or others'.
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        So if someone posts that age-old hoax/troll claiming “Remember! Election Day for Party X is one day later!” The government should not be able to warn the social media company about election hoaxes they are hosting?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> euphemism for federal intelligence agencies strong-arming social media companies to censor American citizens Specifics matter. If a hurricane is coming and a meme is countering FEMA’s advice, I’d want them to be able to pick up the phone and let Facebook know. They shouldn’t be allowed to compel anyone, explicitly or implicitly. But the notion that any communication between the government and social media platforms is censorship is as extreme as arguing that the government should have takedown powers.

zachmu 3y ago
I agree that specifics matter, but we don't need to argue about semantics. Thanks to the twitter files we know how this played out in practice. And it wasn't how you're describing: it was federal agencies acting as de facto censors of Americans posting information they didn't like. This happened at scale, to hundreds of thousands of posts. That's what "contacting social media companies" is referring to here, and it's a disgusting euphemism on the part of NYT. https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867 https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Thanks to the twitter files we know how this played out in practice. And it wasn't how you're describing: it was federal agencies acting as de facto censors Sorry, where in the Twitter files did it show this? What I saw was campaigns on both sides giving Twitter feedback, and then Twitter employees independently deliberating.
  - vundercind 3y ago
    I’ve seen a few cases from that and they absolutely looked like agencies pointing things out and sometimes Twitter’d go “oh yeah, that’s bad and against our TOS” and take action, and other times they’d go “nah, it’s ok” and… not take action. Also curious to see if there’s evidence that what I’ve seen were outliers rather than the norm, and in fact Twitter was normally just doing whatever was asked of them even if it wasn’t actually a clear violation of Twitter’s rules being pointed out.

elpool2 3y ago

It's fairly accurate though. The preliminary injunction in that case blocked government agencies from even talking to social media companies (though some of that got reversed by the 5th circuit).