3 ms·
Very funny that the initial case got lots of press on HN and got people like patio11 in a tizzy but when it was tossed out by SCOTUS there was nary a peep.
by laidoffamazon 2y ago
Very funny that the initial case got lots of press on HN and got people like patio11 in a tizzy but when it was tossed out by SCOTUS there was nary a peep.
- Palmik 2y agoThe headlines on the ruling can be misleading: > Plaintiffs may have succeeded if they were instead seeking damages for past harms. But in her opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that partly because the Biden administration seemingly stopped influencing platforms' content policies in 2022, none of the plaintiffs could show evidence of a "substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable" to any government official. Thus, they did not seem to face "a real and immediate threat of repeated injury," Barrett wrote.
- laidoffamazon 2y agoWhatever it takes to spin a 6-3 decision man. It was clear from the start that this supposed government “pressure” doesn’t and never did exist.
- stcroixx 2y agoAre you saying Zuck is lying and the government did not do what he's saying they did? In Twitter's case, there are emails from Adam Schiff - do you think that evidence is fraudulent?
- laidoffamazon 2y agoYes I think Zuck is being a diva to hedge on the outcome of the election. No I don’t think the evidence exists.
- stcroixx 2y agoThe existence of the government communications with the social media companies requesting suppression of content are referenced in the courts opinions. The Biden admin also admits to these communications. https://rollcall.com/2024/06/26/supreme-court-rejects-lawsuit-over-social-media-censorship-claims/ https://rollcall.com/2024/06/26/supreme-court-rejects-lawsui...
- jasonlotito 2y agoYour feelings don’t matter.