4 ms·
No, this is censorship at work. Call it what it is.
by beardyw 2y ago
No, this is censorship at work. Call it what it is.
- nxm 2y ago[flagged]
- throw0101a 2y ago> Like when Biden administration pressured social media to censor information which turned out to be true? Did the Biden administration go into the offices of social media companies and purge the posts/data? Every administration pushes back / pressures entities about messages that they think is wrong. Every administration has a message and story that it wants told. It's what press offices are for, for example. Remember, in 2017, when White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump's inauguration had the largest crowd's in history of inaugurations? * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 But this is about purging raw data that is used for analysis, and not a particular story. (The data can be used to support or debunk a particular message of course.)
- linuxftw 2y agoI disagree. This is the government deciding what the government will or won't take a position on. Censorship was having federal government employees scream and yell at facebook content moderation teams to remove social media posts.
- 9283409232 2y agoThe government can decide that but going back and scrubbing data taxpayers already funded is unacceptable. It draws comparisons to book burning.
- RajT88 2y agoI get why they did it, but agree that flies in the face of how the first amendment is viewed by SCOTUS. The sad thing is, there is precedent how the government could handle the situation. You still cannot say "shit" on broadcast TV.
- pavl- 2y agoTo you "screaming and yelling" at a private company that still retains agency over it's content moderation is government censorship, but the government's direct censoring of information is not? Partisan politics has a neat way of twisting one's brain up like a pretzel.