3 ms·

Could you give an example of when a similar law was used in the US in the past under a different administration to silence dissidents? EDIT: I’ve found that if

Could you give an example of when a similar law was used in the US in the past under a different administration to silence dissidents? EDIT: I’ve found that if you argue in good faith your comment won’t be removed. Are you? Or are you just stirring the pot?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 2y ago
DMCA's takedown and safe harbor provisions spawn a lot of notices against critical media protected by fair use by the people the media is criticizing and because of the way that law is worded and how it's been implemented by platforms it often works, even if for just a few days that can completely kneecap the success and spread of a video or article.
tsss 2y ago
How about this link posted by the other commenter? https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponization-committee-exposes-biden-white-house-censorship-regime-new-report https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponizati... It is also well known now that Twitter literally had a hotline with the FBI and whitehouse, gave them their own web interface to remove posts on Twitter. Pretty much every law that extends police authority and surveillance is just like this (one thing that both parties can universally agree on). They are intentionally wide open so that the executive can apply them selectively however they like without legal recourse of the victim. DOGE was also born from a legal construct that was created by a democratic government (Obama if I remember correctly). Not to mention control over the discourse on social media by politically motivated moderators (reddit is particularly egregious in this regard). "Democrats" do this shit in exactly the same way and they love it... until they lose control of it and it hits them in the face. Now they're finding out what it's like on the receiving end and my compassion is limited.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rtkwe 2y ago

DMCA's takedown and safe harbor provisions spawn a lot of notices against critical media protected by fair use by the people the media is criticizing and because of the way that law is worded and how it's been implemented by platforms it often works, even if for just a few days that can completely kneecap the success and spread of a video or article.

tsss 2y ago

How about this link posted by the other commenter? https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponization-committee-exposes-biden-white-house-censorship-regime-new-report https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponizati... It is also well known now that Twitter literally had a hotline with the FBI and whitehouse, gave them their own web interface to remove posts on Twitter. Pretty much every law that extends police authority and surveillance is just like this (one thing that both parties can universally agree on). They are intentionally wide open so that the executive can apply them selectively however they like without legal recourse of the victim. DOGE was also born from a legal construct that was created by a democratic government (Obama if I remember correctly). Not to mention control over the discourse on social media by politically motivated moderators (reddit is particularly egregious in this regard). "Democrats" do this shit in exactly the same way and they love it... until they lose control of it and it hits them in the face. Now they're finding out what it's like on the receiving end and my compassion is limited.