7 ms·

Real Chilling Effects

185 points by ZeroGravitas 2y ago

sunny-d 2y ago
[flagged]
- sebstefan 2y ago
  Why would it have been?
  - sunny-d 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43319298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43319298
- user-the-name 2y ago
  [dead]
- kolektiv 2y ago
  Well, you seem to be rhetorically asking a question, so... Your implied answer would seem to have to be yes to support your point, in which case, would you care to give similar examples? What free speech suppression are you thinking of and how was it enacted?
  - sunny-d 2y ago
    Quick internet search, first result. https://www.acsh.org/news/2024/02/25/covid-censorship-yes-biden-admin-suppressed-free-speech-during-pandemic-17678 https://www.acsh.org/news/2024/02/25/covid-censorship-yes-bi...
    - kolektiv 2y ago
      The ACSH is not a credible source of unbiased reporting, in any sense.
      - sunny-d 2y ago
        It was not for credibility that I shared that link. It is because I cannot be bothered to type all that out. So you can assume that I typed that all here..
      - kragen 2y ago
        The Fifth Circuit Court is, but of course this is only one case.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    the right wing's case on this point is based on the fact that the government leaned upon facebook and google to remove or downrank any views during the pandemic that didn't align with government policy, including anything about covid having gotten loose from a lab that was doing gain of function research under the auspices of one A. Fauci. That actually is the sort of suppression of free speech that might lead a very low information voter to think that a fascist dictatorship was going to ensure freer speech going forward.
- nindalf 2y ago
  Why don't you comment on your main account? FOH.
bananapub 2y ago
Yet to see any of the Free Speech Absolutists come out in defence of actual free speech and against the tyranny of far right lunatics running the federal government, weirdly enough.
- nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
  People forget what free speech really is though. The most important point is a contract with the government: that they hold a monopoly on the ability to censor and control speech. That any other group who threatens anyone for their speech must be dealth with using even hand of the force of law by the government/legal regime. Mobs suppressing your free speech is never ok. It is a sign of a government that is no longer in power. It is unclear exactly what these students are worried about ... the details should be provided. Are they discussing the organization of violent resistance for example? Or are they merely worried that simple discussion of government policy will somehow land them in jail. The latter seems ridiculous but it is worth hearing them out in detail. And somehow in all of this, people on one side are forgetting the numerous attempts at assasination. And the successful assasination of a CEO. Regardless of your political angles, the risk is severaly one sided by any empirical measure right now. To dismiss this is to remove yourself from serious discussion.
  - flir 2y ago
    > It is unclear exactly what these students are worried about > They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them. hth.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    This is literally not what free speech is as defined in the US Constitution. Constitutionally protected speech is speech criticising or commenting on the government, and defines the right of citizens to do so. The government has never had a reaponsibility to ensure all speech is heard, it certainly is not granted a monopoly on power of censorship (again, literally the opposite - no one else has to grant you a platform, but the government cannot take it away), and if you're worried about the power of "the mob" then you really should've worried more when the Supreme Court ruled the police had no duty to protect citizens.
nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
Might be a strawman, but it seems this kind of person reverses the order of time. People worrying about free speech before (and now in the UK) are ignored, called hysterical etc ... yet the minute someone is worried about Orange Man it's legitimate worry and you are hypocritical if you feel schadenfreude a bit. Denialism is a real poison. Sided worryists/denialists are the real problem. I'm not sure how to call them out without engaging in the same games they play themselves. There are groups doing great work though, like the FSU in the UK.
- _petronius 2y ago
  I think this is confusing two things, intentionally: 1. Free speech in the public sphere includes the right of people offended by your speech to express that they are offended (to speak back). People like Toby Young (founder of the FSU), and those who decry "cancel culture" do not like this, but it is part of what constitutes genuine free expression. 2. Free speech against the government, which the government should not be allowed to punish people for, to enable a pluralistic and democratic society. E.g. someone like Mahmoud Khalil who was recently arrested for his political views on Palestine (in violation of both the principles of free speech and his rights as a green card holder). People angry about #1 (arguing) tend to conflate it with #2 (genuine censorship), and accuse people who accuse those approximately equal (or less) in power than them as equivalent to draconian speech-controllers. People angry about #2 are pointing out a genuine power imbalance, and the damage to democratic society. Elon Musk embodies this perfectly: he argues in favor of free speech when people tell him his opinions are objectionable, but actively censors speech on Twitter that he doesn't like. In one situation, he simply wants people to receive his speech without speaking back, in another, he wants to stifle discussion. Speech is not a unidirectional activity. In order for it to be valuable and protected, the act of speaking in public is the act of listening to criticisms of what you say.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    To add some nuance about the US’s 1st Amendment: it is not just speech against the government that is protected. It is that all speech is protected from the government. The government also is not allowed to imprison you or threaten you for speech about another private party, for example.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jruohonen 2y ago
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-prevention-of-literature/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nonrandomstring 2y ago
If even half of this is true, I wonder what the future of HN is? THis forum is backed by Ycombinator, a US based "investment" company. Do they have plans to relocate to friendlier climes?
- close04 2y ago
  I'm sure they'll find a way to make a profit working with the system rather than against it.
  - kolektiv 2y ago
    Quite - so far the tech community (at the top level), with a few exceptions, has shown itself quite willing to bend itself to whatever is required as long as it can carry on making money. The cowardice involved is apparent, do not look to corporations as your potential protectors. They've never turned out to be before, they're not going to be this time either. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...
    - OgsyedIE 2y ago
      What makes you think that Zuck, Ellison, Pichai etc are "obeying in advance" and haven't already received implied verbal threats of imprisonment?
      - close04 2y ago
        Meta or Alphabet did whatever they needed to extract profits from their users. What makes you think that all of a sudden they would pivot from chasing profits to defending those users, as opposed to playing ball with whoever they need to in order to make even more profits? What matters at the end of the day is that despite all the big talk of "freedom of speech" and "doing what's right", companies like Meta or YC almost always bend the knee (and the spine) and play ball to make money even if it contradicts everything they purportedly stood for. Just replace the motto.
sQL_inject 2y ago
[flagged]
gmuslera 2y ago
I think they are screaming too late. For more than 10 years was known enough that the US government was mass collecting information about everything they could on internet, the Snowden’s revelations was just a milestone on the current state of that back then, and as nothing happened, it continued. Now we have over that AIs and probably a government openly willing to use that against you, but that was always a possibility all this time. The future is open, the records are forever. And what we did all this time? Just put in photos, videos and text what can be used against us under some future policy, and shared it with them. There is a point where we deserve the consequences. And yes, even of this very message.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  None of this is necessary to have an authoritarian government. Just some lawsuits and government inquiries. Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. The two issues are not actually that intertwined.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    >Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. No you can't. It's only a matter of time.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      I’m not advocating for it, so don’t strawman me. I’m saying it has approximately nothing to do with the actual issues we face today. I.e. it’s just as relevant for me to say “this is why you don’t give governments firearms! An authoritarian one will turn around and shoot its own people!” Like yeah, sure it seems likely. Relevant to today? Would today’s conditions have been averted if we had never armed the government? No. Is it dangerous for the government to collect everything on the internet? Yes! Is there any evidence that capability and “habit” is actually contributing to the chilling effects described in the article? Nope! As seen in GP’s comment, tech world’s fixation on high-tech super surveillance distracts from the how authoritarian regimes actually tend to exert control over their population. Like, in reality versus in science fiction (again, not that surveillance is good or neutral on this topic, but that it is not at all necessary).
mentalgear 2y ago
> Peter Baker, the New York Times White House correspondent, compared the current moment to his time at Russia at the beginning of the Putin era: > By the time we left in late 2004, Moscow had been transformed. People who had happily talked with us at the start were now afraid to return our calls. “Now I have this fear all the time,” one told us at the time. There is a similar chill now in Washington. Every day someone who used to feel free to speak publicly against Mr. Trump says they will no longer let journalists quote them by name for fear of repercussions, both Democrats and Republicans
- suraci 2y ago
  I'm very curious about why americans always use examples from China and Russia to describe something shit happening in the USA > Some compared the atmosphere to Maoist China, so great were the chilling effects. i mean, americans have their own history - it's short but it's remarkable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism In China, when something like this happens, some people shout, "Are we going back to the Cultural Revolution?!" Why Americans don't talk about McCarthyism? "Are we going back to the McCarthyism???" Nobody ever said this
  - rco8786 2y ago
    I see comparisons to the red scare/communism/mccarthyism all the time, personally. In addition to the other comparisons you mention.
    - suraci 2y ago
      that's great, we can only move forward if we keep looking back into our history
      - archagon 2y ago
        Unfortunately, “have you no decency, sir?” is no longer an effective antidote.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
softwaredoug 2y ago
I think it’s important to look at the issue as a systemic one, not just about the current administration. For decades, we have delegates all this legal authority to the president with few real checks on the offices power. Eventually a Trump/Musk would happen.
- rco8786 2y ago
  How does that help us figure out what to do now?
- kolektiv 2y ago
  Like a lot of countries, the constitutional set of checks and balances was predicated on the fact that the majority of those involved were basically trying to "do the right thing". It's effectively a state-level gentleman's agreement, where it is assumed that any bad actor is in the minority, and can be dealt with while they remain the minority. This falls apart if they're not the minority - i.e. you failed to deal with them while they were a minority. There were levers designed expressly to deal with things like this - impeachment, etc. - they weren't used because one side thought that it would play out in their favour. As they will probably learn, it plays out in nobodies favour.
  - exitb 2y ago
    While I won't claim there are countries that are immune to the effects of persistent grifting, the speed at which US was taken over is quite surprising for a European. In most liberal democracies there just is no single person with even half as much power, as the US president has over his country.
    - kolektiv 2y ago
      Agreed - I'm also a European (well, geographically, no longer EU unfortunately).
    - jajko 2y ago
      Well, it was a strength as long as people wielding such power acted at least a bit morally and with higher purpose than their petty egos. But now it shows its weakness. But things would have to get much much worse (and they probably will) before US population in general steps down a notch from that pedestal of 'US is the greatest and most free country in the world yadayada' and admits that well, we've fucked up and how to make sure this won't happen again. If there would still be a way to correct all this after his term/death eventually since he won't give up power easily, which I sincerely don't think will be the case anymore.
neilv 2y ago
> A couple of weeks ago, students asked we keep the discussions, but stop recording the class. They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them. Kudos to the students who were not only aware of this general risk (not just under the current regime, but in many societies), and acted to improve their situation. Next, they should look at how they're under almost ubiquitous technological surveillance, with little-to-no protections. And now there's emerging "AI" methods to automate harvesting insights from the ubiquitous surveillance fire hoses, and also to automate actions to suppress enemies of the regime. And if you look around, at the pace we're going, it's very easy to believe this will start happening within a year. Maybe they'll decide that one of the best defenses for national security that could happen right now is to cut off the surveillance data wherever possible.
gizzlon 2y ago
It's sad and depressing what's happening. And even more depressing is how little fight there seems to be, and how spineless many are. From politicians to big tech and just most people: They sit down quietly, hoping this will just blow over, or that someone else will take the fight so they don't have to. Don't make it easy! Don't do their job for them! Don't self-censor. Make them show their cards! If not, by the time you're ready to fight, it might be too late to do anything.
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  I mean if you're a lawyer and took a client ten years ago this administration doesn't like you might end up with an EO naming you nineteen times and all but declaring you an enemy of state. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addr...
- RGamma 2y ago
  And all this dysfunction has built up in peaceful times. Now if the system receives a genuine shock, things can go downhill fast. Maybe there's something true to the "bad times -> good people -> good times -> bad people -> bad times" cycle after all.
  - sunny-d 2y ago
    [flagged]
- 9283409232 2y ago
  If you don't think there is a fight, then you aren't fighting. Once you start doing something you will naturally connect with other people who are doing something.
alchemist1e9 2y ago
[flagged]
- kolektiv 2y ago
  Which of the things in the list contained in the article do you either a) deny are happening or b) consider to be unimportant/trivial? They've presented a concrete set of troubling actions, you've just thrown a banal personal attack. If you're going to argue that this is wrong, actually make an argument.
  - alchemist1e9 2y ago
    The list reflects mass hysteria, not free speech oppression, because it exaggerates Trump’s actions. The 2024 landslide mandate is to purge “Woke Ideology” from public institutions. These policies and actions target government speech, not private expression and reflects voter will in a democracy rather than silencing dissent.
    - drewbug01 2y ago
      “landslide mandate” What were those vote totals, again?
  - alchemist1e9 2y ago
    > The President has politicized the Department of Justice and threatens to unleash the power of the federal government on his political enemies. For example, he has promised to punish law firms that provide legal support for his opponents, Now, many are no longer willing to do so. Executive actions target law firms for legal challenges, not their speech. self-censorship is speculative, not a free speech violation. > Critics who once held security clearances or security details have them removed. Removing clearances is legal government discretion, not a free speech issue. they’re privileges, not rights. > Organizations fearful of threats from the President preemptively erase ideas, or silence dissenting voices. Private organizations choosing to self-censor isn’t government coercion. it’s an indirect effect, not oppression, and could be simply reflecting a shift in cultural values that some disagree with. > The President has suggested that critics are supporters of terrorism, using vague language that allows him to threaten nonprofits, or promise to deport protest leaders, including green card holders. No evidence shows mass deportations or nonprofit crackdowns for speech. > Words and ideas are banned. Censors rifle their way through government documents and websites to remove them. Federal spaces, like schools on military bases, are purged of books that even mildly hint at the idea that diversity is a good thing. Government controls its own messaging legally. this isn’t censorship of private speech. > Funding of research ideas is being taken away from research experts and handed to political appointees who are defunding the ideas they dislike. Campus officials are trying to decide how to respond to government orders to remove ideas. Funding shifts are policy choices, not speech bans. campuses adapt voluntarily to continue receiving funding from taxpayers. Exactly how democracy should work. > The President has pardoned militant supporters who engaged in violence to try to reverse the outcome of a previous election, and demoted officials who investigated those supporters. Pardons and personnel decisions are legal powers, they’re controversial but not free speech oppression. >The President and the richest man in the world routinely make wildly dishonest claims about the government they are running. Critics of the employees of the richest man in the world can expect to be threatened with prosecution from the federal government. Dishonest claims are free speech, there is no evidence which ties prosecution threats to criticism. > Elected officials are not exempt from such threats. The President’s opponents face threat of investigation, while even his supporters fear to disagree with him. They also fear criticizing the richest man in the world, even though his actions in destroying much of the government are widely unpopular. Political pressure isn’t a free speech violation and fear of disagreement is subjective. > The work of the richest man in the world is exempted from open records laws. We really don’t know what he is doing, and members of Congress refuse to ask him in public. Records exemptions are legal so this is a transparency issue, not speech suppression. > Public employees are illegally purged if they are viewed as disloyal to the new regime. This includes top-ranking officers in the military, and the lawyers in government who set the boundaries for what a President can do. Personnel decisions are executive authority and free speech violations need specific proof of which there isn’t any. > Some of those are purged because of their gender identity, or because they are associated with ideas now deemed unfashionable, or even for going to a meeting where those ideas are discussed. The government has created tip lines to help identify the disfavored. Policy changes on identity are legal and tip lines target violations, not ideas. > Individual journalists whose job it is to hold the President accountable know that they will face a torrent of abuse if they are critical. The richest man in the world might call for a journalist to be fired, falsely accuse media organizations of secretly being paid by shadowy pro-government forces, or sue them to drain resources. Musk’s private actions aren’t government censorship, and event bans are discretionary, not oppressive. The evidence is actually that news organizations have been being paid by deep state conspiracies. > Some media companies find excuses to bribe the President on the flimsiest of pretexts, humoring his demands for massive financial compensation when faced with normal journalistic practice, because their corporate owners fear the President’s retribution. No evidence supports this. it’s an unsubstantiated claim. It’s all hysterical nonsense. Sorry. People who claim to love democracy don’t really when it results in polices and views they disagree with.
paganel 2y ago
I was actually taught Analysis I and II in the former HQs of the Romanian Communist Party's Cadres Faculty (the infamous A250 classroom, for those that attended Computer Science school at Bucharest Politehnica), that was happening towards the end of the '90s - early 2000s, but never in my life back then I would have thought to bring up politics up in class, to the contrary. Which is to say, why are these students afraid of?
slimebot80 2y ago
I feel many of us in the IT world have stood along side this descent in real time, because technology has been an enabler (far from being an equaliser). We were mostly mute because of money and traction.
- huijzer 2y ago
  Will Durant and his wife have spent multiple decades writing history books. One of their observations was that technology creates inequality, see the book Lessons of History. Having said that, I still think technology has been a net positive. Just imagine living in 1900. It would take months to go from Europe to the US. Medicine was able to cure almost nothing. What we consider simple diseases now would be deadly back then. And you can forget about watching or listening your favorite musicians online. Also, imagine driving with a modern car into a 1900s village. People would be in shock.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > I still think technology has been a net positive. I stopped thinking this a decade or so ago. I now think that technology has become a net negative. Yes, it brings huge benefits as you note. The problem as I see it is that it now brings even larger drawbacks as well.
    - huijzer 2y ago
      You rather live in 1900? Or pay $100k for 8 kW of solar panels (1974 price) instead of $2k? Or pay orders of magnitude more money for slow computers?
      - sifar 2y ago
        How about we re-frame it as would you rather have one person or a group of people to destroy a city or the entire planet and intelligent life on it? Would you rather be able to enslave a particular region or the entire world ? You see, we are trading improvements in some aspects to that of another. The thing is you cannot separate the benefits these technological advancements bring with the problems they create. The rate of technological change is much more rapid than our ability as a society to adapt to it. This is one of the source of friction as the negative effect become real only later. There is no physical law that says technology has to improve - it is our quest, or drive to seek it, we choose it, every time. And I say this as someone who is part of this.
ajd555 2y ago
very good itemization of what's happening, thank you for doing this. Unfortunately, one very important bullet point was missing: the world's richest man and arguably most influential in the white house controls a large internet satellite constellation and has acquired tremendous geopolitical power, even before having the president's ear. This is the single biggest threat out there I believe, as he has already had an impact on the Ukrainian front, and world leaders continue to placate him in fear of Starlink service being cut off in their country. I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, but this is by the far the most worrying point that needs to be brought up a lot more
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, No one else wanted to spend the money to sustain the organization needed to put those satellites in service. It’s that simple. GPS is there because someone spent sufficient money developing it.
- jajko 2y ago
  No worries various groups will create or increase their own space investments. Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering, despite an whimsical idiot steering it from far enough. Correction globally will take some time, but it will be a permanent one. You don't develop your own space program to scrape it in few years. Europe is there with pretty healthy space program, China may become more open to others, India is way beyond initial successful steps. Reusable rockets are great when they work, but again thats just (at this point well tested) engineering. China just needs to sit and smile how US is handling them global leadership one big chunk a day. Maybe in 4 years we can send elon permanently on mars with 8 billion middle fingers raised as a 'salute', to start future setup that The expanse showed us or to die there miserably.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Isn't it predicted that if three or four companies do what SpaceX did, we get Kessler syndrome?
matthewdgreen 2y ago
Honestly, step one is for the folks screaming “free speech” and arguing about censorship to see what’s happening, and what real threats to free speech look like. We spent years being told that moderation on private social media was the worst possible thing in the world, and today there’s a real possibility of government prosecutions for protected speech. Even if you don’t like the people being threatened and chilled right now, it will be you eventually.
- intended 2y ago
  This was not said for years. This became a thing post COVID and Trump. I couldn’t get anyone to pay attention to content moderation if I tried. Only after misinfo and false hoods became the fuel of politics, did the filters and janitors become an issue. “Content moderation is allowed to work as long as they dont touch the wires that carry political power” This was the message when the Stanford internet observatory got targeted.
- LightHugger 2y ago
  I agree that what trump is doing is a threat to free speech, i really wish there was some kind of non partisan free speech faction in US politics but there doesn't seem to be. In any case, i'm replying to this post because you're apparently blind to your hubris. > Even if you don’t like the people being threatened and chilled right now, it will be you eventually." Maybe you should give yourself your own advice. You seemingly stood by doing nothing and even still think you're in a position make fun of people campaigning for free speech protections on social media (especially considering the fact that the government was indeed involved in censoring speech on these platforms). You literally already had the chance to stand up for people being threatened and chilled and not only actively chose not to, you stood in opposition to those people because you deemed it not "real" enough for you. You are not above anyone else nor are you in a position to lecture anyone else on this topic, ever.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    I deemed it real because I believed and still believe that private companies (even if I dislike them) have the right to moderate speech as they please. A big section of the right wing believes differently and passed laws in several states overriding that principle, while proclaiming that a direct and obvious violation of the First Amendment was actually “free speech.” I also believed and still believe that this fake free-speech posturing would lead directly to what’s happening now: direct governmental attacks on speech the administration doesn’t like. You may be a troll or so lost in politics that nothing reaches you anymore. But if you’re actually an American who cares about the bill of rights, the time to stand up has already arrived. It’s going to be hard for you to do so if you’re busy telling people “well, the government using police to target opponents is bad, but here’s this other thing that manifestly isn’t as bad and I am going to dismiss the former and dwell on the latter.”
potato3732842 2y ago
Every old forum and facebook group full of right ringers talking about fishing or whatever has been feeling for close to a decade exactly what the author is feeling now. I'd say I'm hopeful that things will change now that the shoe is on both feet but I don't have that much faith. Edit: Since apparently this needs to be explained to some people, nobody is feeling like they can't talk about random boring advertiser friendly interests. People are feeling like they can't talk freely about the kinds of political and social issues that tend to get talked about when you get a bunch of people of a particular bent in one place.
- rco8786 2y ago
  I'm not sure both sides-ism is helpful here. I appreciate the perspective that right-wingers have been feeling this fear, and I think that's real and something that should be taken seriously. And also, as with so many things trump, he's taking the rhetoric and threats to another planet. There was not a huge list of banned words and books, or keyword-based government purges of content previously. There was no threat of punishment for attorneys representing the "wrong" side in a case. There were no blanket threats of imprisonment or deportation for "illegal protests". The rhetoric and actions being taken by trump/musk in this regard are FAR, FAR beyond anything we've seen here before at least going back to the red scare.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    You're missing my point. My point is that the ability to chill speech, put is on lists, make examples out of the tall nails, etc. is something the government has had and has used. The author is just now complaining because he's only now seeing it applied in his general direction (because academia is establishment adjacent) though not directly at him. This executive power was built up over decades by the establishment on both sides of the isle in bits and pieces (to be clear, I'm not alleging some conspiracy here, just that this is the result of natural incentives in an expanding government) and now it's being wielded by an outsider populist and this is what happens. Nobody should be surprised by this. When we elected a Lite(TM) populist on a platform of change in '08 and nothing changed this outcome was basically destined. The fact that the populists we ultimately elected are "simple" billionares who have grand delusions of making the country wealthy through deregulation, short sighted geopolitics and fiscal conservatism is just good luck. We could have done, way, way, way worse. And if these guys don't cause some sort of change in the country's course (for better or worse, probably doesn't matter) we probably will elect another even more extreme one.
kragen 2y ago
The catalog of events near the beginning of the post is very valuable. The false dichotomy that runs through the post ("what if the real threat to free speech was the reactionary despot we made along the way?") is not; it is counterproductive. In the US, neither the left wing nor the right supports freedom of speech. That's how we got into this situation.
alex_abt 2y ago
I remember when I had a pretty serious health problem, went from doctor to doctor and none of them helped and some even made it worse. I complained about it quite bitterly for about a decade, even after I had resolved it on my own without their help. This post reminds me of that time of my life. He's not wrong and yet he may look back on this time like I have on my life and think heh, is that really what I spent my time doing? The life I could've been living instead. The life I can be living right now, today and tomorrow :)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
samiv 2y ago
It's worth to keep in mind that it took only about 2 years for this one guy from Austria to remove the final backstops the society had in place before until he was able to become the supreme leader in the 1930's. 2 years. What has been hard won and fought over can easily be lost very fast and the only way to regain it will be through blood and violence.
- OgsyedIE 2y ago
  53 days, surely? The gleischaltung had finishing disbarring every non-NSDAP lawyer, firing every non-NSDAP judge, firing every state governor and seizing a voting majority in every state legislature in less than two months after the Enabling Act was passed.
  - samiv 2y ago
    I mean the time frame in which he took his party from nothing to the second biggest in the parliament and then got himself promoted from the party leader to Chancellor. Of course then the ultimate power was then seized rapidly as you say once he was already selected as the Chancellor.
tlogan 2y ago
I have one question about one: > Public employees are illegally > purged if they are viewed as > disloyal to the new regime. My understanding of how the U.S. government works is that the President functions as the CEO of all federal employees. Is this all about Schedule F executive order which was rescinded by President Joe Biden on January 22, 2021? I want to have an intellectually honest discussion about this: - Why are these firings considered illegal? What is the legal argument? - Why do we believe the President cannot hire or fire federal workers at will? What legal precedent or framework governs this? If our system is designed in a way that allows the above and we dont like it, shouldn’t we work to fix it? After all, Congress—specifically the House—is the only branch with the power to write laws. So if you don’t agree with Executive Order XYZ, let’s propose a law to address and fix it. Would love to hear thoughtful perspectives on this.
- Volundr 2y ago
  > - Why are these firings considered illegal? What is the legal argument? There's a lot here and you should really take the time to learn about it for yourself than relying on random Internet comments to summarize, but in short: - Federal employees in general have protections about being fired without process - Most of the employees being fired are probationary employees who lack such protection. Note how the term is always "fired" not "laid off". There's a reason for that, these people are being fired "for cause", being told their performance is not up to par to avoid the beurocratic overhead of a structed layoff. Misusing for cause termination like this is not even legal for a private employer to do. - Congress controls spending, and the Executive is generally obligated to spend the funds Congress has allocated for the purposes they allocated them (see also: Impoundment). Attempting to shut down agencies Congress has setup by firing everyone is generally runs contra to this idea. - some agencies are setup specifically as independent agencies by Congress. Their heads can generally only be removed either by Congress, or by the President for some form of malfeasance. This sort of makes sense when you think about it. A agency responsible for protecting whistle blowers isn't much good if the president is just going to replace the head until he gets someone who won't protect the ones whistleblowing his malfeasance. > My understanding of how the U.S. government works is that the President functions as the CEO of all federal employees. This isn't correct. In a private company the CEO has tons of rule make power. The board doesn't generally set the rules directly instead controlling them by putting the right officers like the CEO in place. In the government however the primary rulemaking power rests with Congress. The Executive branch is doesn't have much (or isn't supposed to, this has been slipping for a long, long time) outside what is delegated by Congress. The Executive is simply charged with executing those laws and directives of the Legislative.
huijzer 2y ago
> A couple of weeks ago, students asked we keep the discussions, but stop recording the class. They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them. Words being weaponized is a problem that exists for multiple years now in the US. From the free press [1]: "To give a sense of proportion, only three professors were fired or forced out of schools over something they said in the post-9/11 panic. The modern era of cancel culture (2014 to present), by contrast, has resulted in almost 200 professor terminations. That exceeds even the standard estimate of 100 professors terminated in the second Red Scare (1947 to 1957)." [1]: https://www.thefp.com/p/american-colleges-gave-birth-to-cancel-culture https://www.thefp.com/p/american-colleges-gave-birth-to-canc...
- styxfrix 2y ago
  Where does Free Press source the claim that 200 professors were fired due to cancel culture? I looked on the site because I want to see the actual reasons the professors were fired (reasons can be justified) but could not find them. The linked The Fire website displays zero results for filtering by "Outcome is Termination"
- gizzlon 2y ago
  Absolutely! But it was quite limited, to colleges etc. Now it's potentially all of US government employees. And, I assume, most of the private ones ? So .. basically everyone in the US. Maybe also people working for US companies abroad? Some of them did at least shut down DEI initiatives in Europe, so not so far fetched to think it is/will affect who they hire? "Oh, this candidate was outspoken against Trump on social media" . Of course, many places this will be seen as a good thing, so maybe it evens out, outside of the US.
- acdha 2y ago
  The “cancel culture” scare was a marketing campaign designed to elect right-wing politicians, not a serious free speech movement. You can note how many of the people involved have been silent or even expressed enthusiasm for the speech of their political opponents being stifled now.
- 2y ago
bArray 2y ago
> The judges who provide the last, best hope of constraining the President and the richest man in the world face a historic wave of threats. The role of the judges is not to contain the President. It's exactly this idea where each department think that it's their role to stop the President which has lost them their job. You cannot operate a government successfully where large parts of it are actively trying to sabotage you. What President Trump is trying to achieve is to take politics out of the permanent unelected state. Additionally, at the same time he is trying to find cost savings, because US debt is out of control [1]. The UK [2] and many other Countries are in the same boat. US spending on national debt is about $1 trillion a year [3], and it raises about $4.4 billion a year in revenue [4]. This is okay, as long as the US maintains growth [5]. Encase it wasn't obvious by now, we are scheduled for a massive economic downturn, and it is extremely prudent to reduce spending so that the US can still afford interest payments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Debt_to_GDP.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Debt_as_percentage_of_GDP.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Debt_as_percentage_of_... [3] https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-the-national-debt-costing-us/ https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-the-national-debt-costi... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:2023-federal-budget-breakdown.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
- throwaway11112 2y ago
  >>Op argues that some idiot is trying to undo dept "Find cost savings" by posting graphs of same idiot pushing dept into explosive leaps higher during their previous term.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > The role of the judges is not to contain the President. The role of judges is to maintain the rule of law under the constitution. If the president is outside that, the role of judges is to contain the president, just as it is their role to contain anyone else who is outside it.
LightHugger 2y ago
> If you spent the last decade being fundamentally wrong about the gravest threats to speech in America, these are clever ways to rewrite history to give the impression that you were right all along. Funnily enough the author here is attempting revisionist history himself by claiming that his side's prior misdeeds were justified all along because of the overreaction of the opposing extreme once they came into power. Instead, i would argue that opposing extremists (the left author who appears to be a denialist for leftist problems, and also trumpers on the opposite extreme) are symbiotic, actually propping eachother up in the long term and indeed, contributing to the problem. I think he anticipated this argument which is why he wrote this block of text like a "No really, we were justified censoring and discriminating against people all those years, look what happened see!" as if he wasn't part of the cause. Sorry, not buying such a weak argument. Trump et al wouldn't be able to make such weak free speech arguments work either if their opposition hadn't been using their power for a decade to censor everyone they disagree with in a historic purity spiral. Free speech matters. Neither authoritarian left or authoritarian right are good stewards of it. This is not news. But the left handed trump this point on a silver platter.
- archagon 2y ago
  When did we have an “authoritarian left” government threatening to revoke visas and permanent residencies over wrongthink?
benmmurphy 2y ago
There are allegations that the Perkins and Coie firm abused their access to a SCIF in order to make unauthorised queries targeting Trump campaign members during the run up to the 2016 election. The full text of the executive order is available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addr... and mentions removing access to a SCIF: > The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Perkins Coie. The heads of all agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision. It has also been publicly documented from court transcripts that contractors were making unauthorised queries but I don't believe it has ever been released who the contractors were or who they were targeting. Hopefully, if this is the reason for removing SCIF access the current government is able to make these documents public without redaction. Though, the whole thing could just be a conspiracy theory generated by people piecing together bits of random information.

185 points by ZeroGravitas 2y ago

sunny-d 2y ago

[flagged]

sebstefan 2y ago
Why would it have been?
- sunny-d 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43319298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43319298
user-the-name 2y ago
[dead]
kolektiv 2y ago
Well, you seem to be rhetorically asking a question, so... Your implied answer would seem to have to be yes to support your point, in which case, would you care to give similar examples? What free speech suppression are you thinking of and how was it enacted?
- sunny-d 2y ago
  Quick internet search, first result. https://www.acsh.org/news/2024/02/25/covid-censorship-yes-biden-admin-suppressed-free-speech-during-pandemic-17678 https://www.acsh.org/news/2024/02/25/covid-censorship-yes-bi...
  - kolektiv 2y ago
    The ACSH is not a credible source of unbiased reporting, in any sense.
    - sunny-d 2y ago
      It was not for credibility that I shared that link. It is because I cannot be bothered to type all that out. So you can assume that I typed that all here..
    - kragen 2y ago
      The Fifth Circuit Court is, but of course this is only one case.
- noduerme 2y ago
  the right wing's case on this point is based on the fact that the government leaned upon facebook and google to remove or downrank any views during the pandemic that didn't align with government policy, including anything about covid having gotten loose from a lab that was doing gain of function research under the auspices of one A. Fauci. That actually is the sort of suppression of free speech that might lead a very low information voter to think that a fascist dictatorship was going to ensure freer speech going forward.
nindalf 2y ago
Why don't you comment on your main account? FOH.

bananapub 2y ago

Yet to see any of the Free Speech Absolutists come out in defence of actual free speech and against the tyranny of far right lunatics running the federal government, weirdly enough.

nobodywillobsrv 2y ago
People forget what free speech really is though. The most important point is a contract with the government: that they hold a monopoly on the ability to censor and control speech. That any other group who threatens anyone for their speech must be dealth with using even hand of the force of law by the government/legal regime. Mobs suppressing your free speech is never ok. It is a sign of a government that is no longer in power. It is unclear exactly what these students are worried about ... the details should be provided. Are they discussing the organization of violent resistance for example? Or are they merely worried that simple discussion of government policy will somehow land them in jail. The latter seems ridiculous but it is worth hearing them out in detail. And somehow in all of this, people on one side are forgetting the numerous attempts at assasination. And the successful assasination of a CEO. Regardless of your political angles, the risk is severaly one sided by any empirical measure right now. To dismiss this is to remove yourself from serious discussion.
- flir 2y ago
  > It is unclear exactly what these students are worried about > They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them. hth.
- XorNot 2y ago
  This is literally not what free speech is as defined in the US Constitution. Constitutionally protected speech is speech criticising or commenting on the government, and defines the right of citizens to do so. The government has never had a reaponsibility to ensure all speech is heard, it certainly is not granted a monopoly on power of censorship (again, literally the opposite - no one else has to grant you a platform, but the government cannot take it away), and if you're worried about the power of "the mob" then you really should've worried more when the Supreme Court ruled the police had no duty to protect citizens.

nobodywillobsrv 2y ago

Might be a strawman, but it seems this kind of person reverses the order of time. People worrying about free speech before (and now in the UK) are ignored, called hysterical etc ... yet the minute someone is worried about Orange Man it's legitimate worry and you are hypocritical if you feel schadenfreude a bit. Denialism is a real poison. Sided worryists/denialists are the real problem. I'm not sure how to call them out without engaging in the same games they play themselves. There are groups doing great work though, like the FSU in the UK.

_petronius 2y ago
I think this is confusing two things, intentionally: 1. Free speech in the public sphere includes the right of people offended by your speech to express that they are offended (to speak back). People like Toby Young (founder of the FSU), and those who decry "cancel culture" do not like this, but it is part of what constitutes genuine free expression. 2. Free speech against the government, which the government should not be allowed to punish people for, to enable a pluralistic and democratic society. E.g. someone like Mahmoud Khalil who was recently arrested for his political views on Palestine (in violation of both the principles of free speech and his rights as a green card holder). People angry about #1 (arguing) tend to conflate it with #2 (genuine censorship), and accuse people who accuse those approximately equal (or less) in power than them as equivalent to draconian speech-controllers. People angry about #2 are pointing out a genuine power imbalance, and the damage to democratic society. Elon Musk embodies this perfectly: he argues in favor of free speech when people tell him his opinions are objectionable, but actively censors speech on Twitter that he doesn't like. In one situation, he simply wants people to receive his speech without speaking back, in another, he wants to stifle discussion. Speech is not a unidirectional activity. In order for it to be valuable and protected, the act of speaking in public is the act of listening to criticisms of what you say.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  To add some nuance about the US’s 1st Amendment: it is not just speech against the government that is protected. It is that all speech is protected from the government. The government also is not allowed to imprison you or threaten you for speech about another private party, for example.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jruohonen 2y ago

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-prevention-of-literature/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nonrandomstring 2y ago

If even half of this is true, I wonder what the future of HN is? THis forum is backed by Ycombinator, a US based "investment" company. Do they have plans to relocate to friendlier climes?

close04 2y ago
I'm sure they'll find a way to make a profit working with the system rather than against it.
- kolektiv 2y ago
  Quite - so far the tech community (at the top level), with a few exceptions, has shown itself quite willing to bend itself to whatever is required as long as it can carry on making money. The cowardice involved is apparent, do not look to corporations as your potential protectors. They've never turned out to be before, they're not going to be this time either. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...
  - OgsyedIE 2y ago
    What makes you think that Zuck, Ellison, Pichai etc are "obeying in advance" and haven't already received implied verbal threats of imprisonment?
    - close04 2y ago
      Meta or Alphabet did whatever they needed to extract profits from their users. What makes you think that all of a sudden they would pivot from chasing profits to defending those users, as opposed to playing ball with whoever they need to in order to make even more profits? What matters at the end of the day is that despite all the big talk of "freedom of speech" and "doing what's right", companies like Meta or YC almost always bend the knee (and the spine) and play ball to make money even if it contradicts everything they purportedly stood for. Just replace the motto.

sQL_inject 2y ago

[flagged]

gmuslera 2y ago

I think they are screaming too late. For more than 10 years was known enough that the US government was mass collecting information about everything they could on internet, the Snowden’s revelations was just a milestone on the current state of that back then, and as nothing happened, it continued. Now we have over that AIs and probably a government openly willing to use that against you, but that was always a possibility all this time. The future is open, the records are forever. And what we did all this time? Just put in photos, videos and text what can be used against us under some future policy, and shared it with them. There is a point where we deserve the consequences. And yes, even of this very message.

llamaimperative 2y ago
None of this is necessary to have an authoritarian government. Just some lawsuits and government inquiries. Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. The two issues are not actually that intertwined.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  >Inversely you can also have a government that collects everything and doesn’t wield it this way. No you can't. It's only a matter of time.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I’m not advocating for it, so don’t strawman me. I’m saying it has approximately nothing to do with the actual issues we face today. I.e. it’s just as relevant for me to say “this is why you don’t give governments firearms! An authoritarian one will turn around and shoot its own people!” Like yeah, sure it seems likely. Relevant to today? Would today’s conditions have been averted if we had never armed the government? No. Is it dangerous for the government to collect everything on the internet? Yes! Is there any evidence that capability and “habit” is actually contributing to the chilling effects described in the article? Nope! As seen in GP’s comment, tech world’s fixation on high-tech super surveillance distracts from the how authoritarian regimes actually tend to exert control over their population. Like, in reality versus in science fiction (again, not that surveillance is good or neutral on this topic, but that it is not at all necessary).

mentalgear 2y ago

> Peter Baker, the New York Times White House correspondent, compared the current moment to his time at Russia at the beginning of the Putin era: > By the time we left in late 2004, Moscow had been transformed. People who had happily talked with us at the start were now afraid to return our calls. “Now I have this fear all the time,” one told us at the time. There is a similar chill now in Washington. Every day someone who used to feel free to speak publicly against Mr. Trump says they will no longer let journalists quote them by name for fear of repercussions, both Democrats and Republicans

suraci 2y ago
I'm very curious about why americans always use examples from China and Russia to describe something shit happening in the USA > Some compared the atmosphere to Maoist China, so great were the chilling effects. i mean, americans have their own history - it's short but it's remarkable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism In China, when something like this happens, some people shout, "Are we going back to the Cultural Revolution?!" Why Americans don't talk about McCarthyism? "Are we going back to the McCarthyism???" Nobody ever said this
- rco8786 2y ago
  I see comparisons to the red scare/communism/mccarthyism all the time, personally. In addition to the other comparisons you mention.
  - suraci 2y ago
    that's great, we can only move forward if we keep looking back into our history
    - archagon 2y ago
      Unfortunately, “have you no decency, sir?” is no longer an effective antidote.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

softwaredoug 2y ago

I think it’s important to look at the issue as a systemic one, not just about the current administration. For decades, we have delegates all this legal authority to the president with few real checks on the offices power. Eventually a Trump/Musk would happen.

rco8786 2y ago
How does that help us figure out what to do now?
kolektiv 2y ago
Like a lot of countries, the constitutional set of checks and balances was predicated on the fact that the majority of those involved were basically trying to "do the right thing". It's effectively a state-level gentleman's agreement, where it is assumed that any bad actor is in the minority, and can be dealt with while they remain the minority. This falls apart if they're not the minority - i.e. you failed to deal with them while they were a minority. There were levers designed expressly to deal with things like this - impeachment, etc. - they weren't used because one side thought that it would play out in their favour. As they will probably learn, it plays out in nobodies favour.
- exitb 2y ago
  While I won't claim there are countries that are immune to the effects of persistent grifting, the speed at which US was taken over is quite surprising for a European. In most liberal democracies there just is no single person with even half as much power, as the US president has over his country.
  - kolektiv 2y ago
    Agreed - I'm also a European (well, geographically, no longer EU unfortunately).
  - jajko 2y ago
    Well, it was a strength as long as people wielding such power acted at least a bit morally and with higher purpose than their petty egos. But now it shows its weakness. But things would have to get much much worse (and they probably will) before US population in general steps down a notch from that pedestal of 'US is the greatest and most free country in the world yadayada' and admits that well, we've fucked up and how to make sure this won't happen again. If there would still be a way to correct all this after his term/death eventually since he won't give up power easily, which I sincerely don't think will be the case anymore.

neilv 2y ago

> A couple of weeks ago, students asked we keep the discussions, but stop recording the class. They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them. Kudos to the students who were not only aware of this general risk (not just under the current regime, but in many societies), and acted to improve their situation. Next, they should look at how they're under almost ubiquitous technological surveillance, with little-to-no protections. And now there's emerging "AI" methods to automate harvesting insights from the ubiquitous surveillance fire hoses, and also to automate actions to suppress enemies of the regime. And if you look around, at the pace we're going, it's very easy to believe this will start happening within a year. Maybe they'll decide that one of the best defenses for national security that could happen right now is to cut off the surveillance data wherever possible.

gizzlon 2y ago

It's sad and depressing what's happening. And even more depressing is how little fight there seems to be, and how spineless many are. From politicians to big tech and just most people: They sit down quietly, hoping this will just blow over, or that someone else will take the fight so they don't have to. Don't make it easy! Don't do their job for them! Don't self-censor. Make them show their cards! If not, by the time you're ready to fight, it might be too late to do anything.

formerly_proven 2y ago
I mean if you're a lawyer and took a client ten years ago this administration doesn't like you might end up with an EO naming you nineteen times and all but declaring you an enemy of state. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addr...
RGamma 2y ago
And all this dysfunction has built up in peaceful times. Now if the system receives a genuine shock, things can go downhill fast. Maybe there's something true to the "bad times -> good people -> good times -> bad people -> bad times" cycle after all.
- sunny-d 2y ago
  [flagged]
9283409232 2y ago
If you don't think there is a fight, then you aren't fighting. Once you start doing something you will naturally connect with other people who are doing something.

alchemist1e9 2y ago

[flagged]

kolektiv 2y ago
Which of the things in the list contained in the article do you either a) deny are happening or b) consider to be unimportant/trivial? They've presented a concrete set of troubling actions, you've just thrown a banal personal attack. If you're going to argue that this is wrong, actually make an argument.
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  The list reflects mass hysteria, not free speech oppression, because it exaggerates Trump’s actions. The 2024 landslide mandate is to purge “Woke Ideology” from public institutions. These policies and actions target government speech, not private expression and reflects voter will in a democracy rather than silencing dissent.
  - drewbug01 2y ago
    “landslide mandate” What were those vote totals, again?
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  > The President has politicized the Department of Justice and threatens to unleash the power of the federal government on his political enemies. For example, he has promised to punish law firms that provide legal support for his opponents, Now, many are no longer willing to do so. Executive actions target law firms for legal challenges, not their speech. self-censorship is speculative, not a free speech violation. > Critics who once held security clearances or security details have them removed. Removing clearances is legal government discretion, not a free speech issue. they’re privileges, not rights. > Organizations fearful of threats from the President preemptively erase ideas, or silence dissenting voices. Private organizations choosing to self-censor isn’t government coercion. it’s an indirect effect, not oppression, and could be simply reflecting a shift in cultural values that some disagree with. > The President has suggested that critics are supporters of terrorism, using vague language that allows him to threaten nonprofits, or promise to deport protest leaders, including green card holders. No evidence shows mass deportations or nonprofit crackdowns for speech. > Words and ideas are banned. Censors rifle their way through government documents and websites to remove them. Federal spaces, like schools on military bases, are purged of books that even mildly hint at the idea that diversity is a good thing. Government controls its own messaging legally. this isn’t censorship of private speech. > Funding of research ideas is being taken away from research experts and handed to political appointees who are defunding the ideas they dislike. Campus officials are trying to decide how to respond to government orders to remove ideas. Funding shifts are policy choices, not speech bans. campuses adapt voluntarily to continue receiving funding from taxpayers. Exactly how democracy should work. > The President has pardoned militant supporters who engaged in violence to try to reverse the outcome of a previous election, and demoted officials who investigated those supporters. Pardons and personnel decisions are legal powers, they’re controversial but not free speech oppression. >The President and the richest man in the world routinely make wildly dishonest claims about the government they are running. Critics of the employees of the richest man in the world can expect to be threatened with prosecution from the federal government. Dishonest claims are free speech, there is no evidence which ties prosecution threats to criticism. > Elected officials are not exempt from such threats. The President’s opponents face threat of investigation, while even his supporters fear to disagree with him. They also fear criticizing the richest man in the world, even though his actions in destroying much of the government are widely unpopular. Political pressure isn’t a free speech violation and fear of disagreement is subjective. > The work of the richest man in the world is exempted from open records laws. We really don’t know what he is doing, and members of Congress refuse to ask him in public. Records exemptions are legal so this is a transparency issue, not speech suppression. > Public employees are illegally purged if they are viewed as disloyal to the new regime. This includes top-ranking officers in the military, and the lawyers in government who set the boundaries for what a President can do. Personnel decisions are executive authority and free speech violations need specific proof of which there isn’t any. > Some of those are purged because of their gender identity, or because they are associated with ideas now deemed unfashionable, or even for going to a meeting where those ideas are discussed. The government has created tip lines to help identify the disfavored. Policy changes on identity are legal and tip lines target violations, not ideas. > Individual journalists whose job it is to hold the President accountable know that they will face a torrent of abuse if they are critical. The richest man in the world might call for a journalist to be fired, falsely accuse media organizations of secretly being paid by shadowy pro-government forces, or sue them to drain resources. Musk’s private actions aren’t government censorship, and event bans are discretionary, not oppressive. The evidence is actually that news organizations have been being paid by deep state conspiracies. > Some media companies find excuses to bribe the President on the flimsiest of pretexts, humoring his demands for massive financial compensation when faced with normal journalistic practice, because their corporate owners fear the President’s retribution. No evidence supports this. it’s an unsubstantiated claim. It’s all hysterical nonsense. Sorry. People who claim to love democracy don’t really when it results in polices and views they disagree with.

paganel 2y ago

I was actually taught Analysis I and II in the former HQs of the Romanian Communist Party's Cadres Faculty (the infamous A250 classroom, for those that attended Computer Science school at Bucharest Politehnica), that was happening towards the end of the '90s - early 2000s, but never in my life back then I would have thought to bring up politics up in class, to the contrary. Which is to say, why are these students afraid of?

slimebot80 2y ago

I feel many of us in the IT world have stood along side this descent in real time, because technology has been an enabler (far from being an equaliser). We were mostly mute because of money and traction.

huijzer 2y ago
Will Durant and his wife have spent multiple decades writing history books. One of their observations was that technology creates inequality, see the book Lessons of History. Having said that, I still think technology has been a net positive. Just imagine living in 1900. It would take months to go from Europe to the US. Medicine was able to cure almost nothing. What we consider simple diseases now would be deadly back then. And you can forget about watching or listening your favorite musicians online. Also, imagine driving with a modern car into a 1900s village. People would be in shock.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > I still think technology has been a net positive. I stopped thinking this a decade or so ago. I now think that technology has become a net negative. Yes, it brings huge benefits as you note. The problem as I see it is that it now brings even larger drawbacks as well.
  - huijzer 2y ago
    You rather live in 1900? Or pay $100k for 8 kW of solar panels (1974 price) instead of $2k? Or pay orders of magnitude more money for slow computers?
    - sifar 2y ago
      How about we re-frame it as would you rather have one person or a group of people to destroy a city or the entire planet and intelligent life on it? Would you rather be able to enslave a particular region or the entire world ? You see, we are trading improvements in some aspects to that of another. The thing is you cannot separate the benefits these technological advancements bring with the problems they create. The rate of technological change is much more rapid than our ability as a society to adapt to it. This is one of the source of friction as the negative effect become real only later. There is no physical law that says technology has to improve - it is our quest, or drive to seek it, we choose it, every time. And I say this as someone who is part of this.

ajd555 2y ago

very good itemization of what's happening, thank you for doing this. Unfortunately, one very important bullet point was missing: the world's richest man and arguably most influential in the white house controls a large internet satellite constellation and has acquired tremendous geopolitical power, even before having the president's ear. This is the single biggest threat out there I believe, as he has already had an impact on the Ukrainian front, and world leaders continue to placate him in fear of Starlink service being cut off in their country. I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, but this is by the far the most worrying point that needs to be brought up a lot more

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> I still don't understand how a private american company was allowed to obtain such geopolitical power, No one else wanted to spend the money to sustain the organization needed to put those satellites in service. It’s that simple. GPS is there because someone spent sufficient money developing it.
jajko 2y ago
No worries various groups will create or increase their own space investments. Nothing spacex did was a miracle just well executed engineering, despite an whimsical idiot steering it from far enough. Correction globally will take some time, but it will be a permanent one. You don't develop your own space program to scrape it in few years. Europe is there with pretty healthy space program, China may become more open to others, India is way beyond initial successful steps. Reusable rockets are great when they work, but again thats just (at this point well tested) engineering. China just needs to sit and smile how US is handling them global leadership one big chunk a day. Maybe in 4 years we can send elon permanently on mars with 8 billion middle fingers raised as a 'salute', to start future setup that The expanse showed us or to die there miserably.
- immibis 2y ago
  Isn't it predicted that if three or four companies do what SpaceX did, we get Kessler syndrome?

matthewdgreen 2y ago

Honestly, step one is for the folks screaming “free speech” and arguing about censorship to see what’s happening, and what real threats to free speech look like. We spent years being told that moderation on private social media was the worst possible thing in the world, and today there’s a real possibility of government prosecutions for protected speech. Even if you don’t like the people being threatened and chilled right now, it will be you eventually.

intended 2y ago
This was not said for years. This became a thing post COVID and Trump. I couldn’t get anyone to pay attention to content moderation if I tried. Only after misinfo and false hoods became the fuel of politics, did the filters and janitors become an issue. “Content moderation is allowed to work as long as they dont touch the wires that carry political power” This was the message when the Stanford internet observatory got targeted.
LightHugger 2y ago
I agree that what trump is doing is a threat to free speech, i really wish there was some kind of non partisan free speech faction in US politics but there doesn't seem to be. In any case, i'm replying to this post because you're apparently blind to your hubris. > Even if you don’t like the people being threatened and chilled right now, it will be you eventually." Maybe you should give yourself your own advice. You seemingly stood by doing nothing and even still think you're in a position make fun of people campaigning for free speech protections on social media (especially considering the fact that the government was indeed involved in censoring speech on these platforms). You literally already had the chance to stand up for people being threatened and chilled and not only actively chose not to, you stood in opposition to those people because you deemed it not "real" enough for you. You are not above anyone else nor are you in a position to lecture anyone else on this topic, ever.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  I deemed it real because I believed and still believe that private companies (even if I dislike them) have the right to moderate speech as they please. A big section of the right wing believes differently and passed laws in several states overriding that principle, while proclaiming that a direct and obvious violation of the First Amendment was actually “free speech.” I also believed and still believe that this fake free-speech posturing would lead directly to what’s happening now: direct governmental attacks on speech the administration doesn’t like. You may be a troll or so lost in politics that nothing reaches you anymore. But if you’re actually an American who cares about the bill of rights, the time to stand up has already arrived. It’s going to be hard for you to do so if you’re busy telling people “well, the government using police to target opponents is bad, but here’s this other thing that manifestly isn’t as bad and I am going to dismiss the former and dwell on the latter.”

potato3732842 2y ago

Every old forum and facebook group full of right ringers talking about fishing or whatever has been feeling for close to a decade exactly what the author is feeling now. I'd say I'm hopeful that things will change now that the shoe is on both feet but I don't have that much faith. Edit: Since apparently this needs to be explained to some people, nobody is feeling like they can't talk about random boring advertiser friendly interests. People are feeling like they can't talk freely about the kinds of political and social issues that tend to get talked about when you get a bunch of people of a particular bent in one place.

rco8786 2y ago
I'm not sure both sides-ism is helpful here. I appreciate the perspective that right-wingers have been feeling this fear, and I think that's real and something that should be taken seriously. And also, as with so many things trump, he's taking the rhetoric and threats to another planet. There was not a huge list of banned words and books, or keyword-based government purges of content previously. There was no threat of punishment for attorneys representing the "wrong" side in a case. There were no blanket threats of imprisonment or deportation for "illegal protests". The rhetoric and actions being taken by trump/musk in this regard are FAR, FAR beyond anything we've seen here before at least going back to the red scare.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  You're missing my point. My point is that the ability to chill speech, put is on lists, make examples out of the tall nails, etc. is something the government has had and has used. The author is just now complaining because he's only now seeing it applied in his general direction (because academia is establishment adjacent) though not directly at him. This executive power was built up over decades by the establishment on both sides of the isle in bits and pieces (to be clear, I'm not alleging some conspiracy here, just that this is the result of natural incentives in an expanding government) and now it's being wielded by an outsider populist and this is what happens. Nobody should be surprised by this. When we elected a Lite(TM) populist on a platform of change in '08 and nothing changed this outcome was basically destined. The fact that the populists we ultimately elected are "simple" billionares who have grand delusions of making the country wealthy through deregulation, short sighted geopolitics and fiscal conservatism is just good luck. We could have done, way, way, way worse. And if these guys don't cause some sort of change in the country's course (for better or worse, probably doesn't matter) we probably will elect another even more extreme one.

kragen 2y ago

The catalog of events near the beginning of the post is very valuable. The false dichotomy that runs through the post ("what if the real threat to free speech was the reactionary despot we made along the way?") is not; it is counterproductive. In the US, neither the left wing nor the right supports freedom of speech. That's how we got into this situation.

alex_abt 2y ago

I remember when I had a pretty serious health problem, went from doctor to doctor and none of them helped and some even made it worse. I complained about it quite bitterly for about a decade, even after I had resolved it on my own without their help. This post reminds me of that time of my life. He's not wrong and yet he may look back on this time like I have on my life and think heh, is that really what I spent my time doing? The life I could've been living instead. The life I can be living right now, today and tomorrow :)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

samiv 2y ago

It's worth to keep in mind that it took only about 2 years for this one guy from Austria to remove the final backstops the society had in place before until he was able to become the supreme leader in the 1930's. 2 years. What has been hard won and fought over can easily be lost very fast and the only way to regain it will be through blood and violence.

OgsyedIE 2y ago
53 days, surely? The gleischaltung had finishing disbarring every non-NSDAP lawyer, firing every non-NSDAP judge, firing every state governor and seizing a voting majority in every state legislature in less than two months after the Enabling Act was passed.
- samiv 2y ago
  I mean the time frame in which he took his party from nothing to the second biggest in the parliament and then got himself promoted from the party leader to Chancellor. Of course then the ultimate power was then seized rapidly as you say once he was already selected as the Chancellor.

tlogan 2y ago

I have one question about one: > Public employees are illegally > purged if they are viewed as > disloyal to the new regime. My understanding of how the U.S. government works is that the President functions as the CEO of all federal employees. Is this all about Schedule F executive order which was rescinded by President Joe Biden on January 22, 2021? I want to have an intellectually honest discussion about this: - Why are these firings considered illegal? What is the legal argument? - Why do we believe the President cannot hire or fire federal workers at will? What legal precedent or framework governs this? If our system is designed in a way that allows the above and we dont like it, shouldn’t we work to fix it? After all, Congress—specifically the House—is the only branch with the power to write laws. So if you don’t agree with Executive Order XYZ, let’s propose a law to address and fix it. Would love to hear thoughtful perspectives on this.

Volundr 2y ago
> - Why are these firings considered illegal? What is the legal argument? There's a lot here and you should really take the time to learn about it for yourself than relying on random Internet comments to summarize, but in short: - Federal employees in general have protections about being fired without process - Most of the employees being fired are probationary employees who lack such protection. Note how the term is always "fired" not "laid off". There's a reason for that, these people are being fired "for cause", being told their performance is not up to par to avoid the beurocratic overhead of a structed layoff. Misusing for cause termination like this is not even legal for a private employer to do. - Congress controls spending, and the Executive is generally obligated to spend the funds Congress has allocated for the purposes they allocated them (see also: Impoundment). Attempting to shut down agencies Congress has setup by firing everyone is generally runs contra to this idea. - some agencies are setup specifically as independent agencies by Congress. Their heads can generally only be removed either by Congress, or by the President for some form of malfeasance. This sort of makes sense when you think about it. A agency responsible for protecting whistle blowers isn't much good if the president is just going to replace the head until he gets someone who won't protect the ones whistleblowing his malfeasance. > My understanding of how the U.S. government works is that the President functions as the CEO of all federal employees. This isn't correct. In a private company the CEO has tons of rule make power. The board doesn't generally set the rules directly instead controlling them by putting the right officers like the CEO in place. In the government however the primary rulemaking power rests with Congress. The Executive branch is doesn't have much (or isn't supposed to, this has been slipping for a long, long time) outside what is delegated by Congress. The Executive is simply charged with executing those laws and directives of the Legislative.

huijzer 2y ago

> A couple of weeks ago, students asked we keep the discussions, but stop recording the class. They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them. Words being weaponized is a problem that exists for multiple years now in the US. From the free press [1]: "To give a sense of proportion, only three professors were fired or forced out of schools over something they said in the post-9/11 panic. The modern era of cancel culture (2014 to present), by contrast, has resulted in almost 200 professor terminations. That exceeds even the standard estimate of 100 professors terminated in the second Red Scare (1947 to 1957)." [1]: https://www.thefp.com/p/american-colleges-gave-birth-to-cancel-culture https://www.thefp.com/p/american-colleges-gave-birth-to-canc...

styxfrix 2y ago
Where does Free Press source the claim that 200 professors were fired due to cancel culture? I looked on the site because I want to see the actual reasons the professors were fired (reasons can be justified) but could not find them. The linked The Fire website displays zero results for filtering by "Outcome is Termination"
gizzlon 2y ago
Absolutely! But it was quite limited, to colleges etc. Now it's potentially all of US government employees. And, I assume, most of the private ones ? So .. basically everyone in the US. Maybe also people working for US companies abroad? Some of them did at least shut down DEI initiatives in Europe, so not so far fetched to think it is/will affect who they hire? "Oh, this candidate was outspoken against Trump on social media" . Of course, many places this will be seen as a good thing, so maybe it evens out, outside of the US.
acdha 2y ago
The “cancel culture” scare was a marketing campaign designed to elect right-wing politicians, not a serious free speech movement. You can note how many of the people involved have been silent or even expressed enthusiasm for the speech of their political opponents being stifled now.
2y ago

bArray 2y ago

> The judges who provide the last, best hope of constraining the President and the richest man in the world face a historic wave of threats. The role of the judges is not to contain the President. It's exactly this idea where each department think that it's their role to stop the President which has lost them their job. You cannot operate a government successfully where large parts of it are actively trying to sabotage you. What President Trump is trying to achieve is to take politics out of the permanent unelected state. Additionally, at the same time he is trying to find cost savings, because US debt is out of control [1]. The UK [2] and many other Countries are in the same boat. US spending on national debt is about $1 trillion a year [3], and it raises about $4.4 billion a year in revenue [4]. This is okay, as long as the US maintains growth [5]. Encase it wasn't obvious by now, we are scheduled for a massive economic downturn, and it is extremely prudent to reduce spending so that the US can still afford interest payments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Debt_to_GDP.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Debt_as_percentage_of_GDP.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Debt_as_percentage_of_... [3] https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-the-national-debt-costing-us/ https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-the-national-debt-costi... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:2023-federal-budget-breakdown.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

throwaway11112 2y ago
>>Op argues that some idiot is trying to undo dept "Find cost savings" by posting graphs of same idiot pushing dept into explosive leaps higher during their previous term.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> The role of the judges is not to contain the President. The role of judges is to maintain the rule of law under the constitution. If the president is outside that, the role of judges is to contain the president, just as it is their role to contain anyone else who is outside it.

LightHugger 2y ago

> If you spent the last decade being fundamentally wrong about the gravest threats to speech in America, these are clever ways to rewrite history to give the impression that you were right all along. Funnily enough the author here is attempting revisionist history himself by claiming that his side's prior misdeeds were justified all along because of the overreaction of the opposing extreme once they came into power. Instead, i would argue that opposing extremists (the left author who appears to be a denialist for leftist problems, and also trumpers on the opposite extreme) are symbiotic, actually propping eachother up in the long term and indeed, contributing to the problem. I think he anticipated this argument which is why he wrote this block of text like a "No really, we were justified censoring and discriminating against people all those years, look what happened see!" as if he wasn't part of the cause. Sorry, not buying such a weak argument. Trump et al wouldn't be able to make such weak free speech arguments work either if their opposition hadn't been using their power for a decade to censor everyone they disagree with in a historic purity spiral. Free speech matters. Neither authoritarian left or authoritarian right are good stewards of it. This is not news. But the left handed trump this point on a silver platter.

archagon 2y ago
When did we have an “authoritarian left” government threatening to revoke visas and permanent residencies over wrongthink?

benmmurphy 2y ago

There are allegations that the Perkins and Coie firm abused their access to a SCIF in order to make unauthorised queries targeting Trump campaign members during the run up to the 2016 election. The full text of the executive order is available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addr... and mentions removing access to a SCIF: > The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Perkins Coie. The heads of all agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision. It has also been publicly documented from court transcripts that contractors were making unauthorised queries but I don't believe it has ever been released who the contractors were or who they were targeting. Hopefully, if this is the reason for removing SCIF access the current government is able to make these documents public without redaction. Though, the whole thing could just be a conspiracy theory generated by people piecing together bits of random information.