3 ms·
Just so you're aware, an actual implied threat like that is considered an unconstitutional act by the government. It's just that a politician complaining about
by jcranmer 1y ago
Just so you're aware, an actual implied threat like that is considered an unconstitutional act by the government. It's just that a politician complaining about social media on the campaign trail isn't anywhere near the level of implied threat to be considered unconstitutional.
- renewiltord 1y agoOh sorry. As a BIPOC, I meant the "nice business; here's a list of people I don't like; no threats implied; to be clear: we are not threatening you; do what you like with this list" loophole.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThis is a cool skill, it’s like three-hop mind-reading. You somehow know that the platforms were coerced despite them never claiming it, and they were specifically coerced by threats that were never actually stated! Super neat.
- renewiltord 1y agoInformed by the government using the First Amendment "will someone rid me of this troublesome priest?" the company used their First Amendment to rid them of the troublesome priest. I should point out that I was just using the First Amendment to talk about them very specifically not being coerced. In fact I actually claimed (using the First Amendment) that they made it clear it wasn't a threat. Your comment (doubtless made under the First Amendment) assumes that I said the opposite.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoLike I said: very impressive work!
- renewiltord 1y agoHaha, that's very kind. Thank you.