3 ms·

Literally every example you cited is either a) without evidence or b) a private institution. Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censor

Literally every example you cited is either a) without evidence or b) a private institution. Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censorship we just saw today. Cite some sources if you think otherwise.

SilverElfin 1y ago
Biden literally had, and used, back door channels to compel private companies to censor speech online. These companies complied either due to ideological alignment or fear of regulatory attacks from the Biden administration. To the extent that the FCC (which is more than just the one commissioner) were to take some action, it may have been less of an issue than Biden’s explicit violation of constitutional rights, because the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate content to some extent.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration on June 26, 2024, in the case Murthy v. Missouri. The 6-3 decision rejected the argument that the federal government violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to remove posts related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    You’re misinterpreting the ruling. The ruling was that the states that brought the case (Missouri and Louisiana) didn’t have standing to bring the case forward, not that the Biden administration acted legally. The majority in the court said a plaintiff who was directly a victim of the censorship would have to bring the case, rather than states on behalf of unspecified citizens. In other words, the case was dismissed on a technicality without ruling on the merits of government censorship that is done via a private third party.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      Then the lower court ruling is held because this was dismissed
billy99k 1y ago
"Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censorship we just saw today. Cite some sources if you think otherwise." So if the government puts pressure on private individuals to censor, it's okay? The government put pressure on Apple, Google, and Amazon to ban Parler when it was thought that it was thought it was being used to plan J6 (oopsie, it ended up being Facebook, but that didn't matter because right-wing bad). There's no difference between the government putting pressure on private companies to censor and the government censoring themselves. I also would like to add that this is public airwaves. The government has always controlled public airwaves. You can still say all the sick shit you want on Podcasts, Youtube, and any other private platform and it won't be controlled by the government.

SilverElfin 1y ago

Biden literally had, and used, back door channels to compel private companies to censor speech online. These companies complied either due to ideological alignment or fear of regulatory attacks from the Biden administration. To the extent that the FCC (which is more than just the one commissioner) were to take some action, it may have been less of an issue than Biden’s explicit violation of constitutional rights, because the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate content to some extent.

Braxton1980 1y ago
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration on June 26, 2024, in the case Murthy v. Missouri. The 6-3 decision rejected the argument that the federal government violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to remove posts related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  You’re misinterpreting the ruling. The ruling was that the states that brought the case (Missouri and Louisiana) didn’t have standing to bring the case forward, not that the Biden administration acted legally. The majority in the court said a plaintiff who was directly a victim of the censorship would have to bring the case, rather than states on behalf of unspecified citizens. In other words, the case was dismissed on a technicality without ruling on the merits of government censorship that is done via a private third party.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    Then the lower court ruling is held because this was dismissed

billy99k 1y ago

"Nothing you just said bears resemblance to the FCC-directed censorship we just saw today. Cite some sources if you think otherwise." So if the government puts pressure on private individuals to censor, it's okay? The government put pressure on Apple, Google, and Amazon to ban Parler when it was thought that it was thought it was being used to plan J6 (oopsie, it ended up being Facebook, but that didn't matter because right-wing bad). There's no difference between the government putting pressure on private companies to censor and the government censoring themselves. I also would like to add that this is public airwaves. The government has always controlled public airwaves. You can still say all the sick shit you want on Podcasts, Youtube, and any other private platform and it won't be controlled by the government.