3 ms·

And hopefully the people who think that was a good thing will think the same about this.

ajross 1y ago
No one (at least no one of note) ever claimed that government coercion of social media was a "good thing". The controversy around the "Twitter Files" was (and remains) whether any such coercion[1] actually happened. Do remember the smoking gun request for a takedown turned out to have been penis photos. But for the record, since consistent propriety is the subject of the subthread: as a left-leaning liberal, I hereby declare that I think coercing Twitter to remove content for political reasons is equally as bad as doing the same to Facebook. [1] Not least because the entity doing the coercing was not the government, which was run by Biden's opponent.
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  > as a left-leaning liberal, I hereby declare I know that's how it works on the internet: All it takes to negate thousands of people with one opinion is for someone to come out and identify with them and say the opposite. Just one person! Likewise, if thousands of people believe something, as long as they say "nobody ever claimed THAT!" then, it's as though they never believed it (despite it being obvious from every other indicator that they DO, in fact, believe that). Unfortunately, it's all just silly internet sophistry and the real world happily ignores it.
  - ajross 1y ago
    > All it takes to negate thousands of people with one opinion ... thousands? You haven't cited even one! Which, as I eagerly point out, is exactly one fewer example than I provided. So even accepting your dismissal as framed, I win. By a lot. Seems to me that it's the person asserting the existence of a conspiracy that needs to be the one coming to the table with evidence.
    - phendrenad2 1y ago
      You're right, you win, by a lot. The real world is rearranging itself to comply with your interent win as we speak! Thank goodness you were here to save us all!
Wowfunhappy 1y ago
And the reverse! For what's worth, I've actually changed my mind about this. I was originally fine with the government encouraging Twitter to take down pandemic related stuff, but after seeing what Trump has done... well, in hindsight, I think the Biden administration should have stayed out of Twitter moderation, just as the Trump administration should stay out of Facebook moderation. I still think there is a difference in severity between what Biden did and what Trump is doing, but that's beside the point. The current administration has really demonstrated for me why free speech is so important. We should not compromise on that principle, even when it seems logical in the short term.
- RickJWagner 1y ago
  Well, Trump had his Facebook and Twitter accounts suspended. That’s pretty severe.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Biden wasn’t president then, so it’s hard to blame his administration for it. And inciting Jan 6 was pretty severe. Facebook and Twitter not being allowed to ban the sitting President would be a major First Amendment violation, in fact.
  - Pxtl 1y ago
    Does the truth matter? In certain contexts, harmful lies can be fraud, defamation, or perjury. It's reasonable for a social media company to have a policy that harmful lies are bad for their site, while still otherwise supporting free speech. Trump claiming the election was stolen, vaccine disinfo - these are lies, and they're very destructive. Meanwhile, the takedowns that are happening today are people being punished for stating the truth.
    - libraryatnight 1y ago
      It's also striking to me that these folks cried hard about free speech when being deplatformed for harmful lies, but they're revoking visas for people who didn't show proper remorse for a conservative podcasters murder. Everything this administration and its supporters do is in bad faith. It's exasperating.
Pxtl 1y ago
The government takedown requests that happened during the COVID pandemic peak were the government flagging disinformation and lies. This is the a government flagging truths that they dislike. Also, there's a big difference when one government has a proven track-record of abusing its power to punish dissenting media. AFAIK, the Biden admin never threatened to block mergers and similar business deals over speech they disliked. Yes, government requests always have the color of authority, but I don't know of any cases where there was any even implied threat behind it. Well, other than the possibility of legislation that would make an official legal requirement of "no, you do have a responsibility to police your platform of disinfo where constitutionally legal (eg if it's foreign-government-funded propaganda)". But an act of congress to elevate an policy into law if self-policing doesn't work is very different from abusing executive powers to punish people without any involvement normal due process of law. https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en

No one (at least no one of note) ever claimed that government coercion of social media was a "good thing". The controversy around the "Twitter Files" was (and remains) whether any such coercion[1] actually happened. Do remember the smoking gun request for a takedown turned out to have been penis photos. But for the record, since consistent propriety is the subject of the subthread: as a left-leaning liberal, I hereby declare that I think coercing Twitter to remove content for political reasons is equally as bad as doing the same to Facebook. [1] Not least because the entity doing the coercing was not the government, which was run by Biden's opponent.

phendrenad2 1y ago
> as a left-leaning liberal, I hereby declare I know that's how it works on the internet: All it takes to negate thousands of people with one opinion is for someone to come out and identify with them and say the opposite. Just one person! Likewise, if thousands of people believe something, as long as they say "nobody ever claimed THAT!" then, it's as though they never believed it (despite it being obvious from every other indicator that they DO, in fact, believe that). Unfortunately, it's all just silly internet sophistry and the real world happily ignores it.
- ajross 1y ago
  > All it takes to negate thousands of people with one opinion ... thousands? You haven't cited even one! Which, as I eagerly point out, is exactly one fewer example than I provided. So even accepting your dismissal as framed, I win. By a lot. Seems to me that it's the person asserting the existence of a conspiracy that needs to be the one coming to the table with evidence.
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    You're right, you win, by a lot. The real world is rearranging itself to comply with your interent win as we speak! Thank goodness you were here to save us all!

Wowfunhappy 1y ago

And the reverse! For what's worth, I've actually changed my mind about this. I was originally fine with the government encouraging Twitter to take down pandemic related stuff, but after seeing what Trump has done... well, in hindsight, I think the Biden administration should have stayed out of Twitter moderation, just as the Trump administration should stay out of Facebook moderation. I still think there is a difference in severity between what Biden did and what Trump is doing, but that's beside the point. The current administration has really demonstrated for me why free speech is so important. We should not compromise on that principle, even when it seems logical in the short term.

RickJWagner 1y ago
Well, Trump had his Facebook and Twitter accounts suspended. That’s pretty severe.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Biden wasn’t president then, so it’s hard to blame his administration for it. And inciting Jan 6 was pretty severe. Facebook and Twitter not being allowed to ban the sitting President would be a major First Amendment violation, in fact.
- Pxtl 1y ago
  Does the truth matter? In certain contexts, harmful lies can be fraud, defamation, or perjury. It's reasonable for a social media company to have a policy that harmful lies are bad for their site, while still otherwise supporting free speech. Trump claiming the election was stolen, vaccine disinfo - these are lies, and they're very destructive. Meanwhile, the takedowns that are happening today are people being punished for stating the truth.
  - libraryatnight 1y ago
    It's also striking to me that these folks cried hard about free speech when being deplatformed for harmful lies, but they're revoking visas for people who didn't show proper remorse for a conservative podcasters murder. Everything this administration and its supporters do is in bad faith. It's exasperating.

Pxtl 1y ago

The government takedown requests that happened during the COVID pandemic peak were the government flagging disinformation and lies. This is the a government flagging truths that they dislike. Also, there's a big difference when one government has a proven track-record of abusing its power to punish dissenting media. AFAIK, the Biden admin never threatened to block mergers and similar business deals over speech they disliked. Yes, government requests always have the color of authority, but I don't know of any cases where there was any even implied threat behind it. Well, other than the possibility of legislation that would make an official legal requirement of "no, you do have a responsibility to police your platform of disinfo where constitutionally legal (eg if it's foreign-government-funded propaganda)". But an act of congress to elevate an policy into law if self-policing doesn't work is very different from abusing executive powers to punish people without any involvement normal due process of law. https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en https://x.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en