3 ms·

This seems like a tenuous connection at best. The Biden admin were actually sued for their relationship with social media companies. The suit failed but the con

by jajuuka 8mo ago

This seems like a tenuous connection at best. The Biden admin were actually sued for their relationship with social media companies. The suit failed but the conclusion was still that the administration was involved in pushing social media companies to take specific actions. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/murthy-v-missouri-formerly-missouri-v-biden https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/murthy-v-... There are also correspondence about moderation right after Biden was elected from his admin. So he's not blameless here. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/HHRG-118-IF16-20230328-SD019.pdf https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/... Personally I don't care, but we should at least be factual in criticism.

hn_acker 8mo ago
> The Biden admin were actually sued for their relationship with social media companies. The suit failed but the conclusion was still that the administration was involved in pushing social media companies to take specific actions. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/murthy-v-missouri-formerly-missouri-v-biden https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/murthy-v-... That's an misleading description of the "conclusion" (and incorrect if by "involvement" or "pushing" you meant unconstitutional behavior). The conclusion of Murthy v. Missouri is that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction against the federal government's (under the Biden administration) requests/"demands" to social media companies to remove users' speech [1]. Why was there no standing? Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a minimum of evidence that the Biden administration had coerced or threatened social media companies to censor users' speech [1]: > To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction. Or rather, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient evidence that, in the period leading up to the original lawsuits, the social media companies' decisions to remove the relevant speech mentioned by the Biden administration had been anything other than the social media companies' voluntary choices. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/#tab-opinion-4907766 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/#tab-...
- jajuuka 8mo ago
  If you actually read the case the evidence is clear that the government was giving direction to social media sites. Which is what the comment I was replying to was about. Read the dissenting opinion. I think you're coming at this from the angle of the court is always correct, and not actually examining the case itself.
  - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
    "actually read the case" includes reading the judgement ("the conclusion"), which overrules your personal judgement (and mine, whatever it might've been). > Read the dissenting opinion Dissenting opinions are often irrelevant, equivalent to a loser shouting into the void because they lost. By definition, dissenting opinions are incorrect, because to be correct, they would need to be shared by the majority, in which case they would be in the non-dissenting opinion, if anywhere. > I think you're coming at this from the angle of the court is always correct By definition, the court is always "correct" unless contradicted by a constitutionally higher authority. In particular, a court consensus of 9 co-equal judges is more correct than a subset of 1 or 2 of those same judges. And while I'm sure you're a nice, competent person, perhaps even a lawyer, the court is more correct than you here.
    - jajuuka 8mo ago
      I'm not sure why you're absolving yourself of free will. When courts ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just, were they correct? What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just. Would the judges who support abolition be "losers shouting into the void"? It seems like your position falls apart pretty quickly to anyone with basic morals. Courts and judges are not perfect. Are you just clinging to that belief to justify a predetermined opinion?
      - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
        > What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just What if it ruled the opposite (the status quo), and you used your same argument to say that the courts are wrong and that chattel slavery actually is legal and just? What makes you, 1 random person out of billions, more correct than the courts, just because you might personally feel chattel slavery is legal and just? > Courts and judges are not perfect. If courts and judges are not perfect, then that means that you and your dissenting opinions are even less perfect. Even if we were to accept mob rule, the people don't share your dissenting opinion, so your proposal seems to be that a randomly-small minority of random people unaccountably decide matters of law based on whatever criteria they feel at the time -- a worse option than courts in every way.

by jajuuka 8mo ago

hn_acker 8mo ago

> The Biden admin were actually sued for their relationship with social media companies. The suit failed but the conclusion was still that the administration was involved in pushing social media companies to take specific actions. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/murthy-v-missouri-formerly-missouri-v-biden https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/murthy-v-... That's an misleading description of the "conclusion" (and incorrect if by "involvement" or "pushing" you meant unconstitutional behavior). The conclusion of Murthy v. Missouri is that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a preliminary injunction against the federal government's (under the Biden administration) requests/"demands" to social media companies to remove users' speech [1]. Why was there no standing? Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a minimum of evidence that the Biden administration had coerced or threatened social media companies to censor users' speech [1]: > To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction. Or rather, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient evidence that, in the period leading up to the original lawsuits, the social media companies' decisions to remove the relevant speech mentioned by the Biden administration had been anything other than the social media companies' voluntary choices. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/#tab-opinion-4907766 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/#tab-...

jajuuka 8mo ago
If you actually read the case the evidence is clear that the government was giving direction to social media sites. Which is what the comment I was replying to was about. Read the dissenting opinion. I think you're coming at this from the angle of the court is always correct, and not actually examining the case itself.
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  "actually read the case" includes reading the judgement ("the conclusion"), which overrules your personal judgement (and mine, whatever it might've been). > Read the dissenting opinion Dissenting opinions are often irrelevant, equivalent to a loser shouting into the void because they lost. By definition, dissenting opinions are incorrect, because to be correct, they would need to be shared by the majority, in which case they would be in the non-dissenting opinion, if anywhere. > I think you're coming at this from the angle of the court is always correct By definition, the court is always "correct" unless contradicted by a constitutionally higher authority. In particular, a court consensus of 9 co-equal judges is more correct than a subset of 1 or 2 of those same judges. And while I'm sure you're a nice, competent person, perhaps even a lawyer, the court is more correct than you here.
  - jajuuka 8mo ago
    I'm not sure why you're absolving yourself of free will. When courts ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just, were they correct? What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just. Would the judges who support abolition be "losers shouting into the void"? It seems like your position falls apart pretty quickly to anyone with basic morals. Courts and judges are not perfect. Are you just clinging to that belief to justify a predetermined opinion?
    - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
      > What if a court today ruled that chattel slavery was legal and just What if it ruled the opposite (the status quo), and you used your same argument to say that the courts are wrong and that chattel slavery actually is legal and just? What makes you, 1 random person out of billions, more correct than the courts, just because you might personally feel chattel slavery is legal and just? > Courts and judges are not perfect. If courts and judges are not perfect, then that means that you and your dissenting opinions are even less perfect. Even if we were to accept mob rule, the people don't share your dissenting opinion, so your proposal seems to be that a randomly-small minority of random people unaccountably decide matters of law based on whatever criteria they feel at the time -- a worse option than courts in every way.