4 ms·

During a press conference yesterday, Hegseth, the secretary of war, received a question on Iran from CNN that he didn't feel the need to answer, and then went o

• jacquesm 8mo ago
  Yes, they are no longer even pretending to hide, I think that's the thing that really changed. Up to a few years ago there would always be the figleaf. Now, they're just stating openly what they're up to and nobody bats an eye. It's an extreme case of the normalization of deviance. And in a way that is the answer to that age old question: "How could they let it happen?" when contemplating Germany ca. 1936.
  • h0dl0n 8mo ago
    [dead]
• stinkbeetle 8mo ago
  Funny how many of the people who only a few years ago weregloating about how private companies can do what they want, and there's no issues with censoring people or spreading propaganda (in clandestine cooperation with the government) are now seeing it blow back in their faces. I mean everybody who isn't stupid knew it was coming, not everybody thought it would come so quickly.
  • the_why_of_y 8mo ago
    Are you sure that these people were "gloating" about private companies moderating arbitrarily? In the US, this is simply an obvious consequence of the first amendment, as many people have indeed pointed out. The same people may personally hold wildly different beliefs as to whether this legal situation is desirable or not. And in European countries, where there is no first amendment preventing the government from interfering with social media moderation policies, the situation is often different, and courts have required social media companies to publish speech which they had intended to moderate; see for example: https://www.tribunaux-rechtbanken.be/sites/default/files/media/hbca/gent/files/20240603-persbericht-meta-moet-schadevergoeding-betalen-aan-politicus.pdf https://www.tribunaux-rechtbanken.be/sites/default/files/med...
    • stinkbeetle 8mo ago
      No it wasn't that they were moderating arbitrarily, it's that they were censoring opinions and discussions that were deemed verboten and the gloatees agreed with shutting it down. They of course changed their tune about it when something did not go their way.
      • the_why_of_y 8mo ago
        arbitrary, adjective: 2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power
        • stinkbeetle 8mo ago
          I know. That's not what they were gloating about.
• lo_zamoyski 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  • paulryanrogers 8mo ago
    Was the left's cancel movement really hysterical? Or are you referring to the right's reaction to it I don't recall Obama or Biden administrations opening threatening private outlets.
  • thrance 8mo ago
    I tire of this pathetic bothsideism. "Cancel culture" never made it to law, and had zero implications for the people that were supposedly targeted. Case in point: Trump is still president despite being a child rapist that tried to overthrow the American democracy. The Right is uniquely bad for free speech and free press in this country (and the economy, and corruption, and the environment, and peace...). Stop pretending otherwise. Do you remember Biden or his ministers openly calling journalists names for their "stupid questions" at every press conference? Because that's what the Trump admin does daily. They revoked entry to the white house to some publications they disagree with, they facilitated mergers to put more media in the hands of their allies, they have the FCC threaten "unpatriotic" reporting with sanctions... Need I continue? > And FWIW, I know plenty of actual conservatives, not Trumpist imposters, who defend freedom of speech Fucking where?? I am yet to meet a single Republican who condemned anything Trump ever did.