Technology

23 readers

2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago

Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech” (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by asteroidrainfall@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

172 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I literally copied and pasted my own comment; I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. "They" are the "Whitehouse" (via the FBI) that literally are what the trial of the post on which we're having this discussion were accused of; so yes, that's exactly what I said. They (the FBI/"Whitehouse") are on trial for influencing what should be sensored on social media as well as what information could be released during document requests to journalists. This included (based on the Twitter files) comments criticizing measures mandated by the government, including masking and social distancing requirements along with quarantine mandates.

My first article simply gave an example of one part of the mandates that weren't based on science with more stories to come once I can use an actual PC. It wasn't supposed to be my be-all-end-all source for everything I posited.

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I copied what you said. You claimed otherwise and said something different before, even if you repasted your comment.

Now you are on to ANOTHER claim about the FBI censoring after specifying "they".

Still no proof or good sources from you.

WASTING TIME

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You call it wasting time, I call it protecting our freedom of speech, including yours. If you can't follow what I'm saying I'm sure other people can and will. The article on the OP is literally accusing the FBI under Biden of doing these things, and have given evidence showing as much, so I didn't feel the need to give evidence of this.

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't care about anything beyond pushing your own narrative.

You keep jumping around to different claims, with no sources backing them up for what you said.

You claim to be protecting freedom of speech, but you aren't. You are only protecting bad faith actors, bots, and liars.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and when it come to the health and safety of the public somethings have to take priority. Necessary things from what I have seen.

And this case is being appealed.

Biden admin’s likely appeal
Assuming the Biden administration appeals Doughty's ruling on the preliminary injunction, the government would likely make arguments similar to what it wrote in a May 2023 filing. There is a high legal bar for ruling that "significant encouragement" would "convert private conduct into state action," the administration argued.

"Since 2017, Executive Branch agencies and officials have promoted authoritative information or expressed concerns with the spread of misinformation," but "consistently recognized social media companies' authority over their platforms," Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree, and that should be okay. I shouldn't be censored for doing so. I shouldn't be put on a list of concerning individuals like the FBI has been proven to be doing as a result of the Twitter files. Seriously if you'd just read up on it your eyes would be opened. Our current (and past) leadership along with corporate elites are trying to scare you from "bad actors" in order that you give up your freedom. This allows them to stay in power.

I'm not "jumping around" on any claims I have made. All claims I have made are verifiable, and have followed logically throughout this discussion. I have backed up some of them with sources (time permitting) which you of course have disputed. If you take issue with any of my claims, be specific. I'm happy to provide sources when I have the time.

Also, of course they're going to appeal. Why would they give up on being able to censor us now?

[–] snipgan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You just keep making claims. With no proof or evidence.

You just made another one about using “bad actors” to give up on freedom, then have the gall to say you aren’t jumping around.

Haven’t proven anything. Haven’t shown your way to be right. Haven’t shown any consistency.

Your rambling at this point.

STOP WASTING TIME

Edit: so much for getting me a bunch of sources after 10 hours to "get to my computer"