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

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Do you extend the same to lies or threats? If I claimed your computer is full of CP would you still support me?

I personally think this is a brain-dead approach akin to the many "zero tolerance" laws that only exist to remove thought from the equation. "Yes Billy, you may not have actually thrown any punches but we're suspending you from school for getting beat up by that bully because you were a participant in the fight."

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

It’s brain dead to respect the law? Are you drawing a line between what I said and some idea of unlimited free speech? If so, that’s not my stance.

Edit: also half the things you said would be illegal, so no I wouldn’t support you

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The first amendment is the first amendment, science or anti-science or anything in between. Whether or not I agree with anything in your comment.

What else is there to take from this? Sounds like the typical "unlimited free speech" argument that we've all heard before.

If you want to argue about the law, the legality of this action has yet to be determined, so I'm assuming you must be in support of it, no? What is your stance if you think there's confusion on my part about what that may be.

Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?

[–] barf@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Lies and threats may be illegal but they violate the idea of free speech, so why do you support these restrictions on the first amendment and not others?

Because they’re laws the we have as a society agreed upon and put into place. Pretty simple stuff. I do not understand how thinking that the law should be followed is such a wild idea.

If we want vaccine misinformation to be illegal, we should pass a law. Otherwise, the first amendment stands. What’s so weird about that?