Do you trust The Whitehouse and big tech to control "disinformation?"

[Samson_Corwell]

@TheRedComet

Fall in line comrades.

Your attitude seems to have changed.

[TheRedComet]

You’re right.

Both parties are snakes, criminals, and careerists.

[TheRedComet]

I’ve never trusted the state to determine what is information and what is misinformation.

If the individual social media sites wish to do so, that is their prerogative. It is their platform.

But the state has absolutely no business being in such matters.

[wiley8425]

Keep moving those goalposts.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Rodeo

@Supreme_War_Pig

You have entirely missed the point of my post

Your post had no real point to miss.

Your post was that there’s no complaint from someone not in government because government hasn’t acted to give me a reason to complain.

Your post was intellectually lacking.

No, my post said that at this time, there is no link either judicial or legislative, between the socials and government. The socials are private corporations, and therefore by definition, not violating the first ammendment.

This may change, but until then, there is simply no first ammendment cause against the socials.

[Tguns]

There in lies the rub. If you allow one party to be the arbiters of what is deemed disinformation and subsequently suppressed, what ever ideas they promote will inherently find consensus.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@CanadianJudo

You don’t have a 1st Amendment right to use Facebook.

The government doesn’t have the right to manipulate the freedom of speech whether it’s being said or being listened to and the Biden WH will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

The government has a right to respond to disinformation being levied against it.

[Tguns]

Precisely, what does the government have the right to do in this regard?

[Jezcoe]

@Tguns

Precisely, what does the government have the right to do in this regard?

To respond to disinformation being levied against it.

Say there was a popular trend of posts that claimed that the vaccine was for government mind control. If the government were to alert the platforms that this is not true and here are the facts… and maybe if you could counter that obvious disinfo that would be super cool… That is not a violation of First Amendment rights.

The social media platform is free to do as it wishes.

[zantax]

@wiley8425

Keep moving those goalposts.

In over your head.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@Smyrna

@CanadianJudo

You don’t have a 1st Amendment right to use Facebook.

The government doesn’t have the right to manipulate the freedom of speech whether it’s being said or being listened to and the Biden WH will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

The government has a right to respond to disinformation being levied against it.

Governments don’t have rights.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Smyrna

@CanadianJudo

You don’t have a 1st Amendment right to use Facebook.

The government doesn’t have the right to manipulate the freedom of speech whether it’s being said or being listened to and the Biden WH will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

The government has a right to respond to disinformation being levied against it.

Governments don’t have rights.

Okay then.

Responsibility.

Is that an okay word to use in this game of semantics?

[Tguns]

I agree that the government is within it’s power to publish a rebuttal. Where it would be clearly over the line is requesting to silence the disinformation. I think it’s a bit in the grey claiming it’s all false knowing what the likely outcome will be.

[Jezcoe]

@Tguns

Where it would be clearly over the line is requesting to silence the disinformation.

A private company is under no obligation to comply.

Not a first amendment issue.

[Tguns]

It wouldn’t be a violation by the company, it would be a violation by the government or requesting agency thereof.

[Jezcoe]

@Tguns

It wouldn’t be a violation by the company, it would be a violation by the government or requesting agency thereof.

I don’t see making a request as a violation.

Making it criminal or attachment of a penalty would be a violation.

[Tguns]

@Jezcoe

I don’t see making a request as a violation.

I do.

FBI: “hey Apple, we don’t have a warrant per say, but you think you can crack this IPhone for us so we can take a look see at what this guy’s been up too?”

Just a request.

[Jezcoe]

@Tguns

@Jezcoe

I don’t see making a request as a violation.

I do.

FBI: “hey Apple, we don’t have a warrant per say, but you think you can crack this IPhone for us so we can take a look see at what this guy’s been up too?”

Just a request.

That actually happened.

Apple said go pound sand.

Apple opposes order to help FBI unlock phone belonging to San Bernardino shooter

[Tguns]

@Jezcoe

That actually happened.

Apple said go pound sand.

Yes, I remeber…of course the FBI did have a warrant to search the phone at the time.

And if I remember correctly Apples issue was with the software it needed to develope in order to crack it may get out in the wild.

[Jezcoe]

@Tguns

@Jezcoe

That actually happened.

Apple said go pound sand.

Yes, I remeber…of course the FBI did have a warrant to search the phone at the time.

And if I remember correctly Apples issue was with the software it needed to develope in order to crack it may get out in the wild.

So even in a legal matter, a private company has the ability to resist.

An administration pointing out disinfo is not a first amendment violation.