It doesn’t matter whether they were censuring the truth or lies. Stalin would have been happy to allow a system where only lies are banned, as long as he got to decide what are lies.
3 Likes
Thank god…!
So obvious they were violating the 1st A. The govt is no in charges of truth.
3 Likes
You have no evidence of this.
You have evidence of FBI requesting tweets to be reviewed for misinformation. You have no evidence that Twitter adhered to those requests.
You also have no evidence of the FBI threatening Twitter if they did not review or remove tweets.
In some cases they were…
However that question was just trying to figure out if there are exceptions to the “Government cannot contact private companies to combat misinformation”.
I just gave an example where it seems most agree, the government can ask for corrections on its own speech.
Emphasis mine
What constitutes pressure? Is simply asking via email or letter… pressure?
Or does the pressure need to come with some sort of real or implied punishment?
Why is FBI even monitoring tweets on civilians for misinformation to begin with?
3 Likes
That is weird. But it’s public information. At that point it’s fair game. I definitely think the SF FBI could use their time better.
Yes, when it comes from the state or federal government, simply asking is pressure, in my opinion.
5 Likes
“Twitter would ultimately take requests from “every conceivable government body” from officials “asking for individuals they didn’t like to be banned.” The office of Adam Schiff went as far as to request journalist Paul Sperry be banned. “WE DON’T DO THIS,” Twitter responded, although Sperry would later be banned for unstated reasons. Several other accounts would be banned though, on the government’s claims that they were tied to Russia.
Twitter gradually lost the ability to say no to requests, which started arriving “in bulk.” The amount of work Twitter was requesting ultimately resulted in the government paying the social media giant for its service, as it overworked employees with requests. The requests only continued as the Russian invasion of Ukraine began in February.
“They were even warned about publicity surrounding a book by former Ukraine prosecutor Viktor Shokhin, who alleged ‘corruption by the U.S. government’—specifically by Joe Biden,” says Taibbi. “
3 Likes
Disagree.
What do you think this is showing? This seems to prove my point.
Oh and btw… Twitters own lawyers said the Twitter Files are BS
“The new materials do not plausibly suggest that Twitter suspended any of Plaintiffs’ accounts pursuant to any state-created right or rule of conduct. As this Court held, Lugar’s first prong requires a “clear,” government-imposed rule. Dkt. 165 at 6. But, as with Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the new materials contain only a “grab-bag” of communications about varied topics, none establishing a state-imposed rule responsible for Plaintiffs’ challenged content-moderation decisions.“
And there is more
“Moreover, a rule of conduct is imposed by the state only if backed by the force of law, as with a statute or regulation. See Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (regulatory requirements can satisfy Lugar’s first prong). Here, nothing in the new materials suggests any statute or regulation dictating or authorizing Twitter’s content-moderation decisions with respect to Plaintiffs’ accounts. To the contrary, the new materials show that Twitter takes content-moderation actions pursuant to its own rules and policies.“
And more
“Additionally, the new materials contain only general calls on Twitter to “do more” to address COVID-19 misinformation and questions regarding why Twitter had not taken action against certain other accounts (not Plaintiffs’). Pls.’ Exs. A.43-A.48. Such requests to “do more to stop the spread of false or misleading COVID-19 information,” untethered to any specific threat or requirement to take any specific action against Plaintiffs, is “permissible persuasion” and not state action. Kennedy v. Warren, 66 F.4th 1199, 1205, 1207-12 (9th Cir. 2023). As this Court previously held, government actors are free to “urg[e]” private parties to take certain actions or “criticize” others without giving rise to state action. Dkt. 165 at 12-13. Because that is the most that the new materials suggest with respect to Cuadros and Root, the new materials would not change this Court’s dismissal of their claims”
And mooooore
“First, the simple act of receiving information from the government, or of deciding to act upon that information, does not transform a private actor into a state actor. See O’Handley, 62 F.4th at 1160 (reports from government actors “flagg[ing] for Twitter’s review posts that potentially violated the company’s content-moderation policy” were not state action). While Plaintiffs have attempted to distinguish O’Handley on the basis of the repeated communications reflected in the new materials, (Ex. 1 at 13), O’Handley held that such “flag[s]” do not suggest state action even where done “on a repeated basis” through a dedicated, “priority” portal. Id. The very documents on which Plaintiffs rely establish that when governmental actors reported to social media companies content that potentially violated their terms of service, the companies, including Twitter, would “see if [the content] violated their terms of service,” and, “[i]f [it] did, they would follow their own policies” regarding what content-moderation action was appropriate.”
Ouch…
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610376382709927936
This cycle -threatened legislation, wedded to scare headlines pushed by congressional/intel sources, followed by Twitter caving to moderation asks - would later be formalized in partnerships with federal law enforcement
So Twitter lawyers are, lying?
The government has too much power over business. Any “request” from a government official comes with an implied threat.
5 Likes
They seem to have left out the part about threatened legislation and the leaking of scare headlines if compliance wasn’t met.
2 Likes
The government can say put out what ever message they want. They cannot require a company to silence what a citizen wants to say about what ever message the government put out.
I can go on social media and tell everyone government is nothing but a bunch of liars and crooks. The government has no right to silence my beliefs if they disagree with me. Free speech means I have the right to say whatever I believe, and the government cannot silence my voice.
What you want is a government like Putin who silences every voice who disagrees with his agenda.
3 Likes
They very clearly state that there was no pressure. In court.
Suppose the government “asked” all social media platforms and public forums to block all black activists. You would say that’s OK?
3 Likes
I agree with this. They can’t require.
Correct
Correct. But a private company can.
Good post until this. Not sure why this was necessary
When regulators and those who control statutes ask you to ban speech, there is pressure - even if not explicitly stated.
Government finds what they think is misinformation and corrects it - fine. Government finds what it considers misinformation and surreptitiously asks this speech be censured - not fine.
Are you going to hold your position if Trump becomes President again and asks that the DNC positions be banned?
2 Likes
