Ye Olde Guv'ment Censorship

[Ana the Ist]

The government has a big case before the SCOTUS. Posters here probably recognize it as the "Twitter files" as it largely came out of piles of data Musk made available to independent journalists after his acquisition of Twitter.

Twitter had, by that time, effectively become an arm of propaganda and censorship for the left.

The video is short, as it only contains a few examples of censorship....

The first one is probably the most interesting though. It's just a text from Mark Z. to his associates asking if he should mention the pressure the WH placed on FB to censor the lab leak theory.

Thoughts?

 

[Vambram]

Without any doubt, I believe that government censoring anyone who disagrees with the official narrative is unlawful AND immoral.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thoughts?

Were these the hearings where the GOP were overly concerned about seeing nude pictures of a private individual, or were they the ones where evidence of the Trump admin trying to censor posts unflattering to Mr. Trump was presented? It's hard to keep track of all the GOP political theater these days, given they don't do much else.

 

[Whyayeman]

Perhaps the question is: To what degree is the state entitled to keep secrets?

Twitter had, by that time, effectively become an arm of propaganda and censorship for the left.

That is a contentious claim. I have seen it argued that Twitter is the home ground for the extreme right too.

 

[bèlla]

Look on the bright side. Everything you post on the Internet is contributing to your social credit score. If you're going to oppose the powers make sure you spend your currency on worthwhile subjects. The Metaverse is the future. What's the likelihood your opposition will thwart them on this issue? And don't read too much into his statements. Remember the chessboard. Duality rules.

Note: For the uninformed the chessboard is someone playing both sides.

~bella

 

[Ana the Ist]

Were these the hearings where the GOP were overly concerned about seeing nude pictures of a private individual

Nope.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps the question is: To what degree is the state entitled to keep secrets?

That is a contentious claim. I have seen it argued that Twitter is the home ground for the extreme right too.

Fair enough, but only one of those claims is being fought out in court.

 

[jacks]

We've come a long way from Abraham Lincoln's hope.

..that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Was he right at some point, or has always been about power and manipulating the masses? The only concern for "the people" seems to be getting their votes. And at this point anything seems fair; morality, truth and what is right is of no concern.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps the question is: To what degree is the state entitled to keep secrets?

If anyone had a definitive answer to that, that was both consistent and prudent, they'd have the answer to the $10 million dollar question lol

The notion that "some secrets have to be kept from the people, because the people could expose it to our enemies" is prudent, but is not consistent within pure representative republic/democracy. (in that, we're paying for something, but not allowed to know the details of what we're paying for)

The notion of "if we're paying taxes for our military and homeland defense and intelligence agencies, we have a right to know what they're doing" is consistent, but not prudent, in that we all know some blabbermouth would post it on facebook and a North Korean or Russian sockpuppet account would love to get their hands on that information in ways that would make us less safe.

It's actually a dynamic I've pondered quite a bit and still don't have a great answer for.

On one hand, I understand why the government would want and need to keep secrets in the name of national security, you can't just let everyone and their brother know what our missile defense systems entail, that would last all of 10 minutes before it ended up on someone's social media feed.
On the other hand, a government that has the power to take our money and use it for covert stuff with no obligation to tell us, is a government powerful enough to do secret stuff against us as well. (see: NSA wiretapping and the Patriot Act)

It's a balancing act, and quite a tough one at that...

With regards to social media companies, I've long said that the moment they got called up to senate hearings and coerced into setting ToS provisions that favored what the "in-power" administration wanted and subsequently complied with the indirect demands, they became "State Actors" (and should be held to the stipulations in the State Action doctrine of the constitution). But that still leaves us struggling with the broader question you asked.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nope.

Was it the one which presented evidence of the Trump administration pressuring Twitter to censor posts unflattering to Mr. Trump?

 

[Whyayeman]

Was it the one which presented evidence of the Trump administration pressuring Twitter to censor posts unflattering to Mr. Trump?

I agree with you about the dilemma.

When it comes to defence I think we must grant a high degree of secrecy. We in the UK have a lot of experience of military secrets being kept. I remember being told by a lady who lived close to the port of Grimsby during WW2. She woke up one morning in June 1944 to find her street lined with American jeeps. The next morning they were gone. Nobody knew a thing about what was going on until the country heard about Operation Overlord later in the week.

They were part, of course, of the D Day landings and by the time everybody knew about that Allied troops were already in France. It was a huge military secret entirely justified by the need for surprise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Was it the one which presented evidence of the Trump administration pressuring Twitter to censor posts unflattering to Mr. Trump?

No....though if you think that is what that particular hearing is about, you should definitely reread about it in different news sources. I know that's how certain mainstream left wing propaganda outlets painted it....but in reality, it's a huge story about the Biden administration perpetrating the biggest violation of free speech in the history of the US government.

It's a much bigger story than Trump requesting posts that included some swearing (and therefore violated Twitter TOS) be taken down.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If anyone had a definitive answer to that, that was both consistent and prudent, they'd have the answer to the $10 million dollar question lol

The notion that "some secrets have to be kept from the people, because the people could expose it to our enemies" is prudent, but is not consistent within pure representative republic/democracy. (in that, we're paying for something, but not allowed to know the details of what we're paying for)

I think it's difficult for some people to understand that if we were to have the president go on tv....explain all the ways we're manipulating foreign actors towards our own ends.....then those plans suddenly become far less likely to succeed.

The notion of "if we're paying taxes for our military and homeland defense and intelligence agencies, we have a right to know what they're doing" is consistent, but not prudent, in that we all know some blabbermouth would post it on facebook and a North Korean or Russian sockpuppet account would love to get their hands on that information in ways that would make us less safe.

Indeed. If we could even access the information ourselves, it need not be shared online by some blabbermouth....our enemies could easily access it themselves.

It's actually a dynamic I've pondered quite a bit and still don't have a great answer for.

I think we have to accept certain realities that exist in the highest offices and understand that we aren't going to be aware of every decision being made or why.

On one hand, I understand why the government would want and need to keep secrets in the name of national security, you can't just let everyone and their brother know what our missile defense systems entail, that would last all of 10 minutes before it ended up on someone's social media feed.
On the other hand, a government that has the power to take our money and use it for covert stuff with no obligation to tell us, is a government powerful enough to do secret stuff against us as well. (see: NSA wiretapping and the Patriot Act)

They're basically already doing the secret stuff to us.

I'm unhappy with the Seth Rich disclosure requiring 60+ years. That's insane.

It's a balancing act, and quite a tough one at that...

With regards to social media companies, I've long said that the moment they got called up to senate hearings and coerced into setting ToS provisions that favored what the "in-power" administration wanted and subsequently complied with the indirect demands, they became "State Actors" (and should be held to the stipulations in the State Action doctrine of the constitution). But that still leaves us struggling with the broader question you asked.

I forget what rules they operate under....but basically, I think they're classified legally the same way public utilities are....which allows them to avoid liability.

I think however, if you're going to enjoy the protection from liability they enjoy....then they have to allow the same rights the public enjoys under the constitution. In other words, if you want to be the "town square" and are essentially just a place where people can go to speak their minds....then fine, as long as no one is breaking the law, anything goes and they aren't liable for damages.

However, once you moderate or play favorites with certain viewpoints, you're now a business, offering a service, and advertising to your clients. If your clients are harmed....because someone dug up a 15yo photo of you in blackface and posted it to your employer along with the demand you be fired....those are damages. The social media company may not be liable for them...but the person who posted the pic and made the demand certainly is....and their information should be provided by the social media company as well as all relevant information to the case.