Technology

31 readers

1 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

State Dept. cancels election meetings with Facebook after “free speech” ruling (arstechnica.com)

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

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Biden administration is appealing a federal judge's ruling that ordered the government to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies. President Biden and the other federal defendants in the case "hereby appeal" the ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to a notice filed in US District Court yesterday. The US will submit a longer filing with arguments to the 5th Circuit appeals court.

On Tuesday, Judge Terry Doughty of US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction that prohibits White House officials and numerous federal agencies from communicating "with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms."

Doughty found that defendants "significantly encouraged" and in some cases coerced "the social-media companies to such extent that the decision…

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

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

That's not a reason to start controlling speech. It's an effective knee jerk emotional reaction that may even elicit the immediate desired outcome but that newfound power will absolutely be used by the next guy. You want Donald Trump's team having that kind of control over speech?

Everything you give to the guy you like will be wielded by the guy you don't like. Don't be stupid.

[–] Flaky_Fish69@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don’t be stupid

You first.

Inciting insurrection, inciting to riot, and treason are all very much illegal. And pretty much always have been.

I will back the right of any American to say their piece to the hilt, and generally, you’re right. This however is not “suppression”…. And a lot of these posts aren’t necessarily Americans. Would you prefer else invade Russia, to make it stop?

In the same vein, selling snake oil is also very much illegal. It’s called fraud. Many of the people your defending are very much modern snake oil salesmen. I would also very much like to see jail time to the people that sold my cousin some shit promising it would protect her son from Covid. The kid is alive. But he got long Covid anyway, and when she responded by giving the kid more snake oil… he went blind.

Your ideals are awesome. But they come with a cost you are choosing to ignore. Many of these individuals are choosing to knowlingly spread lies (including trump himself,) for their own personal gain. Free speech, doesn’t mean no consequences.

The first amendment doesn’t protect you from getting shitcanned from social media because you shilled some snake oil or are openly advocating insurrection (or spouting election lies.)

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

Your ideals are awesome. But they come with a cost you are choosing to ignore. Many of these individuals are choosing to knowlingly spread lies (including trump himself,) for their own personal gain. Free speech, doesn’t mean no consequences.

And I acknowledge that. I don't have the right to tell someone they can't, shouldn't, or don't have the right to lie. It's up to the people to whom are being lied to distinguish lies from truth.

It doesn't mean no consequences for those lies, but those consequences can not be that there is an acceptable speech. If we allow that then we give control over what that acceptable speech is to someone. And that someone right now could be the right person. But it's not always going to be that way, it will necessarily be the worst people at some point. So the only way to ensure the right speech gets listened to is to put that onus on the listener and call it out when we see it. Preventing it in general is not an option.