46 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Can you share them? 

Sure, here are some examples of items that I find questionable and concerning:

On February 6, 2021, Flaherty requested Twitter to remove a parody account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden's daughter and President Biden's granddaughter. The request stated, "Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” and "Please remove this account immediately.” Twitter suspended the parody account within forty- five minutes of Flaherty’s request.

On February 7, 2021, Twitter sent Flaherty a "Twitter's Partner Support Portal” for ‘expedited review of flagging content for censorship. Twitter recommended that Flaherty designate a list of authorized White House staff to enroll in Twitter's Partner Support Portal and explained that when authorized reporters submit a "ticket” using the portal, the requests are "prioritized” automatically.  my comment: I'm not really a fan of allowing the government to be able to partner with a private company for the purpose of flagging content to be censored.

On March 15, 2021, Flaherty acknowledged receiving Facebook's detailed report and demanded a report from Facebook on a recent Washington Post article that accused Facebook of allowing the spread of information leading to vaccine hesitancy. Flaherty emailed the Washington Post article to Facebook the day before, with the subject line: "You are hiding the ball,” and stated "I've been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy and the degree to which borderline content as you define it is playing a role.” After Facebook denied "hiding the ball,” Flaherty followed up by making clear that the ‘White House was seeking more aggressive action on "borderline content.” Flaherty referred to a series of meetings with Facebook that were held in response to concerns over "borderline content” and accused Facebook of deceiving the White House about Facebook's "borderline policies." Flaherty also accused Facebook of being the "top driver of vaccine hesitancy.” Specifically, his email stated: Lam not trying to play ‘gotcha’ with you. We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy- period. I will also be the first to acknowledge that borderline content offers no easy solutions. But we want to know that you're trying, we want to know how we can help, and we wan to know that you're not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on. This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us. In response to Flaherty’s email, Facebook responded, stating: "We obviously have work to do to gain your trust... We are also working to get you useful information that’s on the level. That's my job and I take it seriously — I'll continue to do it to the best of my ability, and I'll expect you to hold me accountable.

My comment: So now we have government officials making accusations at facebook that it's not doing enough.  And facebook officials respond by saying they have more work to do to gain the government's trust, and that they expect to be held accountable by the government. To me, this implies that facebook thought there could be repercussions if they don't meet the government's demands, as there is no situation in which they should feel they are being held "accountable" by the government when it comes to censoring speech on their website. 

 

Twitter discovery responses indicated that during the meeting, White House officials wanted to know why Alex Berenson (“Berenson”) had not been "kicked oft” Twitter.” Slavitt suggested Berenson was "the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.” Berenson was suspended thereafter on July 16, 2021, and was permanently de- platformed on August 28, 2021.

My comment: I just really don't like the vibe here. It's one thing to make suggestions, but then to be following up and demanding answers as to why a person they want kicked off twitter hadn't been kicked off yet?  Now it's starting to feel like this is getting beyond just "making a request"

 

On May 5, 2021, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Paki (“Psaki”) publicly began pushing Facebook and other social-media platforms to censor COVID-19 misinformation. Ata White House Press Conference, Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social-media platforms of the threat of "legal consequences” if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively. Psaki further stated: "The President's view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations and elections.” Psaki linked the threat of a "robust anti-trust program” with the White Houses censorship demand. "He also supports better privacy protections and a robust anti-trust program. So, his view is that there’s more that needs to be done to ensure that this type of misinformation; disinformation; damaging, sometime life-threatening information, is not going out to the American public.”

My comment: This contains some implied threats.

 

"The next day, Flaherty followed up with another email to Facebook and chastised Facebook for not catching various COVID-19 misinformation. Flaherty demanded more information about Facebook's efforts to demote borderline content, stating, "Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is being demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach, and how quickly?” Flaherty also criticized Facebook's efforts to censor the "Disinformation Dozen”  "Seems like your ‘dedicated vaccine hesitancy” policy isn’t stopping the disinfo-dozen — they're being deemed as not dedicated — so i fees like that problem likely coming over to groups"* Things apparently became tense between the White House and Facebook after that, culminating in Flaherty’s July 15, 2021 email to Facebook, in which Flaherty stated: "Are you guys f-cking serious? | want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.

my comment: Completely over the line relationship at this point. Facebook is not the government. Facebook does not work for the government. They don't owe any government official an answer on censorship yet once again we have Flaherty acting as if they are answerable to him.  This again goes beyond the government simply making an innocent request.

 

‘The next day, on July 16, 2021, President Biden, after being asked what his message was  to social-media platforms when it came to COVID-19, stated, “[Tlhey’re killing people.”' Specifically, he stated "Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that they're killing people.” Psaki stated the actions of censorship Facebook had already conducted were "clearly not sufficient” Four days later, on July 20, 2021, at a White House Press Conference, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield (“Bedingfield”) stated that the White House would be announcing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms and examining how misinformation fits into the liability protection granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which shields social-media platforms from being responsible for posts by third parties on their sites)." Bedingfield further stated the administration was reviewing policies that could include amending the Communication Decency Act and that the social-media platforms "should be held accountable.” 

my comment: more threats....

That's just from the first 25 pages of the memo and IMO shows a relationship between the government and social media companies that went beyond the government just innocently making suggestions or requests.  There's implied threats and retribution. There's the government demanding answers as if these companies are answerable to them.  And you have members from the company saying they are accountable to the government. 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I wouldn't say the evidence is non-existent.  Skimming through the early portions of the memo, the back and forth between Flaherty and facebook are questionable IMO. 

The cultist judge framed it as "the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

That's absolutely ridiculous, especially given which administration preceded this one. I'm not seeing any evidence of that nature. To be clear, the government interfering with the operations of private enterprises and asking them to remove content from their platforms is wrong, but once again, intent matters. Simply asking is not necessarily illegal. There would need to be threats of reprisal or some level of consequence interpreted by the companies to coerce them to act. That's not what happened here.

2 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Sure, here are some examples of items that I find questionable and concerning:

On February 6, 2021, Flaherty requested Twitter to remove a parody account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden's daughter and President Biden's granddaughter. The request stated, "Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” and "Please remove this account immediately.” Twitter suspended the parody account within forty- five minutes of Flaherty’s request.

On February 7, 2021, Twitter sent Flaherty a "Twitter's Partner Support Portal” for ‘expedited review of flagging content for censorship. Twitter recommended that Flaherty designate a list of authorized White House staff to enroll in Twitter's Partner Support Portal and explained that when authorized reporters submit a "ticket” using the portal, the requests are "prioritized” automatically.  my comment: I'm not really a fan of allowing the government to be able to partner with a private company for the purpose of flagging content to be censored.

On March 15, 2021, Flaherty acknowledged receiving Facebook's detailed report and demanded a report from Facebook on a recent Washington Post article that accused Facebook of allowing the spread of information leading to vaccine hesitancy. Flaherty emailed the Washington Post article to Facebook the day before, with the subject line: "You are hiding the ball,” and stated "I've been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy and the degree to which borderline content as you define it is playing a role.” After Facebook denied "hiding the ball,” Flaherty followed up by making clear that the ‘White House was seeking more aggressive action on "borderline content.” Flaherty referred to a series of meetings with Facebook that were held in response to concerns over "borderline content” and accused Facebook of deceiving the White House about Facebook's "borderline policies." Flaherty also accused Facebook of being the "top driver of vaccine hesitancy.” Specifically, his email stated: Lam not trying to play ‘gotcha’ with you. We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy- period. I will also be the first to acknowledge that borderline content offers no easy solutions. But we want to know that you're trying, we want to know how we can help, and we wan to know that you're not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on. This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us. In response to Flaherty’s email, Facebook responded, stating: "We obviously have work to do to gain your trust... We are also working to get you useful information that’s on the level. That's my job and I take it seriously — I'll continue to do it to the best of my ability, and I'll expect you to hold me accountable.

My comment: So now we have government officials making accusations at facebook that it's not doing enough.  And facebook officials respond by saying they have more work to do to gain the government's trust, and that they expect to be held accountable by the government. To me, this implies that facebook thought there could be repercussions if they don't meet the government's demands, as there is no situation in which they should feel they are being held "accountable" by the government when it comes to censoring speech on their website. 

 

Twitter discovery responses indicated that during the meeting, White House officials wanted to know why Alex Berenson (“Berenson”) had not been "kicked oft” Twitter.” Slavitt suggested Berenson was "the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.” Berenson was suspended thereafter on July 16, 2021, and was permanently de- platformed on August 28, 2021.

My comment: I just really don't like the vibe here. It's one thing to make suggestions, but then to be following up and demanding answers as to why a person they want kicked off twitter hadn't been kicked off yet?  Now it's starting to feel like this is getting beyond just "making a request"

 

On May 5, 2021, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Paki (“Psaki”) publicly began pushing Facebook and other social-media platforms to censor COVID-19 misinformation. Ata White House Press Conference, Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social-media platforms of the threat of "legal consequences” if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively. Psaki further stated: "The President's view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations and elections.” Psaki linked the threat of a "robust anti-trust program” with the White Houses censorship demand. "He also supports better privacy protections and a robust anti-trust program. So, his view is that there’s more that needs to be done to ensure that this type of misinformation; disinformation; damaging, sometime life-threatening information, is not going out to the American public.”

My comment: This contains some implied threats.

 

"The next day, Flaherty followed up with another email to Facebook and chastised Facebook for not catching various COVID-19 misinformation. Flaherty demanded more information about Facebook's efforts to demote borderline content, stating, "Not to sound like a broken record, but how much content is being demoted, and how effective are you at mitigating reach, and how quickly?” Flaherty also criticized Facebook's efforts to censor the "Disinformation Dozen”  "Seems like your ‘dedicated vaccine hesitancy” policy isn’t stopping the disinfo-dozen — they're being deemed as not dedicated — so i fees like that problem likely coming over to groups"* Things apparently became tense between the White House and Facebook after that, culminating in Flaherty’s July 15, 2021 email to Facebook, in which Flaherty stated: "Are you guys f-cking serious? | want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.

my comment: Completely over the line relationship at this point. Facebook is not the government. Facebook does not work for the government. They don't owe any government official an answer on censorship yet once again we have Flaherty acting as if they are answerable to him.  This again goes beyond the government simply making an innocent request.

 

‘The next day, on July 16, 2021, President Biden, after being asked what his message was  to social-media platforms when it came to COVID-19, stated, “[Tlhey’re killing people.”' Specifically, he stated "Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that they're killing people.” Psaki stated the actions of censorship Facebook had already conducted were "clearly not sufficient” Four days later, on July 20, 2021, at a White House Press Conference, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield (“Bedingfield”) stated that the White House would be announcing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms and examining how misinformation fits into the liability protection granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which shields social-media platforms from being responsible for posts by third parties on their sites)." Bedingfield further stated the administration was reviewing policies that could include amending the Communication Decency Act and that the social-media platforms "should be held accountable.” 

my comment: more threats....

That's just from the first 25 pages of the memo and IMO shows a relationship between the government and social media companies that went beyond the government just innocently making suggestions or requests.  There's implied threats and retribution. There's the government demanding answers as if these companies are answerable to them.  And you have members from the company saying they are accountable to the government. 

 

 

 

Flaherty demanding answers is bad, but not sure that qualifies as a threat. I agree that it shouldn't be happening, but doubt it meets the legal standard for coercion. Psaki's public reminder about legal consequences could easily be perceived as a threat though. That one is problematic. Still don't think it's anywhere near the level of "the worst attack of the first amendment" but I guess we'll have to see how things play out from here. Consider me skeptical that the ruling holds up, should he even make it final.

6 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Flaherty demanding answers is bad, but not sure that qualifies as a threat. I agree that it shouldn't be happening, but doubt it meets the legal standard for coercion. Psaki's public reminder about legal consequences could easily be perceived as a threat though. That one is problematic. Still don't think it's anywhere near the level of "the worst attack of the first amendment" but I guess we'll have to see how things play out from here. Consider me skeptical that the ruling holds up, should he even make it final.

That line is overzealous for sure.   I don't think we can separate Flaherty's demands from Psaki and Bedingfield making public threats. It's all from the same administration and is all intertwined.  I think there's enough there to make a case that the administration was going well beyond just making innocent requests.  

This Flaherty guy sounds like a real a-hole.

No doubt in the midst of the pandemic when the vaccine push was on that the WH got overzealous. That's not an excuse, just context; the urgency was real and we're now looking at it with hindsight.

FWIW these partner portals predates Biden, and I have little doubt that past administrations were likewise pressuring Twitter/etc to "fix" their message. So while it's good this is getting an airing, it's still hypocritical that it only now is becoming an issue.

12 hours ago, Arthur Jackson said:

So when you say "fascist"... are you referring to a thin, connective bodily tissue or that sophistic, platitudinous term that's all the rage among today's pseudointellectual cognoscenti?

When I say Fascist, I'm talking about the 3rd Reich fascists. Where the unity of the national community is prioritized above the rights of individuals. It leads to an intense defining of which groups belong and which ones do not. It's characterized by exclusionary nationalism, fixation with national decline real or perceived, and threats to the existence of the national community, and an embrace of Para militarism. In fascists states, violence is accepted, even celebrated. Fascist governments are one-party states led by an authoritarian leader who claims to embody the national will. Fascists define the national will as advancing the interests of the national community. 

12 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That's just from the first 25 pages of the memo and IMO shows a relationship between the government and social media companies that went beyond the government just innocently making suggestions or requests.  There's implied threats and retribution. There's the government demanding answers as if these companies are answerable to them.  And you have members from the company saying they are accountable to the government. 

My question is this: If Twitter and Facebook become vectors of false information that leads to the harm and death of individuals, to what extent are they liable for damages? In light of the situation where real people were dying, I think the warnings from the government to clean up their sites are just.

4 minutes ago, toolg said:

My question is this: If Twitter and Facebook become vectors of false information that leads to the harm and death of individuals, to what extent are they liable for damages? In light of the situation where real people were dying, I think the warnings from the government to clean up their sites are just.

That was already recently decided at SCOTUS, I believe.  The answer is no, they are not liable.

So if a poster on FB, posts how to make a nuclear weapon, or how to use a crock pot as a bomb, or poster calls for the incitement of violence or the overthrow of the Government, it's a violation of Free speech for the Government to contact Zuckerberg and ask him to take the posts down? How about voting misinformation or just flooding FB with pro Trump posts by Russian Trolls. I guess that's not the Government's place to insure fair elections and ask them to take it down? 

Prove the Coercion or there is no violation of free speech.

I don't think so. 

3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That line is overzealous for sure.   I don't think we can separate Flaherty's demands from Psaki and Bedingfield making public threats. It's all from the same administration and is all intertwined.  I think there's enough there to make a case that the administration was going well beyond just making innocent requests.  

You're basically gonna need that Facebook employee to provide testimony that they feared consequences from the administration of not complying with those demands. That they only acted out of said fear and would not have taken those actions of their own volition. That's how you get to coercion. Absent that, I'm not sure there's enough there that will hold up in a court of law. I don't think those emails alone are enough otherwise to meet the legal standard. Seems like a flimsy case if you're putting all your eggs in that basket.

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

When I say Fascist, I'm talking about the 3rd Reich fascists. Where the unity of the national community is prioritized above the rights of individuals. It leads to an intense defining of which groups belong and which ones do not. It's characterized by exclusionary nationalism, fixation with national decline real or perceived, and threats to the existence of the national community, and an embrace of Para militarism. In fascists states, violence is accepted, even celebrated. Fascist governments are one-party states led by an authoritarian leader who claims to embody the national will. Fascists define the national will as advancing the interests of the national community. 

Yeah, but do you know who originally coined the term fascism?

 

 

you guessed it... Frank Stallone.

19 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

So if a poster on FB, posts how to make a nuclear weapon, or how to use a crock pot as a bomb, or poster calls for the incitement of violence or the overthrow of the Government, it's a violation of Free speech for the Government to contact Zuckerberg and ask him to take the posts down? How about voting misinformation or just flooding FB with pro Trump posts by Russian Trolls. I guess that's not the Government's place to insure fair elections and ask them to take it down? 

Prove the Coercion or there is no violation of free speech.

I don't think so. 

Incitement of violence is not protected by the first amendment.  The request for injunction had nothing to do with posts calling for incitement of violence.  
 

"Prove the Coercion or there is no violation of free speech.”

that’s the whole purpose of this case.  The plaintiffs allege that the dialogue went beyond mere suggestions and requests.  I’ve already posted two instances of outright threats from the government made against the social media companies.  There is substance here. 

11 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You're basically gonna need that Facebook employee to provide testimony that they feared consequences from the administration of not complying with those demands. That they only acted out of said fear and would not have taken those actions of their own volition. That's how you get to coercion. Absent that, I'm not sure there's enough there that will hold up in a court of law. I don't think those emails alone are enough otherwise to meet the legal standard. Seems like a flimsy case if you're putting all your eggs in that basket.

Sure, but we already have the message from the Facebook employee to the Biden admin telling them he expects them to hold him accountable.   So why did he write that if not for admission that there would be consequences if he didn’t do what the government was asking and meet the "standard” they wanted him to meet?

The dialogue cited in the memo is one you would expect between a superior and their subordinates.  
 

14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You're basically gonna need that Facebook employee to provide testimony that they feared consequences from the administration of not complying with those demands. That they only acted out of said fear and would not have taken those actions of their own volition. That's how you get to coercion. Absent that, I'm not sure there's enough there that will hold up in a court of law. I don't think those emails alone are enough otherwise to meet the legal standard. Seems like a flimsy case if you're putting all your eggs in that basket.

You don't need that testimony. The standard is the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person feel he was being coerced and threatened by the actions. Obviously the testimony of employees will matter either way, but just because they say they weren't coerced that doesn't end the case. The jury can still easily find that a reasonable person would feel coercion and disregard their testimony. Just because a store owner says he didn't feel coerced by the Mafia when they said "it would be a shame if something happened to your store," the jury can ignore that and still find coercion.

It's always going to be in the grey area when an entity with regulatory power over another starts making suggestions, which is why they really shouldn't do it through informal channels. 

19 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

You don't need that testimony. The standard is the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person feel he was being coerced and threatened by the actions. Obviously the testimony of employees will matter either way, but just because they say they weren't coerced that doesn't end the case. The jury can still easily find that a reasonable person would feel coercion and disregard their testimony. Just because a store owner says he didn't feel coerced by the Mafia when they said "it would be a shame if something happened to your store," the jury can ignore that and still find coercion.

It's always going to be in the grey area when an entity with regulatory power over another starts making suggestions, which is why they really shouldn't do it through informal channels. 

Fair but I really doubt the emails alone get you there. Seems like a stretch to meet the standard. 

31 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Sure, but we already have the message from the Facebook employee to the Biden admin telling them he expects them to hold him accountable.   So why did he write that if not for admission that there would be consequences if he didn’t do what the government was asking and meet the "standard” they wanted him to meet?

The dialogue cited in the memo is one you would expect between a superior and their subordinates.  
 

Not sure that he means he'll be held legally accountable. Again, that's why his testimony matters, he'd need to clarify what he meant. If he doesn't say he expected reprisal, it's a tough sell.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Fair but I really doubt the emails alone get you there. Seems like a stretch to meet the standard. 

You'll likely need more than emails. Testimony on conversations, discovery for internal communications will be key -- were people in the WH talking about way to punish companies for non-compliance? Were they even talking about their regulatory powers internally?

You want a BRIGHT line here between the regulatory part of the government and the communications department. If they can prove those 2 groups spoke, that's a serious problem.

There's not a lot there, but there's something.

I don't know if I can quite get to coercion because the government was stomping its feet loudly about vaccine misinformation on these platforms. 

The email about "being held accountable" really came from the Facebook, and while there's a touch of smoke there this could also be just how two sides working in good faith on this may talk to each other. That is to say, it's easy to see a situation where Facebook itself was very serious about not amplifying disinformation, and in that effort was happy to have an external check to ensure it was covering those bases. You could also see malicious intent if you go looking for it, but if you get there you're looking for it not just letting the evidence speak.

Psaki's public comments are probably the most direct and damning in my honest opinion, and even at the time they raised on eyebrow with me. I agreed with the general sentiment here that social media needed to be doing as much as possible to minimize the damage that these disinformationists were doing in regards to vaccine skepticism, but gov't threatening anti-trust action in the same breath was too much. 

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

There's not a lot there, but there's something.

I don't know if I can quite get to coercion because the government was stomping its feet loudly about vaccine misinformation on these platforms. 

The email about "being held accountable" really came from the Facebook, and while there's a touch of smoke there this could also be just how two sides working in good faith on this may talk to each other. That is to say, it's easy to see a situation where Facebook itself was very serious about not amplifying disinformation, and in that effort was happy to have an external check to ensure it was covering those bases. You could also see malicious intent if you go looking for it, but if you get there you're looking for it not just letting the evidence speak.

Psaki's public comments are probably the most direct and damning in my honest opinion, and even at the time they raised on eyebrow with me. I agreed with the general sentiment here that social media needed to be doing as much as possible to minimize the damage that these disinformationists were doing in regards to vaccine skepticism, but gov't threatening anti-trust action in the same breath was too much. 

The Psaki one is pretty obviously a threat. That's definitely one where I see a jury finding coercion.

And it was a remarkably stupid thing to do.

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The Psaki one is pretty obviously a threat. That's definitely one where I see a jury finding coercion.

And it was a remarkably stupid thing to do.

Yeah I was kind of shocked when she said it. I don't recall if she ever walked it back at all? 

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yeah I was kind of shocked when she said it. I don't recall if she ever walked it back at all? 

I'm not sure, but I'd hope so for the administration's sake.

The problem is that one communication can then be seen as tainting all the other ones with an implied threat.

27 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

You'll likely need more than emails. Testimony on conversations, discovery for internal communications will be key -- were people in the WH talking about way to punish companies for non-compliance? Were they even talking about their regulatory powers internally?

You want a BRIGHT line here between the regulatory part of the government and the communications department. If they can prove those 2 groups spoke, that's a serious problem.

Exactly. Unless stuff like that comes out, I'm guessing it's overturned should it even be his final ruling.

Here are some more concerning pieces of evidence from pages 25-75 of the memo:

At an April 25, 2022, White House press conference, after being asked to respond to news that Elon Musk may buy Twitter, Psaki again mentioned the threat to social-media companies to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, linking these threats to social-media platforms” failure to censor misinformation and disinformation

At an Axios event entitled "A Conversation on Battling Misinformation,” held on June 14, 2022, the White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy (“McCarthy”) blamed social-media companies for allowing misinformation and disinformation about climate change to spread and explicitly tied these censorship demands with threats of adverse legislation regarding the Communications Decency Act

On June 16, 2022, the White House announced a new task force to target "general misinformation” and disinformation campaigns targeted at women and LBGTQ individuals who are public and political figures, government and civic leaders, activists, and journalists." The June 16, 2022, Memorandum discussed the creation of a task force to reel in "online harassment and abuse” and to develop programs targeting such disinformation campaigns.’ The Memorandum also called for the Task Force to confer with technology experts and again threatened social-media platforms with adverse legal consequences if the platforms did not censor aggressively enough. 

At a July 15,2021 joint press conference between Psaki and Murthy, the two made the comments mentioned previously in Il A(19), which publicly called for social-media platforms "to do more” to take action against misinformation super-spreaders.'’ Murthy was directly involved in editing and approving the final work product for the July 15. 2021 health advisory on misinformation. Waldo also admitted that Murthy used his "bully pulpit” to talk about health misinformation and to put public pressure on social-media platforms.

Murthy also stated that people who question mask mandates and decline vaccinations are following misinformation, which results in illnesses and death. Murthy placed specific blame on social-media platforms for allowing "poison” to spread and further called for an "all-of-society approach” to fight health misinformation.” Murthy called upon social-media platforms to operate with greater transparency and accountability, to monitor information more clearly, and to "consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.” Notably, Waldo agreed in his deposition that the word "accountable” carries with it the threat of consequences.” Murthy further demanded social-media platforms do "much, much, more” and take "aggressive action” against misinformation because the failure to do so is "costing people their lives.”

On July 16, 2021, Clegg emailed Murthy and stated, "I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects of us on misinformation going forward.”' On July 18, 2021, Clegg messaged Murthy stating "I imagine you and your team are feeling a little aggrieved—as is the [Facebook] team, it's not great to be accused of killing people—but as 1 said by email, I'm keen to find a way to deescalate and work together collaboratively. 1 am available to meet/speak whenever suits” As a result of this ‘communication, a meeting was scheduled for July 23, 2021.

 

Ok. So let's say social media refused to do anything. 

What are the Consequences that Waldo and others were so afraid of? 

Biden can't ban them. He can't turn them off. So what are consequences perceived or actual. Adverse legal consequences?