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? 

i don't think the biden crime family should be threatening social media companies. 

6 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

i don't think the biden crime family should be threatening social media companies. 

LOL, hate to say it but you have to, they are trying EVERTHING!  Maybe they should look for a candidate to put forth that people (like me) could actually vote for.

1 hour ago, mr_hunt said:

i don't think the biden crime family should be threatening social media companies. 

Like a true (Mafia) boss!

All kidding aside, Trump wiped his fat ass with the construction for four years and this judge is out here screeching about "the worst attack on our civil liberties in the history of our nation."

 

 

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

 

 

 

Her laughter is really disturbing