As expected, but good to see. Disappointing that this had three dissents tough.
>In dissent, Alito wrote that the states amply demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote for the three justices in the minority.
'unrelenting pressure' means what exactly? notably absent is reference to coercion or threatening... so asking nicely repeatedly is not allowed?
Maybe a crude comparison, but if your boss asks you politely to sleep with them over and over, it becomes coersive. It doesn't really matter how nicely they do it.
Notably, the other justices didn't agree or disagree with whether the government overstepped its boundary. They just ruled the people bringing the case didn't have standing to challenge the governments actions. Someone else could still sue again with different standing and other justices might agree with Thomas's reasoning here.
On the other hand, the conservative majority in [Kenedy v. Bremerton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District) didn't find the coach's invitation for students to join his prayer as coercive despite the clear power imbalance.
According to your own citation, it wasn't an invitation:
>Inspired by the film Facing the Giants, Kennedy began praying after each football game, in the center of the field, at the 50-yard line. Over time, he was joined by his players, and then by players and coaches from the opposing team
Funny, the link actually says, if you look further down:
> "The record reveals that Kennedy had a long-standing practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50-yard line of the football field. Kennedy *consistently invited others to join his prayers* and for years led student-athletes in prayer at the same time and location. The court ignores this history."
Can you give specific examples among what is alleged that you think is comparable to the situation you described?
re standing. yes, that was the basis of the decision. but go back to oral arguments and it is pretty clear where they stand on the merits as well. notably, also go back and listen to the stupidity underlying alito's opinion on this...
> Notably, the other justices didn't agree or disagree with whether the government overstepped its boundary. They just ruled the people bringing the case didn't have standing to challenge the governments actions
But they engaged with the merits of the case they just didn't write the opinion on them. Read what they wrote it's not just a simple dismissal based on standing.
This is a low IQ take. One of the few things tech companies fear is government regulatory agencies. So when one of them asks nicely for Facebook or Twitter to take something down, it's not a request. It carries an implicit threat behind it. Also keep in mind one of the things government agencies requested they take down was news about Hunter Biden's laptop, which turned out to be true. Also keep in mind if you get on the bad side of the government, they will find ways to make your life and business difficult. Look at Elon Musk, and the amount of government scrutiny he's attracted since he espoused right-leaning viewpoints.
> This is a low IQ take. One of the few things tech companies fear is government regulatory agencies. So when one of them asks nicely for Facebook or Twitter to take something down, it's not a request.
Except they denied the governments request often and no retaliation was done. You are about as informed on this as your average Conservative but everything you just said is completely wrong.
>Except they denied the governments request often and no retaliation was done
How would you know? The government is huge. There are hundreds of ways they can retaliate, like when Matt Taibbi was suddenly under an IRS investigation after testifying on the Twitter Files.
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-matt-taibbi-twitter-files-jim-jordan-daniel-werfel-lina-khan-84ee518](https://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-matt-taibbi-twitter-files-jim-jordan-daniel-werfel-lina-khan-84ee518)
It's like if a boss asks their employee to do something unrelated to business for them. You can say that there's no proof of retaliation, but you cannot know that, and it shows the appearance of impropriety.
Government working with big tech to censor stories is the scandal of the decade. It's disheartening to see how the left is so accepting of fascist ideals. This is un-American at its very core.
> How would you know? The government is huge. There are hundreds of ways they can retaliate, like when Matt Taibbi was suddenly under an IRS investigation after testifying on the Twitter Files.
Probably because Twitter's CEO said under oath they weren't retaliated against. Might be that.
Which one? Do you mean pro-censorship Jack Dorsey who was working together with government to censor news? Of course he wasn't retaliated against. He followed orders.
>Government working with big tech to censor stories is the scandal of the decade. It's disheartening to see how the left is so accepting of fascist ideals. This is un-American at its very core.
Not just the left. Tribalism runs deep in the human psyche. If Trump wins, the behavior they found acceptable when Biden was doing it will suddenly become unacceptable when Trump does it
You severely overestimate the power of the government. The FBI was literally ***begging*** Apple to write software to allow them to unlock an iPhone from the perpetrator of a terrorist attack. Apple never relented.
You mean the incident where the FBI asked nicely for Apple to unlock an iphone, and when Apple refused, the lawsuits came? Where the FBI got their thugs in the DoJ to start cooking up legal theories to force Apple to unlock it? Thank you for agreeing with me and helping me to prove my point.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI\_encryption\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute)
Most of us don't have Apple's resources y'know. Are you sure you want to back the Fed's jackboots? They might someday be stomping your way. Libs never think more than 1 step ahead.
Yea, and Tim Cook got up on stage and told everyone that Apple wasn't going to compromise on their customers' privacy. The FBI never got their wish.
Twitter was [denying half of all government requests](https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds) before Musk took over.
Tech companies give the middle finger to the government all the time. You just don't hear about it.
lol, maybe bother reading about the facts before spouting off like this. Then why, pray tell, did the requests often get ignored by the social media companies?
what was true about hunter biden's laptop?
>lol, maybe bother reading about the facts before spouting off like this. Then why, pray tell, did the requests often get ignored by the social media companies?
So it's ok if Weinstein asked actresses for sex hundreds of times because hs got rejected most of the time. This is your logic.
>what was true about hunter biden's laptop?
Jesus christ. How about all of it? Every single "conspiracy theory" about the laptop was proven true during Hunter Biden's trial.
I think the level of coercion it would take me to remove a few social media posts is a lost different than the level it would take for me to be fucked by weinstein. but hey, am sure that's not the only example where you & I differ on something.
The laptop has proven that hunter has a big dong and the GOP are not a serious party, but other that, what did the laptop prove?
>Then why, pray tell, did the requests often get ignored by the social media companies?
When they were ignored, the Biden administration unleashed a barrage of harassment and threats.
>[In summer 2021, for example, "Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory on health misinformation, including eight guidelines for platforms," following the Psaki and Biden comments. "On its own, the advisory would have been inoffensive, but statements by other members of the administration suggested sanctions for noncompliant platforms," writes Duffield.](https://reason.com/2022/09/14/how-government-officials-bully-social-media-companies-into-censorship)
>"White House communications director Kate Bedingfield completed the jawboning effort during a Morning Joe interview. Prompted by a question about getting rid of Section 230, she replied, 'we're reviewing that, and certainly they should be held accountable, and I think you've heard the president speak very aggressively about this …' By gesturing at changes to the intermediary liability protections that social media platforms rely on, Bedingfield added a vague threat to the administration's demands. …
>By raising the specter of changes to, or the repeal of, Section 230, the Biden administration made a roundabout threat. Repealing Section 230 would not make vaccine misinformation unlawful, but it would harm Facebook by exposing it to litigation over its users' speech. By demanding the removal of misinformation and threatening repeal, the administration sought to bully Facebook into removing speech that the government couldn't touch."
Fine work, brother. Though this is literally less than 1% of what the government is capable of to punish non-compliance. Congressmen and federal officials are threatening social media companies day and night, but the Dems here are claiming there is no retaliation.
It's incredible the short memories they have. Did they forget just a couple years ago the shitstorm the left stirred up because some Russia hackers bought Facebook adds?
I want to make sure I'm on the same page... The timeline is:
1. Biden administration comes into power
2. Biden administration essentially reports misinformation on social media
3. Biden administration says they'll review section 230 and potentially make changes
But in 2019, Biden (and Trump( started that he wanted to immediately revoke section 230. So, in actuality, just "reviewing it* is actually softening his stance and less of a threat than what he initially wanted to do to it (before they didn't listen to his "demand."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html
In a 6-3 ruling (with the usual suspects dissenting), the case was thrown out for lack of standing. During arguments, the judges rightly expressed concern about restricting communication between the government and these companies for issues of concern with the general public, but instead of giving any sort of guidance, they just punted on procedural grounds.
The case is likely still coming. I am not expert on standing but someone like Alex Berenson was directly mentioned by the government and banned from twitter. I assume he has standing.
Processes exists but it does seem like they are going to need to handle this issue at some point. I think they may have been concerned about interferring with an election and giving the right a landmark case that the Biden administration interferred with their first amendment rights. And Berenson's case is likely stronger.
Standing is a bit weird especially when I expect their will be a case with standing. In some ways its better to just deal with the issue you know you have to deal with. It is going to be a very difficult case for the SC to draw clear lines on.
I'm quite glad they did. Last thing we need is a set of restrictions written by this court. Odd that the claimed "Constitutional Originalists" dissented.
> As the Constitution requires them to do when the parties don’t have standing.
Not really. They can find it when they want and find it doesn't exist when they want. It's a method for punting.
Disappointed to see the outcome of this one, I was hoping they would blatantly smack down the challenge. Safe way out, I suppose, but I want to see them broadly declare that *yes, social media platforms can ban or censor you, whether government is involved or not*.
Trump already did what they're claiming Biden did, as he demanded social media remove posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch".
Know what they did if said posts didn't violate their terms of service? They ignored them, just like they've done under the Biden admin. About only 13 percent of requests have led to Twitter finding a terms of service violation worthy of removal. 13 percent hardly seems coercive.
Also, Trump was far more coercive, in that he repeatedly called for Twitter to be shut down, and they still ignored him successfully.
Did Trump threaten to revoke social media companies' "liability shield" if they refused to remove content he disagreed with?
[Biden: Tech’s liability shield ‘should be revoked’ immediately](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/joe-biden-tech-liability-shield-revoked-facebook-100443)
[Biden calls for changing Big Tech moderation rules](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/12/biden-calls-changing-big-tech-moderation-rules-not-how)
How bad is your memory? Trump - along with a bunch of GOP Congressmen - called for ending 230, issued an EO intended to defang it, and threatened to shut down twitter on multiple occasions. And nowadays he's explicitly saying he'll investigate and punish media outlets like MSNBC.
Absolutely. Devin Nunes started the bs whining because people didn't "like" his Twitter posts and then all of the Republicans wanted it out.
Maybe you also forgot that after 2016 election Congress raked social media heads over the coals for allowing Russians to spread crap, taking their money, the Cambridge Analytica mess. So then by 2020 Republicans are whining because big tech did what they were told to do.
Also during the twitter files nonsense which had ZERO to do with Biden, it was discovered that the trump administration was constantly trying to get tech to censor stuff they didnt like
The whole censorship of conservatives garbage was a hoax and still is
> Did Trump threaten to revoke social media companies' "liability shield" if they refused to remove content he disagreed with?
He threatened to revoke their liability shield if they didn't stop removing content he agreed with. Which is equally problematic from a first amendment standpoint.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
I'm small government, for the most part. There's literally nothing big government about the FBI calling up twitter/FB and saying, "Hey, just to let you know, John Richards is lying in this post."
I’m agreeing with you. The people downvoting both of us think Gym Jordan needs veto power over my daughter’s medical decisions, but the Biden admin informing Facebook about vaccine misinformation is a bridge too far. I’m calling out their hypocrisy.
If its based on an issue that the government has a compelling interest in I agree. It definitely can be big government if say the administration is calling about a used car salesmen lying about being the cheapest in town. But matters of public health and national security I agree.
If a used car salesman has been caught ripping off people in the past and had complaints substantiated, I don’t have a problem with states attorney pointing that out to social media.
Obviously you can add details to change the math but that isn't my point right. If a sales person is out of pocket with the stuff they are saying in a way every sales person across the country does it would be bad if the government tried to step in and call out specific ones.
You want the government choosing who gets social media rights? This case is far too complex for simple statements. I do think they crossed the line here. If they tell you they want someone banned the social media companies pretty much need to ban them without the government even making a threat.
MSFT especially is a serial acquirer. If the FTC launched an investigation on their deal with OpenAI their stock would probably drop in half. While this is not related to censorship the FTC is being active and one deal they have gone after is the Tapestry-Capri roll-up of some mid-teir luxury hand bag companies. I don't see the antitrust argument here (while big-tech roll-ups do concern me) but the FTC got a Biden appointed judge in NY for the case. The deal was done at 56 and the stock price of Capri is at 32 now - so it looks like the deal won't go thru.
This power to hurt a company elsewhere means that if the government says X,Y,Z is a person we don't like then the company would rightfully be fearful of retaliation even if never explicit. And they could retaliate without anyone ever knowing about it. You just need the FTC chair to notice it and think they are the bad guy or you could do it more explicit without anyone ever knowing about it if someone on the censorship committee just stopped by Lina Kahn's office and had a private communication with her to go after them.
There are other ways to go after companies. A DEI lawsuit could work. If you have disparate outcomes then your discriminating against black. If you aren't selecting on merits then you are discriminating against Asians. The modern regulatory state can find a way to hurt you if they want to. And therefore being on the governments bad company list by not following censorship requests is not a good place to be.
Its a modern necessity. Its where people communicate now.
Please Please go to China. Where you have no rights.
I will keep my first amendment. And in this country maybe any social media company gets to choose their customers, but the government does not get to decide if you have social media rights which is exactly what you are advocating for.
You do not have a right to social media. Period. You're living in some fantasy world if you think otherwise. Social media is nowhere near being a necessity.
Social media is a collection of privately owned platforms. Private companies can manage their properties as they wish.
and the government "squeezing" on those platforms to censor / derank are...
don't waste your time arguing with people like fish, people - i doubt most commenting here are real.
i don't know one real person who actually thinks the govt censoring social media is a good thing.
>i don't know one real person who actually thinks the govt censoring social media is a good thing.
Since that isn't what's happening, this is neither here nor there.
You don't have a right to social media platforms. Companies may ban or censor you at their leisure.
I can make an argument to disagree with you on your central thesis.
But to simplify:
You 100% have a right of protection from the US government if you are a US citizen from banning you from social media.
Since the government isn't doing the banning, this statement takes you nowhere. Until it is literally a public taxpayer-funded utility, the government isn't banning you.
That is the issue at play here. Who did the banning - the government or meta/twitter?
If someone points a gun at you and another guy next to him says to you could you give me your wallet? do you consider that not theft?
If the government threatens meta with retailiation unless they ban you from twitter who did the banning? Sounds like the government to me.
Also, we do have things like the civil rights act. Personally, I think its unconstitutional violation of rights to association, but it hasn't been struck down. We have already established people have rights like this. You can't ban a black person from going to their restaurant just because.
>If the government threatens meta with retailiation unless they ban you from twitter who did the banning? Sounds like the government to me
Please, show me where the government made threats as part of this process.
Also: restaurants aren't platforms, and I can absolutely kick you out of my restaurant if you're causing a scene, shouting things that are blatantly untrue, or just being a nuisance.
I literally showed you where they threatened in my first comment.
Its fine you are ok with a Chinese style social system where the government gets to choose the information.
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- Associated Press (A-): [The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-biden-administration-453b6ae8794548f960c4ebf72a534aff?taid=667c206a4cbf630001fd2d62)
- Washington Post (B): [Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/26/supreme-court-social-media-white-house/)
- NBC News (B): [Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-tosses-claim-biden-administration-coerced-social-media-c-rcna151356)
- NPR (B+): [Supreme Court rules in favor of Biden administration in social media case
](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-social-media-case)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1dp11nb/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
imho questioning during oral arguments made the result here pretty clear on merits...
Alito was sympathetic, but the point he was coming back to was nonsense -- that govt wouldn't treat print media in such a manner. BS, officials bitch and moan about press coverage all the time. Hell, the selective treatment of which reporters get access to what is far more of a stick on print media than this case is for social media. Recall the brouhaha with trump admin dicking around with WH press passes? Who decides who gets interviews or hosts debates? etc, etc.
I don't know one person who actually thinks this censorship is a good idea (and it is censorship, if you actually read into what the twitter files exposed)
So before arguing on here, just realize that you probably are arguing with a bot or a political shill, fyi.
Wrong, completely wrong. The SC did the exact right thing. They are setting a standard for standing. Standing has been a mess. This should never have made it to the SC but the 5th Circuit needed another standing message.
decided? technically not. but anyone paying attention to questions during oral arguments has a pretty good sense of where this would have landed based on merits... and also knows that Alito is a clown.
As expected, but good to see. Disappointing that this had three dissents tough. >In dissent, Alito wrote that the states amply demonstrated their right to sue. “For months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote for the three justices in the minority. 'unrelenting pressure' means what exactly? notably absent is reference to coercion or threatening... so asking nicely repeatedly is not allowed?
Alito feels very strongly that any criticism directed his way is actually persecution, and victimizing.
They sent an email pointing out it was bs.
Maybe a crude comparison, but if your boss asks you politely to sleep with them over and over, it becomes coersive. It doesn't really matter how nicely they do it. Notably, the other justices didn't agree or disagree with whether the government overstepped its boundary. They just ruled the people bringing the case didn't have standing to challenge the governments actions. Someone else could still sue again with different standing and other justices might agree with Thomas's reasoning here.
On the other hand, the conservative majority in [Kenedy v. Bremerton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District) didn't find the coach's invitation for students to join his prayer as coercive despite the clear power imbalance.
According to your own citation, it wasn't an invitation: >Inspired by the film Facing the Giants, Kennedy began praying after each football game, in the center of the field, at the 50-yard line. Over time, he was joined by his players, and then by players and coaches from the opposing team
Funny, the link actually says, if you look further down: > "The record reveals that Kennedy had a long-standing practice of conducting demonstrative prayers on the 50-yard line of the football field. Kennedy *consistently invited others to join his prayers* and for years led student-athletes in prayer at the same time and location. The court ignores this history."
> The court ignores this history "History and tradition" (2024): A tradition of ignoring history.
Can you give specific examples among what is alleged that you think is comparable to the situation you described? re standing. yes, that was the basis of the decision. but go back to oral arguments and it is pretty clear where they stand on the merits as well. notably, also go back and listen to the stupidity underlying alito's opinion on this...
> Notably, the other justices didn't agree or disagree with whether the government overstepped its boundary. They just ruled the people bringing the case didn't have standing to challenge the governments actions But they engaged with the merits of the case they just didn't write the opinion on them. Read what they wrote it's not just a simple dismissal based on standing.
This is a low IQ take. One of the few things tech companies fear is government regulatory agencies. So when one of them asks nicely for Facebook or Twitter to take something down, it's not a request. It carries an implicit threat behind it. Also keep in mind one of the things government agencies requested they take down was news about Hunter Biden's laptop, which turned out to be true. Also keep in mind if you get on the bad side of the government, they will find ways to make your life and business difficult. Look at Elon Musk, and the amount of government scrutiny he's attracted since he espoused right-leaning viewpoints.
> This is a low IQ take. One of the few things tech companies fear is government regulatory agencies. So when one of them asks nicely for Facebook or Twitter to take something down, it's not a request. Except they denied the governments request often and no retaliation was done. You are about as informed on this as your average Conservative but everything you just said is completely wrong.
>Except they denied the governments request often and no retaliation was done How would you know? The government is huge. There are hundreds of ways they can retaliate, like when Matt Taibbi was suddenly under an IRS investigation after testifying on the Twitter Files. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-matt-taibbi-twitter-files-jim-jordan-daniel-werfel-lina-khan-84ee518](https://www.wsj.com/articles/irs-matt-taibbi-twitter-files-jim-jordan-daniel-werfel-lina-khan-84ee518) It's like if a boss asks their employee to do something unrelated to business for them. You can say that there's no proof of retaliation, but you cannot know that, and it shows the appearance of impropriety. Government working with big tech to censor stories is the scandal of the decade. It's disheartening to see how the left is so accepting of fascist ideals. This is un-American at its very core.
> How would you know? The government is huge. There are hundreds of ways they can retaliate, like when Matt Taibbi was suddenly under an IRS investigation after testifying on the Twitter Files. Probably because Twitter's CEO said under oath they weren't retaliated against. Might be that.
Which one? Do you mean pro-censorship Jack Dorsey who was working together with government to censor news? Of course he wasn't retaliated against. He followed orders.
They're all part of the conspiracy, huh?
>Government working with big tech to censor stories is the scandal of the decade. It's disheartening to see how the left is so accepting of fascist ideals. This is un-American at its very core. Not just the left. Tribalism runs deep in the human psyche. If Trump wins, the behavior they found acceptable when Biden was doing it will suddenly become unacceptable when Trump does it
You severely overestimate the power of the government. The FBI was literally ***begging*** Apple to write software to allow them to unlock an iPhone from the perpetrator of a terrorist attack. Apple never relented.
You mean the incident where the FBI asked nicely for Apple to unlock an iphone, and when Apple refused, the lawsuits came? Where the FBI got their thugs in the DoJ to start cooking up legal theories to force Apple to unlock it? Thank you for agreeing with me and helping me to prove my point. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI\_encryption\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute) Most of us don't have Apple's resources y'know. Are you sure you want to back the Fed's jackboots? They might someday be stomping your way. Libs never think more than 1 step ahead.
Yea, and Tim Cook got up on stage and told everyone that Apple wasn't going to compromise on their customers' privacy. The FBI never got their wish. Twitter was [denying half of all government requests](https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds) before Musk took over. Tech companies give the middle finger to the government all the time. You just don't hear about it.
lol, maybe bother reading about the facts before spouting off like this. Then why, pray tell, did the requests often get ignored by the social media companies? what was true about hunter biden's laptop?
>lol, maybe bother reading about the facts before spouting off like this. Then why, pray tell, did the requests often get ignored by the social media companies? So it's ok if Weinstein asked actresses for sex hundreds of times because hs got rejected most of the time. This is your logic. >what was true about hunter biden's laptop? Jesus christ. How about all of it? Every single "conspiracy theory" about the laptop was proven true during Hunter Biden's trial.
I think the level of coercion it would take me to remove a few social media posts is a lost different than the level it would take for me to be fucked by weinstein. but hey, am sure that's not the only example where you & I differ on something. The laptop has proven that hunter has a big dong and the GOP are not a serious party, but other that, what did the laptop prove?
It proves Hunter has a laptop. And apparently that's scandalous to the GOP
>Then why, pray tell, did the requests often get ignored by the social media companies? When they were ignored, the Biden administration unleashed a barrage of harassment and threats. >[In summer 2021, for example, "Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory on health misinformation, including eight guidelines for platforms," following the Psaki and Biden comments. "On its own, the advisory would have been inoffensive, but statements by other members of the administration suggested sanctions for noncompliant platforms," writes Duffield.](https://reason.com/2022/09/14/how-government-officials-bully-social-media-companies-into-censorship) >"White House communications director Kate Bedingfield completed the jawboning effort during a Morning Joe interview. Prompted by a question about getting rid of Section 230, she replied, 'we're reviewing that, and certainly they should be held accountable, and I think you've heard the president speak very aggressively about this …' By gesturing at changes to the intermediary liability protections that social media platforms rely on, Bedingfield added a vague threat to the administration's demands. … >By raising the specter of changes to, or the repeal of, Section 230, the Biden administration made a roundabout threat. Repealing Section 230 would not make vaccine misinformation unlawful, but it would harm Facebook by exposing it to litigation over its users' speech. By demanding the removal of misinformation and threatening repeal, the administration sought to bully Facebook into removing speech that the government couldn't touch."
Again, thank you for your valuable insights that I truly treasure because of how well thought out they are.
Knowing that you are taking my insights to heart is thanks enough
Fine work, brother. Though this is literally less than 1% of what the government is capable of to punish non-compliance. Congressmen and federal officials are threatening social media companies day and night, but the Dems here are claiming there is no retaliation. It's incredible the short memories they have. Did they forget just a couple years ago the shitstorm the left stirred up because some Russia hackers bought Facebook adds?
I want to make sure I'm on the same page... The timeline is: 1. Biden administration comes into power 2. Biden administration essentially reports misinformation on social media 3. Biden administration says they'll review section 230 and potentially make changes But in 2019, Biden (and Trump( started that he wanted to immediately revoke section 230. So, in actuality, just "reviewing it* is actually softening his stance and less of a threat than what he initially wanted to do to it (before they didn't listen to his "demand." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html
Thinking that there's an implied threat is the Low IQ take.
In a 6-3 ruling (with the usual suspects dissenting), the case was thrown out for lack of standing. During arguments, the judges rightly expressed concern about restricting communication between the government and these companies for issues of concern with the general public, but instead of giving any sort of guidance, they just punted on procedural grounds.
“they just punted on procedural grounds” As the Constitution requires them to do when the parties don’t have standing.
The case is likely still coming. I am not expert on standing but someone like Alex Berenson was directly mentioned by the government and banned from twitter. I assume he has standing. Processes exists but it does seem like they are going to need to handle this issue at some point. I think they may have been concerned about interferring with an election and giving the right a landmark case that the Biden administration interferred with their first amendment rights. And Berenson's case is likely stronger. Standing is a bit weird especially when I expect their will be a case with standing. In some ways its better to just deal with the issue you know you have to deal with. It is going to be a very difficult case for the SC to draw clear lines on.
I'm quite glad they did. Last thing we need is a set of restrictions written by this court. Odd that the claimed "Constitutional Originalists" dissented.
> As the Constitution requires them to do when the parties don’t have standing. Not really. They can find it when they want and find it doesn't exist when they want. It's a method for punting.
Disappointed to see the outcome of this one, I was hoping they would blatantly smack down the challenge. Safe way out, I suppose, but I want to see them broadly declare that *yes, social media platforms can ban or censor you, whether government is involved or not*.
Let's see if you still believe this when Trump-backed government agencies begin asking social media companies censor content.
Why wouldn't I? I'm not in the habit of magically changing my views because of who happens to be in power.
Trump already did what they're claiming Biden did, as he demanded social media remove posts on empty shelves during the pandemic, posts calling for the removal of statues, and "hate speech" - like a celebrity calling Trump a "pussy ass bitch". Know what they did if said posts didn't violate their terms of service? They ignored them, just like they've done under the Biden admin. About only 13 percent of requests have led to Twitter finding a terms of service violation worthy of removal. 13 percent hardly seems coercive. Also, Trump was far more coercive, in that he repeatedly called for Twitter to be shut down, and they still ignored him successfully.
Except that it would be followed by stochastic trollerism, egged on by Trump.
That happened when trump was in office
Did Trump threaten to revoke social media companies' "liability shield" if they refused to remove content he disagreed with? [Biden: Tech’s liability shield ‘should be revoked’ immediately](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/joe-biden-tech-liability-shield-revoked-facebook-100443) [Biden calls for changing Big Tech moderation rules](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/12/biden-calls-changing-big-tech-moderation-rules-not-how)
How bad is your memory? Trump - along with a bunch of GOP Congressmen - called for ending 230, issued an EO intended to defang it, and threatened to shut down twitter on multiple occasions. And nowadays he's explicitly saying he'll investigate and punish media outlets like MSNBC.
Absolutely. Devin Nunes started the bs whining because people didn't "like" his Twitter posts and then all of the Republicans wanted it out. Maybe you also forgot that after 2016 election Congress raked social media heads over the coals for allowing Russians to spread crap, taking their money, the Cambridge Analytica mess. So then by 2020 Republicans are whining because big tech did what they were told to do. Also during the twitter files nonsense which had ZERO to do with Biden, it was discovered that the trump administration was constantly trying to get tech to censor stuff they didnt like The whole censorship of conservatives garbage was a hoax and still is
Biden was not in office then
> Did Trump threaten to revoke social media companies' "liability shield" if they refused to remove content he disagreed with? He threatened to revoke their liability shield if they didn't stop removing content he agreed with. Which is equally problematic from a first amendment standpoint. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
Small-government, corporate-libertarian cons are downvoting you.
I'm small government, for the most part. There's literally nothing big government about the FBI calling up twitter/FB and saying, "Hey, just to let you know, John Richards is lying in this post."
I’m agreeing with you. The people downvoting both of us think Gym Jordan needs veto power over my daughter’s medical decisions, but the Biden admin informing Facebook about vaccine misinformation is a bridge too far. I’m calling out their hypocrisy.
If its based on an issue that the government has a compelling interest in I agree. It definitely can be big government if say the administration is calling about a used car salesmen lying about being the cheapest in town. But matters of public health and national security I agree.
If a used car salesman has been caught ripping off people in the past and had complaints substantiated, I don’t have a problem with states attorney pointing that out to social media.
Obviously you can add details to change the math but that isn't my point right. If a sales person is out of pocket with the stuff they are saying in a way every sales person across the country does it would be bad if the government tried to step in and call out specific ones.
You want the government choosing who gets social media rights? This case is far too complex for simple statements. I do think they crossed the line here. If they tell you they want someone banned the social media companies pretty much need to ban them without the government even making a threat. MSFT especially is a serial acquirer. If the FTC launched an investigation on their deal with OpenAI their stock would probably drop in half. While this is not related to censorship the FTC is being active and one deal they have gone after is the Tapestry-Capri roll-up of some mid-teir luxury hand bag companies. I don't see the antitrust argument here (while big-tech roll-ups do concern me) but the FTC got a Biden appointed judge in NY for the case. The deal was done at 56 and the stock price of Capri is at 32 now - so it looks like the deal won't go thru. This power to hurt a company elsewhere means that if the government says X,Y,Z is a person we don't like then the company would rightfully be fearful of retaliation even if never explicit. And they could retaliate without anyone ever knowing about it. You just need the FTC chair to notice it and think they are the bad guy or you could do it more explicit without anyone ever knowing about it if someone on the censorship committee just stopped by Lina Kahn's office and had a private communication with her to go after them. There are other ways to go after companies. A DEI lawsuit could work. If you have disparate outcomes then your discriminating against black. If you aren't selecting on merits then you are discriminating against Asians. The modern regulatory state can find a way to hurt you if they want to. And therefore being on the governments bad company list by not following censorship requests is not a good place to be.
>You want the government choosing who gets social media rights? You do not have a right to social media. Social media usage is a privilege.
Its a modern necessity. Its where people communicate now. Please Please go to China. Where you have no rights. I will keep my first amendment. And in this country maybe any social media company gets to choose their customers, but the government does not get to decide if you have social media rights which is exactly what you are advocating for.
You do not have a right to social media. Period. You're living in some fantasy world if you think otherwise. Social media is nowhere near being a necessity. Social media is a collection of privately owned platforms. Private companies can manage their properties as they wish.
and the government "squeezing" on those platforms to censor / derank are... don't waste your time arguing with people like fish, people - i doubt most commenting here are real. i don't know one real person who actually thinks the govt censoring social media is a good thing.
>i don't know one real person who actually thinks the govt censoring social media is a good thing. Since that isn't what's happening, this is neither here nor there. You don't have a right to social media platforms. Companies may ban or censor you at their leisure.
I can make an argument to disagree with you on your central thesis. But to simplify: You 100% have a right of protection from the US government if you are a US citizen from banning you from social media.
Since the government isn't doing the banning, this statement takes you nowhere. Until it is literally a public taxpayer-funded utility, the government isn't banning you.
That is the issue at play here. Who did the banning - the government or meta/twitter? If someone points a gun at you and another guy next to him says to you could you give me your wallet? do you consider that not theft? If the government threatens meta with retailiation unless they ban you from twitter who did the banning? Sounds like the government to me. Also, we do have things like the civil rights act. Personally, I think its unconstitutional violation of rights to association, but it hasn't been struck down. We have already established people have rights like this. You can't ban a black person from going to their restaurant just because.
>If the government threatens meta with retailiation unless they ban you from twitter who did the banning? Sounds like the government to me Please, show me where the government made threats as part of this process. Also: restaurants aren't platforms, and I can absolutely kick you out of my restaurant if you're causing a scene, shouting things that are blatantly untrue, or just being a nuisance.
I literally showed you where they threatened in my first comment. Its fine you are ok with a Chinese style social system where the government gets to choose the information.
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - Associated Press (A-): [The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-social-media-biden-administration-453b6ae8794548f960c4ebf72a534aff?taid=667c206a4cbf630001fd2d62) - Washington Post (B): [Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/26/supreme-court-social-media-white-house/) - NBC News (B): [Supreme Court tosses out claim Biden administration coerced social media companies to remove content](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-tosses-claim-biden-administration-coerced-social-media-c-rcna151356) - NPR (B+): [Supreme Court rules in favor of Biden administration in social media case ](https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-social-media-case) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1dp11nb/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
Good bot.
Rejected on standing not the merits
Would never judge on merits before standing.
Wasn’t implying otherwise
Read the opinion this was not a simple dismissal based on standing. They addressed multiple parts the lower court was wrong about.
The district judge and the 5th literally *made shit up* and SCOTUS called them out on it.
They seem to be doing that a lot lately. Maybe they're trying to send a message to certain groups to stop abusing the court system.
I'm just reading "try again with better merits "
Yeah, the 5th circuit. They’ve been smacked around a lot by the SC this term
imho questioning during oral arguments made the result here pretty clear on merits... Alito was sympathetic, but the point he was coming back to was nonsense -- that govt wouldn't treat print media in such a manner. BS, officials bitch and moan about press coverage all the time. Hell, the selective treatment of which reporters get access to what is far more of a stick on print media than this case is for social media. Recall the brouhaha with trump admin dicking around with WH press passes? Who decides who gets interviews or hosts debates? etc, etc.
I don't know one person who actually thinks this censorship is a good idea (and it is censorship, if you actually read into what the twitter files exposed) So before arguing on here, just realize that you probably are arguing with a bot or a political shill, fyi.
They didn't really rule in favor, just that the petitioners lacked standing.
To be fair, it was an issue of standing so little, if anything, was really decided.
Wrong, completely wrong. The SC did the exact right thing. They are setting a standard for standing. Standing has been a mess. This should never have made it to the SC but the 5th Circuit needed another standing message.
decided? technically not. but anyone paying attention to questions during oral arguments has a pretty good sense of where this would have landed based on merits... and also knows that Alito is a clown.
The drug exception to everything, the terrorism exception and the covid exception.