Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by roflyear on Thursday July 06, 2023 @12:48PM
(#36618869)
I'm just saying there are times where you may want the government to be able to express opinions....
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by caseysoftware on Thursday July 06, 2023 @01:10PM
(#36619274)
A government doesn't "express opinions" they "enact policy."
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by evandale on Thursday July 06, 2023 @01:24PM
(#36619518)
No? What!? Name a scenario in which the government would put forth an opinion on something.. governments, like corporations, can't have opinions.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by roflyear on Thursday July 06, 2023 @11:56PM
(#36626908)
Sure. "We think that info may put someone on our security team at risk, can you please take it down?"
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by cscurmudgeon on Friday July 07, 2023 @12:58PM
(#36634691)
That is not an opinion. It is a request at the best or a command when read pragmatically.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by roflyear on Sunday July 09, 2023 @05:31PM
(#36659122)
It's obviously not something they can say in press releases, but it also may not be factual (or provable). There are "we think" situations which are important.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by cscurmudgeon on Thursday July 06, 2023 @12:53PM
(#36618962)
Yeah, and no one is preventing that.
There is a diff between opinion and force/blackmail disguised as opinion.
"You have a fine shop here, would be a shame if it burned down".
Syntactically, it is an opinion. But it is not just an opinion if comes from a mobster.