News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by JackFr on Thursday July 06, 2023 @01:54PM (#36620045)
For instance, if you're the FAA, you should express opinions about airline operations, air safety, etc. That is your role. If you are the FDA, you should express opinions about food and drug safety. And in both those cases note that you are a regulator, and within your domain, it is your role to regulate the players.

If you are the White House, you are not a regulator of anything. It is fine to express your opinion. In fact the White House has a daily press briefing for specifically that purpose. It is fine to call out people with whom you disagree. Perfectly OK to call them dangerous charlatans and liars. It is not OK to censor their speech. It is not OK use the implicit coercive force of the executive branch to encourage third parties to censor them.

It's not hard to understand.

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by dragonwriter on Thursday July 06, 2023 @01:58PM (#36620126)
> If you are the White House, you are not a regulator of anything

If you are the White House, you are the ur-regulator of anything any part of the executive branch is a regulator of, as well as the things that the Executive Office of the President is the actual direct regulator of (which are mostly internal to government operations.)

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by roflyear on Thursday July 06, 2023 @04:52PM (#36622826)
Man, people are being really rude here just for me asking a question.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by JackFr on Thursday July 06, 2023 @11:16PM (#36626641)
“Honest question bro!”
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by roflyear on Thursday July 06, 2023 @11:55PM (#36626904)
Not what I meant at all. You're deciding to interpret things as bad faith.