Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by jasonlotito on Thursday July 06, 2023 @02:22PM
(#36620511)
> This thread baffles me.
It shouldn't. People here try to be rational about things. They like to not just read the headline or what's presented and try to dig deeper. If something baffles you, it's probably a good sign you are lacking knowledge.
> There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc.
This is a violation of the HN guidelines. Ironic.
> A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens.
This is not true in the slightest.
> Freedom of speech is literally the first thing in the Bill of Rights.
Yes. And many people here value that. So if it baffles you that many people are "defending the government" here, maybe it's because you truly don't understand the discussed topic.
> The government did a bad thing. Why defend them?
Because what you think happened did not happen. You are misinformed. And while we are perfectly fine going after the government when it does something wrong, it's also outright stupid to attack them for things they didn't do. In this case, reading the evidence presented, they did not force the censorship of anyone.
I'm not baffled why you would think what you think. But you admit you are. And you know this.
So that should be the first sign that you should actually do some research. Ignorance isn't a good place to sit.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by tdehnel on Thursday July 06, 2023 @02:48PM
(#36620881)
So much writing. So little explanation of your view or specific critique of the person you're responding to. You could have just typed "Wrong. Do your research."
It shouldn't. People here try to be rational about things. They like to not just read the headline or what's presented and try to dig deeper. If something baffles you, it's probably a good sign you are lacking knowledge.
> There are a lot of replies that either didn’t read the article (or even the headline) that seem to be government apologists, or arguing that a particular email isn’t coercive enough, etc.
This is a violation of the HN guidelines. Ironic.
> A court found that the government abused its power and infringes on people’s first amendment rights by using its intimidation power to coerce social media to censor free speech of citizens.
This is not true in the slightest.
> Freedom of speech is literally the first thing in the Bill of Rights.
Yes. And many people here value that. So if it baffles you that many people are "defending the government" here, maybe it's because you truly don't understand the discussed topic.
> The government did a bad thing. Why defend them?
Because what you think happened did not happen. You are misinformed. And while we are perfectly fine going after the government when it does something wrong, it's also outright stupid to attack them for things they didn't do. In this case, reading the evidence presented, they did not force the censorship of anyone.
I'm not baffled why you would think what you think. But you admit you are. And you know this.
So that should be the first sign that you should actually do some research. Ignorance isn't a good place to sit.