Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech”

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by aksss on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:39PM (#36623459)

I'm not sure why this needs to be said, but "you" in this context is conceptually an abstraction of the private citizen. Maybe @shadowgovt the individual never says a word that the establishment would disapprove of, but don't count on that always being the case, and certainly don't expect others to fall in line in that regard. Is it your opinion that the government should have such power - specifically to, without officially commandeering/nationalizing the companies, to direct them to censor disfavored non-criminal speech?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by shadowgovt on Thursday July 06, 2023 @05:43PM (#36623501)

I personally believe the government can certainly pass information on to private corporations and then the private corporations can then choose what to do.

Whether the situation went past that is what this court case would be about, and nothing has been decided on that topic yet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by aksss on Thursday July 06, 2023 @06:50PM (#36624357)

> the government can certainly pass information

As you acknowledge, that's not remotely the issue here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup... by shadowgovt on Thursday July 06, 2023 @09:07PM (#36625660)

It is, in fact, the position of one of the parties in this lawsuit that this is all that's at issue here.

We'll see what the situation is on the other side of the case (and possibly the appeal, no matter which side wins).

[ Parent | on HN ]