this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
202 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

59174 readers
1811 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
202
Supreme Court allows White House to fight social media misinformation (scrippsnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Supreme Court allows White House to fight social media misinformation::Justices said the Biden Administration could continue to pressure social media firms over misleading content while a lawsuit progresses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So what exactly do they define as “misinformation”?

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Demonstrably false foreign propaganda? Lies about the time, place, and results of elections? Medical advice that can be lethal if followed?

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't forget revenge porn, which was already illegal but gets Republicans really mad when it's of Hunter Biden but also taken down.

[–] jasory@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not "revenge porn" if the images have already been leaked. Just like it's not espionage to report on information already leaked.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is that true with revenge porn? Because with, for example, child porn, it's not like they're only going after the people making it but also the people distributing it.

Another, more analogous example: Most of those old celebrity leaks (fappening) are illegal content to host/distribute, which is why sites wouldn't/couldn't allow it even if it would drive up user traffic. (Afaik)

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yes, the government would never wield that power in a self serving way.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You can say the same thing about any government power. Or about government just existing. Or about human beings just existing.

Denying people the opportunity to act in bad faith isn't a strategy, not even a bad one.

[–] SlikPikker@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 year ago

You got close there.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

This is of course the problem with regulations on free speech. Any measures designed with the best of intentions are inevitably abused by future leaders. People need to imagine what Trump would do with this power.