this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
29 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

20 readers
4 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago
29
Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “suppress free speech” (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by asteroidrainfall@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social
170 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CarlsIII@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(which I incorrectly interpreted to mean he had been forced to resign)

You do realize that’s why most people are arguing with you, right? Because you made a false claim that you couldn’t back up while repeatedly claiming you've proven it to be true by posting a link to an article that doesn’t say what you claim it says (which is the very definition of “unscientific”)?

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Agreed. I misinterpreted it, but my main points still stand.

[–] CarlsIII@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What exactly was your main point then, if not that he was forced to resign? Everything else you posted seems to be in service of defending that claim.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My main point was that the Whitehouse shouldn't be allowed to censor people (via the FBI) by calling certain information "misinformation" (especially when they had little to no evidence to support their own narrative) by forcing social media platforms to carry out said cencorship (or really in any way in all honesty).

The current administration came up with a narrative, and stifled any and all debate, including that of the then CDC director who they subsequently sidelined simply for saying we should investigate both possibilities on the origins of the virus.

[–] CarlsIII@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And you’re still wrong! There is no evidence that the government forced social media companies to do anything, and the article you provided doesn’t even make the claim that anyone was forced to do anything.

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I didn't say that article claimed that. This information is already known, and it's why there is a case in the first place. The Twitter files came out and corroborated that it had been going on for quite a while.

[–] CarlsIII@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So you don’t have any source for your claim that social media companies were literally forced to take actions directed by the government?

[–] C4RP3_N0CT3M@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Let me get that for you, but yes I do.