FTC investigates “tech censorship,” says it’s un-American and may be illegal

"Tech firms should not be bullying their users," Chairman Andrew Ferguson says.

See full article...

 

[huskcummerbund]

https://reason.com/podcast/2024/06/...he-biden-administration-for-covid-censorship/

Figures you'd send me a fuckin 48 minute podcast with no transcript...

 

[ducatisymphony]

A man faced criminal prosecution for calling the vice chancellor an idiot. Do you want to call Trump an idiot without facing criminal charges. I sure do!

I'm writing off the cuff here in a forum. Excuse me if I confuse arrest with curfew and a pretty large fine. Would YOU like it if you were held under curfew and charged £600 for posting rap lyrics on Instagram. Arrest or not it flies in the face of free speech. Don't answer. I already know you don't care because, "well she was t arrested so that's fine "

Yeah....drop the "don't answer shit", the attempt at being dismissive in advance doesn't fly. I am not American and don't actually entirely subscribe to the American ideal of free speech. I believe clearly defined hate speech should not be covered under free speech protections. Whether I agree with the UK law or not, those are their laws and if you live there you are subject to them.

Again, I see no actual evidence of this German individual other than right wing sites.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Didnt Xitter just block a bunch of content they didnt like?

 

[LeftCoastRusty]

I so SURE the FTC will start with X and then Musk, right? Because if any tech exec is going off the rails, there’s really only one answer here.

 

[theotherjim]

I see somebody woke up some sleeper sock puppet accounts.

Did the Internet Research Agency go away along with Prigozhin?

 

[s73v3r]

Bro. The Biden admin forced Twitter and Facebook to ban

No, they didn't. You are lying. You are being dishonest, because you have no argument whatsoever.

 

[s73v3r]

And that's why people in the UK, Germany, etc are being arrested for posting jokes online.

No, they aren't. You are lying once again. If this was true, you would be posting proof of it

 

[graylshaped]

Free speech is free speech. I'm against the Trump administration for violating the 1st amendment. I'm against anyone that violates the 1st amendment. The difference is most people on here have masturbated themselves into believing only Trump is bad when this has been occurring under ALL administrations and cheered for when it fits one's priors.

With due respect, your post suggests you might not understand what the First Amendment actually does.

 

[s73v3r]

The Left does the same. Believe science? Science shows that the trans suicide issue is a lie. And you will say, "not THAT science."

No, once again you are lying. And not only are you lying, you're deciding to be a transphobe about it.

 

[s73v3r]

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/pediatric-gender-medicine-and-the

I make vaccines for a living. Bet your ass I can cite my sources.

You've lied about literally everything else you've posted. I don't believe you.

 

[s73v3r]

I thought they were a private company that can do as they please? You can't have it both ways.

You're literally on an article where the government is saying that sites can't do that.

 

[graylshaped]

I'm just usually smart enough not to degrade myself to the idiocy that is the circle jerk of arstechnica forums.

Thank you for your application to the idiocy circle.

 

[graylshaped]

I'm writing off the cuff here in a forum.

Don't mind me if I make shit up.

 

[theotherjim]

Sure. I've been reading ars since the Pentium days, but call me a sock puppet. I'm just usually smart enough not to degrade myself to the idiocy that is the circle jerk of arstechnica forums.

Funny, I don't think I said you were the sock puppet. But if the shoe fits...and odd you should ~double your lifetime number of posts in the space of an hour or so. Nothing you've allegedly read in supposedly 20 years has aroused your ire like this one particular article.

Sure....

Dasvidaniya, tovarisch.

 

[graylshaped]

I didn't make up the fact that a teenager was fined £600 and held under curfew because she posted snoop dogg lyrics on Instagram. There's quite a difference between saying arrested versus faced legal action as compared to "making shit up." Go to the UK and post rap lyrics online and when you get fined a week's salary come back.

Cool story, bro. How is that relevant to a discussion about the First Amendment?

You were right: we're just a bunch of idiots here. You'd be better served waiting for another story where you can better pursue your anti-trans agenda.

 

[huskcummerbund]

https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-censorship-an-interview-with-dr-jay-bhattacharya/

For the feeble minded.

https://reason.com/video/2023/12/17/social-media-censorship-jay-bhattacharya-vs-kate-klonick/

Digging deeper, it appears you are going on about the Murthy v. Missouri case. He said a bunch of shit, which is expected. It's a podcast. He didn't have citations, which is also expected. It's a podcast.

How about we look at the case itself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

There's a lot going on here, but when the case was originally tossed out it was sent to appeal with the 5th Circuit. A court that has repeatedly been told "No, you're wrong." by the SCOTUS, even the current, heavily leaning right SCOTUS. Even the 5th Circuit said half of their case was full of shit. They agreed that White House officials, Surgeon General's office, and FBI likely coerced social media platforms, but tossed out the CDC and CISA claims. The plaintiffs should've quit while they were ahead.

Instead they went to the SCOTUS.

In a decision that was 6 to 3 (3 Republicans, including one of the Trump appointees, and 3 Democrats in the majority), they said, "No, you're wrong." The majority felt the plaintiffs didn't have the standing to bring the case forward in the first place, let alone enough evidence to see it through.

The funny part is that a significant portion of the events the plaintiffs took issue with occurred during the Trump (v1.0) administration.

 

[huskcummerbund]

"Cite your sources"
"Sources that take me more than two minutes to digest aren't sources."

Nope, just commenting that your source was annoying. And then I kept digging until I found the actual case, its history, and the SCOTUS decision on that case that shows the guy you cited, and the entire group he was with, didn't actually have much.

 

[Waco]

You seem to be the only sane person here.

Just go away now, please. Nobody believes a single thing you're puking out here.

 

[s73v3r]

Do you want the freedom to criticize your government? That is the freedom that is lost in Europe.

Once again you are lying. You have not been truthful the entire time. If you were going to be truthful, you would post what the person said.