Biden Administration Faces Preliminary Injunction Against Putting Pressure on Social Media

[RetroGen]

Bit of an extreme proposition, but at least you’ve clarified what you mean. I think you might be attributing more to Fox than what they’re actually guilty of - they were sued because their coverage negatively affected Dominion as a business, not because it “harmed the democratic process”. I don’t quite know what you imagine should be the punishment for “breaking the code of journalistic ethics”, but fair enough. They’d probably be in good company behind bars, right next to Brian Williams talking about his imaginary helicopter ride, the staff of the Rolling Stone with their portable mattress and other assorted liars. I’m not necessarily against punishing journalists for making stuff up, I just don’t know if it amounts to a felony - you can just not believe them based on the scant evidence normally supplied when lies are presented as truths.

If that's supposed to be an argument it amounts to false equivocation. All lies are not equivalent. Nor is whatabouting an honest strategy if one cares about the truth. Rather, it reeks of misdirection, sophistry, and rightwing apologetics. Unlike Fox News, Brian Williams was not involved in willfully undermining public confidence in the integrity of the democratic process via the promulgation of a grand false narrative consistent with Trump's oft-repeated lies about rigged, stolen, elections. Williams only undermined his own integrity, not trust in public institutions. They are hardly equivalent, which is obvious to anyone with intellectual integrity. But instead, we see more and more examples of motivated reasoning and disconfirmation bias to the extent that I normally disregard these posts due to obvious bias. I care about the truth, which is why I generally don't even bother engaging. But sometimes the fallacies are too glaring not to point out.

 

[Foxi4]

If that's supposed to be an argument it amounts to false equivocation. All lies are not equivalent. Nor is whatabouting an honest strategy if one cares about the truth. Rather, it reeks of misdirection, sophistry, and rightwing apologetics. Unlike Fox News, Brian Williams was not involved in willfully undermining public confidence in the integrity of the democratic process via the promulgation of a grand false narrative consistent with Trump's oft-repeated lies about rigged, stolen, elections. Williams only undermined his own integrity, not trust in public institutions. They are hardly equivalent, which is obvious to anyone with intellectual integrity. But instead, we see more and more examples of motivated reasoning and disconfirmation bias to the extent that I normally disregard these posts due to obvious bias. I care about the truth, which is why I generally don't even bother engaging. But sometimes the fallacies are too glaring not to point out.

Brian Williams falsely presented an image of the conflict that was not true, leading his viewers to believe that the place was an active battle zone when it absolutely was not. He also pretended that while he was sitting in his room during the hurricane Katrina coverage, he saw dead bodies float by his window when in reality the water was ankle deep at worst. This lead people to believe that the flood was extreme near the hotel and the area wasn’t safe when there was barely any water there. Both of those statements mislead the audience into believing in an elevated level of danger when there was none, which is particularly relevant when the consequence of having the wrong information (like during a natural disaster or an active conflict) could be death. The Rolling Stone story made people believe that college campuses are breeding grounds for rapists based on a made up story that was never fact checked and included names of students that not only didn’t attend the campus or never attended campus in the past, but straight up did not exist as legal persons in the United States as there is no record of them anywhere. It instilled fear by promoting a complete fabrication as evidence that campus police “doesn’t care” about rape accusations - in reality campus police probably had a hard time tracking imaginary rapists. If you think that I’m going to play the game of dividing lies into small, middling and large then you’re a bigger fan of sophistry than you might think. All three stories were damaging to the public’s interests, so who’s going to be the arbiter of how bad a lie is before we get upset about it? You? Oh, good. For the record, I don’t think the government should’ve intervened in the case of any of those stories - the truth discredited all three sufficiently through public discourse.

 

[Xzi]

Polls indicate that Trump’s deplatforming galvanised his base, it did not erode it. I understand that the concept is counterintuitive, but it effectively solidified the notion that he’s being unfairly targeted. It had *the opposite* effect to what you’re suggesting, his supporters support him *more*.

I don't care if the already-brainwashed become even more so. His base is shrinking, as evidenced by every election since 2016, as well as his diminishing rally attendance. That can't all be credited to deplatforming, but simply taking away all the free air time he received in 2016 did make a difference. The Fox lawsuit and NewsMax being forced off of cable also helped.

"I don't see an issue in the CDC or military sending requests for certain things to be removed on public health or national security grounds."

Which I interpret as another way of saying,"It's okay if a government controls information for the sake of preserving itself."

That's not even within the realm of possible interpretations, and your "creative interpretations" are part of the reason we're so often in conflict. I'm not in support of politicians having content removed in order to benefit their campaigns, that would be government preserving itself.

Like I originally implied. Your fascination with making this topic about red vs blue, instead of the actual issue, hurts everyone who has the patience to give you attention.

Sorry but no, my grievances with the Republican party are very much relevant here. Until they get their own house in order it's impossible to take anything they've proposed seriously, as they will not be following any rule they propose, and they will not be enforcing consequences for breaking said rules on Republicans. It's the very definition of virtue signalling, and a waste of everybody's time.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't care if the already-brainwashed become even more so. His base is shrinking, as evidenced by every election since 2016, as well as his diminishing rally attendance. That can't all be credited to deplatforming, but simply taking away all the free air time he received in 2016 did make a difference. The Fox lawsuit and NewsMax being forced off of cable also helped.

I don’t see a removal of a candidate from public life as a victory, regardless of how I feel about them, but hey - you’re welcome to feel that way. If Twitter or Facebook felt it prudent to ban his account, that’s up to them under the current legislation.

Sorry but no, my grievances with the Republican party are very much relevant here. Until they get their own house in order it's impossible to take anything they've proposed seriously, as they will not be following any rule they propose, and they will not be enforcing consequences for breaking said rules on Republicans. It's the very definition of virtue signalling, and a waste of everybody's time.

Aren’t both sides of the aisle guilty of that though? DNC candidates have a tendency to propose legislation or even run entire campaigns based on issues that they know they lack the authority to influence. How many proposals have been put forward only to be found unconstitutional five minutes later, or otherwise impossible to implement in reality? Now, you can blame a “stacked Supreme Court” for that until the cows come home, but that’s a known quantity, is it not? For instance, perhaps Biden’s administration should stop offering everyone and their dog free money when it doesn’t hold the power of the purse and any additional spending must go through Congress first and he included in the budget. When Trump wanted to redirect national security funding towards building the wall everyone was up in arms, but somehow everyone’s surprised when Biden’s proposal to siphon the Department of Education to pay off people’s loans is also met with strong pushback.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t see a removal of a candidate from public life as a victory, regardless of how I feel about them, but hey - you’re welcome to feel that way. If Twitter or Facebook felt it prudent to ban his account, that’s up to them under the current legislation.

Well we somehow veered back to deplatforming in general, when I was discussing specific edge cases instead, and not necessarily leaving it in the host platform's hands. Deplatforming as a consequence of one's own actions is also acceptable and effective, however.

Aren’t both sides of the aisle guilty of that though?

Nah, if Dems played the same dirty game Republicans do, GWB never would've been seated as president. Al Franken never would've been removed from office. Garland would be on the bench instead of Gorsuch. They're entirely TOO concerned with avoiding the appearance of impropriety, despite the fact that Republicans will always continue accusing them of it anyway. It's a major weakness, to the extent that it was likely manufactured as a weakness by DINOs.

 

[Foxi4]

Well we somehow veered back to deplatforming in general, when I was discussing specific edge cases instead, and not necessarily leaving it in the host platform's hands. Deplatforming as a consequence of one's own actions is also acceptable and effective, however.

Nah, if Dems played the same dirty game Republicans do, GWB never would've been seated as president. Al Franken never would've been removed from office. Garland would be on the bench instead of Gorsuch. They're entirely TOO concerned with avoiding the appearance of impropriety, despite the fact that Republicans will always continue accusing them of it anyway. It's a major weakness, to the extent that it was likely manufactured as a weakness by DINOs.

I don’t know, man - this seems like a “your point of view depends on your assigned seating” sort of deal. That’s neither here nor there for me, both of the major parties can get bent, for reasons uniquely applicable to them.

 

[pustal]

If I am to believe that you are correct about there needing to be an arbiter of truth, you'd have to convince me that you understand what "truth" is.

Another one. for the (n+1)th time, at no point I said or implied to defend an arbiter of truth.

No, it's not complicated. The media should be bound by factual evidence, is not hard.

The rule is simple, if you lie and and you know you are lying, you are out of line.

Fox lied, they were caught admitting they knew they where lying, they'd be penalized.

If I killed and admitted to killing, I'd be emprisoned.

A falsewood is not a lie. On wise Constanza words, it's not a lie if you believe it. You're being dishonest trying to imply I'm saying otherwise.

It becomes a lie when I admit I lied or when I'm proven without a doubt false and pretend I wasn't.

It's not subjective and needs no arbiters. It's pretty objective. It's first-order or predicate logic.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t know, man - this seems like a “your point of view depends on your assigned seating” sort of deal. That’s neither here nor there for me, both of the major parties can get bent, for reasons uniquely applicable to them.

Sure, but I know you're smart enough to recognize the reason why Republicans would want to ramp up the performative politics specifically in the coming weeks and months, too.

"If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed...and we will deserve it." - Lady Lindsey Beauregard Graham, 2016

 

[Foxi4]

Sure, but I know you're smart enough to recognize the reason why Republicans would want to ramp up the performative politics specifically in the coming weeks and months, too.

"If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed...and we will deserve it." - Lady Lindsey Beauregard Graham, 2016

He’s probably right in this instance, too. Republicans are trying to pull the same shtick Trump did, minus all the charisma - it’s not going to work. The party’s devolving into a weird Christian caliphate, which I don’t like, and I’m a Roman Catholic. Like I told you in the other thread, if they stopped talking about pedophiles, grooming and other assorted nonsense and focused just on talking about money, they’d be far more palatable to the average voter sitting somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, Trump gave them a small taste of stardom and they just can’t help themselves. That’s neither here nor there, at least the election is going to be quite funny, which is all that really matters in the absence of good candidates.

Another one. for the (n+1)th time, at no point I said or implied to defend an arbiter of truth.

I think his point (and to some extent mine prior to the clarification) is that someone has to look at the evidence and decide if something was truthful or not. In order to arrive at that point, you go through a dozen iterations of the same story that are more or less truthful, because everyone has a slightly different recollection of what occurred, why or what the ramifications of the event are. Binary truth is only an option in isolation from any nuance or opinion - you can objectively say that it rained last night if that’s indeed what happened, but you can’t discuss a more complex subject and claim that you of all people have the ultimate truth and anyone who doesn’t share your point of view is just “lying”, that’s, again, very reductive.

You’re presenting a very nice notion, but it’s ultimately an ideal without a framework that makes it possible surrounding it, that’s why he’s asking you about who’s going to be the arbiter. As a general rule, reporters by and large try to be objective unless they’re acting in bad faith (you mentioned Fox, I mentioned two other liars myself). In order to determine if something is or is not truthful, it needs to be examined and discussed, there’s investigation of facts involved here, which is part of the reason why I posted this thread.

Of all the issues out there I find freedom of speech, particularly freedom on the web, to be paramount - that’s why I don’t care which party’s responsible for an infraction or which party is launching a defense of the principle, or whether they’re doing it in good faith or not - all of that is secondary to maintaining the right to free speech as untouchable. It’s no secret that I’m not particularly liked in this section and that’s fine, it’s not a popularity contest, but I do have principles and this is one of them. In order to have objective news coverage, or open public discourse, or the ability to put forward new ideas, people must be able to speak without interference of external actors, particularly the government. Whether that interference is direct or covert doesn’t matter, anything that stifles such efforts is a net positive in my book.

Hope that clarifies some things. I didn’t ask you a bunch of questions to be an asshole about it, I was asking them because, in context of the conversation we’re having, it seems like a nice dream to have with a couple of gaps that need filling in to complete the picture.

 

[Xzi]

Like I told you in the other thread, if they stopped talking about pedophiles, grooming and other assorted nonsense and focused just on talking about money, they’d be far more palatable to the average voter sitting somewhere in the middle.

Very true, but we haven't seen that Republican party since the 90s. GWB was the beginning of the end, and until roughly 2010 Republicans deified him just like they do with Trump now. As long as their base remains obsessed with jumping from one cult of personality to the next, rather than focusing on sound policy platforms, the party can only get even worse from here.

 

[tabzer]

That's not even within the realm of possible interpretations, and your "creative interpretations" are part of the reason we're so often in conflict. I'm not in support of politicians having content removed in order to benefit their campaigns, that would be government preserving itself.

You rationalized state control of information for matters of "national security". That's close enough for my interest.

Sorry but no, my grievances with the Republican party are very much relevant here. Until they get their own house in order it's impossible to take anything they've proposed seriously, as they will not be following any rule they propose, and they will not be enforcing consequences for breaking said rules on Republicans. It's the very definition of virtue signalling, and a waste of everybody's time.

Virtue signaling is significantly more tame, and it is also besides the point.

Let's remove the fake bipartisian pretense for a moment. You are using the existence of shitty politicians to rationalize the behavior of other shitty politicians. Which by itself, could be "okay" because, at least, nothing is making politicians even shittier.

Now enter "Republicans". Now you have a reason for politicians to get shittier. And now, you can do what the republicans do just as long as you don't do it "as bad" as per some arbitrary metric that you devise in your head. Congratulations, you've created a feedback loop that only results in greater forms of depravity than the iteration before. That's so @Xzi.

If you don't think the motion will go anywhere, that's a separate issue, as well as questions of enforcement. Those all pertain to the issue.

 

[Foxi4]

Very true, but we haven't seen that Republican party since the 90s. GWB was the beginning of the end, and until roughly 2010 Republicans deified him just like they do with Trump now. As long as their base remains obsessed with jumping from one cult of personality to the next, rather than focusing on sound policy platforms, the party can only get even worse from here.

Bruh, democrats think Biden eating ice cream is the funniest thing since the invention of the first joke and if you mention Obama, they’re straight up gushing. I don’t think the “cult of personality” criticism is only applicable to the GOP, it’s applicable across the board. People “like” to have a leader they can revere, it’s in our DNA. Sad, but true.

 

[tabzer]

Another one. for the (n+1)th time, at no point I said or implied to defend an arbiter of truth.

You've suggested the need for someone, or an institution, to be both correct and in charge.

 

[Xzi]

You rationalized state control of information for matters of "national security". That's close enough for my interest.

No, I specified that the said power should only extend to matters of public health and national security. For example, we can't have real tank and fighter jet schematics being posted all over Discord. That should be obvious.

Virtue signaling is significantly more tame, and it is also besides the point.

You would say that, but it isn't tame. It's done with malicious intent, and every time someone is made to look the fool because they were stupid enough to follow a rule set by Republicans, it damages our democracy and system of government. A two-party system cannot continue operating with one party following the, "do as I say and not as I do" doctrine.

If you don't think the motion will go anywhere, that's a separate issue, as well as questions of enforcement. Those all pertain to the issue.

The best case scenario is that it goes nowhere, no reward is deserved for the pettiness or hypocrisy on clear display here. Missouri and Lousiana endeavor keep their constituents impoverished and stupid, so it shouldn't be a surprise when a deaf ear is turned to their recommendations on how to handle online misinformation.

Bruh, democrats think Biden eating ice cream is the funniest thing since the invention of the first joke and if you mention Obama, they’re straight up gushing. I don’t think the “cult of personality” criticism is only applicable to the GOP, it’s applicable across the board. People “like” to have a leader they can revere, it’s in our DNA. Sad, but true.

Nobody's running out and buying bulk sets of Biden t-shirts, hats, and full-sized flags. There aren't any Biden "Wrestlemania" rallies, either. There will always be sycophantic insiders looking to work their way up the ladder, but that's a far cry from voters getting Trump's name tattoo'd on them, or renaming "french fries" in response to French criticism of GWB.

 

[tabzer]

No, I specified that the said power should only extend to matters of public health and national security

Right. I said that, and that's what you are responding to. You say "national security" and "public health", and I see convenient unsubstantiated justifications of the like we've already seen over and over throughout history.

You would say that, but it isn't tame. It's done with malicious intent, and every time someone is made to look the fool because they were stupid enough to follow a rule set by Republicans, it damages our democracy and system of government. A two-party system cannot continue operating with one party following the, "do as I say and not as I do" doctrine.

You are a dolt. Virtue signaling is significantly more tame than holding a nation hostage. You are king at missing the point.

 

[Xzi]

Right. I said that, and that's what you are responding to.

Fuck off. This is what you said:

You rationalized state control of information for matters of "national security". That's close enough for my interest.

Which implies that I'm fine with all information being controlled by the government so long as they're using "national security" as an excuse. What I'm actually positing is that the power be limited to the extent that it cannot possibly be abused without serious consequences.

You are a dolt. Virtue signaling is significantly more tame than holding a nation hostage.

How is holding the government hostage via double standards any different or better? "Buttery males" turns into, "it was just a little light treason." "Joe Biden shouldn't have this power" turns into, "yeah a Republican president broke that rule, but what are you gonna do about it?" Smooth operation of government requires negotiating in good faith, instead we have a loud minority party trying to exploit every loophole and force only their opposition to play by rules which cripple them.

 

[tabzer]

What I'm actually positing is that the power be limited to the extent that it cannot possibly be abused without serious consequences.

I am interested if you said that, but that's not what I responded to.

How is holding the government hostage via double standards any different or better? "Buttery males" turns into, "it was just a little light treason." "Joe Biden shouldn't have this power" turns into, "yeah a Republican president broke that rule, but what are you gonna do about it?" Smooth operation of government requires negotiating in good faith, instead we have a non-silent minority trying to exploit every loophole and force only their opposition to play by rules which cripple them.

Go back a couple posts. You got derailed from the actual conversation and you are talking to yourself.

 

[supermist]

Bruh, democrats think Biden eating ice cream is the funniest thing since the invention of the first joke and if you mention Obama, they’re straight up gushing. I don’t think the “cult of personality” criticism is only applicable to the GOP, it’s applicable across the board. People “like” to have a leader they can revere, it’s in our DNA. Sad, but true.

This is a strawman created by the right that you now end up believing to be true for some reason

 

[Foxi4]

Which implies that I'm fine with all information being controlled by the government so long as they're using "national security" as an excuse. What I'm actually positing is that the power be limited to the extent that it cannot possibly be abused without serious consequences.

The problem with that is that you’re expecting alphabet agencies to investigate themselves and find themselves guilty of wrong-doing.

How is holding the government hostage via double standards any different or better? "Buttery males" turns into, "it was just a little light treason." "Joe Biden shouldn't have this power" turns into, "yeah a Republican president broke that rule, but what are you gonna do about it?" Smooth operation of government requires negotiating in good faith, instead we have a loud minority trying to exploit every loophole and force only their opposition to play by rules which cripple them.

If you don’t play to win, you don’t care about the game enough. There’s no such thing as a “loophole”, there are only things that are legal and things that aren’t. If you don’t like a certain “loophole”, go ahead and close it in Congress. The problem is that both sides use the same underhanded tactics and routinely lie to their constituents to get what they want. It has always been this way. Solutions that’d keep them more honest and more aware of the repercussions of screwing over the citizens only exist in Minecraft, I think we’ve discussed that before and had a good chuckle.

 

[Xzi]

I am interested if you said that, but that's not what I responded to.

That is what you responded to, you just failed to fully grasp what you were reading before replying to it.

Go back a couple posts. You got derailed from the actual conversation and you are talking to yourself.

I didn't, I was exemplifying for you exactly how virtue signalling and double-standards within government can be damaging. It grinds everything to a halt, more or less.

At the end of the day there is a way to implement a version of what Republicans are proposing so that everybody is held to the same standard, but I can guarantee you that isn't the goal here. They need to get their own house in order before worrying about everybody else. With McCarthy at the helm, they're Noah's Ark without a captain, and the monkeys are flinging shit everywhere.