While you can see Chris Hedges and Abby Martin and others, You Tube demonitized them or wouldn't show their videos. You tube did away with RT where Hedges had a lot of material. So did Abby Martin at one time. The heads of social media companies a number of times about censoring. Glen Greenwald has talked about this a number of times.
This essay seems to bend over backwards to minimize the severity of the Biden-Harris administration's full-court press for censorship, particularly regarding the origins of Covid, irregularities of the 2020 election, and January 6. MAGA censorship is wrong, but Biden-Harris censorship was just as wrong. Some of us haven't forgotten Nina Jankowicz.
Well, it’s an essay that refutes the premise that there *was* a “full-court press for censorship” by examining the evidence. I didn’t write about those other things here but I’m curious what you see as the best evidence that “Biden” demanded censorship of Covid origins? Meta’s policy docs say they moderated that in response to WHO convos, for 3 months from Feb to May 2021.
Trump appointees were running the govt during the 2020 election; same with Jan 6, so if you have censorship concerns about those events you should take them up with the administration in charge at the time.
Ah, yes, Nina the head of the Disinformation Governance Board who was the victim of a disinformation campaign.
Can you tell me what threats the Biden administration made for failing to request that news media and antisocial media platforms to try and stem the tide of disinformation during a novel epidemic and then pandemic? Really the "origins of COVID" was less important than finding strategies to minimize harms done by the virus. Whose licenses did they threaten? What fines were they proposing to impose? When did appealing to the moral sense of corporations become a form of censorship?
Perhaps some of you should forget about Nina Jankowicz.
To compare the possible threat (or imaginary threat) of censorship that the DGB could have presented to the American people and the First Amendment and actual threat of what this administration is doing is simply a leap to find a contrarian "both sides" of this issue that doesn't and never has existed.
"Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says senior Biden administration officials pressured Facebook to “censor” some COVID-19 content during the pandemic and vowed that the social media giant would push back if it faced such demands again.
In a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.” The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.
“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter dated Aug. 26 and posted on the committee’s Facebook page and to its account on X." (source: PBS.org, 8/27/2024)
Did Zuckerburg produce any documentary evidence about what exact pressure was being applied by the government? Or are we expected to take him at his word when he has shifted back and forth between saying he would help stem disinformation before Trump took power and merely ingratiating himself to Trump and the Republicans in power today. Was he a "suck up" then or is he "suck up now" or is he just a chronic and habitual "suck up?"
I don't condone government pressuring private entities to promote or suppress speech. But to "both sides" this issue (as the first commenter did) is wildly ridiculous. Also, where the f*ck have Bari, Matt, and Michael been during the abuses of the Trump Administration? Probably still hung up on Hunter's laptop. Gotta give Bari credit, though. She swallowed her free speech whistle and landed rich and on top.
I don't know about "censorship industrial complex", but the admission here that _government officials_ "call and yell", is all that I need to be outraged. The government has no business (and according to the 1st amendment, no power) to say one peep to one private entity to try to "influence" any protected speech. If the government is alleging that the speech is, in fact, NOT protected (e.g. explicit fraud), then the government should be using transparent, objective legal processes to prosecute. What the Biden administration, and various congress members did, was immoral and illegal.
And, what Trump and his lackeys are doing is just as immoral and illegal! (That they are doing this more blatantly and unashamedly is probably actually slightly better, since it makes it obvious to more people that it is happening). The government should get out of patrolling speech, plan and simple. There, how's that?
Government speakers *have* first amendment rights and government officials have called and yelled at media entities since media entities have existed. Read the oral arguments in Murthy and you'll see Kagan and Kavenaugh pointing this out themselves. The government can and does speak all the time. You can read extensive commentary on the line between speech and coercion in writings at the Knight First Amendment Institute's scholarship on this https://knightcolumbia.org/policy/jawboning. Mike Masnick, Tech Freedom, FIRE also explain the distinction in detail.
I will read these sources. I may not agree. There is a difference between publicly making a case (using one's government soapbox) for why someone's speech is wrong, false, etc. to communicating privately (and directly to the target) in one's capacity as a government official. The latter has clear implications of intent to coerce. Again, the Trump crew has been honest about this intent, so anyone can see it. I have no doubt that Biden, Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, etc. wanted to show their teeth (and, had no actual motivation to persuade) as well.
Again "intent" to coerce requires specific actionable threats. Did the government threaten to take them to court? No, because the Biden administration KNEW better. Did they threaten anyone's licenses? No, because the Biden administration KNEW better. The Disinformation Governance Board had no enforcement powers with which to threaten ANYONE. Was FOXNews banned from the White House press corps by the Biden Administration? No, because the Biden administration KNEW better. Overt attempts at censorship are not better than covert attempts.
Yes, absolutely the GOP for four years projected what they wanted to do on to the 46th president and confessed they never cared about censorship because they only ever wanted to be the cancellers of everything good.
Glenn Greenwald from 4 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OssE0890U8M if go to youtube and do search for glen greenwald internet censorship you will find more.
While you can see Chris Hedges and Abby Martin and others, You Tube demonitized them or wouldn't show their videos. You tube did away with RT where Hedges had a lot of material. So did Abby Martin at one time. The heads of social media companies a number of times about censoring. Glen Greenwald has talked about this a number of times.
This essay seems to bend over backwards to minimize the severity of the Biden-Harris administration's full-court press for censorship, particularly regarding the origins of Covid, irregularities of the 2020 election, and January 6. MAGA censorship is wrong, but Biden-Harris censorship was just as wrong. Some of us haven't forgotten Nina Jankowicz.
Well, it’s an essay that refutes the premise that there *was* a “full-court press for censorship” by examining the evidence. I didn’t write about those other things here but I’m curious what you see as the best evidence that “Biden” demanded censorship of Covid origins? Meta’s policy docs say they moderated that in response to WHO convos, for 3 months from Feb to May 2021.
Trump appointees were running the govt during the 2020 election; same with Jan 6, so if you have censorship concerns about those events you should take them up with the administration in charge at the time.
Ah, yes, Nina the head of the Disinformation Governance Board who was the victim of a disinformation campaign.
Can you tell me what threats the Biden administration made for failing to request that news media and antisocial media platforms to try and stem the tide of disinformation during a novel epidemic and then pandemic? Really the "origins of COVID" was less important than finding strategies to minimize harms done by the virus. Whose licenses did they threaten? What fines were they proposing to impose? When did appealing to the moral sense of corporations become a form of censorship?
Perhaps some of you should forget about Nina Jankowicz.
To compare the possible threat (or imaginary threat) of censorship that the DGB could have presented to the American people and the First Amendment and actual threat of what this administration is doing is simply a leap to find a contrarian "both sides" of this issue that doesn't and never has existed.
"Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says senior Biden administration officials pressured Facebook to “censor” some COVID-19 content during the pandemic and vowed that the social media giant would push back if it faced such demands again.
In a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg alleges that the officials, including those from the White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.” The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.
“I believe the government pressure was wrong and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote in the letter dated Aug. 26 and posted on the committee’s Facebook page and to its account on X." (source: PBS.org, 8/27/2024)
Did Zuckerburg produce any documentary evidence about what exact pressure was being applied by the government? Or are we expected to take him at his word when he has shifted back and forth between saying he would help stem disinformation before Trump took power and merely ingratiating himself to Trump and the Republicans in power today. Was he a "suck up" then or is he "suck up now" or is he just a chronic and habitual "suck up?"
I don't condone government pressuring private entities to promote or suppress speech. But to "both sides" this issue (as the first commenter did) is wildly ridiculous. Also, where the f*ck have Bari, Matt, and Michael been during the abuses of the Trump Administration? Probably still hung up on Hunter's laptop. Gotta give Bari credit, though. She swallowed her free speech whistle and landed rich and on top.
I don't know about "censorship industrial complex", but the admission here that _government officials_ "call and yell", is all that I need to be outraged. The government has no business (and according to the 1st amendment, no power) to say one peep to one private entity to try to "influence" any protected speech. If the government is alleging that the speech is, in fact, NOT protected (e.g. explicit fraud), then the government should be using transparent, objective legal processes to prosecute. What the Biden administration, and various congress members did, was immoral and illegal.
And, what Trump and his lackeys are doing is just as immoral and illegal! (That they are doing this more blatantly and unashamedly is probably actually slightly better, since it makes it obvious to more people that it is happening). The government should get out of patrolling speech, plan and simple. There, how's that?
Government speakers *have* first amendment rights and government officials have called and yelled at media entities since media entities have existed. Read the oral arguments in Murthy and you'll see Kagan and Kavenaugh pointing this out themselves. The government can and does speak all the time. You can read extensive commentary on the line between speech and coercion in writings at the Knight First Amendment Institute's scholarship on this https://knightcolumbia.org/policy/jawboning. Mike Masnick, Tech Freedom, FIRE also explain the distinction in detail.
I will read these sources. I may not agree. There is a difference between publicly making a case (using one's government soapbox) for why someone's speech is wrong, false, etc. to communicating privately (and directly to the target) in one's capacity as a government official. The latter has clear implications of intent to coerce. Again, the Trump crew has been honest about this intent, so anyone can see it. I have no doubt that Biden, Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, etc. wanted to show their teeth (and, had no actual motivation to persuade) as well.
Again "intent" to coerce requires specific actionable threats. Did the government threaten to take them to court? No, because the Biden administration KNEW better. Did they threaten anyone's licenses? No, because the Biden administration KNEW better. The Disinformation Governance Board had no enforcement powers with which to threaten ANYONE. Was FOXNews banned from the White House press corps by the Biden Administration? No, because the Biden administration KNEW better. Overt attempts at censorship are not better than covert attempts.
Yes, absolutely the GOP for four years projected what they wanted to do on to the 46th president and confessed they never cared about censorship because they only ever wanted to be the cancellers of everything good.