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.

  • @Devouring
    link
    English
    321 year ago

    Obviously whoever is going to make the decision on what is “misinformation” and what’s not, has always been right… and can never, ever, ever have ulterior motives.

    All good. Nothing to see here.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      USA was built on ulterior motives so there’s nothing new. WMDs, genocide and false propaganda are all on the table. It just depends if the country allies with US interests. Saudi Arabia? free to use slaves, anyone else? they’re going to feel what freedom feels like. War crimes? You ain’t seen nothing yet, my boy…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      331 year ago

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

      • @SkybreakerEngineer
        link
        English
        111 year ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            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
        link
        English
        51 year ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 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.

    • @nodsocket
      link
      English
      -24
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        231 year ago

        Disagrees with whatever administration is in office. You can’t be short sighted with SCOTUS decisions. The Justices aren’t.

  • @Confuserated
    link
    English
    41 year ago

    In general, if you think that the government should have a new or increased power (in this case deciding the “truth” of what people say online) you must consider how this power will be used when a government you do not agree with is eventually elected. They will still have that power, so how do you think they will use it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      We should just do nothing in case sentient wallabies get elected and force us all to get marsupial reassignment surgery

  • GodlessCommie
    link
    English
    -11 year ago

    The Ministry Of Truth has been sanctioned