Not OP, but we did learn the US federal government was instructing social media sites like Twitter to remove content it found displeasing. This is known as jawboning and is against the law.

SCOTUS. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, holds that governments cannot coerce private entities into censoring speech they disfavor, even if they do not issue direct legal orders.

This was a publicly announced motivation for Elon Musk buying Twitter. Because of which we know the extent of this illegal behavior.

Mark Zuckerberg has also publicly stated Meta was asked to remove content by the US government.

▲

brookst 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Crazy how fast we got from “please remove health misinformation during a pandemic” (bad) to “FCC chair says government will revoke broadcast licenses for showing comedians mocking the president” (arguably considerably worse).

▲

themaninthedark 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>On July 20, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield appeared on MSNBC. Host Mika Brzezinski asked Bedingfield about Biden's efforts to counter vaccine misinformation; apparently dissatisfied with Bedingfield's response that Biden would continue to "call it out," Brzezinski raised the specter of amending Section 230—the federal statute that shields tech platforms from liability—in order to punish social media companies explicitly.

>In April 2021, White House advisers met with Twitter content moderators. The moderators believed the meeting had gone well, but noted in a private Slack discussion that they had fielded "one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn't been kicked off from the platform."

Is there a difference between the White House stating they are looking at Section 230 and asking why this one guy has not been banned?

▲

slater 9 hours ago | parent [-]

from your paste, it looks like Mika B. brought up the section 230 thing?

Also, spreading disinformation about covid has real-world implications.

Orange man getting his feelings hurt because comedian said something isn't even in the same ballpark

	▲	themaninthedark 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sorry, I only grabbed part of the quote. Here is it paraphrased as the names are not that familiar to me. "Shouldn't they(Facebook and Twitter) be liable for publishing that information and then open to lawsuits?" - MSNBC "Certainly, they should be held accountable, You've heard the president speak very aggressively about this. He understands this is an important piece of the ecosystem." - White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield Source: https://reason.com/2023/01/19/how-the-cdc-became-the-speech-... So yes, MSNBC brought up Section 230 and the White House Communications Director says "Yes, we are looking to hold social media accountable." >Also from the same source: The Twitter moderators believed the meeting had gone well, but noted in a private Slack discussion that they had fielded "one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn't been kicked off from the platform." >Throughout 2020 and 2021, Berenson had remained in contact with Twitter executives and received assurances from them that the platform respected public debate. These conversations gave Berenson no reason to think his account was at risk. But four hours after Biden accused social media companies of killing people, Twitter suspended Berenson's account. I don't care about Trump's feelings but if we want to be able to speak truth to power, we have to be willing to let people talk shit as well. Yes, COVID has real world implications. Almost everything does. People on the left say "Think about the children and implications with regard to this." People on the right say "Think about the children and implications with regard to that." Notice how none of them seem to be saying "Let's lay out the facts and let you think about it."
	▲	tbrownaw 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Preventing people from disputing claims of fact makes it harder to find out if those claims are actually solid. Same for arguments. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/66643-he-who-knows-only-his... Preventing people from having a platform for content-free asshattery doesn't have that problem. (A fun implication of this line is reasoning, is that the claim that Kimmel's comments were "lies" makes the jawboning against him more morally bad rather than less bad.)
	▲	typeofhuman 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Also, spreading disinformation about covid has real-world implications. Your logic can be used to censor anything that goes against the narratives of the arbiters of disinformation. > Orange man getting his feelings hurt because comedian said something isn't even in the same ballpark Pejorative. Lack of evidence. Ignoring contradictory evidence. Sounds like you are locked in.

▲

typeofhuman 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you're referring to Jimmy Kimmel. You should probably consider that while the FCC member made that comment, Sinclair (the largest ABC affiliate group) and others had been demanding ABC cancel his show for its horrible ratings, and awful rhetoric which inhibited them from selling advertising. His show was bad for business. It's worth suspecting ABC let no good opportunity go to waste: save Kimmel's reputation and scapegoat the termination as political.

More here: https://sbgi.net/sinclair-says-kimmel-suspension-is-not-enou...

	▲	alphabettsy 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Personally, not going to take Sinclair‘s press release at face value. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair... https://upriseri.com/sinclair-nexstar-duopoly-right-wing-con...
	▲	brookst 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say. It’s no big deal that the head of the FCC says they’ll pull licenses for media outlets that mock the president, because one media outlet says that would be the right commercial decision anyway? That can’t be your point, but I also can’t think of a more charitable interpretation.