Google admits censorship under Biden

[cpwill]

It did not.

It did. As they stated.

For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not … crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured....​

​

...the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.​

​

The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole. Our decisions make clear that “standing is not dispensed in gross.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431 (2021). That is, “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim that they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief that they seek.” ​

1. It happened
2. However, not all cases of being shut down were as a result of government pressure, this cases mixes those two dissimilar groups, and standing is therefore rejected.

You keep harping on a vague, almost meaningless sentence

No, I keep citing for you their agreement that the facts as described occurred, and you don't like it, because you initially saw a rejection of standing, confused it with a rejection of facts, and then were unable to adjust when that was pointed out to you.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

It did. As they stated.

For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not … crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured....​

​

That is from Alito's dissent!

"For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not "

That is on page 4 of that dissent

"crack downon what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts,including not only posts that they thought were false ormisleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured"

That is on page 14 of that dissent


Your ... ellipses are 10 ****ing pages! And it is not even the goddamn decision!



You are being fundamentally false.

 

[cpwill]

That is from Alito's dissent!

Correct. And the majority agreed with the facts, and ruled nonetheless that, because the case mixed unlike plaintiffs (who had been suppressed both as a result of government action and as result of pure platform action) that they lacked standing.

You understand that, right? Like, you know what words mean and can read them, correct?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Correct.

So, the "they" you mean are the lying shitbags Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, not the Court.

So the **** what?

And again, 10 pages? Dude. That is ****ed up.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

More like condemning Trump's tariffs because they raise prices for consumers and reward inefficiency, but then supporting tariffs when they are imposed by a democrat administration. Same policy, different jersey.

No, this is some false equivalency BS, and you pull it all the time. You are equating reasonable tariffs put in place for sound economic reasons with unreasonable, large blanket tariffs on the whole world for no sound economic purpose. Some tariffs that were the result of careful consideration, and some tariffs that were the result of one man - overstepping his powers, btw - who has some kind of personal fascination with tariffs.

In this case, we have a real dilemma with speech that can reasonably be said to be doing harm. Misinformation is a problem. Misinformation from Russia meant to affect the outcome of American elections is a bigger problem. COVID misinformation is a health problem; we have (or had) health agencies in place to give guidance, so there is an "official" stance on COVID, and that official stance has been determined to be best for the health of the people. You can disagree with that, but at least this "censorship" was an arguably legitimate attempt to deal with real problems. 40 years ago, the biggest purveyors of misinformation were the handful of crazy tabloids sold in check out lanes. It wasn't a problem that needed addressing. Now it is. But the law doesn't always fit in perfectly with new technology.

Yet you compare this evolving situation with that of trump's censorship, which is just classic, meat-and-potatoes government overreach, which has already been litigated to near perfection. We already know that comedians are allowed to poke fun at the president and the government.

There is no equivalency here. Not if you are honest with yourself.

 

[BabaVoss]

I am only showing the facts. Do you think what you posted is any different?

What these hearing do show however isd that Google, Facebook, and others caved in to the Biden administration. If they wanted to remain respected by all, they would have stood their ground and not caved, because they had the autonomy to do so, and no license to pull.

What you are struggling to say is that they all “continued to develop and enforce its policies independently…”.

.

 

[aociswundumho]

No, this is some false equivalency BS, and you pull it all the time. You are equating reasonable tariffs put in place for sound economic reasons with unreasonable, large blanket tariffs on the whole world for no sound economic purpose. Some tariffs that were the result of careful consideration, and some tariffs that were the result of one man - overstepping his powers, btw - who has some kind of personal fascination with tariffs.

Translation: Biden's tariffs good, Trump's tariffs bad.

In this case, we have a real dilemma with speech that can reasonably be said to be doing harm. Misinformation is a problem. Misinformation from Russia meant to affect the outcome of American elections is a bigger problem. COVID misinformation is a health problem; we have (or had) health agencies in place to give guidance, so there is an "official" stance on COVID, and that official stance has been determined to be best for the health of the people. You can disagree with that, but at least this "censorship" was an arguably legitimate attempt to deal with real problems. 40 years ago, the biggest purveyors of misinformation were the handful of crazy tabloids sold in check out lanes. It wasn't a problem that needed addressing. Now it is. But the law doesn't always fit in perfectly with new technology.

Yet you compare this evolving situation with that of trump's censorship, which is just classic, meat-and-potatoes government overreach, which has already been litigated to near perfection. We already know that comedians are allowed to poke fun at the president and the government.

Translation: Biden's censorship good, Trump's censorship bad.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Translation: Biden's tariffs good, Trump's tariffs bad.

Your oversimplified, false-equivalency translation. But if you want to make the case that trump's tariffs are a good thing, good luck with that.

Translation: Biden's censorship good, Trump's censorship bad.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

You have demonstrated an unwillingness, or an inability, to recognize important distinctions. After so many of these exchanges, I'm going to have to go with "inability."

 

[j brown's body]

Translation: Biden's tariffs good, Trump's tariffs bad.



Translation: Biden's censorship good, Trump's censorship bad.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

Biden's - Smart and targeted
Trump's - Dumb and universal

Trump’s Tariff Tantrum: How Sweeping Tariffs Came to Be and Why It Matters - Roosevelt Institute

President Donald Trump sent shockwaves through the global economy on Wednesday by using unusual emergency powers to impose wide tariffs (i.e., trade taxes) on most of the products that the US imports from most countries. This will take tariffs back to their highest rate since 1909, according to...

rooseveltinstitute.org

 

[aociswundumho]

Your oversimplified, false-equivalency translation. But if you want to make the case that trump's tariffs are a good thing, good luck with that.

Biden's - Smart and targeted
Trump's - Dumb and universal

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

View attachment 67590978

Have you heard of trump's latest round of tariffs? I know there's a lot of news to keep track of lately, but we are in trump's second administration now. He's added a few new ones.

 

[Objective Voice]

Per the OP, I just finished reading Google/Alphabet/YouTube's 5 page letter. The part that stuck out to me is in paragraph 8:

While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently...

So, although Biden Administration officials (likely from the FCC, the White House Press Room and/or WH Office of Legal Counsel) continued to pressure YouTube to suppress, modify or restrict certain user content they believed was spreading false or misleading covid-related information, YouTube admits they made the decision of their own accord on such matters, as well as, which use accounts it would suspend or terminate for violating its user policies.

 

[markdc]

Google Admits Censorship Under Biden; Promises to End Bans of YouTube Accounts of Thousands of Americans Censored for Political Speech

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, thanks to the oversight of Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations on topics such as COVID-19 and elections an opportunity to return to the platform.

judiciary.house.gov

Here is a link to the letter from Google.

Here are the juicy parts:

View attachment 67590887

View attachment 67590888

You can't support censorship only when a democrat is in charge. If you support government censorship, then you must support it under Trump as well.

When it comes to being Authoritarian, Republicans are pikers compared to the Democrats, who’ve had a lot more practice in this area. Let’s not forget that Woodrow Wilson, a Progressive Democrat, threw people in prison for speaking out against American involvement in World War I (they were amnestied by Warren Harding, Wilson’s Republican successor) and Franklin Roosevelt did the same during World War II and also interned over a hundred thousand Americans simply because of their ethnicity.
Btw, I often like to say that one difference between Leftwing Authoritarianism and Rightwing Authoritarianism in America is that the Leftwing variety tends to enjoy the support of the Establishment.

Mark

 

[rhinefire]

Google Admits Censorship Under Biden; Promises to End Bans of YouTube Accounts of Thousands of Americans Censored for Political Speech

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, thanks to the oversight of Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations on topics such as COVID-19 and elections an opportunity to return to the platform.

judiciary.house.gov

Here is a link to the letter from Google.

Here are the juicy parts:

View attachment 67590887

View attachment 67590888

You can't support censorship only when a democrat is in charge. If you support government censorship, then you must support it under Trump as well.

FAKE POST

 

[j brown's body]

View attachment 67590978

I don't see how that contradicts my point.

 

[j brown's body]

It did. As they stated.

For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not … crack down on what the officials saw as unhelpful social media posts, including not only posts that they thought were false or misleading but also stories that they did not claim to be literally false but nevertheless wanted obscured....​

​

...the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.​

​

The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole. Our decisions make clear that “standing is not dispensed in gross.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431 (2021). That is, “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim that they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief that they seek.” ​

1. It happened
2. However, not all cases of being shut down were as a result of government pressure, this cases mixes those two dissimilar groups, and standing is therefore rejected.



No, I keep citing for you their agreement that the facts as described occurred, and you don't like it, because you initially saw a rejection of standing, confused it with a rejection of facts, and then were unable to adjust when that was pointed out to you.

Youre being played.

Did you know that

1. Social media sought assistance from the government on managing disinformation?

2. That people and content was banned not because the government told them to ban them but because it violated their terms of service?

3. That under Biden, they started allowing your sainted disinformation to be run again and allowed those who traffic in it back on to their platforms and they suffered no consequences whatsoever?