The research center, which is shutting its doors, was supposed to tackle “misinformation.” Instead, they hired a bunch of interns to flag social media posts.
I think Julia expressed no opinion as she is offering this information as what we used to call, news. Nellie will tell you when you are entitled to an actual opinion. Thanks Julia, baby steps:)
Kind of surprised that Julia had no comment, or expressed no opinion, on the propriety of censoring opinions from appearing on social media sites. I will assume that she is nonchalant about any value that might be ascribed to the Constitution's 1st Amendment, but rather believes that government is the proper arbiter of truthful expression.
I'd love to know how the SIO rationalized the disinformation campaign to lie about Hunter's laptop, and how they explain their total lack of concern over left-wing disinformation coming straight from the federal government.
Okay, help me out here, because I'm a little confused:
SIO is a private company? Or does it have federal funding? What is the nature of the cooperation with the DHS that would make this company government-linked?
And if SIO didn't really take anything down, it just told social media companies about these posts, why are we blaming SIO and not the social media companies?
If SIO was a private company with private funding and no actual power to take down posts, then I don't see that they did anything wrong...
There is a Supreme Court case that established it is illegal for the Federal government to push private companies to do something that the government is not allowed to do.
Pushing private entities to censor the press is an example.
I believe the case was NRA vs NY State and related to NY lobbying press to drop NRA ads.
2. It was used as an offshoot of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) which is also the government
3. The government and law enforcement have major leverage (see Biden administration taking Elon Musk to court for everything but his private comapany)
4. We will find out soon enough if the government can use proxies to do their dirty work
Had SIO been a private research facility doing research for the sake of study, not using or forwarding what some interns deemed to be politically inconvenient as misinformation to government agencies like the FBI or DHS, there would be no issue. Anytime funding comes from the government, the Constitution must be followed.
Social media companies cheated on us. They were asked to and then jumped in the censorship bed. They are likely currently doing it with someone not named government and this case will likely only lead to more discretion not less cheating. We should hold those who cheated on us accountable or leave them, they voluntarily jumped in the bed. "But we love them." So, we fight the tempter who will never stop coming, and with new bribes and promises instead of working on the real problem. The one we love is the problem. Laws preventing government from meeting with social media, meh. How about social media companies who tell government officials with propositions where they can shove it. The exact thing a willing people can make happen. I find the topic interesting and important, thanks.
Whenever another wretched social media based abuse (enabling pedophiles and human traffickers, partisan censorship, deleterious psychological effects on minors, etc), Congress hauls a roomful of tech company CEO's in for another round of political theater aka "hearings" in which members of Congress castigate them for their perfidy and threaten to take away section 230. They never do and never will abridge the power of these companies because these companies have surpassed the government in power and influence.
..."and to translate our research discoveries into training and policy innovations for the public good.”...
Please no. No more efforts for the "public good". I am a member of the public. I don't want what people like you think is "good" for me. I want people like you, who feel the need to proselytize for the public good to go a find a public who want what you think is good for them. I suggest joining the a religion like the Jehovah's Witnesses or something similar. They also believe they are doing the public a service. The only difference is that they don't try to influence public policy. They go to door to door. Take your missionary impulses elsewhere...
These companies may not be held liable for damages created by censoring dissenting professionals because of section 230. Many assume that exemption from liability protects free speech. Thus is an example of how it doesn’t. It is now used by the government as leverage to censor. And it is now used to protect companies that openly admit they amplify and de-amplify content to addict users. They control their users, not the other way around as assumed when section 230 was written.
I think Julia expressed no opinion as she is offering this information as what we used to call, news. Nellie will tell you when you are entitled to an actual opinion. Thanks Julia, baby steps:)
Kind of surprised that Julia had no comment, or expressed no opinion, on the propriety of censoring opinions from appearing on social media sites. I will assume that she is nonchalant about any value that might be ascribed to the Constitution's 1st Amendment, but rather believes that government is the proper arbiter of truthful expression.
Wait! Nellie’s poor “Julia the Intern” worked at SIO. That would be a scoop!
I'd love to know how the SIO rationalized the disinformation campaign to lie about Hunter's laptop, and how they explain their total lack of concern over left-wing disinformation coming straight from the federal government.
Renee DiResta is a master of projection. She is a subversive agent of censorship and narrative control. Her new book "Invisible Rulers" is a farce: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/invisible-rulers-renee-diresta-book-review
Okay, help me out here, because I'm a little confused:
SIO is a private company? Or does it have federal funding? What is the nature of the cooperation with the DHS that would make this company government-linked?
And if SIO didn't really take anything down, it just told social media companies about these posts, why are we blaming SIO and not the social media companies?
If SIO was a private company with private funding and no actual power to take down posts, then I don't see that they did anything wrong...
There is a Supreme Court case that established it is illegal for the Federal government to push private companies to do something that the government is not allowed to do.
Pushing private entities to censor the press is an example.
I believe the case was NRA vs NY State and related to NY lobbying press to drop NRA ads.
1. SIO is funded with government money.
2. It was used as an offshoot of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) which is also the government
3. The government and law enforcement have major leverage (see Biden administration taking Elon Musk to court for everything but his private comapany)
4. We will find out soon enough if the government can use proxies to do their dirty work
Had SIO been a private research facility doing research for the sake of study, not using or forwarding what some interns deemed to be politically inconvenient as misinformation to government agencies like the FBI or DHS, there would be no issue. Anytime funding comes from the government, the Constitution must be followed.
"and not the social media companies?"
Who Is Not?
Social media companies cheated on us. They were asked to and then jumped in the censorship bed. They are likely currently doing it with someone not named government and this case will likely only lead to more discretion not less cheating. We should hold those who cheated on us accountable or leave them, they voluntarily jumped in the bed. "But we love them." So, we fight the tempter who will never stop coming, and with new bribes and promises instead of working on the real problem. The one we love is the problem. Laws preventing government from meeting with social media, meh. How about social media companies who tell government officials with propositions where they can shove it. The exact thing a willing people can make happen. I find the topic interesting and important, thanks.
I saw this posted yesterday on X ! Why wasn’t it included in the morning publication which gets the most readers?
What are they doing at The Free Press?
Whenever another wretched social media based abuse (enabling pedophiles and human traffickers, partisan censorship, deleterious psychological effects on minors, etc), Congress hauls a roomful of tech company CEO's in for another round of political theater aka "hearings" in which members of Congress castigate them for their perfidy and threaten to take away section 230. They never do and never will abridge the power of these companies because these companies have surpassed the government in power and influence.
They and whoever owns the porn sites have way too much power (and incriminating data).
..."and to translate our research discoveries into training and policy innovations for the public good.”...
Please no. No more efforts for the "public good". I am a member of the public. I don't want what people like you think is "good" for me. I want people like you, who feel the need to proselytize for the public good to go a find a public who want what you think is good for them. I suggest joining the a religion like the Jehovah's Witnesses or something similar. They also believe they are doing the public a service. The only difference is that they don't try to influence public policy. They go to door to door. Take your missionary impulses elsewhere...
The Democratic Party of America, DELENDA EST!
These companies may not be held liable for damages created by censoring dissenting professionals because of section 230. Many assume that exemption from liability protects free speech. Thus is an example of how it doesn’t. It is now used by the government as leverage to censor. And it is now used to protect companies that openly admit they amplify and de-amplify content to addict users. They control their users, not the other way around as assumed when section 230 was written.