Comment by Simulacra
5 months ago
They went against a government narrative. This wasn't Google/Youtube banning so much as government ordering private companies to do so.
5 months ago
They went against a government narrative. This wasn't Google/Youtube banning so much as government ordering private companies to do so.
> wasn't Google/Youtube banning so much as government ordering private companies to do so
No, it was not. It’s particularly silly to suggest this when we have live example of such orders right now.
The companies were nudged. (And they were wrong to respond to public pressure.) The President, after all, has a “bully pulpit.” But there were no orders, no credibly threats and plenty of companies didn’t deplatform these folks.
That's what I told my MAGA friends. Biden recommended stuff, Trump threatens stuff. So far only one of them has followed through with action. Trump has threatened business deals and prosecution, and is currently sending government after his opponents with the DoJ. Yet those same people are as quiet as mice now on "government bullying"
They literally had access to JIRA at Twitter so they could file tickets against accounts.
> literally had access to JIRA at Twitter so they could file tickets against accounts
I’m not disputing that they coördinated. I’m challenging that they were coerced.
We wouldn’t describe Fox News altering a script on account of a friendly call from Miller and friends the “government ordering private companies” around. (Or, say, Florida opening their criminal justice records to ICE the federal government ordering states around.) Twitter’s leadership and the Biden administration saw eye to eye. This is a story about a media monoculture and private censorship, not government censorship.
1 reply →
Do you think no nefarious nation state actors are on social media spinning disinformation?
1 reply →
Zuckerberg mentioned meta were getting government employees that were calling Facebook absolutely furious, and when they didn’t take down legal speech administration did not approve of, there was an immediate investigation launched into Meta that he considers retaliatory.
https://apnews.com/article/meta-platforms-mark-zuckerberg-bi...
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kDr0LcmqOHOz3mBHMdDuV?si=j...
That was certainly the case with Twitter. It came out during the congressional hearings. FBI had a direct line to the decision makers.
> was certainly the case with Twitter
It was not. No threats were made, and Twitter didn’t blindly follow the FBI’s guidance.
The simple truth is the leftist elements that wanted to control the debate were there in the White House and in Twitter’s San Francisco offices. Nobody had to be coerced, they were coördinating.
A direct line to threaten decision makers? Or to point out possible misinformation spreaders?
7 replies →
And do you think the impetuous behind this action happening now is any different? In both cases YouTube is just doing what the government wants.
[flagged]
[flagged]