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.
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.
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…
So what exactly do they define as “misinformation”?
Demonstrably false foreign propaganda? Lies about the time, place, and results of elections? Medical advice that can be lethal if followed?
Don’t forget revenge porn, which was already illegal but gets Republicans really mad when it’s of Hunter Biden but also taken down.
It’s not “revenge porn” if the images have already been leaked. Just like it’s not espionage to report on information already leaked.
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)
My statement had to do with classifying already widely distributed material as “revenge porn”.
If you are the original distributor, then you are criminally liable (just like with leaking secrets). If you redistribute to extort money or the actual content is illegal ( as is the case with CSAM, which several of the celebrity leaks allegedly were), then you are also criminally liable.
It is not a crime to merely redistribute already published images, it is however possibly a copyright violation. It would be different if all the individuals were either individually or collectively trying to extort Hunter Biden, but since it was simply image sharing it is subject to the same laws as sharing any other pornographic image of an adult.
yes, the government would never wield that power in a self serving way.
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.
deleted by creator
You got close there.
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.
Disagrees with Biden narrative
Disagrees with whatever administration is in office. You can’t be short sighted with SCOTUS decisions. The Justices aren’t.
Really important both with the Gaza situation and the upcoming election
They’re already lying about Gaza:
White House clarifies Biden’s claim he saw photos of terrorists beheading children in Israel-Hamas war
The “clarification” of course is that he lied about seeing the pictures.
In fact, no one has seen them.
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?
We should just do nothing in case sentient wallabies get elected and force us all to get marsupial reassignment surgery
My main issue is the US considers Israel bad misinformation
The Ministry Of Truth has been sanctioned
