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.

  • Devouring@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ink@r.nf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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…

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Demonstrably false foreign propaganda? Lies about the time, place, and results of elections? Medical advice that can be lethal if followed?

      • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget revenge porn, which was already illegal but gets Republicans really mad when it’s of Hunter Biden but also taken down.

        • jasory@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not “revenge porn” if the images have already been leaked. Just like it’s not espionage to report on information already leaked.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • TunaLobster
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Disagrees with whatever administration is in office. You can’t be short sighted with SCOTUS decisions. The Justices aren’t.

  • Confuserated@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • abaci@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should just do nothing in case sentient wallabies get elected and force us all to get marsupial reassignment surgery