We know this president has.We know the last president would.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We know this president has.We know the last president would.
Is there a link of someone besides glenn greenwald saying this?
Ummm...whut? This seems redundant - the first part of the statement saying it's "legal" is quite literally the same as the last saying "it isn't illegal".It's also legal to call your mother a tramp but it isn't illegal.
Fully aware. Again, Facebook is not a government entity. Your conspiracy theory is bunk.I guess @RileyHawk doesn't see the WH press briefings.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.
In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/page/3/
Is the White House a government entity?Fully aware. Again, Facebook is not a government entity. Your conspiracy theory is bunk.
I see abby is doubling if not tripling down on his or her stupidity. Well done Abby, leave no doubt in the minds of others regarding how dumb you are.Here is another.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ear-post-claiming-sensitive-social-issue.html
Maybe you don't understand the first amendment. It is a principle of a free American society where everyone has a right to voice his/her own opinions. I'm not suggesting that Facebook or others are breaking the law, but if you believe in American ideals, than censoring posts simply because you disagree with them , is contrary to the first amendment. Our society is built on individual freedom and expression, not oppression.
It's also legal to call your mother a tramp but it isn't illegal.
Lol - no, this ignorance is all yours. Lol.Is the White House a government entity?
And what conspiracy? Psaki said the White House is flagging content they want Facebook to remove.
It is right there in her own words.
It was just something else you were ignorant about.
Big surprise to me.
No one is saying Facebook is a government entity.Facebook is not a government entity no matter how many times it communicates with the government about posts.
No... Just no, it's not in the least. What bullshit.No one is saying Facebook is a government entity.
They are pointing out that a government entity, the White House, is trying to get Facebook to pull posts the White House doesn't like. That's where the First Amendment issues arise.
That professor is an idiot.Professor suggests it should be a federal hate crime to criticize Fauci and other government-funded scientists | The College Fix
Targeted by far-right extremism.'www.thecollegefix.com
Is the WH a government entity?No... Just no, it's not in the least. What bullshit.
No one is saying Facebook is a government entity.
They are pointing out that a government entity, the White House, is trying to get Facebook to pull posts the White House doesn't like. That's where the First Amendment issues arise.
You're misplacing my concern.No, they don’t.
The First Amendment doesn’t apply unless Facebook is a government entity.
Which is why every lawsuit against social media platforms falls on its face: they require
the platforms to be a government entity.
I guess @RileyHawk doesn't see the WH press briefings.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.
In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/page/3/
@CarolinaHawkeye
I flag posts if they are false. You can do it too.You're misplacing my concern.
I don't raise a First Amendment issue with Facebook.
I raise a First Amendment issue with the White House flagging posts and telling Facebook the White House wants to see them removed.
The government entity shouldn't be making those requests.
THAT is a First Amendment issue.
I'd like it if they stuck to eliminating disinformation....misinformation is pretty subjective.there is a big difference between trying to protect the country from misinformation that can kill a lot of people and trying to manipulate politically damaging messages.
You're misplacing my concern.
I don't raise a First Amendment issue with Facebook.
I raise a First Amendment issue with the White House flagging posts and telling Facebook the White House wants to see them removed.
The government entity shouldn't be making those requests.
THAT is a First Amendment issue.
A) I'd have to have an account.I flag posts if they are false. You can do it to.
To mark a post as false news:
- Click
next to the post you'd like to mark as false.- Click Find support or report post.
- Click False Information, then click Next.
- Click Done.
www.facebook.com/help/572838089565953/?helpref=uf_share
You're misplacing my concern.
I don't raise a First Amendment issue with Facebook.
I raise a First Amendment issue with the White House flagging posts and telling Facebook the White House wants to see them removed.
The government entity shouldn't be making those requests.
THAT is a First Amendment issue.
The point is the government is just doing what every FB poster can do. FB makes the final decision whether I flag it or the WH flags it.A) I'd have to have an account.
B) Are you a government entity? If not, First Amendment restrictions don't apply to your censorship requests.
C) Do you have final approval on any multi-billion dollars deals that Facebook is conducting or may conduct in the future that might influence their willingness to consider and implement your request?
Government works with private sector all the time, giving their input is not an anomaly.That is not.
Like any other party, the White House can ask for posts to be removed.
They are not requiring FB to remove posts nor is Congress passing laws that give them the power to remove FB posts. And FB is not a government actor.
Thus the First Amendment is not implicated at all. Full stop.
I think it’s a bad policy choice and poor optics for the White House to do this, but it’s not unconstitutional under 1A.
Unlike any other party the White House is a government entity with final say over multi-billion deals executed by Facebook. They hold a leverage no one else does in that regard.Like any other party, the White House can ask for posts to be removed.
I have no doubt that you did see such a story.I saw a story today stating Facebook would not allow an announcement for a charity event raising money for fallen police officers.
So much for the 1st Amendment.
This is incorrect. Complete nonsense.Unlike any other party the White House is a government entity with final say over multi-billion deals executed by Facebook. They hold a leverage no one else does in that regard.
The White House 'requesting' the removal of content they don't like is the government/corporate fusion at the core of fascism.
That's why this raises First Amendment concerns.
When you make the request FB can consider the request on its merits.The point is the government is just doing what every FB poster can do. FB makes the final decision whether I flag it or the WH flags it.
Was it misinformation when Fauci said, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”um...you must subscribe to alternative facts.
FB doesn't record who flags a post. I think it just alerts their staff to check out the post and determine if it is appropriate for FB. There are other options as to flagging a post. They are nudity, violence, harassment, suicide/self injury, false information, spam, unauthorized sales, hate speech, terrorism, or something else. I imagine there are many law enforcement agencies that monitor FB posts. My impression is the WH has people who monitor FB and flags posts with false Covid information. If there is a threat from the WH involved then you might have a point, but I think it's more of a community service than a 1st amendment violation. No one benefits from receiving information that is not true.When you make the request FB can consider the request on its merits.
When the WH makes the request FB makes the decision also in light of how displeasing the WH could affect their multi-billion dollar decisions, because of power the WH has that you don't to nix those deals.
Can you see how that isn't the same thing?
When FB has multi billion dollar decision that is solely on the hands of the WH and it gets upturned because the WH doesn't like their actions you might have an argument. There is nothing to indicate either that such decisions are in the hands of the WH not that the WH would or could affect such decisions. Your theory is so far fetched - it's ludicrous.When you make the request FB can consider the request on its merits.
When the WH makes the request FB makes the decision also in light of how displeasing the WH could affect their multi-billion dollar decisions, because of power the WH has that you don't to nix those deals.
Can you see how that isn't the same thing?
Exactly. My guess is FB welcomes the input.FB doesn't record who flags a post. I think it just alerts their staff to check out the post and determine if it is appropriate for FB. There are other options as to flagging a post. They are nudity, violence, harassment, suicide/self injury, false information, spam, unauthorized sales, hate speech, terrorism, or something else. I imagine there are many law enforcement agencies that monitor FB posts. My impression is the WH has people who monitor FB and flags posts with false Covid information. If there is a threat from the WH involved then you might have a point, but I think it's more of a community service than a 1st amendment violation. No one benefits from receiving information that is not true.
Re-read the 1st amendmentDo you think First Amendment issues can arise when the White House requests a social media company remove a post?
If you owned a social media company and needed the White House to approve your latest multi-billion dollar acquisition, and found yourself in receipt of a request from that same White House to remove content that they didn't like, do you think there could be any undue influence there?
Would you be more, or less inclined to meet their request?
I think it's plainly obvious you would.
Legally it's pretty much all the same coming from the White House. The POTUS has always been able to utilize the bully pulpit.It depends for me on how the "request" is made. Is it a threat of retaliation? Is it a hopeful plea? No idea. I can request my wife let me PIITB all day long, doesn't get me anywhere.
It's scary to see regardless and where the "slippery slope" actually lies here.
You think they're using the link you posted? That's cute!FB doesn't record who flags a post.
Has FB complained about WH interference?You think they're using the link you posted? That's cute!
"Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff"
Has FB complained about WH interference?
I imagine they do contact FB directly in some cases, but the fact remains FB makes the final decision. If FB feels it's being unfairly pressured there is a legal remedy for them to pursue.You think they're using the link you posted? That's cute!
"Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff"
Compelling argument. You're a true wordsmith.No... Just no, it's not in the least. What bullshit.