It means, to me, that they will charge UK citizens who have broken their laws now matter where they are.
Should the white house respond to the UK?
- Thread starter Whiskeydeltadeltatango
- Start date
It appears he could be referring to three groups:
1. People causing trouble in person (on the UK streets)
2. People causing trouble online (UK citizens)
3. People causing trouble online (outside of the UK)
‘Come after you’ could be, in the case of 1 and 2, tracking them down and arresting and charging groups 1 and 2.
1 and 2 are in their control. Number 3 is not going to affect US citizens. I suppose they could be charged and then if they tried to go to the U.K. get arrested. Otherwise, what are we worried about, exactly?
Yep. What it clearly isn't is a call to extradite US citizens. That's stuff the numpties are making up.
Because this one article. Alexander Hall put some nice spin on it to get clicks and rile up the masses. Mission accomplished, it appears.
UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts: 'We'll come after you'
'Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law' the police commissioner warned
By Alexander Hall Fox News
You understand without the threat of extradition someone outside the jurisdiction is ‘safe’ from the law, right?
The commissioner clearly says in response to a question asking about someone behind a keyboard in different country, and he clearly says they won’t be safe.
And you can’t figure out why?
It’s because acting dumb isn’t always an act, is it?
She then asked what the police force’s plan will be “when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind the keyboard who may be in a different country?”
Rowley answered by telling the reporter, “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.”
Why did he specifically mention Musk, a non citizen of the UK?
Just it admit it formerly, the whole thing is a bad look for the Brits.
I assume they could charge Musk, and keep him out of the UK.
I agree it’s a bad look, but they don’t have the same liberties we do here. If I was a UK citizen I’d be more upset. It’s good to be an American.
excuse me...
how dare you tell people that they shouldn't get all riled up that one guy said something that could be interpreted in a way that suggests he wants to do something that he doesn't actually have the power to do!??!!?!
these people are scared...frightened...terrified
we need to show them support and ensure them that everything will be ok
Do you get scared when Kim Jong makes baseless threats?
No.
Point is, why worry about threats that aren’t going to happen?
I get scared when the government says they’re going to go after people for sharing videos of riots.
Imagine Trump and Co using the threat of law to punish anyone who shares a BLM post on social media because they say it incites racial unrest and rioting.
That is happening now not just in Pyongyang, but London.
But you’re too busy trying to find any possible pretext to ignore the actual threats they’re making, and where this road inevitably goes.
George Orwell was right.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever”
I’m sure someone will be watching and asking for confirmation it’s actually a boot and not a sandal, or maybe just galoshes.
Fair enough.
I’m just not worried we’re going to be shipping US citizens off to London to face charges just because a London police commissioner arguably got out over his skis.
No it doesn’t. It has been “restrained” by SC rulings more than once. Don’t bullshit a bullshitter, plz.While such a sentiment has become disturbingly popular with some Americans and policy-makers like Governor Walz, it is incorrect. The First Amendment does guarantee free speech when it comes to both misinformation and hate speech. Individuals and public officials may detest and condemn such speech, and platforms may choose not to carry it, but to insert the government into regulation of such expression would both set a troubling precedent and undermine our current First Amendment principles in ways that should concern Americans across the political spectrum.
Actually, Tim Walz, the First Amendment Does Protect Misinformation and ‘Hate Speech’ | National Review
Kamala Harris’s running mate is wrong: Free speech, including potentially misleading or offensive speech, isn’t a threat to democracy.www.nationalreview.com
It shouldn’t. I never said it should. I was explaining to Joel what is being asked.
You skipped my hypo. Let me try it again. Hypo: Posts on social media platforms are going viral saying the election is on a wrong date - say November 6.
Should the government try to have that false info removed?
And, if not, who should?
Would I jail someone for a meme like this?
No.
That’s a different question. I’ll ask one more time and then give up:
Posts on social media platforms are going viral saying the election is on a wrong date - say November 6.
Should the government try to have that false info removed?
And, if not, who should?
I wasn’t trying to distract from your hypothetical, I substituted the real case of a guy making the meme above and being prosecuted for it for misleading voters.
I wouldn’t jail someone for lying about when the election is, in a social media meme on 4chan or your hypothetical.
Is that clearer now?
Yes - so?
You and others are making up the extradition nonsense. You have a habit of misrepresentation and misinformation.
Wow - you're a complete coward.Would I jail someone for a meme like this?
No.
You've hit the seminole97 spin cycle. He won't answer and will do whatever he can to deflect from this simple question.
Again, that wasn’t my question. In Post #70 you said you didn’t trust the government to police false information on social media platforms.
So I asked you if the government has a role in my wrong election date hypo, and if you don’t trust the government, who polices the false information?
And you ducked those two questions three times - which is like six duckings.
By 'police' it, I mean censorship - removing posts and de-platforming of commentators.
Can you imagine letting the government pressure companies to remove posts and ban posters saying that there aren't WMD in Iraq?
Because that's immediately where this will go if it isn't strangled in the crib.
I don't trust the government to act as censor.
They can certainly disseminate information.
Do you understand the distinction?
I answered, but you didn't understand, so I've sought to clarify. Do you understand now?
Do you think someone should be jailed for the meme I posted above?
Thank you for finally answering.
So you believe the government should never reach out to the platforms and request removal of false information, and the only tool government can use is their own counter-speech? That’s a purist’s view - it doesn’t work, but it’s certainly a viewpoint.
And yes I would criminalize that meme because it’s not free speech - it’s fraud. It’s a knowingly false statement of fact made for others to rely on that causes injury and damage.
The Court has always allowed governments to criminalize speech based fraud.
They’ve already reached out to have TRUE information removed, because it countered the preferred narratives of those in power.
You keep wanting to talk in innocent hypotheticals, and ignore the egregious reality.
Censorship ‘works’ alright…
And you keep taking about slippery slopes.
You really believe that everyone in the world should be able to report false information to the platforms and request removal — other than the government? Government has right to free speech too, yes?
And a third-party platform voluntarily removing false information is certainly not censorship.
In general, I’d agree with the supposition that government should not request or require media/3rd party platforms from removing accurate information…although I think there should be room for exceptions.
You apparently missed the ride.
It’s already happened.
When Miranda published her blockbuster New York Post exposé of October 14, 2020, “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,” Internet platforms Twitter and Facebook experimented for the first time with disappearing a major political story in the middle of an election year. Not only did both platforms suppress the story, but as I later found in internal correspondence, Twitter used tools previously reserved for child pornography to prevent individuals from sharing the story in direct messages — the digital version of a Cheka agent intercepting that copy of a Solzhenitsyn or Voinovich story before one person could hand it to another.
Meanwhile, when Dr. Bhattacharya conducted an experiment on his own initiative proving that the WHO had massively overstated the infection mortality rate of Covid-19, and later organized against lockdown policies he and many others felt were both ineffective and dangerous, the result was digital suppression — not because he was incorrect, but because his message was politically undesirable. Along with Bari Weiss, one of the first things I saw when Elon Musk opened Twitter’s internal files was a page showing Jay had been placed on a “trends blacklist.” This was just before we discovered that the platforms were in regular contact about content with agents of the American versions of the KGB or NKVD in the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, State, and Defense, among others.
The Internet, in other words, was being transformed from a system for exchanging forbidden or dissenting ideas, like Samizdat, to a system for imposing top-down control over information and narrative, a GozIzdat. Worse, while the Soviets had to rely on primitive surveillance technologies, like the mandatory registration of typewriters, the Internet offered breathtaking new surveillance capability, allowing authorities to detect thoughtcrime by algorithm and instantaneously disenfranchise those on the wrong side of the information paradigm, stripping them of the ability to raise money or conduct business or communicate at all.
Like Jay and Miranda I’m sure, I’m honored to be chosen for the Samizdat prize, but also a little horrified that such an award is now necessary. People with dissenting ideas will now have to find alternative ways to distribute. As was the case in the Soviet Union, official news will be unpopular in America because the public will know in advance that it is full of untruths and false narratives — but that won’t translate into instant popularity for true reporting or great satire or comedy, because the reach of these things can be artificially suppressed.
We’re going to need to find new ways of getting the truth to each other, and it’s not clear yet how those networks will work, if they will at all. It may come down to handing each other mimeographed papers in subway tunnels, as they did in Soviet times.
I understand the difference between FBI agents ‘requesting’ at the behest of people in Congress and a person like you ‘requesting’.
Do you?
Yes.
Why are you pretending the politicians aren’t threatening these companies with new regulations if these actions are in fact voluntary?
The coercion has been in public statements for everyone to see. Did you miss them?
Yes. I have no doubt that there have been and will be abuses by the government - whether intentional or unintentional.
However, I don’t think the solution is to prevent the government from requesting removal of false information while everyone else on the planet can.
The government is accountable to the voters. As long as all government requests other than national security are made public, I’m fine with it.
False according to whom?
Dick Cheney?
They’re not being open about what they’re trying to do. At all.
That was the importance of the Twitter Files, in that reporters had a chance to trawl through communications and see the quasi-private/commercial/govt chimera of the Industrial Censorship Complex.
It is a multi-headed beast, and from the comms it’s clear they’re trying to outsource things they KNOW the government shouldn’t be doing, they’re just trying to obfuscate the role of government behind it.
False is just my hypo. I understand there are problems.
I just don’t think the solution is somehow entirely banning the government from talking to the platforms.
And your hypothetical is a very easy one to imagine happening either by accident or on purpose. But notice that he won't give a direct answer to even that simple scenario.
Doesn’t escape the question, false according to whom?
You’re making the government bureaucracies the arbiter of truth?
So let’s not make them worse by having the government define those problems and worse still, decide who is allowed to talk about those problems.
You keep couching this in the most innocent terms possible.
Why not just keep the conversation centered in the reality of politicians making threats? We don’t need hypotheticals to outline the slippery slope when in reality we’re already riding it down.
My hypo was simple. The wrong date was provided for an election. That is false. So the answer to your “false according to whom” in that hypo is - it’s false according to everybody.
I get that they are not that simple.
But your apparent solution to the problem is that the government may never contact the platforms to seek removal or correction because you don’t trust the government to make the initial determination of what is false.
I just disagree with your proposed one size fits all solution.
