you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]stickdog[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Excerpt:

There was no censorship, but it’s good that they censored misinformation.

Defenders of the Covid regime have adopted this Doublethink in response to Judge Terry Doughty’s recent injunction against the government’s collusion with Big Tech. As Orwell describes in 1984, they “hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.”

Consider the language of the Biden administration’s call for an “emergency stay” of the injunction from Missouri v. Biden that stops the government from telling social media companies what they should and should not allow their users to post. The appeal says government is not censoring but must have the power to continue “working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes.”

Grave harm…from free speech!

Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe exemplifies this authoritarian advocacy. For decades, Tribe built a reputation as a legal scholar. He authored the country’s leading constitutional law treatise, advised presidents, and appeared on television as a legal commentator.

But age has a way of eroding veneers. Tribe is a defender of a political regime, a member of a Praetorian Guard comfortable with abolishing constitutional liberties when it advances his political preferences.

In the last three years, Tribe has argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin rigged the 2016 presidential election for “Thief in Chief, Donald Trump,” led the Justice Department to argue that the CDC eviction moratorium was constitutional, and successfully lobbied President Biden to unilaterally cancel student loans.

If he were on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Tribe might be accused of spreading misinformation and unconstitutional theories that threatened our democracy. Instead, he continues to serve as a mouthpiece for the country’s most powerful forces.

On Wednesday, Tribe co-authored an article with Michigan Law Professor Leah Litman attacking Judge Doughty’s injunction against the federal government’s collusive censorship of its political opponents. Their argument is notable for its false assertions of fact and improper implications of law. They remain obtuse to the allegations in the case, the principles of the First Amendment, and the historical ploys to overturn civil liberties. All the while, they maintain a posture of moral superiority that the Biden White House has mimicked.

A “Thoroughly Debunked Conspiracy Theory”

The professors begin their article with a false premise: “The impetus behind the case is the now thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that the government is somehow strong-arming Big Tech into censoring conservative speech and speakers in violation of the First Amendment.”

They don’t offer an explanation for this description. They fail to address the documented censorship of Alex Berenson, Jay Bhattacharya, the Great Barrington Declaration, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and others. There is no mention of Facebook banning users who promoted the lab-leak hypothesis after working with the CDC, the Biden Administration’s public campaign urging social media companies to censor dissent in July 2021, or the Twitter Files’ documentation of the US Security State’s influence on Big Tech.

Instead, Tribe and Litman dismiss censorship as a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. They didn’t need to look far for examples – the opinion documents multiple instances of the coordination between Big Tech and the Biden White House in silencing opposition.

“Are you guys fucking serious?” White House Advisor Rob Flaherty asked Facebook after the company failed to censor critics of the Covid vaccine. “I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”

At other times, Flaherty was more direct. “Please remove this account immediately,” he told Twitter about a Biden family parody account. The company compiled within an hour.

His boss demanded Twitter remove posts from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., writing: “Hey Folks-Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed ASAP.”

There are too many incidents to list, but it is clear that censorship was more than a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. Either Tribe did not read the decision, or his ideology blinded him from reality.

...

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Instead of sharing a excerpt it's better to share an archive.org entry.

[–]stickdog[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Please do.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I can't, I keep being redirected to the website on my native language.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I keep being redirected to the website on my native language.

Perhaps a better archiver? We've had good results from archive.is
https://archive.is/eyNwd

(copy link, goto archive.is, paste in link -- that should avoid a language redirect)
If the archive already exists, you are given the option of making another (updated) one. Or not.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

These last few days that one went down 😁

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These last few days that one went down 😁

So far, though it's been down occasionally, it's always come back up.
So far.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Instead of sharing a excerpt it's better to share an archive.org entry.

Not necessarily. An excerpt at least shows what the article is about; an archive.org entry would still look like possible clickbait.
Better to do both, maybe.

(Maybe smaller excerpts, tho)

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The only point of an excerpt is for acessibility reasons. Anything else has a different meaning than an excerpt.

I do aggre we could use both on every post.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The only point of an excerpt is for acessibility reasons.

I disagree. The other point of an excerpt is to give people more of a reason to read the entire article than merely a headline.

I do aggre we could use both on every post.

However... an archive does reduce clicks to the original. Which, depending upon the site in question, could reduce the income for the original author. If you like what the original author is saying, why would you want to reduce their income, and therefore their ability to write more stuff like that?

Sites which have a history of sneaky stealth edits of the original article, oh yes, definitely archive that, before any changes, then archive the changes too. And sites that you do not want there to be any additional income generated for the article.... that's kind of a grey area. The concept of "fair use of copyrighted material" is a thing.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I just archive anything of interest to me.

It would only be malicious if the original post is the archived version. On my posts on Saidit I link to the original post and share an archived version in the comments in case future users stumble upon it and the website is dead.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I just archive anything of interest to me.

Times being what they are, probably a good idea.

On my posts on Saidit I link to the original post and share an archived version in the comments in case future users stumble upon it and the website is dead.

Suggestion: Make the archive immediately (just in case) but do not post the archive immediately. If you like what the author is saying, give them a chance to make a little "click income" first. Once discussion dies down, then post the archive link, for posterity.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Suggestion: Make the archive immediately (just in case) but do not post the archive immediately. If you like what the author is saying, give them a chance to make a little "click income" first. Once discussion dies down, then post the archive link, for posterity.

From what I know of social media, most users either read the headline and scroll past or click the post. Most don't read the comments. This is when it comes to posts that aren't /self. It would be difficult for someone to go for the archived version in the comments first lol

I'm not gonna remember to post the archived version later :P most posts on this website are very slow to gain any traction anyway. How I do it I think works the best for everyone.

Altough, I do share archived versions of websites I don't want to give clicks to. Such as kotaku.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

From what I know of social media, most users either read the headline and scroll past or click the post.

From what I have seen of the people in these two subs, that may not be as much of the case here.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good point. Even some subs have archive culture.

I know that some users from /s/lgbdropthet archives the post they're referring to even without linking it. Users in the future might stumble upon the archived version.