Oh My Accusation's Of More Weaponization Now Social Media

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 12 months ago

   Do you care about freedom of speech at all? Can a Federal agency coordinating with social media companies to effectively censor "election-related speech."  be compared to something one might expect in a communist country? Is our Homeland Security Agency now on the weaponization list, along with so many others? 
   
   
   Biden agency 'likely' violated free speech by working with Big Tech to censor election content: court
   
   CISA 'likely significantly encouraged the [social media] platforms’ content-moderation decisions'
   
   A federal court ordered an injunction on a top agency within the Department of Homeland Security after finding that it likely violated the First Amendment by coordinating with social media companies to effectively censor "election-related speech."
   
   On Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the scope of an injunction in place that limits the Biden administration's communication with big tech companies to include the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security.
   
   According to GOP Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who is leading the litigation against the Biden administration, CISA is the "nerve center" of the White House's "vast censorship enterprise" and "the very entity that worked with the FBI to silence the Hunter Biden laptop story."
   
   Read more --    https://www.foxnews.com/us/biden-agency … tent-court

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Willowarborposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Fox presents the case in such a slanted manner and leaves out much information. I had to look at many other sources to gain a full and accurate picture.
      
      The case centers around trying to curb misinformation.  Something that is rampant in this country.
      
      The US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has modified a ruling from last month to add the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to a list of US government entities prohibited from working with social media outfits to curtail the spread of misinformation.
      
      This latest decision modified a ruling in the case issued in early September that found the White House, surgeon general, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI overstepped their authority by requesting sites like Twitter and Facebook restrict the reach of (or outright remove) posts by users that contained election or COVID-19 disinformation.
      
      Statement from Executive Director Brandon Wales in which he alleges CISA doesn't censor speech or facilitate censorship, and that any claims to that end are false.
      
        "Every day, the men and women of CISA execute the agency's mission of reducing risk to U.S. critical infrastructure in a way that protects Americans' freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy," Wales said.
      
      This case raises broad questions about whether and how officials can fight misinformation and disinformation on health or other matters. It appears that the Supreme Court is deciding whether it will take this case or not. 
      
      Trying to combat the prolific amount of disinformation causes one to clutch their pearls but an activist Court striking down a constitutional right to bodily autonomy somehow gets a pass?   Not in my world.  Government reach into a woman's body is the most egregious type of overreach.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         I am for freedom of speech. I'm not up with the federal government monitoring social media period.  Especially when it is a biased administration during the monitoring.  This White House has weaponized several agencies this is in my view very much like something one sees in a Communist country.  This is my belief.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Willowarborposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I don't think we need to feed very uneducated, unaware citizens disinformation.  If something is a blatant lie,  do you really think it should be spread across social media to the intellectually vulnerable masses?  If I want to post a salacious, untrue story about Trump on Facebook and it goes viral, that's really okay?  Anyone can easily make a very believable presentation with pictures or videos and the like. Especially with the Advent of AI. This should just go unchecked?  Let it rip then. You know it does cut both ways.

            replyreport
         2. 86

            tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            The NSA has been monitoring for decades, right? Remember Snowden in 2013? My best friend from high school, RIP, was with in the Army Security Agency attached to the NSA during the early '70s. He was in Berlin monitoring East Germany and the Soviets in Russia.
            
            What I am getting at is monitoring social media is nothing new in my mind. Censoring it is a different matter entirely. To me, it tramples on free speech if our government is doing it! I do appreciate the site itself censors both disinformation and misinformation. Get the trash off the site, I say.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

               I do agree, and my OP is in regard to our government overstepping the boundaries with social media companies. I feel monitors are needed on social media sites, which the majority do have.  I appreciate the monitor here on HPs. To be truthful, I like the rules, keep it civil.
               
               However, when the government tells a social media company to keep an eye out for specific information that benefits someone politically, I find that BS, not in any respect acceptable. I think it acceptable if social media monitors pick up unlawful acts via chatter, and pass it on to law enforcement or the FBI.
               
               Yes, our government has always done it, I guess now, we are just getting a good look behind the curtain, due to so many billion using social media.

               replyreport
2. 84

   Venkatachari Mposted 12 months ago

   It's all over the world. In every corner of the world, you can find  censorship of the freedom of speech whether spoken or written. Removal or blocking of the content, banning of journals, etc., etc.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      In Canada bill 11 and 18 cencor everything going through the Government. Largest online corporation and independent are pushing strongly back. Been alot of blocking an canceling culture and famous celebrity being taken off the air and online for speaking the truth.

      replyreport
3. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months ago

   FOX news is a discredited source.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Not sure if you read the report. However, Fox has supplied any and all sources to legitimize the report. Even presenting court documentation.

      replyreport
4. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months ago

   It's not their sources that have been discredited. It's them.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      You have a right to your view.  I could certainly offer several other sources that the report was offering legitimate information --- This document would be the best source for you to read.
      https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/p … 45-CV1.pdf

      replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago

   "Can a Federal agency coordinating with social media companies to effectively censor 'election-related speech.'  be compared to something one might expect in a communist country?"
   
   YES

   replyreport