Also, love the presentation on this page.
I’d like to know how curious this would make non-HN people, and those living in more censored places.
My assumption is that they take it for granted and just continue to watch the show. It might be hard for them to even find the uncensored clips.
Disagreement among private parties, or getting less private promotion than you wanted to get, is not “censorship”. It’s free speech in action.
How long were the FBI in possession of Hunter Biden's laptop, why is Mark Zuckerberg trying to blame them for the censorship of the NY Post's story, and do you consider the FBI to be part of the government?
The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech.
What do you think the government said when the Washington Post called them up and said “we have a bunch of top-secret stuff that one of your contractors stole from the NSA”? The Post published the Snowden stories anyway. This sort of thing happens a lot.
Many people posted and talked about the Hunter laptop story. None of those people went to jail for it.
That may well be true.
> The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech.
If the mafia offer your business protection you could also make your own decision. Would that be freedom of conscience?
> What do you think the government said when the Washington Post called them up and said “we have a bunch of top-secret stuff that one of your contractors stole from the NSA”? The Post published the Snowden stories anyway. This sort of thing happens a lot.
Why does that incident mean that this incident is different? Were the same people involved?
> Many people posted and talked about the Hunter laptop story. None of those people went to jail for it.
Would people need to go to jail for the aims of the censor to be realised?
So many questions, so few answers.
> The email, which was recently disclosed during discovery in a federal lawsuit that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed in May, vividly illustrates how the Biden administration engages in censorship by proxy, pressuring social media platforms to implement speech restrictions that would be flagrantly unconstitutional if the government tried to impose them directly. Landry and Schmitt, both Republicans, argue that such pressure violates the First Amendment.
> Judging from the examples that Schmitt cites, the tenor of these communications has been cordial and collaborative. The social media companies are at pains to show that they share the government's goals, which is precisely the problem. Given the broad powers that the federal government has to make life difficult for these businesses through public criticism, litigation, regulation, and legislation, the Biden administration's "asks" for stricter moderation are tantamount to commands. The administration expects obsequious compliance, and that is what it gets.
[1] https://reason.com/2022/09/01/these-emails-show-how-the-bide...