←back to thread

Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta

(www.dropsitenews.com)
1210 points jbegley | 6 comments | 11 Apr 25 16:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
aucisson_masque ◴[11 Apr 25 18:25 UTC] No.43656830[source]▶
I like to think we are in a better place than russia for instance with all its propaganda and jailed journalists, but then i see these kind of article come over and over....

Most of the people in the 'free world' goes on mainstream media, like facebook to get their news. These companies are enticed to 'suck up' to the government because at the end they are business, they need to be in good term with ruling class.

you end up with most media complying with the official story pushed by government and friends, and most people believing that because no one has the time to fact check everything.

One could argue that the difference with russia is that someone can actually look for real information, but even in russia people have access to vpn to bypass the censorship.

Another difference would be that you are allowed to express your opinion, whereas in russia you would be put to jail, that's true but only in a very limited way. Since everyone goes on mainstream media and they enforce the government narrative, you can't speak there. you are merely allowed to speak out in your little corner out of reach to anyone, and even then since most people believe the government propaganda, your arguments won't be heard at all.

The more i think about it, the less difference i see.

replies(28): >>43656906 #>>43656916 #>>43656934 #>>43656946 #>>43656968 #>>43656989 #>>43657304 #>>43657562 #>>43657645 #>>43658191 #>>43658886 #>>43659133 #>>43660757 #>>43661511 #>>43661686 #>>43662234 #>>43662676 #>>43663016 #>>43663274 #>>43663600 #>>43665341 #>>43667845 #>>43669651 #>>43672708 #>>43675307 #>>43680694 #>>43701378 #>>43726510 #
uniqueuid ◴[11 Apr 25 18:35 UTC] No.43656934[source]▶
You’re not arrested for posting this, so that is a pretty big difference to Russia (and other authoritarian nations like China and Turkey), no?

https://rsf.org/en/country/russia

replies(26): >>43656957 #>>43656976 #>>43656996 #>>43657006 #>>43657319 #>>43657386 #>>43657520 #>>43657558 #>>43657618 #>>43657630 #>>43657641 #>>43657749 #>>43657850 #>>43657855 #>>43658054 #>>43658206 #>>43658306 #>>43658499 #>>43658650 #>>43658692 #>>43659388 #>>43660949 #>>43662179 #>>43663648 #>>43666029 #>>43726511 #
perihelions ◴[11 Apr 25 18:41 UTC] No.43657006[source]▶
America's arrested rather a large number of people in recent weeks—university students, mostly—for expressing viewpoints on the I/P conflict. The current Administration is claiming, and no one's yet stopped them, that First Amendment rights don't apply to non-citizens such as international students.

- "You’re not arrested for posting this"

For what it's worth, it's widely reported that ICE is trawling social media to find targets (targeted for their speech/viewpoints). HN itself is one of their known targets.

replies(5): >>43657318 #>>43657428 #>>43657733 #>>43658284 #>>43660454 #
bcrosby95 ◴[11 Apr 25 19:05 UTC] No.43657318[source]▶
It doesn't matter if they're citizens or not if the government is skipping court thus not being required to prove it either way. Then when they oopsie you to another country they have to at least try to pretend to get you back but the courts need to show "deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs".

Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants to a foreign country and no one is going to do anything because god forbid we step on the executive's role to give up people in our country to other countries.

replies(1): >>43657395 #
aeternum ◴[11 Apr 25 19:14 UTC] No.43657395[source]▶
>Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants

Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?

Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?

replies(7): >>43657472 #>>43657485 #>>43657538 #>>43657943 #>>43658320 #>>43660279 #>>43662195 #
efnx ◴[11 Apr 25 19:27 UTC] No.43657538[source]▶
What about that guy who got deported to El Salvador even though he was legally here and the court had also ordered he not be sent back to El Salvador for his own protection? I’m pretty sure the admin admitted it was a mistake then refused to bring him back.
replies(1): >>43657706 #
ethbr1 ◴[11 Apr 25 19:44 UTC] No.43657706[source]▶
The Supreme Court resolutely batted that down 9-0 in a few days.

>> The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be.

The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening.

Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.

replies(2): >>43658031 #>>43658237 #
1. bcrosby95 ◴[11 Apr 25 20:35 UTC] No.43658237[source]▶
Yes, that is where my quote came from. From your own quote:

> The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.

Which is such a ridiculously bullshit line of thought. This wasn't some person who willingly went to some random country, this is someone the executive illegally put there against the person's will in coordination with said foreign government. I can guarantee you that any order with teeth will be struck down by SCOTUS on this line of thought.

replies(2): >>43659316 #>>43660302 #
2. ethbr1 ◴[11 Apr 25 22:20 UTC] No.43659316[source]▶
I'm not sure why people obtusely intepret Supreme Court rulings as though they're part of the current administration.

The court is obviously saying that (1) it's correct and necessary to bring him back but that (2) the District Court doesn't have unbridled authority to order any foreign policy-influencing remedy it wants.

I.e. a US court couldn't order a president to sign a treaty

If the administration tries to foot drag further, the Supreme Court will likely order more specific remedies.

By not taking the L here, the administration is just burning whatever conservative goodwill they might have started with on this Supreme Court.

replies(1): >>43667675 #
3. anigbrowl ◴[12 Apr 25 00:51 UTC] No.43660302[source]▶
I think the SCOTUS was right on the money this time, and I am well to the left of any of its members. My read of their verbiage about effectuation/article II was a suggestion to the District Court judge to eliminate any wiggle room the administration would try to exploit.
4. ImPostingOnHN ◴[12 Apr 25 20:25 UTC] No.43667675[source]▶
They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation, as well as the lower court's order to provide information on the victim's location and attempts to retrieve him. They disobeyed numerous court orders to rehire people they fired and re-fund things they defunded.

What makes you think the administration cares about goodwill after that? Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. There's no going back to the illusion that judicial judgements will be respected by this administration.

replies(1): >>43675145 #
5. ethbr1 ◴[13 Apr 25 19:15 UTC] No.43675145{3}[source]▶
> They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation

They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order, and the consequences of that are still being worked out.

They then appealed the order to immediately bring him back, and the Supreme Court paused that while it decided.

The decision then directed the District Court to clarify the how of what it was demanding.

So "somewhat" and "no": they haven't directly ignored the Supreme Court.

Unless you'd care to cite a specific case and quote from a ruling?

> Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon.

Appealing a decision is different than ignoring.

And like the multiple other times it historically happened? https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforce...

replies(1): >>43686106 #
6. ImPostingOnHN ◴[14 Apr 25 20:43 UTC] No.43686106{4}[source]▶
> They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order...

On numerous occasions (not just the one you mention), they did not obey the direct order by the time specified, meaning they directly disobeyed the court. For example, post-supreme-court-order, they were obliged to provide the lower court with a status update of the victim, and a list of things they've done so far to retrieve them. They directly violated that court order.

It's important to draw a bright, flashing distinction between:

1. Arguing that you think you should not have to comply with an order, but then complying if you don't receive a ruling in your favor in time.

2. Directly violating a court order, and then tossing out a cynical pretext as an excuse which hasn't been preapproved by the judge (they're called that for a reason).

Unless a stay is placed before the deadline, you must comply with every single court order, by the court-ordered deadline, no matter what you think.

At least, that's how it was before. Now the USA has crossed the Rubicon, with the government itself ignoring court orders at will, in order to imprison political enemies.

It was a decent liberal democracy while it lasted.