This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What adverse action did the government take against those platforms that did not comply with its requests? More generally when a friend or family says to you that it would be good for you to do X or that they would like you to do X, do you understand them to be threatening to coerce you to do X? Apparently in this case we are to understand that the government coerced social media companies to do X even when the government took no adverse action when the social media companies did not obey and we do not ordinarily understand the forms of communication the government used as carrying the threat of coercion. Remarkable!
I assume this extends to requests by the government? If so I think I'd be alright with it but SCOTUS will never go for it. Abolishing the notion of a consensual search for Fourth Amendment purposes would be quite radical.
In addition to what was already said.
Elon Musks losts $50 billion to Delaware Chauncery ruling from a judge appointed by a Democrat. And he’s the worst behaving censor in charge of a social media company. And of course Donald Trump got $500 million in charged from a NYC court.
These are indirect and perhaps non-traceable but there are examples of punishment for not staying in the good graces of the political power.
This is somewhat like the “where is the fraud” in the 2020 election. And just citing the obvious expansion of mail-in voting.
More options
Context Copy link
Look at the actions taken against Musk.
They cancelled SpaceX broadband contract even though SpaceX (1) hasn’t failed and (2) was well on their way to meeting the contract specs; indeed more along the most contractors.
They investigated SpaceX for not hiring immigrants even though it would be almost impossible for them to do so.
The FTC keeps making noises.
I could go on. None of these things by themselves are directly related to Musk buying Twitter and basically exposing the government. But they are certainly a message that Musk and others hear.
4: They made SpaceX catch a seal, strap it to a board, put headphones on it, and force it to listen to simulated rocket noises to see how distressed it would be.
Although this is arguably less about punishing musk and more the sort of silly thing that environmental rules require of many large projects.
More options
Context Copy link
What the fuck? Starship’s launch facility is on a sea with no seals in it.
More options
Context Copy link
Was there a control group, to distinguish the effect of the rocket noises from that of the board, straps, and headphones?
More options
Context Copy link
Is this real?
https://preview.redd.it/oqukgfw2e10c1.jpeg?width=1098&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2fafaf497467f27be8152ac516d6108f2052fe5
Had to do it twice, in fact, IIRC. You can check Lex Friedman's interview with Musk for a source.
More options
Context Copy link
Apparently so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My friends and family are not entities that have coercive power over me. If my employer sent me an email suggesting that it would be best if I get X done this week, I would understand it to mean that I'm taking a risk by electing to not do X. Closer still, if a police officer suggested that it would be best if I let him take a quick look around my car, I would understand that while I have the legal right to say no, I would be risking retaliation by doing so. Such retaliation would presumably be justiciable after the fact, but this would not lead me to believe that it's just a friendly suggestion about how things should go.
I certainly regard such requests as coercive. In fact, I would go so far as to say they're obviously coercive! How much coercion in an effort to induce someone to relinquish their Fourth Amendment rights is certainly an interesting question.
To put a fine point on it, I would say that anyone that doesn't understand the coercive nature of their interactions with government agents making helpful suggestions to them is verging into full quokka territory. Many or most representatives of the government might be disinclined to actually act maliciously against someone that declines to accept their advice, but quite a few people will accept the advice because of the implication.
Where exactly the line should be drawn isn't obvious to me and I wouldn't go so far as claiming that said implication means that federal government may never communicate with a social media platform, but all such communication should be made with the understanding that attempting to engage in viewpoint discrimination will be treated as a First Amendment violation. This particular case is so egregiously far from the line that there isn't even a great reason for a ruling to get close to laying out the definitive test.
Did your folks not teach you to say no regardless? I’m genuinely flummoxed.
Yes, I am aware that best practice is saying no. Nonetheless, I'm not going to pretend that the request isn't coercive. The whole reason it works a lot of the time is the implicit coercion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which platforms did not comply with the government's requests?
What exactly do you think government is for?
Most of them did not comply with the government's requests at least some of the time
The government does lots of things that are not directly coercive. I am sure you can come up with some examples.
It's amazing what happens if you follow citations within a single paper: 107a:
191a:
Bizarrely, they don't cite the page where this actually first comes up, where instead:
65:
Cite 426 instead points to the FBI's agent's deposition, here, page 167. And it says instead that:
Q. But you received reports, I take it, from all over the country about disinformation about time, place and manner of voting, right?
A. That is -- we received them from multiple field offices, and I can't remember. But I remember many field offices, probably around ten to 12 field offices, relayed this type of information to us.
And because DOJ had informed us that this type of information was criminal in nature, that it did not matter where the -- who was the source of the information, but that it was criminal in nature and that it should be flagged to the social media companies. And then the respective field offices were expected to follow up with a legal process to get additional information on the origin and nature of these communications.
Q. So the Department of Justice advised you that it's criminal and there's no First Amendment right to post false information about time, place and manner of voting?
MR. SUR: Objection on the grounds of attorney-client privilege --
MR. SAUER: He just testified --
MR. SUR: -- and work product issues.
MR. SAUER: That's waived. He just told him what -- he just described what DOJ said, and I'm asking for specificity.
MR. SUR: I am putting the objection on the record.
Q. BY MR. SAUER: You may answer.
A. That was my understanding.
Q. And did you, in fact, relay -- let me ask you this. You say manner of voting. Were some of these reports related to voting by mail, which was a hot topic back then?
A. From my recollection, some of them did include voting by mail. Specifically what I can remember is erroneous information about when mail-in ballots could be postmarked because it is different in different jurisdictions. So I would be relying on the local field office to know what were the election laws in their territory and to only flag information for us. Actually, let me provide additional context. DOJ public integrity attorneys were at the FBI's election command post and headquarters. So I believe that all of those were reviewed before they got sent to FBI San Francisco.
Q. So those reports would come to FBI San Francisco when you were the day commander at this command post, and then FBI San Francisco would relay them to the various social media platforms where the problematic posts had been made, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And then the point there was to alert the social media platforms and see if they could be taken down, right?
A. It was to alert the social media companies to see if they violated their terms of service.
Q. And if they did, then they would be taken down?
A. If they did, they would follow their own policies, which may include taking down accounts.
Q. How about taking down posts as opposed to the entire account?
A. I think it depends on how they interpreted it and what the content was and what the account was.
Q. Do you know what the -- do you know whether some of those posts that you relayed to them were acted on by their content modulators?
MR. SUR: Objection; vague and ambiguous.
THE WITNESS: So from my recollection, we would receive some responses from the social media companies. I remember in some cases they would relay that they had taken down the posts. In other cases, they would say that this did not violate their terms of service.
Q. BY MR. SAUER: What sort of posts were flagged by you that they concluded did not violate their terms of service?
A. I can't remember off the top of my head.
Q. I mean, I take it they would all have a policy against just posting about the wrong time that the poles opened, right? Or the wrong date to mail your ballot?
A. That would be my assumption, but I do remember, but I can't remember the specifics as to why. But I do remember them saying that certain information we shared with them did not result in any actions on their part, but I can't remember the details of those. They were not frequent, but I do remember that they occurred.
Q. In most cases when you flagged something, it was taken down?
A. In most cases -- let me rephrase that. In some cases when we shared information they would provide a response to us that they had taken them down.
Q. Got you. Same as the -- go ahead.
A. I would not say it was 100 percent success rate. If I had to characterize it, I would say it was like a 50 percent success rate. But that's just from my recollection.
So an FBI agent at one particular office on one particular topic for one particular short period of time, if forced to characterize it, would say "it was like a 50% success rate" -- but only after saying that non-action was not-frequent.
I'm a bit skeptical of Missouri's position here, but this can't be it -- the government can't insulate itself against the claim here just by padding their requests with an extra meritless set of equal size and then say "see -- they turned down half of it!"
That's a metric that's just begging to be gamed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Depending on what your preferred political theory is, no the government does not do anything that isn't directly coercive. Everything the government does relies on taxes, which a libertarian or anarchist believes are coercive in and of themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Relationship between the government and its subjects is inherently hierarchical. To put it another way, a power imbalance exists. So the correct comparison would be parents and teachers, rather than brothers and friends.
Ok. I similarly think it is possible for parents and teachers to suggest that I do something or that doing something would be good for me without an implied threat of coercion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link