The Facebook Files

Here's another story about the fascist, racist, creepy old man President Biden that everyone will ignore, dismiss, deny or minimize for reasons. The Biden administration was colluding with Facebook to censor people. Zuckerberg had already told us this on the JRE and I believe it was @Tuckerfan who said he was probably lying.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...istration-even-targeted-jokes-for-censorship/

...and I'm bailing.

THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: SMOKING-GUN DOCS PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS BECAUSE OF BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESSURE
https://twitter.com/jim_jordan/status/1684595375875760128?s=46&t=tLA9t1ZxaftGRgOfBId-2A

Any excuse you need to not see the truth. You're so predictable.

Never-before-released internal documents subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee PROVE that Facebook and Instagram censored posts and changed their content moderation policies because of unconstitutional pressure from the Biden White House.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1684595377620631552

Can we merge this with the Twitter Files thread, create some kind of omnibus?

We all know FF started a separate thread for this because he got dunked on and discredited too many times in the Twitter Files thread. Let's not let him spam up the place to hide from his failures.

Rep. Jim Jordan
@Jim_Jordan
·
Jul 27
During the first half of 2021, social media companies like Facebook faced tremendous pressure from the Biden White House—both publicly and privately—to crack down on alleged “misinformation."
In April 2021, a Facebook employee circulated an email for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, writing: “We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House” to remove posts.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1684595380770541568?s=20

Yeah, I’ll wait until someone with some credibility writes this up.

And no, someone who was for impeaching Clinton but opposed to both Trump impeachments AND is an election denier has no credibility in my mind.

Same goes for the fuck monkey who was for impeaching Clinton but opposed to both Trump impeachments AND is an election denier AND covered up the serial sexual abuse of dozens of children.

Oh my, the boy's evidence is Jim Jordan tweets and an opinion piece written by a Qanon looney who cited the New York Post as his proof. Even that is shitty because the example they mention very blatantly says in 10 years you will be suing the government for health problems with the vaccine. That is not a joke so much as a prediction they maintain is because of facts.

Should the government be suggesting that misinformation during a pandamic that was overwhelming the hospital system, crippling, and killing people be toned down for public safety? Yes, I hope so. It is something I would actually like them to do rather than let the Joe Rogan experience run wild with recommendations people take horsey paste over a proven vaccine.

I am actually good with that one. I actually think they should jail a few of the people promoting known lies that lead to the death of people during COVID. However, they compromised and made a request.

Criticize the source and ignore the content. This is classic. Where's the call out for partisanship?

Maybe we could have an omnibus FF conspiracy theory thread to put all of his new conspiracies in. I know it seems each one is a new thing. UFO's are real is not the same as Bigfoot stole my baby, is not the same as Micheal Jackson cured cancer and that is why they killed him. These all come from that crazy newspaper that used to be in the supermarket check out aisle, so let us make a Sun Times FF thread and be done with it.

Our new Dayton deserves his distinction from the old one.

For those would like some actual information on this subject not just right winger fever dreams check out the second section of this earlier episode of Rational Security:

The “BANG! POW! SPARKLE!” Edition

This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott sat down to talk over the week's post-Independence Day national security news, including:

• “Oy Revolt.” Israel launched a major military operation aimed at uprooting terrorist bases in the refugee camp outside the city of Jenin in the West Bank this week. But as is so often the case, the operation not only proved deadly for Palestinian civilians but has become a point of controversy in the international community. What does this operation say about Israel’s security strategy?

• “Nationwide Disjunction.” On July 4, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a nationwide injunction ordering the Biden administration not to engage with social media platforms over First Amendment protected speech, arising out of complaints about its handling of COVID-19 information (or misinformation). What is the basis for this order, how realistic is it, how sustainable is it, and what does it tell us about the weird legal dynamics surrounding this set of issues at the moment?

• “A la Modi.” Indian President Narendra Modi is having a moment. This week he is sitting down with Chinese and Russian leaders, hosting a virtual face-to-face of the Shanghai Cooperative. This just a week after he was feted by President Biden and Congress here in Washington, D.C. What are we to make of India’s new global prominence?

For object lessons, Alan once again celebrated the virtues of Libby and recommended John Lewis Gaddis's classic biography of legendary diplomat George F. Kennan, “George F. Kennan: An American Life,” as listening fodder. Quinta lamented the death of Audm and cursed its replacement. And Scott gave another audiobook recommendation for fans of U.S. diplomatic history: George C. Herring's “From Colony to Superpower.”

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rational-security/id956270301

There is some actual there there in that the line between what is free speech (and those who work for the government and even the government themselves DO in fact have free speech protections) and what is extortion isn’t as clarified as it could be.

Example: Hey, I think this post violates your terms of service and should be taken down.

v.

Hey, did you know the President is setting up an internal commission to review executive application of Section 230 and I’m head of it? Also, I think this post violates your terms of service and should be taken down.


But the discussion is probably too nuanced and has too many big words for everyone here to get something out of it.

OK, let's act as though Jim Jordan is not a partisan hack and that all the underlying material he posts on these subjects is reasonably trustworthy, if not necessarily telling the full story or providing key context.

What his Twitter thread seems to say is that a senior adviser to the President complained that Facebook did not remove a meme in which it was (supposedly jokingly) said that 10 years from then, people would be watching late night commercials from lawyers trying to drum up business from all the nasty side-effects of having taking the Covid vaccine. There was discussion about how FB should deal with these requests.

So my response to that is:

1. There is a legitimate government interest in getting people to take the vaccine because of the unique public health threat of Covid. So the government being more heavy-handed to fight Covid misinformation does not bother me.
2. By the terms of what was presented in Jordan's thread, there is no evidence that there was anything more than the government expressing disappointment and asking FB to change its ways on this point. No "change it or else," no threats of new regulations, fines or anything that can remotely be called censorship by the government.
3. The meme in question isn't "humorous." It is saying taking the vaccine is akin to poisoning yourself with asbestos. The government has an interest in encouraging vaccination and fighting this sort of disinformation.

It's funny, you know who is threatening Zuckerberg with consequences for displeasing them? Jim Jordan and the Republicans.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/hou...-zuckerberg-in-contempt-of-congress-1.6493853

To recap we first got the ignore,then the dismissal immediately followed the minimizing.

Again, it seems like if the "nice Section 230...be a shame if something happened to it" sort of thing happened, one would expect that they would be able to find evidence in internal discussions of that more directly, or someone from Big Tech itself being willing to say that either on the record or anonymously.

That the best that they are able to come up with is "we had a meeting with a government official and they expressed disappointment with us and we should come up with talking points to respond or push back or look into whether their disappointment is warranted" is telling.

You want to discuss...so let's discuss.

Why do you think this is a bigger deal than I do?

Do you think it is right for the government to push back against vaccine disinformation, or disinformation in general?

Is there any evidence of actual threats, censorship, fines or so forth from anyone in government against Facebook? If so, where is it? If not, why do you think that is?

It’s been a while but I believe that in the ridiculously huge (I wanna say it was 156 pages) decision that Louisiana judge released on July 4th weekend that was mostly full of generic right wing talking points (I wanna say he seriously started out quoting Voltaire and other figures on the importance of free speech) there was one email of a lower level WH staffer (who none of them recognized the position but if they didn’t why should someone at FB?) that the panel felt went over the line and were kinda pissed that it was buried in all the bullshit.

As I said it's government colluding with big tech to censor people. This is how fascists attempt to control the population. If you think this is the only time that they did something like this, then you are naive. This one of likely many incidents. If you think this is innocent, then you are naive in that regard. The Biden administration wanted to control the narrative around covid, this was a power play, it's part of a bigger story.

They lied to us about the vaccine, they lied about covid origins and they lied about masks. A federal court found that they were systematically attempting to censor people. People knew that they were full of shit. They weren't simply pushing back against disinformation, which has yet to be defined.

Maybe you forgot about how DHS wanted to set up a Disinformation Governance Board and had to disband it because it was so unpopular because it sounded like the Ministry of Truth from 1984. Or maybe you forgot about Fauci's leaked emails where several scientists were very much convinced that covid had come from a lab, but were concerned about the fallout that would follow or that they would lose funding because Obama correctly put a stop to gain of function research, but Fauci found a work around? Maybe you forgot about Fauci lying to the public about masks and now that it's all over the CDC came out and said masks aren't that effective. They already knew that, but enforced mask mandates anyway? Did you forget that Joe Biden said said if you get the vaccine then you won't get infected? They knew that's not how vaccines work and yet mandated them anyway, causing many people to lose their jobs.

That's the type of information they were trying to censor, the truth. They didn't want truthful information being circulated on social media because the pandemic gave them tremendous power and unprecedented compliance and if the truth got out like saying that getting vaccinated does not meant you won't infected or that cloth masks aren't that effective then people would have started to asks questions and they lose their power and compliance.

People were called racists for saying the Wuhan virus, myself included. People were also called conspiracy theorist for saying it was a lab leak because they didn't buy the wet market BS, including myself.

They're trying to sweep all of this under the rug and make people forget about it and some people are trying to put a stop to it. That's why I think it's a big deal

Let's go over the Tweet though.

Not false, not inaccurate. They did not want the truth coming out. The press is also pushing them to shadow ban. The press is supposed to report the facts, not push propaganda, but they are sponsored by big pharma. Isn't that strange to you?
https://twitter.com/jim_jordan/status/1684595375875760128?s=46&t=tLA9t1ZxaftGRgOfBId-2A

Then the White House wanted them to take down a meme. Think about that, a fucking meme. If they'll go after for a meme, then they'll go after you for anything. Keep in mind that people use social media to make a living and likes and subscriptions equal money so in many ways they're going after you're lively hood. This is textbook fascism. It's strange that the same people who screamed fascism all throughout the Trump years don't see a problem with this It doesn't matter if they did or didn't threaten them, the fact that they tried to coerce them is a violation of the first amendment.

Let's look at another thing Jim Jordan pointed out.

Facebook was concerned that the White House was violating the first amendment. Meaning they were feeling pressured.

This is the pressure they were feeling.

Now I'm not going to go through the rest of the Tweet thread, but they ramped up their bans and flagged material and Jim Jordon had to threaten to hold Mark Zuckerberg in contempt, then they provided these documents.

well, you've already responded for us, so nobody needs to waste any more time with your "article".

remember asking why I find you ridiculous?

This would be a great opportunity to prove me wrong.

The Democrats impeached Trump twice and the fucker still walks free. Nothing you’ve posted here rises to the level of trying to overthrow the goddamned government on January 6th, as Trump did, WTAF makes you think that Biden would wind up removed from office, let alone in jail over shit like this? Remember, at a debate in 2016, Trump said that he would put Hillary in jail. Somehow, despite the fact that the GOP controlled Congress and the White House for two fucking years, that never happened. Yet, the Dems barely control the Senate, while the Republicans control the House, and Trump is looking at prison.

I’ll skip to the chase, if Trump couldn’t bring down Hillary in the two years that the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, then either she’s far too powerful to be stopped (So how did she lose the election?), or the GOP are dumber than the Keystone Kops if they couldn’t get her arrested (assuming she’s guilty of criminal activity). So, WTAF makes you think that a wrestling coach, who’s never written a single bill, is going to be the one to bring down Biden?

Lay out why this time, it won’t be Lucy with the football, we’ll actually see Biden behind bars.

I don't think I ever made the case that Biden would be taken down over this.

Okay dammit, I was half right. Listened to it on my break (starts at 26 something and goes to 48 and is worth a listen) and it mentions the concept I was trying to think of, jawboning, but not the email. Will try and think of what other legal podcast it might have been in.

Okay, might be this one:

On July 4, a federal judge in Louisiana issued one of the most dramatic First Amendment rulings in recent memory. The case involves a variety of individuals, organizations, and conservative state governments who accuse the Biden administration of unconstitutional "jawboning”—that is, informally pressuring social media companies to censor speech, especially about controversial topics like COVID vaccines and election integrity.

Describing the allegations as the "most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history," Judge Terry Doughty enjoined by name dozens of high-level Biden administration officials, and potentially thousands more unnamed government employees, from communicating with social media companies about taking down First Amendment-protected user content.

If the opinion stands, it will have a dramatic effect on the ability of the government to communicate with social media platforms, a practice that administrations of both parties have engaged in for years. Earlier this week, Judge Doughty rejected a motion from the government to stay the injunction pending appeal; the government has since asked the Fifth Circuit to do so instead and, in a sign of how seriously it is taking the ruling, has signaled that it may ask the Supreme Court to step in if the Fifth Circuit does not.

On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke to two of the leading experts on the government's relationship with social media platforms to work through the implications of this decision. Derek Bambauer is the Irving Cypen Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law and is the author of an influential law review article on jawboning in the context of internet speech. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy and a Lawfare contributing editor and the author of numerous books and articles about online speech issues.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lawfare-podcast/id498897343

Will be a while until I can listen. I think we are going out for dinner and I usually listen while cooking.

OK, it would be nice if you directly answered the questions I asked.

At some point after you do, I might point out the issues with your response.

Jawboning is the term Matt Taibi used when he testified in front of congress about the Twitter files. Do you not think this is wrong? Do you not think this Hooveresque?

I did directly answer both questions.

I think it's a big deal because shows an overall pattern of using the media and big tech as a tool to do the bidding of the Biden Administration because they know they can't directly censor someone. It's fascism.

The government wasn't pushing back on disinformation, they were trying to suppress the truth and they were trying to suppress a meme specifically. Until disinformation is strictly defined and written into law, the government has no business violating people's right to free speech.

Then why bother? Oh, and I can't say as I recall ever mentioning anything about Zuck being on JRE. In fact, I can't recall ever hearing about him being on JRE.