• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Donny Vs. The World

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,374
10,058
136
So I just read Trump's complaint which can be found here.

It's well written but extremely disingenuous on facts. One named plaintiff who is a teacher in Michigan was supposedly banned from Facebook for posting misinformation about masks, and the banning supposedly happened while she was using Facebook to find her missing brother, who months later turned up dead. The suit insinuates that Facebook's banning might have caused the death of her brother. There's only one problem: if you research the case outside of Trump's complaint you will discover that she was banned for only 24 hours in a period of 60 days where she was looking for her brother.

The entire thing is that way. It's a pack of lies.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,722
25,823
136
So I just read Trump's complaint which can be found here.

It's well written but extremely disingenuous on facts. One named plaintiff who is a teacher in Michigan was supposedly banned from Facebook for posting misinformation about masks, and the banning supposedly happened while she was using Facebook to find her missing brother, who months later turned up dead. The suit insinuates that Facebook's banning might have caused the death of her brother. There's only one problem: if you research the case outside of Trump's complaint you will discover that she was banned for only 24 hours in a period of 60 days where she was looking for her brother.

The entire thing is that way. It's a pack of lies.
Well that and Facebook doesn’t have to abide by the first amendment and in addition is protected by section 230.

As people have pointed out were this to actually move forward Facebook could depose Trump about 1/6, something he surely doesn’t want. I imagine his lawyers have told him this will be immediately thrown out though, so he can safely file it and use it to grift more money from his idiot followers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,374
10,058
136
Well that and Facebook doesn’t have to abide by the first amendment and in addition is protected by section 230.

As people have pointed out were this to actually move forward Facebook could depose Trump about 1/6, something he surely doesn’t want. I imagine his lawyers have told him this will be immediately thrown out though, so he can safely file it and use it to grift more money from his idiot followers.
The complaint makes the argument that FB and the other defendants were acting at the behest of government officials. It cites numerous instances of dems in Congress threatening to repeal section 230 and the immunity it confers if the platforms don't start actively censoring certain content. The complaint does miscast it as censorship of conservative views rather than what it actually was. However, I'm concerned that evidence of these statements could be viewed by a conservative judge as making the platforms the equivalent of state actors.

That said, so far suits based on this theory have failed.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,722
25,823
136
The complaint makes the argument that FB and the other defendants were acting at the behest of government officials. It cites numerous instances of dems in Congress threatening to repeal section 230 and the immunity it confers if the platforms doesn't start actively censoring certain content. The complaint does miscast it as censorship of conservative views rather than what it actually was. However, I'm concerned that evidence of these statements could be viewed by a conservative judge as making the platforms the equivalent of state actors. That said, so far suits based on this theory have failed.
Even if Facebook were reacting to government threats that would not make them a government actor or anything even remotely close to it by any legal definition I am aware of.

I feel pretty confident this lolsuit makes it about one hearing before being tossed.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,374
10,058
136
Even if Facebook were reacting to government threats that would not make them a government actor or anything even remotely close to it by any legal definition I am aware of.

I feel pretty confident this lolsuit makes it about one hearing before being tossed.
I think the argument can't be dismissed out of hand. If the state is coercing a private company into censoring people, then it's really the state doing the censoring, or so the argument goes.

The same argument applies in other contexts, like that of the 4th amendment. A private citizen doesn't need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a search, but if the police put the private citizen up to it, then the law views the police as the real actor.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,722
25,823
136
This would also have some pretty amazing implications if true. It would mean if the government threatens to punish you unless you censor person X, the government will then also punish you through the courts if you do.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,722
25,823
136
I think the argument can't be dismissed out of hand. If the state is coercing a private company into censoring people, then it's really the state doing the censoring, or so the argument goes.
I mean I get the argument, I just think it is going to get laughed out of court. There has to be real coordination from my understanding.

The same argument applies in other contexts, like that of the 4th amendment. A private citizen doesn't need a warrant or probable to conduct a search, but if the police put the private citizen up to it, then the law views the police as the real actor.
Right, but any criminal arguing a city council person making a statement that citizens should help the police in bringing someone to justice turned that citizen into a state actor will be making that argument from inside a prison cell.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,374
10,058
136
I mean I get the argument, I just think it is going to get laughed out of court. There has to be real coordination from my understanding.


Right, but any criminal arguing a city council person making a statement that citizens should help the police in bringing someone to justice turned that citizen into a state actor will be making that argument from inside a prison cell.
The mechanism of the influence is different in each case. In the one, it's a threat by members of Congress to repeal an immunity statute. In another, it's the police suggesting to a private citizen that they conduct a search or seizure on their own. In that case, there doesn't even have to be a threat. The defense need only show that the private citizen would not have taken the action but for the police suggesting it directly.

Your example of the city council is an indirect communication but also contains no threat. So in that case I too seriously doubt that this would work to keep the resulting evidence out. But if somehow the council had suggested government reprisal for a failure to do the act, I'm not so sure about the outcome there.

So there's a contrast in those scenarios, but the difference doesn't help your argument because the main difference is that no threat is even required in the police context.

Ideally social media companies should be able to censor their platforms however they see fit. But they need to do it for their own reasons. They have a good business reason: if they allow the swamp to dominate their platforms, other users will leave and they will become Parlor, with a much narrower customer base. Presumably if these defendants are deposed here, this is why they will say they took actions to moderate the content.
 

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Diamond Member
Nov 17, 2019
4,273
2,360
106
I don't recall anyone in the FedGov telling any of these site to boot Donny so he can't say anything. I recall some vague discussion of doing something to thwart the flow of false and potentially harmful rhetoric.

I also recall some one or two day vacations where the offenders were informed of site policy and possible future consequences.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,722
25,823
136
The mechanism of the influence is different in each case. In the one, it's a threat by members of Congress to repeal an immunity statute. In another, it's the police suggesting to a private citizen that they conduct a search or seizure on their own. In that case, there doesn't even have to be a threat. The defense need only show that the private citizen would not have taken the action but for the police suggesting it directly.

Your example of the city council is an indirect communication but also contains no threat. So in that case I too seriously doubt that this would work to keep the resulting evidence out. But if somehow the council had suggested government reprisal for a failure to do the act, I'm not so sure about the outcome there.

So there's a contrast in those scenarios, but the difference doesn't help your argument because the main difference is that no threat is even required in the police context.

Ideally social media companies should be able to censor their platforms however they see fit. But they need to do it for their own reasons. They have a good business reason: if they allow the swamp to dominate their platforms, other users will leave and they will become Parlor, with a much narrower customer base. Presumably if these defendants are deposed here, this is why they will say they took actions to moderate the content.
Facebook has already said as much at the time. Their quote is even in the complaint!

I guess we will see in the relatively near future but I’m not aware of any credible legal expert that thinks this case has even the smallest chance of success and that the argument is downright clownish. (To be clear I’m not trying to say you aren’t credible, I mean people outside this forum.) Even if their theory of action is entirely vindicated wouldn’t their lawsuit need be against the federal government and not Facebook? Like, wouldn’t the remedy the court would need to order be that the government stop pressuring Facebook to censor people, not that Facebook must resist the government’s unconstitutional coercion at their own peril?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,374
10,058
136
Facebook has already said as much at the time. Their quote is even in the complaint!

I guess we will see in the relatively near future but I’m not aware of any credible legal expert that thinks this case has even the smallest chance of success and that the argument is downright clownish. (To be clear I’m not trying to say you aren’t credible, I mean people outside this forum.) Even if their theory of action is entirely vindicated wouldn’t their lawsuit need be against the federal government and not Facebook? Like, wouldn’t the remedy the court would need to order be that the government stop pressuring Facebook to censor people, not that Facebook must resist the government’s unconstitutional coercion at their own peril?
Well one thing they are trying to accomplish is getting section 230 thrown out as unconstitutional. Which is ironic if that is their goal. Because that would result in a situation where they are liable for everything posted and that then would cause them to massively censor everything which could cause them liability. Section 230 immunity is the only reason why they would exercise any restraint in censoring users. Without it, they likely would have banned Trump years ago.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,055
1,908
136
It's also important to note that, in general, Democrat exhortations for social media companies to act against others were in fact public statements that social media companies needed to enforce their Terms of Service. Individuals such as the unindicted co-conspirator were treated differently by social media companies and the TOS were not enforced equally, to the individuals' benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Diamond Member
Nov 17, 2019
4,273
2,360
106
^^^ And the funnier part of that is he wanted to be able to force them to ban those who spoke out against him.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,543
5,561
136
Trump said he was "happy" to be banned from Twitter because it gave him time "to make phone calls, and do other things and read papers that I wouldn't read."


Read stuff?! ...Lol! , yeah right

And the grapes were sour, too. ice try, Donnie.

The Twitter, Facebook, who knows what else lawsuit grifting is in operation.


I thought Trump is a "quadbillionaire? Why does he need money from poor folk? ... That's exactly how he became a quadbillionaire.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo

ASK THE COMMUNITY