Psaki reveals White House (government) is consulting with Facebook to 'flag misinformation'

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But there's no difference between government action and government action.

You’re confused about the action in question.

The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.

The request and collusion is an action of government.

You can sit here and pretend that this is not government action all you want to. That just proves that you're the fucking Nazi we believe you to be.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Just so everybody knows:

Request = Action

 

[colfax_m]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Are you saying then that FOX News was NOT being a state actor? Although, to be accurate, Hannity is not a journalist, he's a commentator.

Note that I never referenced forcing anything. In fact, when I used your media comparison, I said they met with Quid Pro's reps and agreed on what to report, nothing about coercion or force. You don't have to be forced to be a state actor, you just coordinate activities with the state and follow its lead, just like FB is doing (very doubtful they would announce they were working with FB if FB refused to go along).

By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.

That’s bad logic and I reject it.

Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?

 

[colfax_m]

But there's no difference between government action and government action.

You’re confused about the action in question.

The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.

The request and collusion is an action of government.

You can sit here and pretend that this is not government action all you want to. That just proves that you're the fucking Nazi we believe you to be.

Gotcha. So if Trump said to a media organization they should fire a certain journalist, that request would be unconstitutional.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Are you saying then that FOX News was NOT being a state actor? Although, to be accurate, Hannity is not a journalist, he's a commentator.

Note that I never referenced forcing anything. In fact, when I used your media comparison, I said they met with Quid Pro's reps and agreed on what to report, nothing about coercion or force. You don't have to be forced to be a state actor, you just coordinate activities with the state and follow its lead, just like FB is doing (very doubtful they would announce they were working with FB if FB refused to go along).

By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.

That’s bad logic and I reject it.

Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?

I am not surprised that you continue to miss the point and conflate the issues. You are that dumb.

Government Stooge: Hey, Facebook. COuld be ban that guy on your platform saying bad things about XYZ?

Facebook: Sure. No problem.

To Colfax, that is NOT government action, even though making a request is an action.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But there's no difference between government action and government action.

You’re confused about the action in question.

The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.

The request and collusion is an action of government.

You can sit here and pretend that this is not government action all you want to. That just proves that you're the fucking Nazi we believe you to be.

Gotcha. So if Trump said to a media organization they should fire a certain journalist, that request would be unconstitutional.

I don't know. That has nothing to do with free speech.

If Trump told USMB to ban anyone who said he is orange, wouldn't that be government action?

 

[Vel]

But there's no difference between government action and government action.

You’re confused about the action in question.

The takedown is an action of Facebook, not government.

The request and collusion is an action of government.

You can sit here and pretend that this is not government action all you want to. That just proves that you're the fucking Nazi we believe you to be.

Gotcha. So if Trump said to a media organization they should fire a certain journalist, that request would be unconstitutional.

If the GOVERNMENT is telling them what to publish and what to suppress they are acting as tools of the GOVERNMENT. It's not rocket science.

 

[colfax_m]

To Colfax, that is NOT government action, even though making a request is an action.

A request does not constitute a violation of free speech.

 

[colfax_m]

I don't know. That has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Trump would be requesting a suppression of that journalists freedom of speech. Would he not?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To Colfax, that is NOT government action, even though making a request is an action.

A request does not constitute a violation of free speech.

Yes it does.

Look, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, so this is pointless.

 

[hadit]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Are you saying then that FOX News was NOT being a state actor? Although, to be accurate, Hannity is not a journalist, he's a commentator.

Note that I never referenced forcing anything. In fact, when I used your media comparison, I said they met with Quid Pro's reps and agreed on what to report, nothing about coercion or force. You don't have to be forced to be a state actor, you just coordinate activities with the state and follow its lead, just like FB is doing (very doubtful they would announce they were working with FB if FB refused to go along).

By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.

That’s bad logic and I reject it.

Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?

It's a definition thing. Hannity was a state actor when he coordinated with TRUMP! and everyone knew what he was doing. Likewise, FB is a state actor now when they take direction from Quid Pro on what information to flag and ultimately to squash. FB would NOT be a state actor if they looked at a government request and said, "No, we'll decide what should and should not be flagged", or held a press conference to make it clear they were NOT coordinating with Quid Pro. They can't, though, because they are.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't know. That has nothing to do with free speech.

Of course it does. Trump would be requesting a suppression of that journalists freedom of speech. Would he not?

No, he would be requesting that the journalist lose a job, which no one has a right to.

You are complete conflating issues here.

This is Joe Biden telling Facebook to ban and censor the speech of private citizens.

 

[colfax_m]

No, he would be requesting that the journalist lose a job, which no one has a right to.

No one has a right to post on Facebook either.

Are you getting this yet?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, he would be requesting that the journalist lose a job, which no one has a right to.

No one has a right to post on Facebook either.

Are you getting this yet?

And government action to prevent speech, even if it is on a private platform, is GOVERNMENT ACTION to censor free speech.

ARE YOU GETTING THIS YET?

When a person is allowed to use the platform, GOVERNMENT cannot act to limit that use or it IS a free speech violation.

 

[colfax_m]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Are you saying then that FOX News was NOT being a state actor? Although, to be accurate, Hannity is not a journalist, he's a commentator.

Note that I never referenced forcing anything. In fact, when I used your media comparison, I said they met with Quid Pro's reps and agreed on what to report, nothing about coercion or force. You don't have to be forced to be a state actor, you just coordinate activities with the state and follow its lead, just like FB is doing (very doubtful they would announce they were working with FB if FB refused to go along).

By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.

That’s bad logic and I reject it.

Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?

It's a definition thing. Hannity was a state actor when he coordinated with TRUMP! and everyone knew what he was doing. Likewise, FB is a state actor now when they take direction from Quid Pro on what information to flag and ultimately to squash. FB would NOT be a state actor if they looked at a government request and said, "No, we'll decide what should and should not be flagged", or held a press conference to make it clear they were NOT coordinating with Quid Pro. They can't, though, because they are.

Are you saying Facebook isn’t deciding what to take down?

The White House has been asking them to take down more content than they have.

 

[colfax_m]

And government action to prevent speech, even if it is on a private platform, is GOVERNMENT ACTION to censor free speech.

Way to dodge the point.

So you’d agree that Trump telling news media to fire a journalist would be censorship, correct?

After all, Trump was president and his request was a government action.
Firing the journalist would be preventing speech, even if it’s on a private news media network.

Sounds like censorship to me by your ridiculous standard.

How is it different?

It’s Trump telling news media to ban and censor the speech of private citizens.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If they're doing it in coordination with the government, they are acting as a government agent.

Coordination isn’t the measure. It’s control.

News media covers presidential addresses in coordination with the White House. That does not make them stare actors.

That's giving the president a platform to make his speech, which is far from the same thing, because the media than reacts to what he said and gives commentary, sometimes inviting members of the opposition party to give their reaction to the address, etc. That's not what's going on here. If you want to use the news media as an example, be accurate. This would be more like MSNBC or CNN head execs having weekly meetings with Quid Pro's representatives to go over the week's story list, which ones to boost, which ones to downplay, and which ones to spike altogether, then doing it.

You’re still exaggerating what’s going on. It’s not as though the White House is forcing anything on Facebook. Facebook itself has no desire to be a source of misinformation for COVID. If the administration is helping with this, it doesn’t make them a state actor.

And it’s not like Fox News didn’t coordinate with the last administration.

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Line to Talk Nightly

Trump reportedly uses Hannity "to decompress" at night.

www.newsweek.com

Are you saying then that FOX News was NOT being a state actor? Although, to be accurate, Hannity is not a journalist, he's a commentator.

Note that I never referenced forcing anything. In fact, when I used your media comparison, I said they met with Quid Pro's reps and agreed on what to report, nothing about coercion or force. You don't have to be forced to be a state actor, you just coordinate activities with the state and follow its lead, just like FB is doing (very doubtful they would announce they were working with FB if FB refused to go along).

By the logic of the right, such coordination with Hannity would transform him into a state actor. Doesn’t matter what he considers himself.

That’s bad logic and I reject it.

Can you provide a single case where someone became a state actor merely for cooperating with government?

It's a definition thing. Hannity was a state actor when he coordinated with TRUMP! and everyone knew what he was doing. Likewise, FB is a state actor now when they take direction from Quid Pro on what information to flag and ultimately to squash. FB would NOT be a state actor if they looked at a government request and said, "No, we'll decide what should and should not be flagged", or held a press conference to make it clear they were NOT coordinating with Quid Pro. They can't, though, because they are.

Are you saying Facebook isn’t deciding what to take down?

The White House has been asking them to take down more content than they have.

Government asking them to take down ANYTHING is government action.

Facebook is not the focus. Government is.

 

[dblack]

Here's something that is far more dangerous:

Facebook’s Frustrated Critics Take Their Fight to Washington

Civil rights groups shift strategy toward legislation to clean up social media

www.bloomberg.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you’d agree that Trump telling news media to fire a journalist would be censorship, correct?

Apples to Toilet Plungers, dumb fuck.

Trump telling news media to fire a journalist is not a free speech issue. The journalist works for the news source.

We don't work for Facebook.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here's something that is far more dangerous:

Facebook’s Frustrated Critics Take Their Fight to Washington

Civil rights groups shift strategy toward legislation to clean up social media

www.bloomberg.com

Would you consider THAT government action?

That's what I have been yelling about. THIS is where we are headed.

Now are you concerned?