[Clubber]

Democrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation"

Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-...

It's obvious government infringement on free speech from both sides when you take off your red or blue colored glasses.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Republicans have threatened it as well:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/502...

S.5020 - A bill to repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Sponsor: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]

you're now free to respond to the substance of the post you replied to: it was, in fact, a GOP controlled Senate which performed the action in question

[Clubber]

Someone asked what the implied threat was to social media companies if they didn't comply with takedown request from the government. I said they (the government) threatened to revoke section 230. Someone replied with "well it was the GOP controlled congress," of which I replied that the Democrats also threatened revoking section 230.

Just to back this up, the ACLU also warned against the dismantlement of section 230 as a serious threat to freedom of speech, and I agree with them on this topic.

Here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-warns-harm-free-spe...

And Here: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/section-230-is-this-th...

And Here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-letter-congress-opposing...

[ImPostingOnHN]

> they (the government)

They here refers to the Biden administration, unless you're alleging the Biden administration conspired with a Republican Congress to coerce social networks into silencing posts that Republicans themselves were in favor of

it's laughable on its face that this is a plausible threat, and the fact that Facebook totally ignored the "demands" when it suited them indicates empirically that there was no such implied threat they felt pressured by

indeed, Facebook, with knowledge of US partisanship, and a hand in increasing it, was best suited to dismiss such a bipartisan conspiracy theory aimed at silencing such speech a Republican Congress would never dream of silencing

[stale2002]

Ok, so then we can agree that the gov definitely is engaging in illegal violations of first amendment rights!

Looks like you agree with the judge here from the article.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Looks like you've still failed to articulate the credible implied threat Facebook felt from the Biden administration's requests,

or how that ties in with the GOP-controlled senate bringing the CEOs before them:

did they do that because the Biden administration ordered them to, as a result of Facebook ignoring one of the requests?

It's a laughably bipartisan conspiracy theory, and thus nobody would actually feel threatened by it.

[stale2002]

Bringing up an example of something that your disfavored party does, is not a counter argument to the idea that the government pressured companies.

In fact it actually proves the point, you just also thing the other party infringed on people's rights as well.

[ImPostingOnHN]

the discussion is not about that idea of yours, and "the government" is not a monolithic entity

the discussion was around whether Facebook felt there was an implied threat there credible enough to act on it out of fear

obviously, they didn't, and wouldn't, because such a threat would have required that Biden control the GOP Congress somehow, which he didn't

[Clubber]

It's been articulated, you just choose to ignore it.

[ImPostingOnHN]

ah yes, that classic proof, "I already proved it!" [with no citations, while entirely failing to respond to any clarifying questions]

can be applied in all cases!

[Clubber]

First you said articulated, not proof, so you're moving the goalposts to be argumentative and aren't discussing in good faith. Second, you seem to be under the impression that unless everyone caves to coercion 100% of the time, then it isn't coercion, which is obviously a fallacy. Just because someone doesn't pay when they are blackmailed doesn't mean they weren't blackmailed.

Both political parties threatened to rewrite section 230 on multiple occasions. This would effectively bankrupt most social media companies. The fact that you are unable or unwilling see this as coercion is your blind spot, not everyone else's.