[pessimizer]

> This again?

You're talking about something that has been ruled by two courts as a massive first amendment violation, and is heading to the Supreme Court (if they even want it), as if it were a conspiracy theory.

And what political point are you even talking about, where do you learn to use this tone about serious issues, and why the fixation on celebrities like Musk?

[trust_bt_verify]

“ A federal district court in California dismissed the claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. The court of appeals ruled that although “it is possible to draw a causal line from the OEC’s flagging of the November 12th post to O’Handley’s suspension,” there was no “state action” for O’Handley to challenge under the First Amendment. California certainly exercised governmental authority when it flagged O’Handley’s tweet, the 9th Circuit reasoned, but it took no explicit action restricting his speech. And although Twitter did limit O’Handley’s speech, the court explained, it was following its own rules, rather than acting on the state’s behalf.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/08/once-suspended-twitter-us...

This case?

Where did _you_ learn this tone of victimization when discussion issues with no references? I assume Musk was brought up as he has framed this issue in the same way the GP commenter did and he is the current owner of the company in question. You can dismiss that as celebrity fixation but it only undermines your own comment.

[jtbayly]

You didn't do a very good job trusting or verifying:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/supreme-court-co...

> The 5th Circuit appeals court saw things differently, finding that Biden administration "officials made express threats and, at the very least, leaned into the inherent authority of the President's office. The officials made inflammatory accusations, such as saying that the platforms were 'poison[ing]' the public, and 'killing people.' The platforms were told they needed to take greater responsibility and action. Then, they followed their statements with threats of 'fundamental reforms' like regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions that would ensure the platforms were 'held accountable.'... Given all of the above, we are left only with the conclusion that the officials' statements were coercive."

[trust_bt_verify]

“Be kind. Don't be snarky… Edit out swipes”

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Check them out when you have a chance. I _trusted_ ScotusBlog and the previous comments gave no references to _verify_.