But Flaherty specifically didn’t get what he wanted (that’s why he was mad!) so I think it’s misleading to say the power only goes from government to Facebook. If anything this example shows the exact opposite with Flaherty sending indignant anger in the other direction.
Yes but what you don’t see is the many many requests in the same tone that come into social media (and traditional media!) companies from corporations, celebrities, even regular old citizens who are mad their drunk driving arrest got reported (for example).
The idea that an imperious tone somehow proves a power imbalance is hilarious to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of these requests from regular people. “I demand an answer right now” is what angry diners say when a restaurant runs of the special. It’s the tone that people adopt to imply power when they don’t actually have power, but want to seem like they do. Which is a common, and legal, mode of speaking in everyday life.
The government has power. Craig the office drone asking for "misinformation" to be taken down at behest of his boss does not have the power "The government" does.
Or am I now supposed to believe that if you anger Sheila at the DMV the IRS will audit you?
> The government has power. Craig the office drone asking for "misinformation" to be taken down at behest of his boss does not have the power "The government" does.
Or am I now supposed to believe that if you anger Sheila at the DMV the IRS will audit you?
Craig's boss is the highest executive power in the country. Most of their work is handled by aides and subordinates like Craig, with authority delegated from their office. The boss only directly makes the important decisions. You are being disingenuous by claiming Craig is a innocent, powerless trigger-happy drone. And if you have lived in small towns, expect to receive worse service or discrimination from Sheila in future. The highest power in the country cannot be held to the same standard as a county clerk (and frankly speaking, most DMV employees need more training in customer service and have their compensation tied to overall productivity and performance, lots of fat to be trimmed there, both literal and metaphorical).
I invite you to have a conversation with my six year old child and then reflect upon the difference between power dynamics as they exist and as they are vocalised.
You make a good point. The United States Government is more like a demanding toddler throwing a tantrum than a 6 year old throwing a tantrum. The difference is the 6 year old is potty trained.
You don't see a difference between a toddler being demanding with a parent and the federal government demanding something of a corporation? What kind of Republican's wet dream do you live in where those power dynamics are akin?
Is a demand not still inappropriate even if it's correctly rebuffed? If I ask for someone to violate policy at work and they refuse, I can still expect I might be investigated on the basis of the attempt
I mean, sure, in terms of jurisprudence here the lack of actual tort may indeed mean that there is no legal outcome, but evidence a desire to do something is a pretty good justification for investigating if there were cases where you did do it. And in the court of public opinion, it's very damning. I certainly won't be saying "no harm, no foul"
I don't see why one's judgment of the situation should depend on whether the government was successful in intimidating Facebook. What matters is that they tried.
Do implied threats count as coercion? Does a threatening tone? Does someone in a position of power making demands they don't actually have the power to enforce count as coercion? I don't know. The judge seems to think they do.
What implied threats, what threatening tone? What position of power?
If you read the examples cited, nothing even remotely comes close to a layperson interpretation of coercion, and I believe the legal definition is more rigorous, not less.
Therefore, the question is not what decision the social-media company would have made, but whether the Government “so involved itself in the private party’s conduct” that the decision is essentially that of the Government.
The government asking them to remove specific posts and accounts and demote others is pretty clearly that.
How coercive? If you're right, the government can still make a court case that takes a good part of a decade and costs you ten million dollars to win.
That's just the straightforward stuff. That's without the IRS deciding your corporate profit statements deserve extra scrutiny, and the FCC deciding to question whether you really qualify for section 230, and and and...
You can be right. They can still make your life very difficult if they decide to. And it will be very hard to prove that that's what they're doing. And even if you can, you probably aren't going to get the money back that the court cases cost, and you definitely aren't getting back the time and management attention it cost.
So, not legally coercive. But still kind of coercive, even though legally it has no force.
That would imply the person or group doing the asking somehow have unilateral control over those distinct agencies. At what point down the career ladder do you become just another drone who shouldn't be considered to have power over distinct government agencies? Surely Rachel in the Post office can't have you audited. But maybe the president can talk to enough people to encourage that to happen. So where is the limit?
Well, a "White House director of digital strategy" is presumably not Rachel in the post office. He's someone in the White House, which means he's in a position to have a quiet conversation with the president. "They're not playing ball" might be all it would take.
I mean, yes, you're right, the White House director of digital strategy, taken by himself, can go jump in the lake as far as Facebook or Twitter are concerned. Even given all the people under him, that's still true. The question is, to what degree is he speaking for the people over him? How many layers are there between him and the president? I'd guess somewhere from 0 to 2, though I admit that's a guess. Can he cause trouble on his own? No. But the one giving him orders may be able to give orders to others.
But if the president asks for something, you say no, and he sics the NSA or something onto you, how does this injunction protect you?
Basically this is arguing that the mere existence of government has a chilling effect, which it demonstrably does, but isn't really something you can make go away with an injunction. Hell, what's stopping the Biden admin from enacting this punishment scheme on these people for getting this injunction?
Well, it protects some. It makes the Biden administration somewhat less likely to ask, because there's a public rebuke from the courts, and if they keep doing it anyway, they are likely to lose any further court cases around it. So they have some deterrent - not perfect, but more than zero.
From the company's side, they have some indication that they are likely to be backed by the courts if it comes to that, so they have some more confidence in telling the administration to get lost - not perfect, but more than none. (They're not going to be less willing to say no after this court ruling.)
So, yes, the Biden administration could keep going. But that's unlikely to play well, either in the courts or in the press. The Biden administration is not a dictatorial regime; they face an election in 14 months. That gives them more incentive to "control the narrative", true, but it also gives them incentive to not be visibly seen as bullying the social media.
I was specifically responding to the OP's point that this demonstrates power flowing from government to Facebook. The fact that FB ignored the request and did not suffer consequences demonstrates that power does not in fact flow that way.
You're welcome to judge the appropriateness of the event as a whole however you want! I'm not over the moon about it either. I wasn't arguing that it's wonderful this interaction occurred.
