Lemmy.World

169,369 readers
9,202 users here now

The World's Internet Frontpage Lemmy.World is a general-purpose Lemmy instance of various topics, for the entire world to use.

Be polite and follow the rules ⚖ https://legal.lemmy.world/tos

Get started

See the Getting Started Guide

Donations 💗

If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.

If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us

Ko-Fi (Donate)

Bunq (Donate)

Open Collective backers and sponsors

Patreon

Liberapay patrons

GitHub Sponsors

Join the team 😎

Check out our team page to join

Questions / Issues

More Lemmy.World

Follow us for server news 🐘

Mastodon Follow

Chat 🗨

Discord

Matrix

Alternative UIs

Monitoring / Stats 🌐

Service Status 🔥

https://status.lemmy.world

Mozilla HTTP Observatory Grade

Lemmy.World is part of the FediHosting Foundation

founded 2 years ago
ADMINS
1
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/13348967

Short Summary

  1. The video segment discusses the government's relationship with Big Tech and censorship issues.
  2. Independent journalist Matt Taibbi expresses disappointment with the Supreme Court's handling of the case.
  3. Taibbi highlights the difference in perception between lower court judges critical of government actions and Supreme Court justices more accepting of government influence on Big Tech.
  4. Taibbi emphasizes the coercive nature of the government's communication with tech companies and criticizes the Supreme Court's lack of skepticism towards the government's intentions.
  5. The video transcript discusses communications between the highest levels of Twitter and the government, highlighting government pressure on third-party platforms like Facebook and Google to censor American citizens.
  6. The conversation delves into potential government involvement in regulating online content, such as creating a department of misinformation or coercing tech companies in response to government requests.
  7. The speaker criticizes the New York Times for misrepresenting reporting on Twitter files and accuses them of promoting government censorship.
  8. The discussion then shifts to the perception of free speech as a polarizing issue, with some viewing it as pro or anti-Trump.
  9. The speaker discusses how some individuals and media outlets are willing to sacrifice First Amendment free speech principles to oppose Donald Trump.
  10. The conversation emphasizes the importance of values over political labels and the need to challenge establishment control of information dissemination.
2
 
 

Short Summary

  1. The video segment discusses the government's relationship with Big Tech and censorship issues.
  2. Independent journalist Matt Taibbi expresses disappointment with the Supreme Court's handling of the case.
  3. Taibbi highlights the difference in perception between lower court judges critical of government actions and Supreme Court justices more accepting of government influence on Big Tech.
  4. Taibbi emphasizes the coercive nature of the government's communication with tech companies and criticizes the Supreme Court's lack of skepticism towards the government's intentions.
  5. The video transcript discusses communications between the highest levels of Twitter and the government, highlighting government pressure on third-party platforms like Facebook and Google to censor American citizens.
  6. The conversation delves into potential government involvement in regulating online content, such as creating a department of misinformation or coercing tech companies in response to government requests.
  7. The speaker criticizes the New York Times for misrepresenting reporting on Twitter files and accuses them of promoting government censorship.
  8. The discussion then shifts to the perception of free speech as a polarizing issue, with some viewing it as pro or anti-Trump.
  9. The speaker discusses how some individuals and media outlets are willing to sacrifice First Amendment free speech principles to oppose Donald Trump.
  10. The conversation emphasizes the importance of values over political labels and the need to challenge establishment control of information dissemination.
view more: next ›