LINK Psaki criticizes 'loaded and inaccurate' question from Fox's Doocy | TheHill
Follow-up to yesterday's comments.
Notable quotes:
"We’re in regular touch with a range of media outlets ... as we are, in regular touch with social media platforms. This is publicly open information, people sharing information online. Just as you are all reporting information on your news stations,” (regarding Doocy asking Psaki how long the Biden administration has "been spying on peoples’ Facebook profiles looking for vaccine misinformation."
How the FUCK do you spy on information that is public? This is like saying that a cop walking his beat is SPYING on citizens. 
Doocy, like all other MSM, up to their old leading tricks. Lame.
1
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Hmm ... Imagine that you found out that there were people working for the government who were watching everywhere you went every day, and they were not telling you that they were doing it. Imagine that they were constantly tracking everywhere you publicly went and everything you publicly did. Would you feel you were being spied on? I certainly would. But, then the question becomes, Is their tracking of everything you say online really any different? Yes, what you say online is public, but the government tracking it without telling you and using the information to try to have what you publicly say censored in some way, again without your knowing it, sure feels a lot like spying. Perhaps, however, "spying" might not be the right word technically speaking, but its pretty close, it seems to me. But maybe it would just be better to call it sneaky and underhanded attempts to track what you are saying and to silence you because they don't like what you are saying. Whatever you want to call it, it still isn't something our government should be doing, in my opinion. At any rate, Doocy's point seemed to be aimed at the surreptitious nature of what is happening and the fact that it is the government that is doing it. To be sure, they have admitted they are doing it, but they haven't said who they are doing it to. I get why it is news, and I get why people would be bothered by it, even if we aren't quite sure yet what to call it.
KeithThroop
Level 9
July 16, 2021
0
@TheMiddleWay The point is that people should be able to publicly voice an opinion that the government may not like without the government secretly tracking it and attempting to stop it. True, it isn't as bad as what you have described, but it is how such things may begin.
@TheMiddleWay They are flagging it in order to stop it. This is what the government wants Facebook to do. To be sure, sometimes Facebook, for example, will simply put warnings on posts, but sometimes they will remove them. I had both happen to me when on Facebook, simply for questioning certain things. In either case, it is the government now attempting to stop or to discredit free speech and seeking to use companies like Facebook as a surrogate.
I would point out that the First Amendment is there to protect the rights of citizens from the government, not to protect governmental free speech. Having said that, I agree that the government can say what it wants to say, so long as it is lawful for them to do so, but this is not that. This is the government doing more than that. It is the government deliberately trying to interfere with legal, public speech of citizens with which it disagrees. And it is trying to do this through third parties because it is unconstitutional -- read illegal -- for the government to do it directly. Hopefully what the government is doing will be challenged in the courts, because I think it is unconstitutional for the government to utilize third parties in this way. It is a brazen attempt to do an end run around the Constitution.
To be sure, companies can align themselves with certain government opinions if they like, but what Psaki described was a government attempt to get Facebook to go even further at the best of the government. And, when the government, with all of its power, pressures and uses companies in this way, in order to curtail, in any way, free speech against government, then it is going against the Constitution. It is also eerily reminiscent of a Fascist approach. Although, of course, I am not going to say we are anywhere near actual Fascism at this point, such moves are headed in that direction.
I also don't buy the argument that we should not be bothered by such unconstitutional efforts of the government -- be it under a Democrat or a Republican administration -- because what it is doing isn't that bad yet. Things often get bad incrementally, and by the time things do get that bad, people can only look back and wonder why they didn't speak out sooner.
But to instantly jump from "White House's flagging comments" to "the White House is using Facebook by proxy to squelch dissenting voices" is a huge leap that requires a lot more evidence then a few sentences from a press secretary.
It's not how many sentences there were, it's what was said in those sentences, and I don't think we will agree about what they really entail.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.