undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnimalMuppet2y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

mrguyorama2y ago

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?

AnimalMuppetOP2y ago

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.

mrguyorama2y ago

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?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsAnimalMuppet2y ago0 comments

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.

So, not legally coercive. But still kind of coercive, even though legally it has no force.

0 comments

mrguyorama2y ago

AnimalMuppetOP2y ago

mrguyorama2y ago

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?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse