zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
He said it is not political and published it at the end of an election cycle ... Of course it is.

>>consp+p2
Can’t find the claim about the statement not being political anywhere in the linked article. But there’s this:

> Meta’s CEO aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms

Sounds like he wasn’t the initiator of the discussion, but I may be misreading the paragraph.

>>mypast+Ee
And it’s in the news because it’s being made newsworthy, not because it’s new.

“A U.S. federal judge,” in 2023 “restricted some agencies and officials of the administration of President Joe Biden from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content” [1].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-blocks-us-officials-comm...

>>JumpCr+Tg
More to the point: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/scotus-tosses-cl...

"On Wednesday, the Supreme Court tossed out claims that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms into censoring users by removing COVID-19 and election-related content."

>>jasonl+pp1
Very funny that the initial case got lots of press on HN and got people like patio11 in a tizzy but when it was tossed out by SCOTUS there was nary a peep.