It's wild how the internet rabble talking points were for so long about "snowflakes" and terms used, and by their definition the current administration seems to be that in spades.
Remember when Chrissy Teigan called Trump a "pussy ass bitch" on Twitter, and he tried to get Twitter to remove it? [1] Ironic considering his/MAGA's insistence that the deep state were censoring conservative voices on social media.
> CNN, The Washington Post, the Hill and War Zone will be asked to leave their spaces, with Newsmax, the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller and the Free Press moving in, according to a memo from John Ullyot, acting assistant to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
These are all very right wing media outlets who in the best case will not press for the hard questions and in the worst case will out right lie for Trump.
As a European, the lack of protest is very concerning to me. Maybe it's just not televised, idk. Also this is the first post I see here on HN since the inauguration that communicates concerns. I know it's a tech board, but still, the silence is eery.
There are protests ramping up, but the press may not be covering them out of their own complicity. And there have been tons of threads here communicating concerns, but all of them get flagged and suppressed for being political.
There have been many very concerning posts about this administration here every single day since even before he took office... just do a search for elon or trump and sort by date.
And there have been mass protests like 50501, but the media actively chooses not to report it, unsurprisingly.
It is still early days. There are several factors at play here. First, American news media work totally different than European in the way they report things. Secondly, some things done by Trump or his aides like Musk are probably not allowed by the law - but the opinion of the judge is always in hindsight. We still need to reach that stage and then see if Trump and the rest of the government will respect the rule of law.
As another European: Negative articles are very quickly flagged after hitting the front page. There have been quiet a few if you use alternative frontends for HN like hckrnews.com and use top 10/top 20/50%. These categories only work for dead links for the last 24h though, sadly... So you'll only notice if you check in every so often. (Because a dead link ceases to get traction, consequently dropping off these lists)
Curious if those who were incensed by “performative wokeness” have any insights to offer on this phenomenon… or if their anger around semantics only cuts one way
Edit: feel free to downvote, but if you think you have a point other than hurt feelings do share
HN is not exclusively for tech discussion and the more technology and politics merge as we head into this techno-fascist era, post like this will likely happen more often.
HN (or users?) seem to allow these kind of stories when they swing one way. Hence why they let the DOGE kid article and suppressed the A16z Daniel Penny story.
I would say that a private firm hiring a private individual doesn't make the cut for news unless they are hired for a public facing role.
The DOGE kid is working in government, doing (controversial)things that are affected a substantial portion of the U.S. population.
Should we follow those who we don't like through their lives and report on who has hired them and into what positions? Perhaps we should make them wear a large red A?
This touches tech through Map programs like Apple & Google Maps, who have both bent the knee to this renaming. This is an organization that has a backbone and a light should be shined on them for not only their original principled stance but also this retaliation that is not in the spirit of the Constitution.
> “It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism,” Pace said in a statement. “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment.”
It certainly has a chilling effect, if the president can apply arbitrary limitations on news agencies just because they refuse to comply with specific naming orders.
As mentioned in the article, an executive editor of the Associated Press itself argues that the move is a First Amendment violation. As I wrote in a different comment:
Whenever holding press conferences in the Oval Office, the government creates a nonpublic forum [1] and invokes freedom of the press (because a news organization who is allowed to attend should be able to share what happened). The government can deny a news organization entry based on the subject of the speech (e.g. no reporting about the Gulf of Mexico/America, regardless of the name used) but cannot deny entry based on the news organization's viewpoint (e.g. thinking that Gulf of Mexico is the more appropriate name allowed, thinking that Gulf of America is the more appropriate name not allowed).
I can't reply to GP directly, but I'd like to directly address an assertion that GP made:
> The AP has no right to the Oval Office. They are not an elected entity nor have any legal standing.
The AP has no right to the Oval Office in the absolute sense, but if the government allows some news organizations (at least 1) into the Oval Office for press conferences then the criteria for allowing news organizations must not discriminate based on viewpoint. So long as AP meets the criteria that obey the First Amendment, then AP is entitled to enter the Oval Office for press conferences.
I had seen about Google Maps and "Gulf Of America" and couldn't quite believe it was true, so I kept loading it up, seeing if they really just decided to lick Trump's boots. Today it for the first time it showed up for me: https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0798665,-85.4166342,4353858m
Well there is a distinction between "Gulf of the United States of America" and "Gulf of America".
Calling it "Gulf of America" does not equate it to "Gulf of the United States of America" which is what Trump probably wants, but he is too stupid to realize the difference. He just deprived the Gulf of its association with Mexico without truly associating with the US.
Why doesn't he go all the way and call for New Mexico to be renamed to New America though? I wouldn't put it past him.
Do some white people think these petty attitudes will restore the former industrial glory of the US?
Is he miffed at the Gulf referring to a country of mostly Latinos/Hispanics rather than White people?
Is this guy just racist or petty/both? The citizens of the US should be ashamed of themselves for voting him in as President, though truth be said their political system doesn't give them much of choice.
In any case what choice is there between an GOP apple and Democrat pear if they are both rotten?
The continents, I understand, are the "Americas" - use adopted to disambiguate, since the anglosphere soon started using 'America' for its colonies there.
Vespucci spoke of the "New World" (at the time, 1504, only South America), the first one to say "that's really not India" - so Martin Waldseemueller called the continent "America" (1507).
Edgar Allan Poe had some irritation about the matter:
> It is a thousand pities that the puny witticisms of a few professional objectors should have the power to prevent, even for a year, the adoption of a name for our country. At present we have, clearly, none. There should be no hesitation about “Appalachia”. In the first place, it is distinctive. “America” is not, and can never be made so. We may legislate as much as we please, and assume for our country whatever name we think right — but to use it will be no name, to any purpose for which a name is needed, unless we can take it away from the regions which employ it at present. South America is “America”, and will insist upon remaining so
What is happening is they are not being given a spot during briefings.
From my understanding, the definition of "The Press" is quite large and allows many entities, since it is impossible for all of them to be physically present there has to be a mechanism for deciding who is present and not.
AP is very far from being a small actor in the press.
And, you are missing the continent-size point: what would be the discriminator to keep some in and some out?
> a big deal about it
It is a very big deal. Some party introduces a local convention while he rest of the world uses another one. With very dire consequences in terms of relation (it's divisive internally and externally, and creates embarrassments).
Under this bar, everything Twitter and Facebook have done, and any meddling the government may have done in those ecosystems, isn't a Free Speech Issue. Considering the very administration now taking this action called being banned from Twitter a violation of their free speech these look like some pretty mobile goalposts.
> From my understanding, the definition of "The Press" is quite large and allows many entities, since it is impossible for all of them to be physically present there has to be a mechanism for deciding who is present and not.
100% true! But surely you can see how "does the government like your speech?" being part of that mechanism is clearly a Free Speech issue, even if you assume it is legal? Remember, this is the Government. It's not like it's Trump disinviting them from his house because they hurt his feelings.
>Under this bar, everything Twitter and Facebook have done, and any meddling the >government may have done in those ecosystems, isn't a Free Speech Issue.
While my reply was rather curt in the beginning, I don't think this is a first amendment violation as it they have done nothing to restrict AP's access to information or publishing information, only from being in the room with the President.
The liberal establishment position has been much more fluid with the concept of free speech. There has been plenty of outrage over things like deadnaming, perceived racism, etc.
> they have done nothing to restrict AP's access to information or publishing information, only from being in the room with the President
No, XKCD is not the liberal establishment but is a good tell. You can search on that comic link in forum and see how it was being used.
I do hope that you would consider the ACLU as liberal establishment.
>But over the past ten years, Donald Trump and other right-wing provocateurs have co-opted free-speech values to advance an agenda often at odds with liberalism and social justice (see Elon Musk’s X), while Democrats, progressives, and, arguably, the ACLU have retreated from the ideal that free speech needs to be protected regardless of the viewpoint being expressed.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-free-speech-war-...
And a choice quote:
>Traditionally, the A.C.L.U.’s state affiliates monitor and argue free speech cases, but in recent years some shied from such fights.
No, I wouldn't consider ACLU representative of the liberal establishment. There is certainly overlap at times, but they aren't driving policy and have a pretty specific charter.
Whenever holding press conferences in the Oval Office, the government creates a nonpublic forum [1] and invokes freedom of the press (because a news organization who is allowed to attend should be able to share what happened). The government can deny a news organization entry based on the subject of the speech (e.g. no reporting about the Gulf of Mexico/America, regardless of the name used) but cannot deny entry based on the news organization's viewpoint (e.g. thinking that Gulf of Mexico is the more appropriate name allowed, thinking that Gulf of America is the more appropriate name not allowed).
60 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 48.7 ms ] thread[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/08/1155491204/ex-twitter-officia...
These are all very right wing media outlets who in the best case will not press for the hard questions and in the worst case will out right lie for Trump.
Or, rather, I can imagine how Bezos sleeps at night, but I don't know how I would.
And there have been mass protests like 50501, but the media actively chooses not to report it, unsurprisingly.
Edit: feel free to downvote, but if you think you have a point other than hurt feelings do share
Seems like this will just entice political debate vs a tech discussion
2) This resource is quite relevant to people who operate on the real world - which we have to know adequately to operate in
The DOGE kid is working in government, doing (controversial)things that are affected a substantial portion of the U.S. population.
Should we follow those who we don't like through their lives and report on who has hired them and into what positions? Perhaps we should make them wear a large red A?
> “It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism,” Pace said in a statement. “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment.”
It certainly has a chilling effect, if the president can apply arbitrary limitations on news agencies just because they refuse to comply with specific naming orders.
Whenever holding press conferences in the Oval Office, the government creates a nonpublic forum [1] and invokes freedom of the press (because a news organization who is allowed to attend should be able to share what happened). The government can deny a news organization entry based on the subject of the speech (e.g. no reporting about the Gulf of Mexico/America, regardless of the name used) but cannot deny entry based on the news organization's viewpoint (e.g. thinking that Gulf of Mexico is the more appropriate name allowed, thinking that Gulf of America is the more appropriate name not allowed).
I can't reply to GP directly, but I'd like to directly address an assertion that GP made:
> The AP has no right to the Oval Office. They are not an elected entity nor have any legal standing.
The AP has no right to the Oval Office in the absolute sense, but if the government allows some news organizations (at least 1) into the Oval Office for press conferences then the criteria for allowing news organizations must not discriminate based on viewpoint. So long as AP meets the criteria that obey the First Amendment, then AP is entitled to enter the Oval Office for press conferences.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)#Nonpublic_forums
> Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)
i.e., it shows both the names.
Calling it "Gulf of America" does not equate it to "Gulf of the United States of America" which is what Trump probably wants, but he is too stupid to realize the difference. He just deprived the Gulf of its association with Mexico without truly associating with the US.
Why doesn't he go all the way and call for New Mexico to be renamed to New America though? I wouldn't put it past him.
Do some white people think these petty attitudes will restore the former industrial glory of the US?
Is he miffed at the Gulf referring to a country of mostly Latinos/Hispanics rather than White people?
Is this guy just racist or petty/both? The citizens of the US should be ashamed of themselves for voting him in as President, though truth be said their political system doesn't give them much of choice.
In any case what choice is there between an GOP apple and Democrat pear if they are both rotten?
Vespucci spoke of the "New World" (at the time, 1504, only South America), the first one to say "that's really not India" - so Martin Waldseemueller called the continent "America" (1507).
Edgar Allan Poe had some irritation about the matter:
> It is a thousand pities that the puny witticisms of a few professional objectors should have the power to prevent, even for a year, the adoption of a name for our country. At present we have, clearly, none. There should be no hesitation about “Appalachia”. In the first place, it is distinctive. “America” is not, and can never be made so. We may legislate as much as we please, and assume for our country whatever name we think right — but to use it will be no name, to any purpose for which a name is needed, unless we can take it away from the regions which employ it at present. South America is “America”, and will insist upon remaining so
I don't think the AP should be bared for not using the new name, however I also don't think it is a freedom of speech issue, if so they would sue.
What is happening is they are not being given a spot during briefings.
From my understanding, the definition of "The Press" is quite large and allows many entities, since it is impossible for all of them to be physically present there has to be a mechanism for deciding who is present and not.
And, you are missing the continent-size point: what would be the discriminator to keep some in and some out?
> a big deal about it
It is a very big deal. Some party introduces a local convention while he rest of the world uses another one. With very dire consequences in terms of relation (it's divisive internally and externally, and creates embarrassments).
Under this bar, everything Twitter and Facebook have done, and any meddling the government may have done in those ecosystems, isn't a Free Speech Issue. Considering the very administration now taking this action called being banned from Twitter a violation of their free speech these look like some pretty mobile goalposts.
> From my understanding, the definition of "The Press" is quite large and allows many entities, since it is impossible for all of them to be physically present there has to be a mechanism for deciding who is present and not.
100% true! But surely you can see how "does the government like your speech?" being part of that mechanism is clearly a Free Speech issue, even if you assume it is legal? Remember, this is the Government. It's not like it's Trump disinviting them from his house because they hurt his feelings.
That was the majority position of the entire liberal establishment for the last decade. See: https://xkcd.com/1357/ See also: "Freeze Peach" : https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/375bva/whats_...
While my reply was rather curt in the beginning, I don't think this is a first amendment violation as it they have done nothing to restrict AP's access to information or publishing information, only from being in the room with the President.
This sort of access control has been ongoing since at least the Obama administration: https://www.rcfp.org/white-house-attempted-shut-out-fox-news... and under Biden: https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/04/white-house-purges-44...
The liberal establishment position has been much more fluid with the concept of free speech. There has been plenty of outrage over things like deadnaming, perceived racism, etc.
> they have done nothing to restrict AP's access to information or publishing information, only from being in the room with the President
Seems related
I do hope that you would consider the ACLU as liberal establishment.
>But over the past ten years, Donald Trump and other right-wing provocateurs have co-opted free-speech values to advance an agenda often at odds with liberalism and social justice (see Elon Musk’s X), while Democrats, progressives, and, arguably, the ACLU have retreated from the ideal that free speech needs to be protected regardless of the viewpoint being expressed. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-free-speech-war-...
And in case you don't like that source, here is the reference from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
And a choice quote: >Traditionally, the A.C.L.U.’s state affiliates monitor and argue free speech cases, but in recent years some shied from such fights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Uni... Check out the support and opposition section.
I don't think this term is meaningful. It begs the question to even claim that there _is_ a liberal establishment on the topic of free speech.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)#Nonpublic_forums