Jan 6 committee subpoenas Meta, Google, Reddit etc. after 'inadequate responses'

Disclaimer: am googler, my opinions are my own. I have no non-public knowledge on this topic.<p>It&#x27;s not clear to me what the House committee is asking for. From what I read in their letters it&#x27;s basically, &quot;We think you have more than you&#x27;ve given us, so give it to us&quot;.<p>That&#x27;s not how this works. If you want to subpoena information, you need to be specific and targeted. If you don&#x27;t get what you think you want, call people in to testify.<p>Here&#x27;s the actual Committee release [1]. Two quotes from the Alphabet letter:<p>&quot;For example, Alphabet has not produced any documents that fully explain non-public moderation discussions and policies&quot; &quot;Additionally, Alphabet has not produced documents relating to YouTube’s policy decisions&quot;<p>But, IIRC, YouTube (and Twitter) were pretty publicly vocal and specific about their policies for months preceding Jan 6th. I just don&#x27;t see what warrants this round of grandstanding.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;january6th.house.gov&#x2F;news&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;select-committee-subpoenas-social-media-companies-records-related-january-6th" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;january6th.house.gov&#x2F;news&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;select-comm...</a>

I get some kind of sick satisfaction out of watching a certain small subset of HN lose their mind trying to square the circle when it comes to stuff like this. On one hand “this is government overreach!” (it’s not because the committee here is on a specific task to investigate a specific crime) and “free market!” and on the other hand “big social media companies are evil and decide what’s right and what’s wrong.” Nevermind that this has nothing to do with “cancel culture”, “censorship”, or “mainstream media” and everything to do with an investigation. Just read the headline and get angry at… someone?

The implication from the committee is that these companies should have monitored and suppressed&#x2F;censored their users harder? Is the committee looking for a scapegoat or something?

These companies overwhelmingly support the Democratic party. The idea that they are deliberately stonewalling this investigation strains credulity. Poking some of their most powerful allies like this feels like a tactical error for the Congressional Democrats.

Man, the democrats are really trying to hand republicans every election for the next decade.

This kind of pressure on companies to censor seems like an end around on the first amendment. It technically is not the government censoring or mandating censorship, but it uses the threat of government power and the power to irritate and harass for companies that don&#x27;t toe the line. Unfortunately, I can only see this getting worse. For example, if the Republicans come to power in 2022, I can see them having a committee hold hearings on the &quot;riots&quot; of 2020 and subpoenaing all these companies about how their platform was used to organize the protests&#x2F;riots. Soon, companies will just censor any attempt to organize a protest online.

It&#x27;s an interesting idea.<p>I can easily imagine that the next time the GOP controls congress they&#x27;ll ask similar questions of outlets like CNN and MSNBC vis-a-vis the George Floyd riots.<p>People should be more considerate of the opposition when they&#x27;re in power. Payback is almost assured, and sometimes even with escalation.

The Jan 6th event (whatever word one uses) was far from secret. Most of the coordination happened in public, and the participants were not shy about their intentions.<p>After reddit shut down &#x2F;r&#x2F;TheDonald, the &quot;pedes&quot; migrated to thedonald dot win (which I think has since been shuttered and moved elsewhere). With all the claims being made about a stolen election, I was watching that site with morbid fascination in December and early January, including the planning for the 6th specifically (I assume it&#x27;s still in the Wayback Machine). The talk ranged from vague protest, to a quasi-Occupy strategy of refusing to leave until results are overturned, to explicit calls to violence and far-right fantasies (&quot;1776 solutions to 1984 problems&quot;, &quot;day of the rope&quot;, etc).<p>And the whole time, I assumed: obviously this is on the radar of the FBI and the &quot;IC&quot;. These idiots are out of their depth: they don&#x27;t even know how to use encryption to coordinate their attempted coup, and they&#x27;re gonna walk right into a regiment of Feds on the capitol steps.<p>Luckily Trump is fundamentally a coward, and Pence has some shred of integrity (or just sense), and the participants failed to galvanize a response from the more mainstream Trumpers. But if you want to talk about an &quot;inadequate response&quot;: the gross incompetence of our bloated national security apparatus failing to do the only thing that justifies their existence really takes the cake; and I can&#x27;t help but think all the Congressional hearings and hand-wringing and crocodile tears is a theatrical distraction from that institutional failure.

Discord is missing, a lot of talk before Jan 6th happened there too. Maybe they already cooperated in better faith?

Ever heard of the McCarthy hearings? We went from &quot;everyone we don&#x27;t like must be a communist&quot; to &quot;everyone who says people cheat at elections is spreading misinformation.&quot; This pearl-clutching over &quot;misinformation&quot; is tiresome and pathetic.

We have a First Amendment... but if you run a platform that does not even use the First Amendment, you&#x27;ll get subpoenaed and harassed.<p>In theory, I ran a platform that protected everything the First Amendment did, and protected nothing that the Amendment did not protect, I should be legally in the clear.<p>But I&#x27;m not going to attempt such a thing - because it&#x27;s clear Congress would do the ultimate shakedown.