41–50 of 160 posts
Is this the same Twitter that has allegedly shadowbanned Scott Adams multiple times for his political positions? If Twitter is interested in transparency, how about some transparency on that? Twitter's actions make me distrust any "transparency" talk, even if I disagree with Adams on certain things.
Do you have any source to confirm that "shadowbanning" even exists ?
It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.
> these individuals are not named, but it should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation. If only there were some way of determining whether they were being unlawfully persecuted or validly investigated.
I ask you with complete sincerity - think it through.
It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.
> these individuals are not named, but it should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation. If only there were some way of determining whether they were being unlawfully persecuted or validly investigated.
I ask you with complete sincerity - think it through.
Is this the same Twitter that has allegedly shadowbanned Scott Adams multiple times for his political positions? If Twitter is interested in transparency, how about some transparency on that? Twitter's actions make me distrust any "transparency" talk, even if I disagree with Adams on certain things.
The government is subject to the rule of law and these NSLs can easily run afoul of the laws put in place to protect us from our government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these individuals are not named, but it should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation. If only there were some way of determining whether they were being unlawfully persecuted or validly investigated.
I know, right? Who could possibly judge one way or the other?
Do you think there should maybe be an oversight board and a congressional committee? Because these things exist. Do you propose something different?
These are the functions which these authorities serve in society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's certainly the intent, but at this point NSL's are more of a drag-net approach. Rampant abuse is undermining it's legitimacy.
We should be totally okay with court ordered records requests against specific accounts. That's LEO doing his job. It doesn't look like these two letters were court ordered however. Even so, it was bounded time against two accounts and of course you don't want to tip them off. It's the bulk tap rooms, such as the AT&T one, that ARE the dragnet and highly abusive of our rights. I feel like this whole NSL release progr…
If a crime has been committed for which Twitter is evidence, then arrest the perpetrators and collect the evidence with a standard public search warrant. There isn't even an argument to be made that uncaught co-conspirators could preemptively destroy evidence, as Twitter has it all recorded! But the war on drugs has established this philosophy of cultivating ongoing crime in order to catch ambiguous "higher ups". That kind of "ongoing threat" is only compatible with a totalitarian society.
This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Internet service companies. While I understand government agencies' desires to investigate persons of interest, the checks and balances of the system were put in place to do just that – check and balance the power of the system. It's outrageous that agencies feel…
They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place.
An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let the government take them to court, and let it be disclosed in that way.
Before we applaud them too much, keep in mind they're also telegraphing that this behavior is continuing. It doesn't take much skill to read between the lines and see that this is an ongoing problem for them, there's just a lot more of it that's happened that they're not allowed to disclose yet.
This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Internet service companies. While I understand government agencies' desires to investigate persons of interest, the checks and balances of the system were put in place to do just that – check and balance the power of the system. It's outrageous that agencies feel…
I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…
Is that how it works? You can refuse anything the government tells you to do until they take you to court and the court orders you?
Is this the same Twitter that has allegedly shadowbanned Scott Adams multiple times for his political positions? If Twitter is interested in transparency, how about some transparency on that? Twitter's actions make me distrust any "transparency" talk, even if I disagree with Adams on certain things.