Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people oppose fascism.
Who's the fascist in this situation?
The corporation and the state partnering to censor speech.
The Twitter Files, Part Six
61–70 of 965 posts
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#62"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content." Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?
Neither. Social media companies are in regular contact with all major governments about lots of issues. A weekly "hey all here are some accounts we noticed, have a great week" email to a designated Twitter contact for review requests is completely ordinary. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, everyone hears from the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Australia, Japan.... and decides what to do with the information.
So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#633. Twitter’s contact with the FBI was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary. 4. Between January 2020 and November 2022, there were over 150 emails between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth. How is this constant? This is just 1 request every 7 days . I figured it would be more. Also, it's called the FBI. Their job is to investigate federal matters, which includes content on socia…
Wait till folks realize how much contact government agencies have with nearly every company (leaking stories, spin, etc.).
It's weird that it's turned into some sort of naive left vs right issue.
I'd be asking what the goal is, but apparently it's that. Point fingers, suggest no solutions beyond vote for us.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's the fascist in this situation?
The corporation and the state partnering to censor speech.
So the Trump administration then? because we haven't seen anything to indicate that the Biden administration has asked for things to be censored, only that the Trump administration made requests whilst he was still in power.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#65Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.
They were going after political speech while ignoring actual crimes.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once per week for three years is not constant to you? Weird.
>as if it were a subsidiary Having gone through an acquisition, I guarantee that our acquired org gets more than 150 emails from our acquirer every two years. Let alone each day. To call it a "subsidiary" is ludicrous.
No post body was provided.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#67"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content." Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?
For the most part, the US government is allowed to ask anyone to voluntarily remove anything (a few limits such as those set by the establishment clause notwithstanding). That's what happened here.
If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them?
Or are they doing it under duress?
Of course it's the latter.
The US gov. has been threatening to take down social media companies for years. Do you think Twitter really wanted to upset them now?
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither. Social media companies are in regular contact with all major governments about lots of issues. A weekly "hey all here are some accounts we noticed, have a great week" email to a designated Twitter contact for review requests is completely ordinary. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, everyone hears from the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Australia, Japan.... and decides what to do with the information.
So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?
You run a bar. There’s a drunk guy on one end of the patio screaming at people. If a cop walks by and tells the bouncer “that guy seems pretty drunk”, is it a 1A violation when they subsequently enforce their rules?
The question to ask is whether any of these accounts would have been allowed if reported by people. There’s no evidence that the FBI was making threats that something otherwise allowed had to be removed.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by one way? They clearly asked for scrutiny of pro-Democratic tweeters in addition to pro-Republican ones: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232 Perhaps you should actually read Taibbi's work in this thread.
It doesn't matter if they were pro-dem or pro-republican. They were doing nothing wrong. What business is it to the FBI. The FBI had partisan agents working on government time to censor American citizens during an election. If you step out of your partisan headspace for a moment, you might realize how dangerous this is. Imagine how this my play out in a future election with different candidates.
This is what you could say a classic goal post moving comment from the initial position of "it's only ok because it helped you"(which in and of itself is projection and also pointedly false) to "that doesn't matter they were censoring" (which again is false since they asked for the content team to review it.)
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, like what if one of the parties had their emails hacked by a foreign state, and then a week or so before the election, against their own policy, the FBI issued a press release about how they were urgently reopening an investigation not into the hack but into possible wrongdoing by the hacked candidate? And then later acknowledged there was no wrongdoing? You're right; I really hate to think about what the fallo…
Quoted post unavailable.
> They were leaked not hacked.
"According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127, later attributed to Fancy Bear, a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government.[101]"
The above quote is really just a runabout way of saying that the Russians hacked the emails.