Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Twitter Files, Part Six

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#81

Post by jacquesm »

diob wrote: post #63
paulpauper wrote: post #7

3. 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.

The goal seems to be to distract from Musk selling off Tesla at breakneck speed. Every time there is a big hoopla around Musk the first thing I do is check the stock price and sure enough it seems to be dropping like a stone in tandem with the news releases.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#82

Post by jcranmer »

moralestapia wrote: post #52
paulpauper wrote: post #7

3. 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…

Once per week for three years is not constant to you? Weird.

For the amount that a police department would try talking to a major social media platform? That's shockingly low to me.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

simpleblend wrote: post #60
jacquesm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you probably should re-read all of the text that led you to the conclusion that that was what was happening.

Please, enlighten me. How is this anything but the Government doing an end run around 1A?

> How is this anything but the Government doing an end run around 1A?

The First Amendment says "shall make no law", not "shall never ask politely".

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#84

Post by Apocryphon »

simpleblend wrote: post #71
Apocryphon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is no partisan headspace if both parties were impacted. Clearly their lack of interest is due to other factors, which you must learn to appeal to. Not everyone fails to care because of petty political concerns.

So it's your estimation that both parties were censored an equal amount?

Based on Taibbi's own evidence, it is perhaps arguably so. But to me, more important is the total number of accounts looked at, which appears to be in the mere dozens, if not around a dozen accounts, with none more notable than a lesser Baldwin brother.

In principle, certainly it is not great for security services to meddle in public spaces. In reality, I am willing to believe that the federal government is a tiny fish in the sea of requests from local authorities, individual police departments, private individuals via reports, not least of all the legally persons we call corporations. I bet any day, Twitter's moderation teams are blanketed with requests from companies and businesses of every type and size, both advertisers and not. All equipped with legal teams that could potentially target Twitter.

In short, I find it to be performative virtue-signaling to be concerned about around a dozen small potatoes that the FBI asked for the mods to take a look at. Especially if this might just be cover for the real large-scale systemic censorships that occur at some deeper level that no FOIA or Taibbi journalism would be able to unearth. Especially when the PRISM programs are right there if you want something of substance to be outraged about. This, in comparison, is no different from a mom and pop store asking Twitter to go after an abusive account spreading slander about them. Litigiousness is an all-American custom. This didn't even trigger any warrant canaries. Hysteria over this is concern-trolling.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#85

Post by simpleblend »

wesleywt wrote: post #78
time_to_smile wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seriously out of the loop on this, what were the actual crimes?

More accurately. What was the political speech banned?

How about prominent Stanford and Harvard doctors disagreeing with the Covid polices of the CDC?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#86

Post by acdha »

kodyo wrote: post #65
leoh wrote: post #53

Learned 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.

The thread clearly shows that they were going after misinformation, and trying to make sure they only did so when accurate. At most you could say that the FBI sent some low quality reports, which seems like a better question for your congressional representatives since they have oversight.

It does not show or allege a crime was ignored - can you be precise in what you’re insinuating?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#89

Post by jacquesm »

jcranmer wrote: post #82
moralestapia wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once per week for three years is not constant to you? Weird.

For the amount that a police department would try talking to a major social media platform? That's shockingly low to me.

Especially one the size of Twitter, if anything it seems so low that I think they missed whole raft of such communications.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#90

Post by simpleblend »

wesleywt wrote: post #77
kodyo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were going after political speech while ignoring actual crimes.

Oh please. Link to where Twitter banned someone for being right wing. Hate speech doesn't count.

It's very convenient that one side of the asile is always in a position to define what hate speech is.

Neat trick, but it doesn't work anymore.

Post reply on HN