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

91–100 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#91

Post by astrange »

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.

That's very low for how often law enforcement might contact a social media service. Sometimes it's because people report "illegal" posts to them instead of you. Sometimes it's just because they're old people and aren't going to go through your report form when they could email you.

What controls when you have to respond to them is the law, not them. You'll know when that is, because it'll come with legal process.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#92

Post by acdha »

simpleblend wrote: post #75
acdha wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not seeing the point. The cop was telling the bouncer, "Throw that guy out." And the bar owner did what the cop said, because the police department had threatened to shut down bar owners in the city for the last three years.

Your last paragraph is pure supposition. This thread clearly shows Twitter staff receiving reports and seeing whether those accounts did in fact violate the rules. What’s missing is any sign of what you’re confidently saying happened: something otherwise allowed being blocked because the FBI insisted. Please feel free to provide specific examples.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#93

Post by tomohawk »

leoh wrote: post #53

Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.

When people become a sworn officer of the FBI or any other federal LEO officer, they take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. When instead of upholding the Constitution, they ask a private company to violate people's first ammendment rights, that is an abuse of power.

It may be within Twitters terms of service to ban people and censor people, and that may be fine for Twitter, but for a sworn officer to use Twitter to censor people - that is an abuse of power.

Of course, the files also show that Twitter personnel acted in bad faith and didn't follow their own ToS.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#94

Post by jacquesm »

simpleblend wrote: post #75
acdha wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not seeing the point. The cop was telling the bouncer, "Throw that guy out." And the bar owner did what the cop said, because the police department had threatened to shut down bar owners in the city for the last three years.

You do realize that the police have been vested with the authority to enforce the law?

A bar owner that does not follow the instructions of the authorities is going to find their bar closed in short order because they have to comply with the law and with instructions by parties authorized to give them.

To paraphrase the trope that those that don't like Twitter are free to create their own: if you don't like the way society works then you are free to create your own. On Mars or something.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#95

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

starkd wrote: post #24
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…

The problem was that it was entirely biased to one side. They were actively looking to sway an election. Some were fairly innocuous small accounts. And they couldn't make exceptions for jokes or satire.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#97

Post by jcranmer »

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?

As long as you are given the option to decline a request (a real option, not a Hobson's choice), it doesn't cross the line into state action. The distinction in legal jurisprudence is pretty damn clear here, there needs to be some element of coercion by the government; if the government has the same power as private actors (e.g., to flag things), then that doesn't meet the bar.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#98

Post by 7e »

joshuaheard wrote: post #88
leoh wrote: post #53

Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.

It's corruption. It's a violation of the First Amendment. It's a dangerous collusion between state and media. We should all be concerned.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#100

Post by lapcat »

jacquesm wrote: post #80
lapcat wrote: post #54

This is actually an argument for why Twitter shouldn't exist. Twitter makes it super easy to do mass warrantless surveillance, because Twitter gathers millions of people together in the same searchable public space. It's a honeypot. What's dangerous about the "public square" concept is that Musk doesn't just want a public square — one public space among many, one among equals — he wants the public square, a monopoly…

This goes for any large web property where people congregate to communicate. HN is no different in that respect.

> This goes for any large web property where people congregate to communicate.

Yes, for example Facebook and TikTok.

> HN is no different in that respect.

Well, Twitter has over 200 million users. I believe that HN is much much smaller. HN also tends to be more anonymous.

Post reply on HN