The Twitter Files, Part Six • Hacker News Board

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#111

Post by sleepybrett » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:53 AM UTC

kodyo wrote: post #57

hairofadog wrote: post #30

Earlier 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 BY FUCKING HACKERS (specifically 'fancy bear')

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#112

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:54 AM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #107

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try to find an article explaining the concept, but for right-wing authoritarians, the hypocrisy is the point. In group vs out group. https://level.medium.com/its-always-about-power-f9fca4321e0c

> the hypocrisy is the point. I am right wing, and I hear right-wing commentators say things like "for left-wing authoritarians, the hypocrisy is the point" all the time. Seriously, the article you linked sounds exactly like something I would read from "my" side, just with good guys and bad guys reversed.

[flagged]

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#113

Post by roflyear » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:54 AM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #93

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…

Not a violation of free speech to tell Twitter to take down illegal content.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#114

Post by jcranmer » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:54 AM UTC

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.

> 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.

If that is true, that would make it government coercion. But no one has properly alleged anything with regards to Twitter on that analogue.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#115

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:55 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #48

starkd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? One of the first tweets mentioned tells republicans to vote on Wednesday, when its too late.

[deleted]

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#116

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:55 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #97

simpleblend wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The FBI would upon such a refusal then most likely go by a court to see if they could get a judge to sign off on an order and those you refuse at your peril.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#117

Post by roflyear » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:55 AM UTC

simpleblend wrote: post #90

wesleywt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a trick, but yeah saying we should harm certain groups of people is hate speech.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#118

Post by simpleblend » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:55 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #94

simpleblend wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You do realize that it's not the job of the FBI to police 1A speech, especially about an election, right?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#119

Post by RosanaAnaDana » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:56 AM UTC

weaksauce wrote: post #69

starkd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

There's enough nothing-burger in this thread to start a nothing-franchise.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#120

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 2:56 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #114

simpleblend wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. If that is true, that would make it government coercion. But no one has properly alleged anything with regards to Twitter on that analogue.

The FBI would not pass on something in the nature of a direct order without having a paper signed by a judge to back it up.