121–130 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you have allegations of illegality, who determined that? Are you saying FBI should just say "Trust us, it's illegal - we don't need a jury or a judge"?
Since when does the FBI just get to accuse people of things and take their rights away?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's literally none of those things. The FBI contacted trust and safety and said 'Hey we have concerns about these tweets'. Twitter decided to take them down in some cases. Who is corrupted here? Twitter for taking reports and then deciding how to react to them? The FBI for finding misinformation that might lead to crazies creating mass casualty events? The FBI at no time FORCED twitter to do anything. So it's not vi…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about prominent Stanford and Harvard doctors disagreeing with the Covid polices of the CDC?
[flagged]
He asked me to list political speech that was censored, which I did.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.