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

141–150 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#141

Post by jacquesm »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #132
leoh wrote: post #53

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

So you think it is totally normal that FBI just helps a company to moderate stuff that is legal but doesn't comply with the company's Terms of Service?

Yes. Because 'legal' and 'damaging to society' are different bars and both the FBI and Twitter probably felt that cooperating on that front was better than to let things get out of hand.

The alternative may well have been a dead VP, or worse, so be happy that these channels exist(ed). With that whole department axed we are now in much more dangerous territory. That said I'm pretty sure that Elon Musk knows which side his bread is buttered on and that given an appropriately worded request Twitter will comply just like it did in the past. Or do you think they'll give the FBI the finger now?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#142

Post by b0sk »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #10
camjohnson26 wrote: post #3

This is the height of hypocrisy. Everything the "twitter files" have disclosed so far is in line with what most people expected was happening, but Musk's censorship of the platform has been far more egregious than anything that came before. This isn't to defend the actions that Twitter took, which were arguably partisan in some cases, but it's difficult to make the case that Twitter wasn't making a best effort to cur…

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

This is probably the best quote about conservatism: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

See: https://kottke.org/22/12/the-boring-conservatism-of-elon-mus...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#143

Post by kodyo »

roflyear wrote: post #117
simpleblend wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Joking about political figures isn't hate speech.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#144

Post by kodyo »

sleepybrett wrote: post #104
tomohawk wrote: post #93

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…

At no point did the FBI order that tweets be taken down.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#145

Post by chomp »

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.

We had a couple Us dedicated to the feds in our datacenter for their wiretap box, in addition to weekly emails. We had like 1/16 twitter’s revenue. That’s what I’d consider constant!

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#147

Post by Brendinooo »

sleepybrett wrote: post #101
joshuaheard wrote: post #88

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…

I know there’s no easy answer to the question, but how can you be sure we’re not in “will no one rid me of this turbulent priest” territory here?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#148

Post by kodyo »

acdha wrote: post #86
kodyo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They didn't have to submit high quality reports because they were working with ideological soulmates.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#149

Post by jacquesm »

oceanplexian wrote: post #124
sleepybrett wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion. Government law enforcement agencies shouldn’t be “asking” for anything unless it’s done under due process of law. Sorry but I 100% disagree.

> Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion.

Strong disagree. I've been on the receiving side of many such requests and all of them came with reasons and citations to back up the request. I've never had a single LE request (including some from the FBI even though we were located in Toronto, Canada and in IJmuiden, NL meaning that we could have refused them simply on account of not being in their jurisdiction) that did not make perfect sense to me.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#150

Post by LudwigNagasena »

sleepybrett wrote: post #101
joshuaheard wrote: post #88

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…

Do you understand why when a person in a position of authority or dominance makes sexual advances towards their subordinate, it is considered sexual assault and abuse of power?

That analogy should help you understand the difference between a random guy writing to Twitter "hey, I think these tweets violate your ToS" and the FBI doing the same thing.

Post reply on HN