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

151–160 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#151

Post by simpleblend »

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.

Exactly. Well put.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#152

Post by jacquesm »

jcranmer wrote: post #130
jacquesm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, Twitter has (successfully) refused subpoenas for things like demasking pseudonymous users in the past. Of the big social media companies, (pre-Musk) Twitter has probably historically been the most pro-user in refusing to bow to legal pressure.

Good point, they went to bat for their users on multiple occasions.

I have huge respect for the former legal department of Twitter, being under pressure from so many sides including many state level actors must have been extremely difficult. And to see it all squandered like this must be extremely painful.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#153

Post by twoodfin »

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?

While Twitter may think it’s a good idea to police “misinformation” on its platform and has every right to do so, the FBI can’t be in that business.

Maybe one could make a case that the FBI requesting Twitter to enforce its own policies is reasonable, but if the Feds are making judgments on what to complain about based on content or viewpoint rather than time / place / manner, that really starts to conflict with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#154

Post by we_never_see_it »

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?

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#155

Post by kodyo »

jumelles wrote: post #72
kodyo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corporation and the state partnering to censor speech.

No one has a right to use Twitter. It's a private website.

A private website that was taking signals from the federal government and taking action on them with no pushback. They were censoring people the government was asking them to censor.

The relationship was cozy. It's OK if people are cool with that. It takes all kinds.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#156

Post by simpleblend »

jacquesm wrote: post #120
jcranmer wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Good point

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#157

Post by mikeyouse »

kodyo wrote: post #148
acdha wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You do realize for this to be true - the FBI, one of the most conservative organizations in this history of the country, one that’s never been led by a democrat - would have to be secretly as liberal as Twitter’s trust and safety team? Do you understand why people might not find that plausible?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#158

Post by oceanplexian »

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.

Yeah, so it seems looking at the emails, which is the only piece of information we are allowed to see.

However if you think about it for a minute, if the FBI were this bold in written, subpoena-able communication, what do you think the offline conversations looked like?

Post reply on HN