No post body was provided.
The Twitter Files, Part Six
161–170 of 965 posts
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If they had better they would definitely be showing it. So this is what there is.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The FBI should absolutely not be trying to manage or control activity that isn't illegal, especially when that activity is speech. When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#164Earlier 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.
I've occasionally noticed some sketchy article flagging in the new submissions feed. (A recent article explaining how to add snow animations to HTML pages comes to mind.)
I like to think that dang's days consist of monocle and tophat shopping, sabotaging the metric system, and propping up the global media conspiracy.
However, I suspect the root cause is more mundane: Some small percentage of users treat "flag article" like the downvote button.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#165Aside from people in tech and the MAGA crowd, does anyone actually care about the "Twitter Files" stuff?
I care. And I don’t care about most of the reasonings here, like:
* It is not new, so I don’t care
* Elon is conservative, so I don’t care
* It is not true, or at least conflicts with my beliefs, so I don’t care
* twitter is evil, so I don’t care
* …
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.
2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's not in the FBI's charter to "fix society" outside of the bounds of law. It's mind boggling to me that people are acting nonchalant about a government entity shaping public discourse in secret.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NY Post was banned for breaking a story about revelations contained in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden. This was just prior to a national election. The FBI was involved in pushing this narrative through Twitter. The Babylon Bee is a satire site that was banned for doing satire. There are many many examples.
The Babylon Bee was not banned, the same way someone who tries to go into a store without shoes on isn't "banned." They just need to put on some shoes, then you're allowed in. The Babylon Bee was told that 1 Tweet violated Twitter's policy, and that they needed to delete it to unlock their account. They chose not to.
No post body was provided.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#169Quoted post unavailable.
I think it's against HN rules to call people shills, but I am too flabbergasted at people acting like it's no big deal that the FBI is working in secret to shut down narratives.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#170Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.
Quoted post unavailable.
In this case reporting two dozen small fry accounts to moderator teams is very weak as far as censorship goes. They’re doing the same thing as everyone else who hits report on Twitter does, except cutting in line. But you can bet there are tens of thousands of businesses, especially Twitter’s advertisers, who have the same if not closer relations with Twitter and, if made displeased, could cause Twitter to censor you even quicker than the FBI could.