221–230 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is saying that people should be harmed? Seriously. Whoever you have in mind, if they're actually advocating violence against people then I'm in agreement with you. That's not cool and they shouldn't be doing that. Are you referring to calling a trans person by their biological sex?
Why does your mind instinctively go to that example?
So far this whole Twitter Files thing seems underwhelming, but not exactly a "nothing burger". I feel like it's a good thing that they got published, but the details aren't big news, more like a whole bunch of mildly unsatisfactory situations that probably should be addressed by people directly involved. For example FBI trawling through social media and flagging accounts for review doesn't seem like a strict constitu…
A moderate, and reasonable position. I would definitely agree that this sort of stuff should be readily available for review, not requiring FOIA requests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was the commander in chief. Who do you believe the FBI is acting on behalf of if not his handpicked successor to Comey?
The FBI acts on behalf of the state, and the FBI. Trump picked an FBI guy to run the FBI. I don't know why he did it, either.
Wait, are you saying this was all to ensure Trump wins? Are you saying this is proof of a Watergate type situation?!?
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…
>This is the height of hypocrisy. Everything the "twitter files" have disclosed so far is in line with what most people expected was happening Twitter repeatedly denied that right-wing users were being shadowbanned. That turned out to be false. A month ago, someone on HN patronizingly explained to me that Twitter's moderation was "primarily dictated by building an advertiser friendly platform": https://news.ycombinat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you under the impression that the FBI was acting on behalf of Trump during his presidency?
He was the commander in chief. Who do you believe the FBI is acting on behalf of if not his handpicked successor to Comey?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you outline a scheme that would satisfy your needs for transparency while at the same time not result in compromising active investigations, tipping off the perps that they are under surveillance and so on? Because I don't see a practical way to achieve that ideal that would still work. Having been on the receiving end of such requests I was pretty happy all of them were made in a confidential manner, it saved ev…
At least give us a retrospective 2 years later on the accounts that were requested to be taken down and why. There are ways around this dilemma.
You would have to decide on a case-by-case basis which requests can cause harm and which don't, which given the volume of such requests would add a fairly unreasonable burden on a company that was already cash strapped.
The only reason people want to know about this stuff is some kind of morbid curiosity. What you could do is to come up with a set of workable rules for which requests would have to be made public and which not, but I don't think I would be capable of coming up with such a set of rules that would not in the future lead to issues. So to default to secrecy seems prudent.
In that light, the sale of Twitter and the subsequent exposure of all these interactions presumably has the effect of such communications becoming more opaque rather than less resulting in the opposite effect of what you desire.
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…
The corruption is that the requests were ideologically based. In other words, they only requested conservative tweets to be removed.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them? Yes? When the CDC says "we recommend you get vaccinated against the flu", and you get vaccinated, you're acting voluntarily, despite the government recommendation.
So, did you just not read the rest of my comment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was the commander in chief. Who do you believe the FBI is acting on behalf of if not his handpicked successor to Comey?
The FBI certainly wasn't acting on behalf of Obama when they sat on the revelation of Hilary's emails found on Huma Abedin's laptop to manufacture an October surprise. The fact that folks like Giuliani knew about it before it was made public goes to show that the FBI isn't a unified organization all moving in the same direction.
https://spectator.org/64130_obama-accused-hillary-labeling-h...