Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does your mind instinctively go to that example?
Because leftists often use that as an example of hate speech.
And rightly so.
The Twitter Files, Part Six
241–250 of 965 posts
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The FBI serves the state, and itself. If they need to make friends with a leftist to get something done, why would that stop them? I personally find it hard to believe that Crossfire Hurricane was run by a conservative cabal in the FBI, but maybe you're right. Whoever were doing it were elitist reprobates.
[deleted]
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was illegal about the NYPost breaking a story about content found on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop? 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?
> What was illegal about the NYPost breaking a story about content found on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop? Who said it was illegal? The FBI? Twitter? Can you highlight a quote here? Look at the sort of wording used in the examples in the thread. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857573219819529 - "notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter's Terms of Service "
They were replying to a comment that the FBI asked twitter to remove illegal content. So to answer your question, the parent post said it was illegal.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#2443. 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…
In an earlier release they also mention regular meetings (weekly?). That was not the only guy being contacted by the FBI either.
Regardless, while you may call this “underwhelming” it’s actually hard proof of illegal activity. The FBI cannot censor people, period. That’s fascism and illegal in the US, per multiple Supreme Court rulings.
This effectively gives trump, et al a direct path to a lawsuit against the federal government and AGs of states cause to sue the federal government. It could very well (and imo will) lead to a church committee of sorts.
That said, not sure if the powers are established enough to just resist all of it (they might be).
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Facts like the wrong election day? The day of an election is not an opinion but an objective fact.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
More accurately. What was the political speech banned?
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.
And that happened under Trump. So, when he said the government was controlling the media, he knew because he was doing it.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HN is a lot larger than you probably think I'd be interested to know the user number.
A typical homepage link can cause between 40 and 50K visitors to your website. And that's a small fraction of the total number of users. Millions of pageviews per day, 250K+ registered users and a multiple of that in lurkers. Does that help?
> 250K+ registered users
That's the relevant number. So Twitter is about 1000x larger than HN.
From a surveillance standpoint, we're really only talking about commenters, on both sites.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#248There's an odd new risk for startups: someone buys your company and then releases all the internal documents with hostile intent. The Twitter stuff that's come out now has been pretty uninteresting, surprising and often basically telling a story of people doing the best job they could in difficult circumstances. But if you are at a small company consider what all could be acquired and used to defame your employees an…
The thing to really worry about is that someone like Musk has direct access to all of your DMs, including those of politicians the world over.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
I mean, we know from the Snowden leaks that the NSA was already gathering all the data and the FBI had access to the shares data.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If - for instance - Mike Pence had been murdered (and I believe there was a real possibility that that could have happened) I'm pretty sure that you'd be playing an entirely different tune. The FBI is free to interpret the law and you are free to take them to court if you don't agree with their interpretation. This does not normally need to be spelled out. Next time you receive a request from the police that you thin…
I have no idea how to respond to your comment. You seem to be coming from a world view that has no overlap with mine. I have zero understanding why you'd so condescendingly argue that we should just accept shady behavior by the FBI.