The Twitter Files, Part Six • Hacker News Board

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#281

Post by colordrops » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #256

colordrops wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see anything shady. And being pretty anti-authoritarian and having been in contact with LE many, many times over the years including the FBI what struck me first and foremost in all of that is that they did their utmost best to keep it clean.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies

And these are just the big ones. They've pushed for back doors into iPhones for instance.

I don't care how trustworthy anyone thinks they are. No one should be able to just arbitrarily transcend the law because they are "clean".

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#282

Post by calimac » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #93

leoh wrote: post #53

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

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#283

Post by dmix » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #273

jacquesm wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone like Zuckerberg has access to your data as well. And what about the government having access to DMs? That’s far scarier. Has Snowden not taught us anything? We are only just now worried about this? Complaining about Musk without complaining about Zuckerberg or the government is just hypocrisy.

He means someone who doesn't share your political perspective. Not someone with actual threat of force.

We haven't seen Twitter arbitrarily leak DMs yet. Even Matt Taibbi said they only have access to screenshots of admin interfaces directly related to their specific stories around uncritical FBI/DHS access, shadowbanning for questionable political purposes, and the whole Trump thing. It's far from the ideological free-for-all people are suggesting.

But Elon has already shown he's willing to play dangerous games with his power. So far we haven't seen the FUDy stuff yet beyond the stupid new doxxing rule for which he's burned tons of good will. Nothing comes without costs.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#284

Post by themitigating » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #273

jacquesm wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone like Zuckerberg has access to your data as well. And what about the government having access to DMs? That’s far scarier. Has Snowden not taught us anything? We are only just now worried about this? Complaining about Musk without complaining about Zuckerberg or the government is just hypocrisy.

That's not hypocrisy at all.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#285

Post by briandear » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #95

starkd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem was that it was entirely biased to one side. They were actively looking to sway an election. Some were fairly innocuous small accounts. And they couldn't make exceptions for jokes or satire.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#286

Post by djur » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

kodyo wrote: post #177

mikeyouse wrote: post #157

Earlier 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.

The FBI investigated both Trump and Clinton in 2016. The difference is that they made a big announcement about Clinton immediately prior to the election.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#287

Post by themitigating » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

nickthegreek wrote: post #274

briandear wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Why do people keep saying they knowingly allowed child exploitation. Do I need to be deep in the qanon to get this reference or something?

Another lie that is said so often that they think it's true.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#288

Post by briandear » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

jasonhansel wrote: post #255

colordrops wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Twitter isn't a media outlet; content moderation isn't censorship; routine communications over email aren't "behind closed doors"; suggestions that Twitter investigate certain accounts carry no legal weight.

Content moderation at the request of the government is the very definition of censorship.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#289

Post by cocacola1 » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #273

jacquesm wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone like Zuckerberg has access to your data as well. And what about the government having access to DMs? That’s far scarier. Has Snowden not taught us anything? We are only just now worried about this? Complaining about Musk without complaining about Zuckerberg or the government is just hypocrisy.

We're eventually going to get to so many caveats and inclusions in sentences, it's going to be impossible to read.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#290

Post by tomcam » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 4:30 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #176

shkkmo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO. You could. But that's not what happened here, judging by the evidence on display. All I see is what I expected to see: law enforcement engaging in a careful manner with a company that is dealing with an extremely large flow of communications. And if some of those communications are of a society destabilizing nature it is well within the mandate of th…

Careful? Targeting shit poster Billy Baldwin is careful?