301–310 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't have to submit high quality reports because they were working with ideological soulmates.
What ideology do you believe the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share with Twitter's former leadership?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were coordinating with Yoel Roth to police content. It's absurd that this news is being dismissed people don't like Twitter's new chief .
Specifically policing misinformation around elections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anything about being a "small fry" mattering when it comes to the law. It's pretty cut and dried. What the FBI is doing is unconstitutional and illegal. Why are you minimizing it? That they are doing it all is extremely alarming. It's like saying "the concentration camp only has 5 people, what's the big deal?" And why are you comparing them to private companies? Private companies are not covered by the sa…
If the FBI was legally compelling or coercing Twitter into banning users, that would be unconstitutional. That is not what has been demonstrated here.
Earlier 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
They can't/don't want to monetize the pornography on their website because some of it is abuse material. Normal people think it's not enough to not profit from it - you need to try very hard to remove it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Quoted post unavailable.
Anything can be interpreted as a threat if you're paranoid enough, but the text of the emails (if you ignore Taibbi's commentary) is pretty clearly inconsistent with that interpretation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anything about being a "small fry" mattering when it comes to the law. It's pretty cut and dried. What the FBI is doing is unconstitutional and illegal. Why are you minimizing it? That they are doing it all is extremely alarming. It's like saying "the concentration camp only has 5 people, what's the big deal?" And why are you comparing them to private companies? Private companies are not covered by the sa…
What is the law that is being broken here, and how are punishments measured for its infraction? Is it based on amount of impact? Because if so, then asking moderation for a dozen or two accounts with limited reach is something that might carry a small amount of punishment, if any at all. The first amendment is about the government making laws to infringe upon free speech. I see no laws being made here. So it is the g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a violation of free speech to tell Twitter to take down illegal content.
Twitter took stuff down at the government's request even though they couldn't find a violation of their own ToS, let alone determine that things were illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'll give you one example: I was called up on my cell phone in the middle of the night by the police in NL that a person was attempting suicide on camera on our website. We fished their IP number out of the logs and passed it on which allowed LE (after contact with the relevant ISP) + medical assistance to get there in record time and help the person who ended up surviving and being quite happy that their attempt had…
Nobody has a problem with the FBI doing takedown requests for that kind of content. It's about political content (labelled "civic misinformation") on accounts like @RSBNetwork. The FBI isn't supposed to be taking sides and potentially influencing elections by encouraging social media companies to ban accounts of political actors.
Personally I'm of two minds about this whole thing. While I have concerns, the right-wing in the US at the moment are an authoritarian movement and social media companies are doing not nearly enough in the way of moderation. Ideally the FBI would have stayed out of it and Twitter would have upped their game.
> 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.
I'd put the burden on the FBI. If they want to exclude all clearly non-political content (e.g. suicide videos) from the transparency report that's ok by me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a violation of free speech to tell Twitter to take down illegal content.
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?