311–320 of 965 posts
This is actually an argument for why Twitter shouldn't exist. Twitter makes it super easy to do mass warrantless surveillance, because Twitter gathers millions of people together in the same searchable public space. It's a honeypot. What's dangerous about the "public square" concept is that Musk doesn't just want a public square — one public space among many, one among equals — he wants the public square, a monopoly…
3. 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…
Once per week for three years is not constant to you? Weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If the FBI suggested to the various tech companies to shut down all your accounts and they complied, you'd be singing a different tune.
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.
3. 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…
What would a bureau investigating crimes have any involvement in sifting through accounts looking for ToS violations? Are they the TOS violation cops ala BSA? What other companies were they helping in hunting down ToS violators? This is not their scope of work and it has the appearance of impropriety by suggesting accounts that should be reviewed for suspension. Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose acc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so low that I'm pretty sure they missed the bulk of the communications between LE and Twitter. But hey, more installments, more eyeballs, more outrage and so more money for Musk.
Are local LE contacting Twitter about possible ToS violations or rather reaching out for cooperation on suspected crimes? One is none of their business the other is expected.
To give you some numbers: I operated an international community with about 1 million members over the course of 20 years. During that time the number of requests were larger than the number of requests that have been detailed here regarding Twitter, which is one of the reasons why I believe that we are seeing a highly colored picture.
There'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…
Just another incentive to act with integrity and keep personal correspondence out of corporate systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the FBI was legally compelling or coercing Twitter into banning users, that would be unconstitutional. That is not what has been demonstrated here.
The FBI says "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" while the majority party in congress is dragging social media CEOs to testify about content moderation isn't enough to make you at the very least, suspicious?