Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Twitter Files, Part Six

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#321

Post by dmix »

jacquesm wrote: post #294
dmix wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fr…

Until they get hacked. The chances of which are going up by the day.

Insider leaks would be a higher risks given Twitter is still in SF. Typically the public benefits from leaks and whistleblowers, right? Unless you mean purposeful 'hacks' with a specific agenda that only leaks private DMs of a select group? Yes, that would be bad.

A hacker pulling off an exfiltration of the entire DB of any major tech company I'm very skeptical about that happening.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#323

Post by Apocryphon »

colordrops wrote: post #303
djur wrote: post #268

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.

Why is the FBI spending tax payer dollars trying to influence media outlets at all? Do you not find this alarming? It's absolutely outside their realm of responsibility.

The Pentagon routinely screens Hollywood blockbusters to ensure the content does not offend the military, and makes suggestions to studio executives as to how to best portray the military. The government is constantly influencing media outlets, none of this is new.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#324

Post by cratermoon »

briandear wrote: post #267
NelsonMinar wrote: post #236

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

https://abovethelaw.com/2022/12/hello-youve-been-referred-he...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#325

Post by snowwrestler »

simpleblend wrote: post #136
roflyear wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a trick, but yeah saying we should harm certain groups of people is hate speech.

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?

When a doctor is speaking with a trans person about their body, it's an appropriate time to speak about their biological sex. That is certainly not hate speech.

When a stranger is yelling at a trans person about their biological sex, it's done to inflict emotional harm on the trans person. They transitioned away from that gender to reduce harm (that is the definition of a trans person), and the stranger is intentionally trying to bring that harm back.

Imagine shouting at a woman about her "biological breast size" because she is wearing a push-up bra, or had surgery to enlarge or reduce her breast size. Would that seem like a normal, harm-free way to interact with another person you don't know? Obviously not.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#326

Post by Shared404 »

simpleblend wrote: post #136
roflyear wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a trick, but yeah saying we should harm certain groups of people is hate speech.

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?

Putting aside transphobic nonsense

> Who is saying that people should be harmed?

The rights actions speak so loud no one can hear their words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/25/filling-the-trump-void-righ...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#327

Post by Akronymus »

jacquesm wrote: post #80
lapcat wrote: post #54

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…

This goes for any large web property where people congregate to communicate. HN is no different in that respect.

> HN is no different in that respect.

HN doesn't even have DM's to release though.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#328

Post by nickthegreek »

starkd wrote: post #41
Apocryphon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like in this election their meddling was bipartisan, one of Taibbi's very own examples was jokingly intended to mislead GOP voters. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929

Not everything is a partisan. The FBI should not be asking Twitter to take down accounts. Period. These accounts he cited were low-follower accounts that were doing nothing illegal or immoral. This is a threat to everyone, no matter what side of the fence you are on. How is that so difficult to understand?

Some of them were posting the wrong election date. I personally think that crosses into immoral territory.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#329

Post by cratermoon »

moralestapia wrote: post #52
paulpauper wrote: post #7

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.

News flash: your local newspaper is in contact with law enforcement and judiciary officials every day. It's part of being a media outlet.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#330

Post by idlewords »

jacquesm wrote: post #80
lapcat wrote: post #54

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…

This goes for any large web property where people congregate to communicate. HN is no different in that respect.

Slack is an even better example.
Post reply on HN