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?
Another lie that is said so often that they think it's true.
The Twitter Files, Part Six
351–360 of 965 posts
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I already am. The FBI just shut down the Z-Library with the help of Google and Amazon, which is a far more significant scandal over unjust power than this is. This is nothing more than chaff meant to distract from that atrocity. You are all crying about two dozen low-follower accounts while the FBI has successfully shuttered an immense knowledge repository. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33646513
I'm confused as to why only one of these can be criticized.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#353The revelations I have read so far have been extremely underwhelming. Content moderation of any kind is hard. The easy cases don’t take up most of your time or energy. These emails read like people doing their best. Maybe my decision would have been different but maybe not.
Tellingly, none of these journalists have actually released the full set of emails on which their conclusions are based.
Yeah. Which would probably reveal that not only are content moderation decisions really hard, they are extremely boring, require a huge number of meetings, and probably in many cases involve consulting lawyers
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Huh? Using the term whataboutism doesn't even make sense here. He asked me to list political speech that was censored, which I did. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard.
If that disagreement were censored, would you know about it?
Getting fired is not a 1st amendment violation. The 1st amendment only covers protection from the government (with a lot of gray ground for "disorderly conduct" laws, but I digress)
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#355Earlier 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.
What's really worrying to me is that he can change those DMs to say whatever suits his fancy, coupled with the fact nobody remaining at Twitter is in any position to blow the whistle on such conduct. It would likely remain secret indefinitely.
>What's really worrying to me is that he can change those DMs to say whatever suits his fancy,
I mean NSA has had this capability for 25 years.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh please. Link to where Twitter banned someone for being right wing. Hate speech doesn't count.
Here you go: https://www.dhillonlaw.com/lawsuits/meghan-murphy-twitter/
Referring to a trans person by the wrong gender repeatedly is a good example of hate speech.
It reminds of an old joke:
Conservative: "I keep getting banned for my views"
Rando: "Oh, small government?"
C: "No, not that one"
R: "Oh, so fiscal responsibility?"
C: "Not that either"
R: "So which ones?"
C: "Oh, uh... You know."
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Let me cut and paste my comment with a minor change:
Why is the Pentagon 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.
What does being "new" have anything to do with whether it matters or not?
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#358In a system of free speech, the government may also speak.
I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendment means the government is not allowed to speak at all. That is incorrect. It prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," in other words, forcibly restraining other people from speaking.
So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish.
If the FBI wishes to apply the force of law, that is when they would need to show evidence, get a warrant, etc. But just speaking to companies is normal, and often welcomed by the company if the FBI is sharing information that is useful.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. How it works is that they come across something that is either illegal or that could snowball into a problem and it happens to violate the TOS. This gives them enough grounds to ask for a removal. If it isn't against the TOS but they feel that they need to have it removed anyway they'll go by a judge and get an order, or, if contact is good they might first ask you politely.
Presumably, those fielded by agents would, given the distribution of online crime, fall all over the political spectrum, then and would not lean one way or the other? What crimes are vaccine sceptics guilty of? Given they had some sex crimes going on on the platform, where the mounds of those ToS review requests? In the examples, are they alleging the potential crime or just saying, hey, guys, it looks like these acc…
Pretty much.
As for vaccine sceptics: there were a lot of people amplifying utter bullshit messages around that theme and arguably shutting those accounts down saved a bunch of lives. You may well disagree with that but in a fluid situation I can see why they did what they did. It does not deserve the beauty prize but since we're still learning how to deal with this social media thing where everybody has a megaphone that can reach around the world in a heartbeat I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. For the record, I'm pro-vaxx, but against mandatory vaccination.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#360Earlier 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.