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

361–370 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#361

Post by Apocryphon »

colordrops wrote: post #352
Apocryphon wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's about priorities. This is distraction while FBI makes all sorts of boneheaded mistakes, like getting all of their secure contacts hacked.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33982223

Wouldn't be surprising if these files are an op to get the public riled up about something other than what they are up to now.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#362

Post by djur »

ShredKazoo wrote: post #347
djur wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter repeatedly denied that right-wing users were being shadowbanned. That turned out to be false. Nobody has demonstrated any difference between Twitter's description of its own policies and the actual facts. They said they did not shadowban (prevent a user's posts from appearing to other users without their knowledge) and Taibbi and Weiss have confirmed that such functionality does not appear to exist in Twitt…

>Nobody has demonstrated any difference between Twitter's description of its own policies and the actual facts. For both the Trump ban and the Hunter Biden story, it seems Twitter did not follow its own policies. >Taibbi and Weiss have confirmed that such functionality does not appear to exist in Twitter. Where? In any case, I think this depends heavily on exactly how you define "shadowbanning". You can define "shado…

Please don't change subjects. We were talking about "shadowbanning", not Hunter Biden. Twitter has stated for years that they have controls to prevent algorithmic recommendation of particular users, content, or trends, and that's precisely what we saw reported on by Taibbi and Weiss. They had direct access to Twitter internals and did not report any "shadowbanning" functionality. It's fair to assume that they would have reported it if it existed.

No, I don't think it's understandable for Musk to respond to someone stalking him by modifying Twitter policies to retaliate against another person with no connection to the stalking.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#363

Post by ekianjo »

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…

> Also, it's called the FBI. Their job is to investigate federal matters, which includes content on social social media

their job is not to interfere with the 1st amemndment.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#364

Post by RetpolineDrama »

amluto wrote: post #253
lettergram wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an earlier release they also mention regular meetings (weekly?). That was not the only guy being contacted by the FBI either. Regardless, while you may call this “underwhelming” it’s actually hard proof of illegal activity. The FBI cannot censor people, period. That’s fascism and illegal in the US, per multiple Supreme Court rulings. This effectively gives trump, et al a direct path to a lawsuit against the federa…

> Regardless, while you may call this “underwhelming” it’s actually hard proof of illegal activity. The FBI cannot censor people, period. That’s not even remotely true. > That’s fascism May I suggest looking up fascism?

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#365

Post by colordrops »

jacquesm wrote: post #342
colordrops wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, the 'Twitter Files'. If we're going to discuss the FBI in a larger setting I would consider that to be out of scope, to me the discussion is limited to the interaction between social media companies and law enforcement in general and the FBI in particular.

Please refer the whole thread before claiming it has nothing to do with the subject.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#366

Post by ekianjo »

snowwrestler wrote: post #358

In 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.…

Nope, free speech applies to individuals, not to the government as a single entity. And this for good reasons, since they wield much more power than a single individual.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#368

Post by lsh123 »

belltaco wrote: post #231
lsh123 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“But a surprisingly high number are requests by the FBI for Twitter to take action on election misinformation, even involving joke tweets from low-follower accounts.” First amendment? What is that?

Have you read the first amendment? It starts with Congress shall not make a law... FBI is not Congress.

“FBI acted illegally (outside of Congress authorization)” works for me too

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#369

Post by RetpolineDrama »

djur wrote: post #262
lettergram wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an earlier release they also mention regular meetings (weekly?). That was not the only guy being contacted by the FBI either. Regardless, while you may call this “underwhelming” it’s actually hard proof of illegal activity. The FBI cannot censor people, period. That’s fascism and illegal in the US, per multiple Supreme Court rulings. This effectively gives trump, et al a direct path to a lawsuit against the federa…

> The FBI cannot censor people, period. That’s fascism and illegal in the US The FBI emailing Twitter to report possible violations of Twitter's terms of service is not censorship and it is not illegal. > This effectively gives trump, et al a direct path to a lawsuit against the federal government The FBI reported to Trump during the 2020 election cycle. It was headed by his own handpicked director, under the supervi…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#370

Post by g42gregory »

tomohawk wrote: post #110
wesleywt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More accurately. What was the political speech banned?

The NY Post was banned for breaking a story about revelations contained in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden. This was just prior to a national election. The FBI was involved in pushing this narrative through Twitter. The Babylon Bee is a satire site that was banned for doing satire. There are many many examples.

I hope we remember that in the same time period, all mentioning of same story were declared misinformation here, on Hacker News, and posts were flagged, users banned. I wonder if there is any learnings here for the current/future reaction to the ongoing stories?
Post reply on HN