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

371–380 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#371

Post by Apocryphon »

colordrops wrote: post #357
Apocryphon wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not alarming because it's so pervasive it's the way things are. Thus when something new is brought up their impact needs to be weighed accordingly to prioritize.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#372

Post by djur »

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 FBI accepts reports from the public about people interfering with elections, and they forward on those reports to the relevant platforms. I would like to see the FBI and other law enforcement agencies considerably reduced in scale and power, but as long as they exist I think monitoring threats to free and fair elections is one of the better things they can do with said taxpayer dollars.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#373

Post by lp0_on_fire »

ceejayoz wrote: post #139
tomohawk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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 "

That sort of wording makes it worse, IMO.

It's one thing for the FBI to contact twitter to say "hey there's this account that's posting instructions on how to make and plant pipe bombs so you should remove it" but a completely different thing for the FBI to say "hey there's thing thing that violates one your arbitrary terms of service so you should take it down".

Why is the FBI spending time and resources looking for TOS violations for a private company?

Why is the FBI spending time looking into _anything_ that's not illegal, period?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#374

Post by etchalon »

ekianjo wrote: post #363
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.

Their organization seems weirdly large if that's their sole job.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#375

Post by ekianjo »

jacquesm wrote: post #81
diob wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till folks realize how much contact government agencies have with nearly every company (leaking stories, spin, etc.). It's weird that it's turned into some sort of naive left vs right issue. I'd be asking what the goal is, but apparently it's that. Point fingers, suggest no solutions beyond vote for us.

The goal seems to be to distract from Musk selling off Tesla at breakneck speed. Every time there is a big hoopla around Musk the first thing I do is check the stock price and sure enough it seems to be dropping like a stone in tandem with the news releases.

Some people see causality in coincidences

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#376

Post by jacquesm »

dmix wrote: post #321
jacquesm wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Under normal circumstances I would agree, but after firing so many people I can't imagine that security at Twitter is still priority #1, they likely have trouble keeping the lights on.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#377

Post by mc32 »

jacquesm wrote: post #359
mc32 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>As for vaccine sceptics: there were a lot of people amplifying utter bullshit messages..."

What is the actual crime that precipitates their appetite to nonchalantly ask for review? Moreover, the CDC and govt officials, including Biden himself, spread bullshit messages about Covid and its vaccines.

Did they ask Twitter to suspend Antifa accounts because of the violent nature of some of their demos? Or people amplifying bullshit stories about cops such that "ACABs"? Where were they supplicating for those reviews?

As an independent it looks to me, the FBI trod dangerously close to censorship (as in the Government censoring speech unwanted by the gov).

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#378

Post by cassac »

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…

I think what people are concerned about is the selectiveness of the reports.

What if the FBI only happened to report violations by Asians. Or only violations by women?

I guess it would not be censorship, and I guess it would not be not illegal either, but it would make people wonder if there is an agenda.

It’s as much about the violations reported as the violations left unreported.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#379

Post by colordrops »

Apocryphon wrote: post #361
colordrops wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Distraction for whom? Is HN ground zero for prosecuting the FBI? The audience here is capable of holding many things in their heads at once.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#380

Post by jacquesm »

Lendal wrote: post #344
jacquesm wrote: post #248

Earlier 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.

I had not even considered that, good point, data integrity is not to be expected going forward. This also puts a rather interesting twist on any of the evidence presented.
Post reply on HN