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

381–390 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#381

Post by archagon »

Georgelemental wrote: post #107
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try to find an article explaining the concept, but for right-wing authoritarians, the hypocrisy is the point. In group vs out group. https://level.medium.com/its-always-about-power-f9fca4321e0c

> the hypocrisy is the point. I am right wing, and I hear right-wing commentators say things like "for left-wing authoritarians, the hypocrisy is the point" all the time. Seriously, the article you linked sounds exactly like something I would read from "my" side, just with good guys and bad guys reversed.

Yes, it's a common rhetorical approach to take a valid point from the opposing side and to parrot it back at them, even if it doesn't make sense, in order to dilute the original. Say it enough times and people believe it without thinking.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#382

Post by ciler »

jacquesm wrote: post #241
simpleblend wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because leftists often use that as an example of hate speech.

And rightly so.

Depends on the context. People have been suspended from Twitter from saying things like "transwomen are actually men so stop letting them compete in women's sports, it's not safe or fair for actual women", which isn't hate speech, doesn't target an individual, and is a legitimate political opinion, so in theory should be fine. Yet bans are handed out anyway.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#383

Post by seadan83 »

lsh123 wrote: post #184
leoh wrote: post #53

Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.

“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?

Why were the accounts of interest? Were they controlled by foreign IPs?

When there are mass ransomware attacks from foreign states, the FBI does help private companies.

I think that is probably the charitable perspective. Either that or the FBI led by James Comey at the time (who arguably single handed sunk Clinton in 2016 by going against FBI policy to re-open the "emails" case), was corrupt and at a rate of one email a week was attempting to control the national discourse thru twitter.

Not sure if that is credible given the FBI could have done far worse to the trump campaign.

Though, without primary source material, I'm not sure how one could tell the difference (Occams razor seemingly might come into play)

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#384

Post by RetpolineDrama »

jacquesm wrote: post #49
starkd wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#385

Post by otterley »

ekianjo wrote: post #366
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.

Do you have citations to any cases to support this theory of yours?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#386

Post by colordrops »

Apocryphon wrote: post #371
colordrops wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Growing up in a fascist regime may make it seem normal but at some point you need to raise your hackles and feel alarmed regardless of the past, because it's a fascist regime.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#387

Post by dmix »

jacquesm wrote: post #376
dmix wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would be the cherry on top of all this drama

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#388

Post by djur »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #314
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.

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?

The FBI said they are "notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter's Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy". One of the accounts was an account parodying a pro wrestler by suggesting he frequently poops in his pants. Not really seeing any evidence of a coordinated political agenda here.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#389

Post by Apocryphon »

colordrops wrote: post #379
Apocryphon wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The FBI is putting pressure on Apple to drop Enhanced Encryption, and still refusing to declassify their JFK files. Those are far more urgent issues than getting mad at mods.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33906649

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33883834

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#390

Post by kodyo »

djur wrote: post #286
kodyo wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI serves the state, and itself. If they need to make friends with a leftist to get something done, why would that stop them? I personally find it hard to believe that Crossfire Hurricane was run by a conservative cabal in the FBI, but maybe you're right. Whoever were doing it were elitist reprobates.

The FBI investigated both Trump and Clinton in 2016. The difference is that they made a big announcement about Clinton immediately prior to the election.

Was that the only difference? Nothing qualitatively different about the reasons or motivations behind the investigations? Like maybe one was investigated because the candidate was mishandling national secrets in order to avoid freedom of information act requests?

I don't know. Seems like there's a difference.

Post reply on HN