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

411–420 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#411

Post by devindotcom »

mc32 wrote: post #293
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…

What would a bureau investigating crimes have any involvement in sifting through accounts looking for ToS violations? Are they the TOS violation cops ala BSA? What other companies were they helping in hunting down ToS violators? This is not their scope of work and it has the appearance of impropriety by suggesting accounts that should be reviewed for suspension. Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose acc…

>Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose accounts to review?

They did, for 4 years. I'd certainly be curious to see those emails, but they don't really fit the narrative of these "twitter files" threads.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#412

Post by aliqot »

j-bos wrote: post #295
pigtailgirl wrote: post #187

-- would be interesting if HN publishes a law enforcement transparency report - @dang --

This would be cool, but likely too controversial given current emotions, maybe a good suggestion if/when things chill out.

honesty is often difficult and inconvenient

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#413

Post by kodyo »

djur wrote: post #308
kodyo wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter took stuff down at the government's request even though they couldn't find a violation of their own ToS, let alone determine that things were illegal.

Can you cite an example of that? I've read all of the threads so far and none of them demonstrate an account being taken down at the government's request.

I mean, Twitter was so accomodating of warrantless government requests that they built a friggin portal for government agents to submit them. Does that not set off any alarm bells?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#414

Post by prawn »

simpleblend wrote: post #67
pcwalton wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part, the US government is allowed to ask anyone to voluntarily remove anything (a few limits such as those set by the establishment clause notwithstanding). That's what happened here.

If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them? Or are they doing it under duress? Of course it's the latter. The US gov. has been threatening to take down social media companies for years. Do you think Twitter really wanted to upset them now?

They reported users/posts for review. Happens on my forum all the time from all sorts of users (public, lawyers, etc). Up to the publisher to make their call from that point. In one case I bothered reading in this set, they mentioned that legal docs would follow if they were seeking to identify and pursue an author (pre-action discovery).

It didn’t seem that the FBI were going into detail on any cases. I wondered if some were likely to be considered concerted foreign interference that they’d unearthed and policing that was within their remit. I assume there’s some overlap between Twitter’s ToS re misinformation and the FBI’s assessment, if that makes sense.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#415

Post by jacquesm »

mc32 wrote: post #377
jacquesm wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 amplifyi…

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

That's possible, but only a judge will be able to determine that and possibly your ideas about censorship do not line up with the views of that judge. The questions is who will bring suit?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#416

Post by mc32 »

devindotcom wrote: post #411
mc32 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would a bureau investigating crimes have any involvement in sifting through accounts looking for ToS violations? Are they the TOS violation cops ala BSA? What other companies were they helping in hunting down ToS violators? This is not their scope of work and it has the appearance of impropriety by suggesting accounts that should be reviewed for suspension. Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose acc…

>Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose accounts to review? They did, for 4 years. I'd certainly be curious to see those emails, but they don't really fit the narrative of these "twitter files" threads.

What dep't made what kinds of requests to Twitter that were carried out?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#417

Post by DantesKite »

memish wrote: post #6

"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content." Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?

It seems like it. But I’m no legal scholar.

Would love to see how something like this would fare in a Supreme Court case.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#418

Post by pcwalton »

simpleblend wrote: post #208
pcwalton wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them? Yes? When the CDC says "we recommend you get vaccinated against the flu", and you get vaccinated, you're acting voluntarily, despite the government recommendation.

So, did you just not read the rest of my comment?

I disagree with the premise that the US has been threatening to take down social media companies, so I didn't feel it was worth responding to.

Also, the guidelines ask you not to write comments like that.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#419

Post by colordrops »

djur wrote: post #372
colordrops wrote: post #303

Earlier 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 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.

No government entity should be involved in the slightest in policing media in order to "protect" elections. It's very subjective and extremely ripe for abuse.

The only reason election outcomes are so vulnerable to media manipulation is because the US political system is captured by cynical corporate interests that draw an arbitrary line unrelated to idealism across a set of issues to split voters almost perfectly at 50/50, then do everything in their power through corporate media to minimize third parties and use legal challenges to remove them from the ballot.

If viable candidates that actually served the interest of the public rather than the ruling class were given fair access to the process, then we wouldn't be so vulnerable to manipulation.

The FBI's role is to protect interests of the corporate elite in their backdoor dealings with various media outlets.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#420

Post by LudwigNagasena »

jacquesm wrote: post #141
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think it is totally normal that FBI just helps a company to moderate stuff that is legal but doesn't comply with the company's Terms of Service?

Yes. Because 'legal' and 'damaging to society' are different bars and both the FBI and Twitter probably felt that cooperating on that front was better than to let things get out of hand. The alternative may well have been a dead VP, or worse, so be happy that these channels exist(ed). With that whole department axed we are now in much more dangerous territory. That said I'm pretty sure that Elon Musk knows which side…

The alternative to censoring "Americans, Vote today. Democrats you vote Wednesday 9th." and "If you're not wearing a mask, I'm not counting your vote." is a dead VP? I don’t see a connection.
Post reply on HN