551–560 of 965 posts
Which one is correct? I have no idea, but I'd bet that regardless of any additional releases, convincing or unconvincing, the same pods of people are going to keep making the same assumptions and insisting on the same bullshit. That's the one thing that never changes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. There is no issue with the FBI investigating crimes using the Twitter platform. I would hope that Twitter tells the FBI to “come back with a warrant” if they want non-public information. But the FBI flagging content for removal. Including “disinformation”? That goes well beyond the remit of the FBI and violates numerous norms of law enforcement influence over public speech. A good analogy would be a debate…
The FBI already does this IRL even pre-Twitter, and no one batted an eye. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca... > Intentionally deceiving qualified voters to prevent them from voting is voter suppression—and it is a federal crime. > Bad actors use various methods to spread disinformation about voting, such as social media platforms, texting, or peer-to-peer messaging applications on smartpho…
But that’s not what’s happening here is it? The FBI is asking Twitter to take down tweets (some of them obvious jokes) without a warrant or evidence of any crime being committed.
That’s what’s happening.
No different than your local cops coming to the bar you like and asking for you to be kicked out.
Would that be ok?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is very clearly an improper purpose. The FBI is trying to suppress 1A protected speech by reporting the tweets. The FBI is not allowed to suppress 1A protected speech. Imagine there was a button that would delete a Tweet and anyone could press it. Just because anyone could press the button would not make it legal for the FBI to press it. I keep seeing this, and I'm confused every time I see it, because speech on…
> I keep seeing this, and I'm confused every time I see it, because speech on a private platform isn't protected by the first amendment. It is protected from the government . Of course, Twitter can decide to censor whatever they want, but if the government was threatening either Twitter or individuals on the platform, over protected speech, eg. criticizing the president, that would certainly implicate the 1A. The gov…
The wildest part of the Twitter files is the unhinged framing that they are presented under. 1. Anyone who has been in a tech company knows that there is internal lingo that refers to features we devs make. But it's presented as being an "Orwellian language" 2. Based on the emails he posts, the agencies give links to review based on tips they receive or their own intel and twitter then decides if it violates ToS or n…
I’ve never been a big fan of Taibbi. But all the things you’re mentioning are characteristic of his journalistic style, which made him famous in his coverage of Wall Street back in 2008. It’s uncharitable and filtered through a fundamental distrust of moneyed corporations, but I’ve never heard it described as “unhinged.” And I’m not sure “unhinged” is an appropriate description. For example, while “internal lingo” ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI already does this IRL even pre-Twitter, and no one batted an eye. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca... > Intentionally deceiving qualified voters to prevent them from voting is voter suppression—and it is a federal crime. > Bad actors use various methods to spread disinformation about voting, such as social media platforms, texting, or peer-to-peer messaging applications on smartpho…
Right, investigate them for committing a crime . That’s the FBI’s job. If they see voter suppression on Twitter they can get a warrant forcing Twitter to turn over the account identity (and prosecute them) and take down the tweet. But that’s not what’s happening here is it? The FBI is asking Twitter to take down tweets (some of them obvious jokes) without a warrant or evidence of any crime being committed . That’s wh…
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p...
> [A.] Generally speaking, courts have said "yes, that's fine," so long as the government speech doesn't coerce the intermediaries by threatening prosecution, lawsuit, or various forms of retaliation. (Indeed, I understand that government officials not uncommonly ask newspapers, for instance, not to publish certain information that they say would harm national security or interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.) Here's a sample of appellate cases so holding:
> [B.] On the other hand, where courts find that the government speech implicitly threatened retaliation, rather than simply exhorting or encouraging third parties to block speech, that's unconstitutional.
> [C.] Does it matter whether the government acts systematically, setting up a pipeline for requests to the media? One can imagine courts being influenced by this, as they are in some other areas of the law; but I know of no First Amendment cases so holding.
> [D.] Now in some other areas of constitutional law, this question of government requests to private actors is treated differently, at least by some courts. Say that you rummage through a roommate's papers, find evidence that he's committing a crime, and send it to the police. You haven't violated the Fourth Amendment, because you're a private actor. (Whether you might have committed some tort or crime is a separate question.) And the police haven't violated the Fourth Amendment, because they didn't perform the search. The evidence can be used against the roommate.
> But say that the police ask you to rummage through the roommate's papers. That rummaging may become a search governed by the Fourth Amendment, at least in the eyes of some courts: "the government might violate a defendant's rights by 'instigat[ing]' or 'encourag[ing]' a private party to search a defendant on its behalf."
> Likewise, "In the Fifth Amendment context, courts have held that the government might violate a defendant's rights by coercing or encouraging a private party to extract a confession from a criminal defendant." More broadly, the Supreme Court has said that "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."
> So maybe there's room for courts to shift to a model where the government's mere encouragement of private speech restrictions is enough to constitute a First Amendment violation on the government's part.
So basically it sounds like this could be the makings of a very fascinating case, if it holds up in court, but there is ample legal precedent of the government doing pretty much what happened on Twitter, already.
> No different than your local cops coming to the bar you like and asking for you to be kicked out. Would that be ok?
I may not like it, and it may not be morally okay, but I am almost certain cops are able to do that, because that is the system we have created.
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…
Once per week for three years is not constant to you? Weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone who has been in a tech company knows that there is internal lingo that refers to features we devs make. But it's presented as being an "Orwellian language" The fact that you need different internal descriptors should be a red flag. All kinds of phrases get used like selective invisibility, visibility filtering, ranking, visible to self, reducing, deboosting, or disguising a gag. Each is a form of censorship,…
OK but at the same time Elon is proposing “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach”. Which is basically the same thing, no?
I'm also curious to know what his guiding principles are but maybe we're stuck reverse engineering them based on his actions. Sticking to an ideal doesn't seem to be his style.
I'm probably missing something. I don't follow him too closely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the bar owner did what the cop said, because the police department had threatened to shut down bar owners in the city for the last three years. If that is true, that would make it government coercion. But no one has properly alleged anything with regards to Twitter on that analogue.
The FBI would not pass on something in the nature of a direct order without having a paper signed by a judge to back it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by one way? They clearly asked for scrutiny of pro-Democratic tweeters in addition to pro-Republican ones: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232 Perhaps you should actually read Taibbi's work in this thread.
It doesn't matter if they were pro-dem or pro-republican. They were doing nothing wrong. What business is it to the FBI. The FBI had partisan agents working on government time to censor American citizens during an election. If you step out of your partisan headspace for a moment, you might realize how dangerous this is. Imagine how this my play out in a future election with different candidates.
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.…
This makes me think of "the implication" in it's always sunny in philadephia.
FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally.
People hate Musk way too much that they are blind. If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin. It would be drummed up as the biggest scandal ever.