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

561–570 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#561

Post by the_gipsy »

UncleMeat wrote: post #554
rayiner wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Orwellian does not just mean changing terms or using euphemisms. It is about terms that make the expression of undesirable thoughts actually impossible. Do any of the scare-quoted terms do this? I can't see any.

Are you talking about Newspeak? What you describe does not sound like what I think "orwellian" usually means.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#562

Post by cypress66 »

epakai wrote: post #428
simpleblend wrote: post #67

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? 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?

Where is current twitter's lawsuit if that's the case? There hasn't been anything released that indicates these moderation actions were taken under duress. Old twitter wanted to moderate their platform in that way.

Because that would be so hard to prove.

It's like when people "voluntarily" do things that cops ask during traffic stops that are beyond what's necessary by law. It's not that people want, they are just scared and don't want to get in trouble.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#563

Post by Apocryphon »

ergocoder wrote: post #560
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.…

> So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish. 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…

These companies are just as afraid, if not far more afraid, of "the implication" from other companies, namely their advertisers and sponsors, as well as influential individuals such as celebrity influencers who drive traffic for their sites. The G-men will have to get in line for Twitter bending over backwards to all of these interests. Threats to the bottom line are probably even more menacing than legal threats- and many of these businesses and individuals are just as litigious as the FBI, as well.

> FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally.

The OP literally says that's an option that certain companies have opted to do:

> An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2)

> “I feel like that’s the default position. People used to get mad about that in the Bureau, but — they're supposed to represent their clients and their customers. Why in the hell would you expect them to make it easy on you? Do the right thing. Do it the right way.”

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928

It sounds like Twitter was choosing to play nice with the feds, unless any evidence of coercion arises.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#564

Post by UncleMeat »

the_gipsy wrote: post #561
UncleMeat wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwellian does not just mean changing terms or using euphemisms. It is about terms that make the expression of undesirable thoughts actually impossible. Do any of the scare-quoted terms do this? I can't see any.

Are you talking about Newspeak? What you describe does not sound like what I think "orwellian" usually means.

The term "Orwellian" in describing language comes directly from the properties of Newspeak.

"Orwellian" can mean other things when describing state power or surveillance technology, but in this context it is being used to describe language so the connection to Newspeak is the relevant one.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#565

Post by the_gipsy »

angelbreakfree wrote: post #395

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…

There is no proof of any agency threatening (or implied threat) in these emails. Just some hints and voluntary action from Twitter.

I imagine these agencies do put pressure on private entities on a regular basis, but without actual further proof this is all just ridiculous hand waving.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#566

Post by refurb »

Apocryphon wrote: post #555
refurb wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As per another informative response in this thread, that is allowed by various court rulings, even if it is not a great look. 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 go…

I don’t disagree with what you posted at all.

It comes down to coercion, which can sometimes be hard to prove. In the earlier Twitter Files, a Congressperson mentioned how banning the Hunter Biden Laptop story was going down poorly and the Congressional hearings “would be a blood bath”.

Is that coercion? For the courts to decide I guess.

But I’m in the same camp as you. I have no idea if it’s legal or not, but it makes me very uncomfortable.

And what makes me more uncomfortable is when people read the story and say “so what? It’s a nothingburger”.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#567

Post by kweingar »

angelbreakfree wrote: post #395

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…

It is clear that Taibbi et al. are cherry-picking FBI interactions that will draw the most clicks and outrage from fans of the new management.

If they had published communications between the FBI and Twitter from, say, June 2020, I imagine their audience would not be able to muster quite as much indignation.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#568

Post by Apocryphon »

refurb wrote: post #566
Apocryphon wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per another informative response in this thread, that is allowed by various court rulings, even if it is not a great look. 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 go…

I don’t disagree with what you posted at all. It comes down to coercion, which can sometimes be hard to prove. In the earlier Twitter Files, a Congressperson mentioned how banning the Hunter Biden Laptop story was going down poorly and the Congressional hearings “would be a blood bath”. Is that coercion? For the courts to decide I guess. But I’m in the same camp as you. I have no idea if it’s legal or not, but it mak…

> Is that coercion?

Taibbi also brings that up -

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928

> An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2)

> “I feel like that’s the default position. People used to get mad about that in the Bureau, but — they're supposed to represent their clients and their customers. Why in the hell would you expect them to make it easy on you? Do the right thing. Do it the right way.”

Sounds like Twitter just went along with it, without coercion. Which you may choose to criticize as weakness or cowardice, but maybe that's just how they chose to do business.

> I don’t disagree with what you posted at all.

Then you agree that your earlier statement "That goes well beyond the remit of the FBI and violates numerous norms of law enforcement influence over public speech" is wrong and baseless, given the legal context that I have provided.

> And what makes me more uncomfortable is when people read the story and say “so what? It’s a nothingburger”.

For the record, my stance is that it's not a nothingburger, but it is so insignificant so as to provide a convenient distraction for actual malicious acts that are going on, like the Z-Library shutdown. And that all of this is underwhelming, much like this other poster's opinion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34024363

"A whole bunch of mildly unsatisfactory situations" seems to be an adequate summation of this whole situation. Which this thread, like all culture wars, has made a mountain out of.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#569

Post by imnotjames »

spritefs wrote: post #541
eganist wrote: post #506

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…

> Twitter can always say no to the feds (and other governments) In practice, can they? Leave out the part about other governments for a second, just consider the US govt If you're doing moderation at twitter and Yoel Roth is above you, are you going to tell the FBI to screw off? Especially considering Roth is (apparently, according to Taibbi) meeting regularly with them. From a job security standpoint, how do you thi…

In practice, yes. They did.

I have worked at another organization (hosted server provider) where I was in contact with the FBI and other law enforcement.

There's a world of difference between what was shown they did at twitter by noting things that were "worrisome" or against a reasonable site's ToS and forcing anyone to take things down.

I have told agents that certain materials were acceptable and that we would take no action. Not much they could do there without an actual warrant.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#570

Post by pasquinelli »

emodendroket wrote: post #500
pasquinelli wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah except i'm just me and the fbi is the fbi.

Obviously these reports are given more priority but who's going to just ignore FBI reports?

i'd probably just do whatever the fbi wanted so as to save myself a possible hassle. which is the point: the fbi can fuck with me. to say, "well, the fbi is just reporting stuff" ignores that the fbi has power. power is something people seem to have an odd tendency to ignore.
Post reply on HN