The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter • Hacker News Board

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#241

Post by colpabar » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:51 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #217

colpabar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've realized this recently too, and I'm trying to just ignore/flag everything even remotely political that gets posted here. If you disagree with the idea that information control is something the government has no business of doing, you're in the minority here. The response to the twitter files was the slap in the face I needed to finally understand that. After all, it's a blog for a VC fund. I'd say a lot of peopl…

You don’t like that people aren’t as open minded as you’d like, so you flipped on your values and now try to flag anything you disagree with(i.e. political content)? Am I misinterpreting your comment?

I think dang kinda just looks the other way because he knows people want to talk politics, but it's literally the first thing in the "off topic" section of the guidelines.

> What to Submit

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

The exception clause is "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon, but according to all the top comments on the twitter files threads, "this is nothing new".

So yeah, you are misinterpreting my comment. I've just realized what HN is meant to be, or at least what dang wants it to be. I think he's an excellent mod, and I respect the guidelines. I want to come here and see cool nerd stuff like "can you play minecraft inside doom inside minecraft" and as soon as I see something political it puts me in a bad mood. And yes, if you scroll my comment history, you will see that I post mostly in political threads. But I have learned my lesson - this place isn't for that. There's no revolution to be started here, given the userbase is mostly financially well-off tech bros who benefit from the status quo. Just like me!

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#242

Post by doublepg23 » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:51 PM UTC

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #72

monsecchris wrote: post #13

The people trying to minimise every intelligence agency working with every tech company on behalf of the Democratic Party are the same people calling this a dangerous far right conspiracy theory not long ago.

Schrodinger's conspiracy: in superposition of being a dangerous conspiracy theory and well known fact everyone knew and nothing interesting. Of course, the status of a Schrodinger's conspiracy is only known when the truth is revealed and the conspiracy is measured. When the truth becomes known, it is retconned to have always been known.

“This isn’t happening.” => “It’s happening and it’s actually good.” Also seems popular lately.

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#243

Post by cactusplant7374 » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:51 PM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #223

antiterra wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am someone who didn’t see anything seriously objectionable in the Twitter files, but I do think it raised some questions worth thinking about. If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. Could anythin…

The process by which Trump was pushed off is concerning. It seems internal employee activism played a large role. That’s not good. While Twitter has a right as a private company to moderate based on internal popularity, it doesn’t build confidence. It seemed the professional moderators were saying “Trump is pushing the limits, but not crossing them” - the other employees were lobbying to get him banned. And they won.…

> The process by which Trump was pushed off is concerning.

Trump tried to destroy our democracy. I’m not being hyperbolic. The evidence is all there and all from Trump’s mouth.

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#244

Post by philippejara » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:52 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #219

antiterra wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am someone who didn’t see anything seriously objectionable in the Twitter files, but I do think it raised some questions worth thinking about. If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. Could anythin…

> If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. I've seen this hypothetical raised a lot but I don't find it very compelling. If the post isn't in violation of twitter's TOS then twitter has strong legal…

I'm not going to claim to be an american law expert, but when the agencies can just say "nope" to evidence against them in said court of law, it becomes hard to claim strong legal protections. I may be wrong and misunderstanding the law, but it does seem like that. And as a shot in the dark here I doubt it got any better after the patriot act.

"Joseph P. Nacchio (born June 22, 1949 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American executive... Nacchio was convicted of insider trading during his time heading Qwest. He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was the only company to demand legal authority for surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA which began prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks.[1]

He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007[2] – charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001.[3] This defense was not admissible in court because the U.S. Department of Justice filed an in limine motion,[4] which is often used in national security cases, to exclude information which may reveal state secrets. Information from the Classified Information Procedures Act hearings in Nacchio's case was likewise ruled inadmissible.[5] " [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#245

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

poszlem wrote: post #40

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #21

If you don't see anything wrong with the government forcing censorship on controversial political questions, such as whether elections are safe and fair, just imagine your own reaction if after the 2016 election, Trump's FBI would be monitoring Twitter for any information about Cambridge Analytica / Russia's interference, labeling them as misinformation and censoring and banning everyone mentioning them. If your valu…

It's unsettling to see how lacking in ethical principles some people are. If you truly believe that you would not care if a highly Republican-leaning social media company was collaborating with the government to suppress content from Democratic creators, then I can understand your perspective. However, it's likely that this situation would be viewed differently if the roles were reversed.

I do get bored of the evidently weak character and hypocrisy.

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#246

Post by spamizbad » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #221

spamizbad wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean we allowed the alphabet agencies to cooperate with social media companies to fight "ISIS propaganda." -- what did you think would happen? Scorpion, frog, etc. If we had stood up to them in 2013, drew a line in the sand and said "No, a bunch of poorly edited snuff films aren't going to cause a bunch of American teens to join an Islamic revolution" these relationships wouldn't exist. By the way, we are currently…

It is simply a fact that ISIS did successfully radicalize and recruit western teenagers via the internet. What if anything the government should do to prevent such recruitment is a matter of debate, but you shouldn't pretend such recruitment didn't happen.

> It is simply a fact that ISIS did successfully radicalize and recruit western teenagers via the internet.

At no meaningful scale. If some dumbass wants to throw their life away in a foreign country we obviously should use all legal means to discourage that but part of being a liberal democracy means you do in fact have to give people enough freedom (rope) to hang themselves.

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#247

Post by theCrowing » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

mef wrote: post #9

I’ve been trying to read these Twitter files threads thoughtfully, and maybe it’s just a sign of the current average level of comfort with government involvement with social media platforms, but I’m generally not seeing much issue with the stuff being revealed. the worst thing about this particular thread seems like the govt agencies talking to Twitter about foreign influence are overreaching a bit (eg asking them to…

It's called Moral Panic.

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#248

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:54 PM UTC

birken wrote: post #168

catiopatio wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your comment represents speech that puts the well-being of society at serious risk, is harmful, and possibly even extremist. If I manage to convince 50.1% of the population of the same, should we be permitted to censor your speech, and enforce prior restraint on your future speech under penalty of law?

I'll go one further... if even 1 single person (the person who owns HN), decides that they don't like the content of that comment, then they should be free to delete/censor the comment on HN and ban the person in perpetuity from HN. Your argument doesn't really make any sense because everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person. That is a completely different situ…

>Your argument doesn't really make any sense because everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person.

Did you read GP? If they were talking about comapnies and not governments, it certainly was not made clear:

>However, with the proliferation of the internet and social media, it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online content, and this has led to increased scrutiny and debate about the role of government in moderating online speech.

>[...]In short, the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet.

Where was GP talking about companies?

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#249

Post by zosima » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:55 PM UTC

whatsu wrote: post #94

froggertoaster wrote: post #29

You can downplay this all you want - but remember: stuff like this is a microcosm of a larger issue. Sections of your government worked directly with Twitter to control what information you saw. Much bigger organizations - Facebook comes to mind - must be doing the same thing every.single.day. And no one finds this even a little bit alarming?

It is true that governments have always had an influence on how we live our lives, whether through traditional media like newspapers and television, or more modern platforms like social media. This is not a new phenomenon, but rather something that has always existed in society. However, with the proliferation of the internet and social media, it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online conten…

The government should simply have no hand in determining what information is presented or not presented to anyone, except within the bounds of explicit legal mandate to do so.

That this sort of under-the-table cooperation between three letter agencies and information companies has been allowed to exist and develop is completely outrageous. It should not be put into perspective, but stopped, right here, right now.

Once that is done, a discussion can be had about where it makes sense to create legislation to curtail various behaviors and content that are disturbing to social order. The current list of offenses is fairly comprehensive and includes things such as violent threats, child porn and terrorism recruitment, and any addition has to be well-motivated.

But as long as the cooperation with three-letter agencies happens outside a legal framework, the only proper response, as far as I can see, is pure outrage.

Re: The FBI was the primary link between the intelligence community and Twitter

#250

Post by quacked » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 8:55 PM UTC

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #181

barnabee wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to think this site of all places might be populated with very intermittent dissenters willing to be or at least support activists trying to change that, with the internet and technology as their tool. It’s always jarring to discover the extent to which it’s not.

Bitcoin is people striving for financial self sovereignty. “Crypto” is a bunch of people trying to get rich using some cool new technology they nobody understands. See how much bigger the second is than the first.

The reason Bitcoin got so large so quickly is the same reason that "Crypto" got large so quickly. The majority of people who "invest" in Bitcoin aren't trying to figure out a way to trade goods and services in a way that undermines the Federal Reserve and the IRS, they're trying to increase their holdings in USD in order to better participate in the existing economy.