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

Post by mypastself » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:10 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #251

root_axis wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's also an anthromorphization fallacy argument. "Twitter" is a company, not a private individual. If the FBI contacts "Twitter" then they're not talking to any one individual, in fact there's no requirement that be the same person at all. So Twitter cannot be threatened or threatened with implied threats - it's a limited liability corporation, there's no individual who can be overly inconvenienced or have any emoti…

Post by dukeofdoom » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:12 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #262

dukeofdoom wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joseph Don Rosenbaum, was imprisoned and made to register as a sex offender involved the molestation and rape of five separate boys. Yes, I'm skeptical that he was there because he was a civil rights advocate.

And he needn’t be to have been protesting against government power. Him being there for entirely self serving reasons is a much simpler explanation than that he was an fbi plant who was willing to put his life on the line for some sort of social manipulation as you have claimed. You started with a view and appear to have worked your way backwards to justify it.

Post by fallingknife » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

colpabar wrote: post #241

lovich wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-To…

Post by truthisworse » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

asynchronous wrote: post #46

elurg wrote: post #19

The argument that "it's not censorship if a private company does it" was always weak. What these revelations show is that a lot of so-called moderation was done at the explicit direction of government employees. How do you defend this? "it's not censorship if the private company willingly complies with government requests"? A refusal by twitter would have had quite high costs for the company. The cooperation between…

The fact that comments such as yours are getting downvoted straight to the bottom tells me that people simply aren’t willing to see the implication this has to whatever illusion of freedom the American people still possess.

Post by michaelmrose » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #205

beej71 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm struggling to understand what punishment needs to be handed out, here. The government asked Twitter to keep some of their fake propaganda accounts online and Twitter did. What laws have been violated?

The First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It's since been expanded through court cases to extend from congress to every government entity including local ones. The go…