>> 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". You…
> Kinda feels like you’re trying to engage in the same type of censorship that bothers you. No, because that isn't censorship. I'm participating in community moderation to the extent that this website enables me. It wouldn't be censorship for the owner of a facebook page about cooking to remove posts not about cooking, and it isn't censorship for posts not about "hacker news" on a website called hacker news. One type…
You do you, but I can’t fathom how to reconcile the public’s reaction to the Twitter files as a “slap in the face” as you said, and then calling this “community moderation”
Re-distributing intimate material without the subjects permission is pretty much the definition of revenge porn.
> In late 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.[1] The data was subsequently shared with the FBI, Republican operatives, and later the press.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers... That's a very strange definition of revenge porn. It was made inadvertently by Hunter Biden, it wasn't used for blackm…
Revenge porn isn't necessarily always used for blackmail. Why didn't the FBI, Republican operatives, or the press blur Biden Jr.'s penis before making it public? It was obvious political vendetta. What public interest is served by leaking it unredacted?
Definition of revenge porn from a quick googling is:
>Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent
You think. Senator Markey: “Fix your companies or Congress will.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/senator-ed-markey-tell...
The Congress is obviously a completely different entity than the FBI. If the Congress wants to force companies work with the FBI, they have the absolute power to do so.
It's not obvious. The Beltway networks are in place.
I don't like censorship but I also know that I am not unbiased/intelligent/non-human enough to not fall for disinformation. And so will anyone, if they are honest about it. Not every time but we will fall for it. And foreign operations like that should not have the freedom to be conducted on US soil and in US media. I think labels that say who has determined something is disinformation, produced by whom, and why they…
But you seem to suffer from some kind of delusion that government is somehow less biased and more intelligent, and free of human faults than you? What in all of human history, would make you think that?
It would not only be the government. It would also involve the media and it would present their case for the labeling. It's not a blanket trust. And it doesn't remove the media, just labels it.
Everything the FBI did here was under republican leadership. It's the fucking FBI, it's a fundamentally right wing organization that has always and will always be so.
> In District of Columbia County, DC 92.1% of the people voted Democrat Washington DC is overwhelmingly a Democrat bastion, so, regardless of the political appointee SESers, the rank and file that live around DC are likely to have a specific political leaning. Feel free to fact check this. https://bestneighborhood.org/conservative-vs-liberal-map-was...
Now do the Virginia suburbs where a large fraction of them actually live — or, since the DC field office is about 5% of their total staff, the other 55 field offices.
DC’s residents skew Democratic for a reason: having such a large black population means that they don’t trust the party which has such a questionable racial history, and that’s important to understand because the FBI’s history means the same people who don’t vote for Republicans are not jumping to join an organization with its history.
>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 le…
> Where was GP talking about companies? The initial comment says government has always used their influence through "newspapers", "television" and "social media", all of which have historically been non-government entities who take the government's input and decide if they want to follow it or not. There are obviously major historical cases in which private companies have defied what the government wanted them to do…
That's perhaps a fair reading of the initial comment, although reading "regulate" in "it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online content" and "moderating" in "the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet" to both mean simply "government input" is somewhat questionable. See also your own use of the word "moderate" ("Can the government force me to not delete that due to free speech, or do I have the power to moderate my blog however I want?"). Also your point that historically non-government entities can decide whether to follow government input or not needs to be qualified considerably. Contempt of court was not considered free speech until relatively recently. for example see Los Angeles Times contempt of court 1938. Then there is of course the Sedition Act of 1918. In any case this is very far from your claim that "everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person." We are most certainly talking about government here. Whether or not the initial comment was refering to government simply "giving input" or outright censoring, we are still talking about government, so your claim is in my view inaccurate even under your own explaination of the comment, which is itself somewhat questionable.
Ye no. I would certainly worry alot more if FBI sent me an angry letter compared to say Pizza Hut? You always have an implied threat when a government agency is involved.
You can see the letters. They weren’t angry.
I meant it as a figure of speech.
Could aswell be the county water utility board or whatever as the FBI. You treat these guys differently. That was my point.
Are they supposed to be helping the CIA get around their mandate not to interfere domestically? https://nitter.moomoo.me/mtaibbi/status/1606701405443874816#...
> Are they supposed to be helping the CIA get around their mandate not to interfere domestically? In that domestic in intelligence/counterintelligence is the FBIs job, and that they are expected to do it as part of and in close coordination with other parts of the intelligence community including the CIA, yes, but its not getting around anything since its exactly the way things are supposed to work.
> In its 1947 charter, the CIA was prohibited from spying against Americans, in part because President Truman was afraid that the agency would engage in political abuse. But the law didn't stop the CIA from spying on Americans. During the 1960s, in clear violation of its statutory mission to co-ordinate foreign intelligence operations only, the CIA ventured into the domestic spying business through "Operation Chaos," in which it spied on as many as 7,000 Americans involved in the peace movement.[1]
"Liberal" apologists for the CIA will never cease to amaze me.
For all we know it could be "you can play nicely and remove it when we tell you to "look into it", or we will look further into your company"
That’s possible but you’d expect to see some sign of it: internal emails or messages, legal advice, etc. when those threats were made or guidelines from the legal department about what things the regular trust and safety people can’t ignore. What’s telling is that Musk’s people can’t find anything like that. If this was happening you’d think there’d be at least one example where someone is saying they have to yank so…
No, you wouldn't expect anything like that at all. Nobody passing kindergarten would write down something so blatantly illegal.
The US is a limited govt. No govt agency can do anything for which it isn’t explicitly authorized. The FBI is not authorized to be ensuring private companies adhere to their policies. If a agent is being paid — with taxpayer dollars - to check on Twitter and give it ‘advice’ on how to run itself, that agent is acting outside the scope of his authority. It’s an abuse and misuse of power. It doesn’t matter what the ‘gr…
You have constructed a theory of how government works from whole cloth having nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Limited government means what powers not explicitly granted to government belong to the people. This is to say government can only acquire new powers via legislation or amendment of the constitution it doesn't mean that they are for forbidden from acting beyond the most limited mandate you imagine. No…
So please tell, by what statute or mandate is FBI helping to enforce twitter's terms of service?