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

Post by hellfish » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:55 PM UTC

complex_exp wrote: post #84

smitty1e wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay fat piles of taxes for the government to secure liberty. The idea that that government is "managing" that liberty is Constitutionally murky. The "private property" fig leaf is scant comfort.

Uh, no, private property is subjogated to national interest. Personal freedom is subjogated to national interest (you may be conscripted). In all countries. The only way for things not to fall into a terrible state of affairs (like in Russia or Iran) is for the civil society to perform political acts, like engage in honest journalism, activism and critical thinking. And even then freedom and security are not guarante…

Post by Ygg2 » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:56 PM UTC

NickNameNick wrote: post #255

Ygg2 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then someone found an archived copy of all but one of the tweets, and they all turned out to be pictures of Hunter Biden's penis. Yes, he left his images on laptop. That's not revenge porn, as far as I know. > The smoking gun email in the "Part 1" Twitter Files Don't quote me on that, but from my memory not only were links to Hunter deleted, but so were discussions of it from even reputable journalist. I think it w…

Re-distributing intimate material without the subjects permission is pretty much the definition of revenge porn.

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 9:58 PM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #258

cloutchaser wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you’d have an issue with it if these organisations leaned mostly republican. When this last happened in the 1960s and 70s, when it was the left that was anti establishment, and didn’t want the Vietnam war, or didn’t want Christian orthodoxy imposed on society, the left was obsessed with free speech and being anti government organisations. Suddenly no one can think beyond their own party and as long as the…

> People really need to think longer term. Asking too much. In the past couple months, HN users went from “it’s a private company they can do what they want” when Twitter was a public company working with the FBI to enact specific user censorship… to “OMG Elon banned a handful of journalists, freeze peach was a lie!” when it was a suspension for 12 hours. Where are all those “it’s a private company they can do what t…

Post by nickthegreek » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

rightbyte wrote: post #149

joshuamorton wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has never been need to have judicial oversight when making a request , the FBI can send a request to Twitter just the same as they can ask you to come in for an interview. You're free to refuse.

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.

Post by acdha » Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #319

acdha wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. This is possible but I would expect people to look for evidence of it before presenting it as a fact. Something like that would show up in internal communications either directly or as people talking like they didn’t really have a choice, or as a trend of tweets being taken down for reasons which don…

It's the slightest whiff of a hint of abuse or intimidation but there's no evidence to suggest they ever even threatened retribution for non-compliance. US intelligence agencies have gone after media a handful of times but the courts have been appropriately skeptical of their claims. And everytime I see a slippery slope argument about law enforcement sneaking into quiet corners of private enterprise, I like to remind…