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

521–530 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#521

Post by Khaine »

astrange wrote: post #91
moralestapia wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once per week for three years is not constant to you? Weird.

That's very low for how often law enforcement might contact a social media service. Sometimes it's because people report "illegal" posts to them instead of you. Sometimes it's just because they're old people and aren't going to go through your report form when they could email you. What controls when you have to respond to them is the law, not them. You'll know when that is, because it'll come with legal process.

But this wasn’t the total amount of FBI contact. That was just the contact with the head of trust and safety.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#522

Post by emodendroket »

refurb wrote: post #518
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…

I keep seeing this, and I'm confused every time I see it, because speech on a private platform isn't protected by the first amendment. Ummm… yes it is when the speech is being suppressed by the government? That’s kinda the entire point of the 1st amendment. The courts have ruled that the government asking a private party to censor is no different than the government censoring itself.

What case did they rule that? It seems pretty routine that they get in contact with newspapers for this purpose so I'd be at least a little surprised to learn that it's been ruled unconstitutional but they're just flagrantly doing it anyway.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#523

Post by devmunchies »

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?

For real. exactly why the govt is supposed to stay out of censorship.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#524

Post by Shared404 »

kodyo wrote: post #143
roflyear wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a trick, but yeah saying we should harm certain groups of people is hate speech.

Joking about political figures isn't hate speech.

Just because it's about a political figure doesn't make something not hate speech.

If someone drops an n-word at a state rep, does it become not hate speech? The answer is (obviously) that hate speech is still hate speech.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#525

Post by philwelch »

benmmurphy wrote: post #513
viro wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poe's Law. No one can tell your dumbass joke saying the election is on a Wednesday is a joke. Especially when it's right next to a bot account from eastern Europe that said the same thing.

Even if these people were not joking it is not clear that this is illegal. The statutes that try to prevent election misinformation likely violate the first amendment or they may not apply in these specific cases. The FBI should be prosecuting people so these statutes have a chance of being challenged in court and these people have a chance to defend themselves. Either that or twitter should have informed them that t…

> The statutes that try to prevent election misinformation

Do such statutes even exist? I suspect the answer is no, and that the FBI is just engaging in extralegal, extrajudicial monkeyshines.

> If this information was never leaked then the people effected by the FBI’s secret speech suppression may never have known and would never had a chance to contest it in court.

From a certain point of view (which seems distressingly popular on HN lately) that’s considered a feature and not a bug.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#526

Post by refurb »

emodendroket wrote: post #522
refurb wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this, and I'm confused every time I see it, because speech on a private platform isn't protected by the first amendment. Ummm… yes it is when the speech is being suppressed by the government? That’s kinda the entire point of the 1st amendment. The courts have ruled that the government asking a private party to censor is no different than the government censoring itself.

What case did they rule that? It seems pretty routine that they get in contact with newspapers for this purpose so I'd be at least a little surprised to learn that it's been ruled unconstitutional but they're just flagrantly doing it anyway.

It seems pretty routine that they get in contact with newspapers

Nothing says they can't contact papers.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#527

Post by devmunchies »

eganist wrote: post #506
benmmurphy wrote: post #502

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.

> 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

I can also say no to the feds if they ask me to assassinate someone but it doesn’t mean they aren’t breaking a law by asking me.

Would be a crazy constitutional loophole if the govt simply needs to ask citizens to censor each other (1a), steal their neighbors guns (2a), tell husbands to prevent their wives from voting (19a), etc.

If these censorship request were about bomb threats or something that’s one thing, but they are mostly just spicy political takes. FBI needs to stay in their lane.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#528

Post by Apocryphon »

devmunchies wrote: post #527
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 I can also say no to the feds if they ask me to assassinate someone but it doesn’t mean they aren’t breaking a law by asking me. Would be a crazy constitutional loophole if the govt simply needs to ask citizens to censor each other (1a), steal their neighbors guns (2a), tell husbands to prevent their wives from voting (19a), etc. If these censorship request were about bomb thre…

Would it be any different if those FBI agents, after work, hit the report button from personal accounts?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#529

Post by Khaine »

Shared404 wrote: post #356
transcriptase wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://www.dhillonlaw.com/lawsuits/meghan-murphy-twitter/

Referring to a trans person by the wrong gender repeatedly is a good example of hate speech. It reminds of an old joke: Conservative: "I keep getting banned for my views" Rando: "Oh, small government?" C: "No, not that one" R: "Oh, so fiscal responsibility?" C: "Not that either" R: "So which ones?" C: "Oh, uh... You know."

No it’s not. Referring to a trans person by the wrong pronouns repeatedly is just rude. It isn’t hate speech

That’s just watering down what hate speech is.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#530

Post by devmunchies »

Apocryphon wrote: post #528
devmunchies wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter can always say no to the feds I can also say no to the feds if they ask me to assassinate someone but it doesn’t mean they aren’t breaking a law by asking me. Would be a crazy constitutional loophole if the govt simply needs to ask citizens to censor each other (1a), steal their neighbors guns (2a), tell husbands to prevent their wives from voting (19a), etc. If these censorship request were about bomb thre…

Would it be any different if those FBI agents, after work, hit the report button from personal accounts?

Personal accounts in your own time and not in any way as a representative of the US govt, and tax payer dollars aren’t paying for my time? Seems more reasonable to me. Especially if it isn’t a regular thing. a good question for a court to decide.
Post reply on HN