The Twitter Files, Part Six • Hacker News Board

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#581

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:06 AM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #400

b0sk wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably the best quote about conservatism: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. See: https://kottke.org/22/12/the-boring-conservatism-of-elon-mus...

That's not what conservatism is. If you want the actual best quote about conservatism, it's this one: > There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to…

I think thats an obviously false cover story, along the lines of "states rights". By plotting when these "principles" are followed or broken you can map the real motives.

For a centuries long historical review see:

The Reactionary Mind

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reactionary_Mind

> It argues that conservatism from the 17th century to today is based on the principle "that some are fit, and thus ought, to rule others".[1]: 18 [2] Robin argues that rather than being about liberty, limited government, resistance to change, or public virtue, conservatism is a "mode of counterrevolutionary practice" to preserve hierarchy and power.[1]: 17

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#582

Post by partiallypro » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:11 AM UTC

angelbreakfree wrote: post #395

The wildest part of the Twitter files is the unhinged framing that they are presented under. 1. Anyone who has been in a tech company knows that there is internal lingo that refers to features we devs make. But it's presented as being an "Orwellian language" 2. Based on the emails he posts, the agencies give links to review based on tips they receive or their own intel and twitter then decides if it violates ToS or n…

That's all well and good, and I am not a fan of Elon's latest moves toward Twitter (banning some journalists and sources of freely available information on other platforms), but the FBI has absolutely no right to try to get a private company to stop free speech. That's a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. This is a story because the FBI has absolutely no business doing this. There is no "framing" in that, the FBI has overstepped its bounds, forget Twitter and Elon Musk.

I've seen people here say, "this is normal" and "the FBI is making no threats, so no big deal." That viewpoint is very problematic and has a fundamental lack of understanding about how federal agencies coerce private companies to do their bidding. I've seen other comments "it didn't happen that often, only once a week," it should have never happened at all. Unless there is something that is a threat to an investigation, jury identity, literally against federal law, etc...the FBI has absolutely no business doing this. I'm baffled it has any sort of support.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#583

Post by ABCLAW » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:12 AM UTC

jacksonkmarley wrote: post #214

So far this whole Twitter Files thing seems underwhelming, but not exactly a "nothing burger". I feel like it's a good thing that they got published, but the details aren't big news, more like a whole bunch of mildly unsatisfactory situations that probably should be addressed by people directly involved. For example FBI trawling through social media and flagging accounts for review doesn't seem like a strict constitu…

>but it does seem like a questionable use of the FBI to be doing content moderation for Twitter absent a criminal investigation.

Law enforcement, people in corporate risk, and business intelligence groups very often use social media to perform open source research. In fact, when they don't, people exclaim that the police are incompetent for not knowing the shooter said he was going to shoot a place up after a history of deranged posting and a call to violence on facebook or something.

There are platforms built on top of Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/Etc that will do automated sentiment analysis, key into keyword trends, etc. You can build reports, see how much impact or reach certain calls to violence have, etc. and then triage the threats that you think are credible vs. those that are full of shit.

There are people out there trying to recruit people to firebomb tax buildings. Telling Twitter to shadowban them before they develop networks and get off the platform is a lot more innocuous than raiding the guy's house to see if he has bombmaking equipment.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#584

Post by iamacyborg » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:13 AM UTC

epakai wrote: post #469

jacksonkmarley wrote: post #214

So far this whole Twitter Files thing seems underwhelming, but not exactly a "nothing burger". I feel like it's a good thing that they got published, but the details aren't big news, more like a whole bunch of mildly unsatisfactory situations that probably should be addressed by people directly involved. For example FBI trawling through social media and flagging accounts for review doesn't seem like a strict constitu…

It would certainly be a lot more interesting if new Twitter had a real solution/policy for each of these situations. It just feels like a lot of mud-slinging, but to what end besides culture war points?

Probably just a desperate attempt to increase DAU’s and “engagement” by posting rage bait.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#585

Post by wyclif » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:13 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #554

rayiner wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never been a big fan of Taibbi. But all the things you’re mentioning are characteristic of his journalistic style, which made him famous in his coverage of Wall Street back in 2008. It’s uncharitable and filtered through a fundamental distrust of moneyed corporations, but I’ve never heard it described as “unhinged.” And I’m not sure “unhinged” is an appropriate description. For example, while “internal lingo” ma…

Orwellian does not just mean changing terms or using euphemisms. It is about terms that make the expression of undesirable thoughts actually impossible. Do any of the scare-quoted terms do this? I can't see any.

The problem for me was never that Twitter had their own in-house term for shadowbanning. It was that they obfuscated and hid behind the term in order to avoid accusations of shadowbanning. It's like saying "this is not a sub sandwich, it's a hoagie!"

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#586

Post by partiallypro » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:14 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #358

In a system of free speech, the government may also speak. I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendment means the government is not allowed to speak at all. That is incorrect. It prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," in other words, forcibly restraining other people from speaking. So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think.…

You have a fundamental lack of understanding about coercion, you don't have to make a direct threat of physical force to stop free speech and be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#587

Post by ABCLAW » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:19 AM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #54

This is actually an argument for why Twitter shouldn't exist. Twitter makes it super easy to do mass warrantless surveillance, because Twitter gathers millions of people together in the same searchable public space. It's a honeypot. What's dangerous about the "public square" concept is that Musk doesn't just want a public square — one public space among many, one among equals — he wants the public square, a monopoly…

There's a bunch of these analytics platforms available. Government isn't the only one using them, and twitter isn't the only platform being used.

Look up Talkwalker, Hootsuite, Nexalogy, etc. Governments and other institutions use these tools.

Spreading the conversation elsewhere doesn't change the ability of these analytics platforms to cover them, although it does introduce more noise into the signal; the smaller the forum, the less an impact it has in the analytics rankings. If you slice up the pie into a ton of tiny chunks, the data received becomes less useful.

That said, some of the uses of these platforms are completely reasonable and very pro-social. We kinda want law enforcement to know if Jimmy Bullets just posted that he's gonna shoot up grade 4 English tomorrow.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#588

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:20 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #563

ergocoder wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish. This makes me think of "the implication" in it's always sunny in philadephia. FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally. People hate Musk way too much that they are blind. If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin. It would be drummed…

These companies are just as afraid, if not far more afraid, of "the implication" from other companies, namely their advertisers and sponsors, as well as influential individuals such as celebrity influencers who drive traffic for their sites. The G-men will have to get in line for Twitter bending over backwards to all of these interests. Threats to the bottom line are probably even more menacing than legal threats- an…

[deleted]

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#589

Post by TheHappyOddish » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:25 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #248

NelsonMinar wrote: post #236

There's an odd new risk for startups: someone buys your company and then releases all the internal documents with hostile intent. The Twitter stuff that's come out now has been pretty uninteresting, surprising and often basically telling a story of people doing the best job they could in difficult circumstances. But if you are at a small company consider what all could be acquired and used to defame your employees an…

The thing to really worry about is that someone like Musk has direct access to all of your DMs, including those of politicians the world over.

As opposed to those who had access to them previously?

They were never "your" DMs.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#590

Post by benjaminwootton » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:28 AM UTC

angelbreakfree wrote: post #395

The wildest part of the Twitter files is the unhinged framing that they are presented under. 1. Anyone who has been in a tech company knows that there is internal lingo that refers to features we devs make. But it's presented as being an "Orwellian language" 2. Based on the emails he posts, the agencies give links to review based on tips they receive or their own intel and twitter then decides if it violates ToS or n…

I agree. I am a supporter of the freedom of speech angle, but this is all a total nothing-burger. A few TOS violations and some internal debate. I also suspected that BAU was much worse than presented.