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

611–620 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#611

Post by cactusplant7374 »

gfodor wrote: post #406
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…

The government working with Twitter to create broad misinformation policies and then issuing requests for takedowns under those policies once adopted is a great way for the government to violate the first amendment with plausible deniability. I guess we’ll see what the courts think.

Do you believe free speech applies to foreign governments spreading propaganda and hate?

https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/160385966043116748...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#612

Post by deadpannini »

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.

No, "Orwellian" means almost the opposite: Winston and Julia are perfectly capable of thinking dissident thoughts, despite being immersed in Ingsoc. "Orwellian" refers to dominating people to the degree that you can force them to use the words you specify and make them say things that they know aren't true.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#613

Post by Marazan »

wyclif wrote: post #585
UncleMeat wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

There is a very well understood definition for shadowbanning - only the poster can see their own posts.

What Twitter did was not shadowbanning - other people could see the posts.

Pretending it is shadowbanning is bad faith arguing of the worst kind.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#614

Post by synergyS »

hgfdhgdhg wrote: post #594
benjaminwootton wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But aren’t they just flagging Tweets as potential violations of TOS? That sounds as tame as it could possibly be. The same option is open to me as an ordinary user.

They're not a normal user. Wouldn't you expect more transparency from your government? It appalls me that many find this okay.

Exactly, we need more transparency.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#615

Post by refurb »

Apocryphon wrote: post #568
refurb wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree with what you posted at all. It comes down to coercion, which can sometimes be hard to prove. In the earlier Twitter Files, a Congressperson mentioned how banning the Hunter Biden Laptop story was going down poorly and the Congressional hearings “would be a blood bath”. Is that coercion? For the courts to decide I guess. But I’m in the same camp as you. I have no idea if it’s legal or not, but it mak…

> Is that coercion? Taibbi also brings that up - https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928 > An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2) > “I feel like that’s the default p…

Then you agree that your earlier statement "That goes well beyond the remit of the FBI and violates numerous norms of law enforcement influence over public speech" is wrong and baseless, given the legal context that I have provided.

No I don’t agree. “Norms” are separate from the legal context you gave.

If no coercion took place, that doesn’t make what the FBI did “ok” even if no laws were broken.

Like my earlier analogy, if my local cops started asking businesses to kick people out (and the businesses agreed) that’s a major problem, even if not illegal.

Law enforcement’s job is to identify crimes and arrest people.

When their scope starts expanding into working with willing private companies to silence individuals who have committed no crime, that should worry everyone, whether it happens with Twitter or your local bar.

It’s amazing to see a normally anti-law enforcement HN suddenly rally to the FBI’s defense.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#616

Post by deadpannini »

meepmorp wrote: post #604
hgdhgfdhgfdh wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of the H. Biden laptop was "misinformation"?

The idea that it was remotely important in the context of the election. Also, the idea that the story was suppressed. Those parts, at least.

The FBI doesn't get to decide what's "important in the context of an election."

The contents of Hunter's laptop didn't stop me from voting for Biden, but that's because I'm a cynical jerk that already thinks politicians are corrupt by default.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#617

Post by jasmer »

It's actually good that there is transparency and oversight but this is a study in journalism and populism more than anything.

The media is under incredible pressure to make stories, particularly in the US.

All of us have seen how MSNBC veered politically over the last 15 years - as have other news outlets.

Matt Taibbi is a good guy, smart, down to earth.

But he's a 'lone warrior' now, his income comes from substack subs, he has to make noise just like any other entity.

The substack people tend to market themselves as 'alt something' which is legit in some ways, but they push it pretty hard.

Taibbi has really been ginning it up lately.

It's a bit sad really, but we see this happen all over - I think most of our 'venerable' media institutions are at the same level so we can't fully blame him.

All of that said this is a legit story and there are 'kernels of truth' to this notion that Twitter is doing things maybe it should not, or inconsistently etc.

Elon is not wrong to be suspicious, of course now he's banning actual, legit journalists who dare to question him, in a feat of absolute hypocrisy that should completely undermine is 'free speech' credentials. Sadly I'm doubtful his fanboys will care.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#618

Post by koolba »

ethanbond wrote: post #602
spoiler wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When governments ask companies to do something, they usually must comply though lol

Literally not true. They can simply decline and if the Govt wants to come after them they can sue each other and in cases where it’s legal content then Twitter will win. This is extremely well established and not even remotely weird or some dark unexplored corner of Constitutional law. Edit: Here’s a link with some relevant case law. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Disagree with the es…

Any voluntary request from the government comes with an implied consequence for refusal or an implied benefit for acceptance. They don’t have to say it out loud for the message to come across.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#619

Post by Amezarak »

ethanbond wrote: post #602
spoiler wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When governments ask companies to do something, they usually must comply though lol

Literally not true. They can simply decline and if the Govt wants to come after them they can sue each other and in cases where it’s legal content then Twitter will win. This is extremely well established and not even remotely weird or some dark unexplored corner of Constitutional law. Edit: Here’s a link with some relevant case law. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Disagree with the es…

You're right, this isn't unexplored. The ACLU says this specific example is unconstitutional. There's also been legal cases about this in the past. It's illegal for the government to do this.

"They could sue if they don't want to do it" does not make the request legal.

https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622

What's shocking is that people's perceptions of what's legal have changed so dramatically in just a few years. I can't imagine anyone making these arguments in 2005. It seems some powerful interests have been able to successfully co-opt SV companies and change the entire public conversation about what the First Amendment means. I would like to know a lot more about what's going on here. I don't think the same tired arguments about "disinformation" and "social harmony" that have been trotted out for centuries against free speech have suddenly gained all this credence by accident.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#620

Post by meepmorp »

deadpannini wrote: post #616
meepmorp wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that it was remotely important in the context of the election. Also, the idea that the story was suppressed. Those parts, at least.

The FBI doesn't get to decide what's "important in the context of an election." The contents of Hunter's laptop didn't stop me from voting for Biden, but that's because I'm a cynical jerk that already thinks politicians are corrupt by default.

I wasn't talking about the FBI, I was talking about Hunter Biden's laptop, and what an entirely bullshit story it is from start to finish. Read the comment I was responding to.
Post reply on HN