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

621–630 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#621

Post by jasmer »

kweingar wrote: post #567
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…

It is clear that Taibbi et al. are cherry-picking FBI interactions that will draw the most clicks and outrage from fans of the new management. If they had published communications between the FBI and Twitter from, say, June 2020, I imagine their audience would not be able to muster quite as much indignation.

His story is slanted, but it's not fair to suggest he is 'cherry picking' - that's what the press does, they 'find the stuff that matters' and filters out the stuff that does not.

It would be 'cherry picking' if the result was something out of context and therefore misrepresented.

There's a legit story here, probably not to the extent made out to be but it's newsworthy.

What could be 'cherry picking' in the grand context, is that SpaceX has 'deep ties' with state apparatus, even the military, and we just don't talk about that. So by highlighting 'this thing over here' and not 'that thing over there' we lose context that Musk is in bed with the Pentagon while lambasting something happening with the FBI. And I'm not suggesting working with either is wrong, but that it's a bit hypocritical.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#622

Post by ethanbond »

koolba wrote: post #618
ethanbond wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By this logic the government can’t use the Report Tweet button either, right?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#623

Post by deadpannini »

meepmorp wrote: post #620
deadpannini wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, read the comment chain you were responding to?

How about this: you don't get to decide what's remotely important to people in the context of the election?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#624

Post by themgt »

beebmam wrote: post #596
partiallypro wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here's the 1st amendment for reference: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." How exactly does the FBI asking a private sector company to take down posts violate this amendment?

How exactly does the FBI asking a private sector company to take down posts violate this amendment?

In our system, law including the Constitution is interpreted by the judiciary. You could as well ask "where is the Miranda warning in the Bill of Rights?"

The actual precedents around "jawboning" are murky and contradictory, but it's well-established that the government can step over the line in violating constitutionally protected rights via informal coercion.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/informal-government-coercion-and...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#625

Post by ciler »

skinnymuch wrote: post #480
ciler wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an example of someone being banned for being on the political right. Meghan Murphy is a left-wing feminist, she was banned for expressing gender critical views.

[flagged]

I think you may be surprised at how many 'TERFs' are dyed-in-the-wool socialists. I know it's convenient to paint this as some left-right political split, but the truth of the matter is quite different. Look up the history of radical feminism - it didn't originate on the political right, quite the opposite.

Meghan Murphy in particular is a left-wing, socialist, radical feminist, who was raised in a Marxist household. This is no secret, you can search her work online to confirm all this, she's pro-unions, pro-socialism, and speaks against the right on numerous political matters.

Her ban from Twitter was caused by referring to a male (Johnathan/Jessica Yaniv), who was suing female beauticians for refusing to wax his bollocks, as "him".

Now I don't know about you, but I would think if you're going around flashing your testicles to women and demanding they touch them, that is very much a proof of being a man. I mean, you don't find women popping their hairy balls out to be plucked, and haranguing women who politely demur, do you?

Nonetheless, Twitter moderators disagreed. To them, this was the bushy scrotum of a woman. So Murphy was canned.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#626

Post by meepmorp »

deadpannini wrote: post #623
meepmorp wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, read the comment chain you were responding to? How about this: you don't get to decide what's remotely important to people in the context of the election?

I'm not deciding anything for anyone, I'm merely pointing out a fact. Also, you're presuming the truth of the allegations that the FBI did anything to materially suppress this story, and that's not in evidence, Musk-driven hyperventilation aside.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#627

Post by ethanbond »

Amezarak wrote: post #619
ethanbond wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not clear what you mean by “this specific example” given that your linked article is about DHS’s defunct Disinformation board and AFAIK this board never even became operational (and in any case hasn’t been mentioned in Twitter Files).

It seems to me rather that all these folks shocked to hear this stuff just haven’t been paying attention to either their high school civics course or to current events of the last 20 years.

You actually think the FBI doesn’t report content? Obviously they do.

You don’t think the FBI gets a privileged reporting line over newuser1848391? Obviously they do.

You don’t think Twitter regularly gets content moderation requests, from governments or elsewhere, that they simply decline? Obviously they do.

And you don’t think they sometimes get content moderation requests from governments or elsewhere that they oblige? Obviously they do.

Here’s a good overview of relevant case law: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p...

Will you also be surprised to hear that almost all private companies can (and many will) simply choose to hand over your private data to the government upon warrantless request?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#628

Post by UncleMeat »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #576
UncleMeat wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "Orwellian" in describing language comes directly from the properties of Newspeak. "Orwellian" can mean other things when describing state power or surveillance technology, but in this context it is being used to describe language so the connection to Newspeak is the relevant one.

It's straightforwardly a broad term and you have no basis for your nonsense gatekeeping.

It isn’t gatekeeping. “Orwellian” has a negative connotation. It is unreasonable to describe ordinary internal jargon as such.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#629

Post by willcipriano »

meepmorp wrote: post #620
deadpannini wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lots of crackheads get jobs on the boards of foreign energy firms, and lots of crackheads dads withhold a billion dollars in loan guarantees from the nation where their crackhead sons have these jobs unless they fire the prosecutor looking into their sons business. Total nothing burger. Another one for the big guy.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#630

Post by faddypaddy34 »

emodendroket wrote: post #494
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…

The argument seems to be that what the FBI is doing is more or less analogous to you clicking the report button, which hardly makes you a shadowy figure controlling Twitter if they act on your report.

Except it's not clicking the report button. See the FBI could have a special agent assigned to clicking the report button instead of directly emailing Twitter asking for the removal of things that are in some cases obvious jokes.
Post reply on HN