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

661–670 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#661

Post by kgwxd »

concordDance wrote: post #641
jasmer wrote: post #617

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…

> Elon is not wrong to be suspicious, of course now he's banning actual, legit journalists who dare to question him, As far as I know he's only banning those that link to ElonJet. He's been a bit irrational since his two year old kid had a close encounter with a crazy person a few days ago.

Why do you accept that story at his word?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#662

Post by koolba »

ethanbond wrote: post #622
koolba wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unless it’s in the furtherance of catching or stopping an active criminal, I’d say no.

Why would we be wasting government resources alerting private companies of their terms of service anyway?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#663

Post by philjohn »

blitzar wrote: post #578
lathiat wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but at the same time Elon is proposing “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach”. Which is basically the same thing, no?

> Elon is proposing “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach” While proposing that Shadowbanning is a tool of the Woke Mind Virus destroying humanity ...

The Woke Mind Virus is actually everyone who tries to paint not being an asshole as woke.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#664

Post by philjohn »

xiphias2 wrote: post #598
jacquesm wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. For instance: LE might become aware of a sexting or suicide attempt or some other thing that people do that is not strictly illegal but that might be embarrassing or that could cause the person trouble in their private life. Having a degree of confidentiality helps to both speed up the process because not every word has to be weighed on the scale of 'how does this look in the public arena' and it helps to…

Sure, ,,let's think of the children''. We heared it many times, but we're talking about a govermental agency meddling with election results. Politics and these cases are very different in nature. Personally I wouldn't be comfortable not taking action when the FBI would ask anything from me, because it's safer to just comply.

Not just children - adults can be suicidal too, and in certain places that's a pretty bad crime.

Radical transparency only works if you remove all externalities - but we live in the real world.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#665

Post by ethanbond »

koolba wrote: post #662
ethanbond wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unless it’s in the furtherance of catching or stopping an active criminal, I’d say no. Why would we be wasting government resources alerting private companies of their terms of service anyway?

I don’t think it’s a waste of government resources to be reporting people who are trying to suppress voting by e.g. giving incorrect polling dates or locations.

Also don’t think it’s a waste to try to prevent ISIS recruiting material from reaching more confused and angry young men.

Both are legal though!

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#666

Post by jimmySixDOF »

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.

I Can't wait for the Twitter Drops covering the last week or two.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#667

Post by shkkmo »

jacquesm wrote: post #176
shkkmo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI should absolutely not be trying to manage or control activity that isn't illegal, especially when that activity is speech. When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO.

> When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO. You could. But that's not what happened here, judging by the evidence on display. All I see is what I expected to see: law enforcement engaging in a careful manner with a company that is dealing with an extremely large flow of communications. And if some of those communications are of a society destabilizing nature it is well within the mandate of th…

What I see is the government involved in pressuring and directing companies to censor legal speech. You seem to think this is OK because you think it will only ever be done to people you disagree with. History has repeatedly shown that is a dangerously naive view.

The whole point is that these cases aren't going in front of a judge or jury to decide. Without that system of checks and balances, "all parties agree" is meaningless because it can't be challenged. "All parties agreed" that the civil rights or anti-war movement were destabilizing and needed to be suppressed...you seem to support that kind of unchecked power. I don't know why people are so quick to forget our very recent history.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#668

Post by gadders »

I can remember when the patriot act came out, and everyone argued what a disgusting infringement on privacy and civil liberties it was. Now everyone seems to be arguing for even greater infringements.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#669

Post by naasking »

Marazan wrote: post #613
wyclif wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Except that's not how most people understand the term. Terminology is defined by its usage, so if you're in the minority of how this term is used, you've lost. We already had this debate about hacker/cracker over 20 years ago. Hacker is still here, so get used to the broader meaning of shadowbanning.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#670

Post by revscat »

jacquesm wrote: post #477
rideontime wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marc Andreesen seems convinced that indictments are coming. Delusional.

Yet another name that I once looked up to.

It seems that to be included in the billionaire tech bro club you must adhere to a certain right-wing worldview. Or, if you are more Marxist in bent, that the accumulation of capital naturally and inevitably leads to the internalization of right-wing worldviews.
Post reply on HN