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

681–690 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#681

Post by naasking »

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…

> 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"

Internal jargon can be Orwellian. These are not mutually exclusive.

> But it's presented as a "deep state"-like collusion where the agencies control if twitter act on them or not.

No, this chummy relationship is presented as problematic. Nowhere does he imply that the FBI controls what Twitter does. It's not a priori wrong to think that the government should not have such a close involvement with Twitter in its act of moderating/censoring. Having a lower threshold than you for risk of malfeasance is not a priori wrong. If you think your risk assessment is better, now you can make that argument using actual data, and those who disagree can make theirs. Fostering public debate is exactly what good journalism is supposed to do.

> But they are presented mostly stripped of context and the focus is on anonymized employees snarky comments to make it seem like decisions were arbitrary, partisan, and without any regard to logic or context.

Sounds like standard journalism to me. Maybe your beef is not with Taibbi and the "Twitter files" but with how journalism as a whole is conducted. I agree, but don't apply a higher bar here where it's inconvenient.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#682

Post by tomohawk »

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?

1:

The 14th amendment significantly expanded the reach of constitutional protections, primarily to require all government to comply.

2:

Did Congress pass a law authorizing the FBI to snoop on social media and use private companies to censor speach? No? Then by what authority was the FBI doing this?

The root of the FBIs authority is in law passed by Congress.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#683

Post by TOMDM »

naasking wrote: post #671
emodendroket wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The argument seems to be that what the FBI is doing is more or less analogous to you clicking the report button Weekly meetings between the FBI and top Twitter executives is "akin to clicking the report button"? Name one other Twitter user that had this privilege. I think that's a pretty strong sign that you're trying to stretch this analogy too far.

Where are you getting weekly meetings from?

This set of tweets details 150 emails total over a period of over two and a half years (jan 2020 to nov 2022).

It even specifically quotes their mention of their quarterly meeting.

My biggest problem with people who think the Twitter files are A Big Deal, is their seeming inability to accurately describe the contents.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#684

Post by macinjosh »

The FBI can come after you or your company for any reason they come up with. They just have to make it look like you lied to them. They email you that a user on your site is breaking TOS. If you say they aren’t in their eyes you are lying to them and you could be charged if they don’t like you.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#685

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

nverno wrote: post #636
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.

What bothers me most about the FBI's behaviour here is that it is unnecessary. Do we really want the FBI manning a task force of 80+(according to Taibbi) agents to monitor social media threads, and if so, what's to stop that number from just growing and growing? I'd prefer to see the FBI acting in a passive role, here, rather than a proactive one. Meaning, they act more in response to people reporting social media be…

I think it’s clear, by implication, that this is where a lot of the expunged headcount at Twitter spent their time: policing accounts, according to both internal and external machinations.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#686

Post by justanother »

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 have no dog in this fight (I thought Twitter was a cesspool then, and I know it is now), but before we go much farther in the conversation about collusion between LE and big business, we must remember how Qwest lost an enormous contract (and more, arguably) for refusing to cooperate with the NSA's plan to gobble everyone's data. The fact that this happened at all, creates a chilling effect, a shining example for all to see. In such light, American business that call themselves 'common carriers' all know the score: Cooperate or it would be a shame if something happened to you. Would anyone be shocked that Twitter kept a cordial relationship with the agency that murdered Fred Hampton? Of course not.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#687

Post by naasking »

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.

> 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.

Per [1]:

    "Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink), and manipulation of the past [...]
The label in this context doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#688

Post by ModernMech »

pasquinelli wrote: post #570
emodendroket wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously these reports are given more priority but who's going to just ignore FBI reports?

i'd probably just do whatever the fbi wanted so as to save myself a possible hassle. which is the point: the fbi can fuck with me. to say, "well, the fbi is just reporting stuff" ignores that the fbi has power. power is something people seem to have an odd tendency to ignore.

> power is something people seem to have an odd tendency to ignore.

Indeed, just as you seem to ignore Twitter’s power. They are protected from the FBI by the Constitution and the courts, and they have the money (read: power) to actually enforce those protections had they felt threatened or coerced by the government. The FBI may have power but they are not all powerful, not even close.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#689

Post by naasking »

TOMDM wrote: post #683
naasking wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument seems to be that what the FBI is doing is more or less analogous to you clicking the report button Weekly meetings between the FBI and top Twitter executives is "akin to clicking the report button"? Name one other Twitter user that had this privilege. I think that's a pretty strong sign that you're trying to stretch this analogy too far.

Where are you getting weekly meetings from? This set of tweets details 150 emails total over a period of over two and a half years (jan 2020 to nov 2022). It even specifically quotes their mention of their quarterly meeting. My biggest problem with people who think the Twitter files are A Big Deal, is their seeming inability to accurately describe the contents.

> My biggest problem with people who think the Twitter files are A Big Deal, is their seeming inability to accurately describe the contents.

Or maybe you're just ignorant of the contents:

https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-executive-met-fbi-weekly-0150...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#690

Post by Kuinox »

Part 1 complained about "censoring" even well known actors in favor of a political party, and 'proved' it by displaying an email asking to take down tweets and a response saying 'handled'.

Archive.org archived the tweets listed in the email screenshot that has been shared, it was tweets posting leaked nude of a politic, of course it has to be censored, actor or not, that's simply illegal.

Post reply on HN