711–720 of 965 posts
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.
Wait, I thought twitter DID suppress the story as part of their anti hacking policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What case did they rule that? It seems pretty routine that they get in contact with newspapers for this purpose so I'd be at least a little surprised to learn that it's been ruled unconstitutional but they're just flagrantly doing it anyway.
It seems pretty routine that they get in contact with newspapers Nothing says they can't contact papers.
The government routinely speaks to news papers about the government opinion on articles and how they are wrong. That's not censorship. Holding a figurative pistol to someones head and say "change this line" is censoring and supressing free speech.
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…
Musk himself has recently used a similar example, asking journalists how they'd feel if somebody actually got hurt as a result of doxxing on Twitter. So how would folks at Twitter feel if they ignored an FBI report of activity that then led to a terrorist attack? They wouldn't just feel bad, they might actually be liable for helping to facilitate it. Companies do all sorts of things to avoid potential liability, or forego doing things even if those things are perfectly legal and the company would prefer to do them otherwise. It's not weird or nefarious at all for a company to err on the side of caution when the receipt of information increases their potential liability.
It's also extremely hypocritical of Musk (or his fans) to oscillate between maximalist free speech and protection of privacy, invoking extreme examples in both cases, clearly according only to which one suits him personally at any particular moment.
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?
If you think that men in black suits who can put you in jail for simply lying to them or obstructing them then you are vey naive.
And that's not even considering all the trouble the DOJ can put organisations through even though they committed no crime.
Just their reputation and power is enough to apply pressure.
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…
Its comical that people believe Musk is promoting free speech or anything of the sort. Most of everything he does online is antics to draw attention in some way that benefits him, go look at the SEC for details around that with Musk.
I would make a bet one of his next options is to saddle Twitter with more debt as it approaches bankruptcy. Or give insider info to his investors ahead of his next Tesla sell-off so they can recoup their losses with Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
Oh, you mean the doctrine that is openly vilified by the "originalist" majority of the US Supreme Court? Not that consistency is their strong point or anything, but maybe that's not the authoritative answer you thought it was. FWIW, to appease the cowardly-downvote brigade, I personally believe the concept of a penumbra is valid and important. But the world doesn't always bend to my will. Merely invoking the concept…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
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…
Do we know this for a fact? The only way to find this out is to test it in courts. There could be executive orders involved, the Patriot Act or related acts, or simply a "state of emergency" or two declarations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...
Open:
"Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, and, pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), I intend to utilize the following statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527, 2201(c), 12006, and 12302 of title 10, United States Code, and sections 331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code."
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-2001-09-17/pdf/WCPD...
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’s Matt Taibbi. Unhinged framing designed to inflame populist rage is something he’s been doing since the 2008 financial crisis when he made his career on it. He used to aim “left” with it but seems to have drifted in the same fashy direction as Greenwald and other populists as well as a lot of former “Chomskyan” leftists.
"Disloyal to the team" is not fascism.
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…
