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

721–730 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#721

Post by SauciestGNU »

woooooo wrote: post #719
api wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please be more careful with words like "fashy" unless you have some quotes extolling the tenets of national socialism. "Disloyal to the team" is not fascism.

Just want to say that fascism is bigger than Nazism, butt agree that Taibi is probably a regular conservative making himself useful to Elon.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#722

Post by notacoward »

TeeMassive wrote: post #716
notacoward wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And your point is?

Clearly if you read the context, that emmelaich's invocation of the "penumbra" doctrine to suggest that the first amendment covers Twitter's actions is weak. It does not, even when there's a connection to reports from a government agency. There are other arguments for why Twitter's actions were wrong, perhaps even that it's a first-amendment issue, but that one just doesn't work in the context of how the constitution is currently being interpreted. The one-line slam dunk is really anything but.

Also, please read the guidelines about low-effort comments.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#723

Post by MAGZine »

naasking wrote: post #681
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 h…

Journalism should present things in the correct context, and contextualize statements, situations, etc.

If feels like you're accusing journalists of lying to push an agenda, which is, by definition, not journalism. Journalism is about informing. Not saying everyone does it perfectly, in the same way you can do bad science that is still technically science.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#724

Post by ethanbond »

TeeMassive wrote: post #717
ethanbond wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Taliban were on Twitter...

And?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#725

Post by woooooo »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #721
woooooo wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please be more careful with words like "fashy" unless you have some quotes extolling the tenets of national socialism. "Disloyal to the team" is not fascism.

Just want to say that fascism is bigger than Nazism, butt agree that Taibi is probably a regular conservative making himself useful to Elon.

This thread is about the FBI, aka the actual jackboots, compelling private companies extralegally in order to shift democratic narratives.

And you're saying it's conservative to be opposed to that?

I understand it lined up with the liberal side regarding the election but that doesn't make Taibbi (or myself) a conservative for opposing it. Distrusting the FBI ought to be a liberal value.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#726

Post by MAGZine »

canucklady wrote: post #656
scifibestfi wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are they contacting Twitter as the FBI in a backchannel to report potentially ToS offending tweets as opposed to the way we all report tweets to Twitter? Or indeed at all when they're not illegal tweets. Imagine Trump is in charge of the FBI.

Umm, during the run-up to the 2020 election Trump was the president. He appointed Christopher Wray as head of the FBI. So whatever is in this tweets was done by a Trump appointee

And done under threat of "these companies had 'better behave' or were gonna change section 230."

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#728

Post by weberer »

giantrobot wrote: post #496
Georgelemental wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what conservatism is. If you want the actual best quote about conservatism, it's this one: > There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to…

You're describing small c conservatism, actually being conservative about change. It's a valid point of view and at least debatable. Even the most progressive person is conservative about some things. The GP's comment is describing the capital C Conservatism brand. It's subsumed the idea about being politically conservative and combined it with an astounding mix of racism, bigotry, and in many cases outright fascism.…

"Capital X" means there's an official party with that name. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#729

Post by rayiner »

somehnacct3757 wrote: post #655
nverno wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Social media products have been critical to the exponential growth of domestic terrorism and CSAM. So I definitely want the FBI being proactive on these platforms and to have a much, much, bigger team than 80. It should be 80 per state. People with poor information diets hear the FBI is involved with Twitter and immediately think it has something to do with red team blue team politics. These are the people the Twitte…

“Poor information diets.” What on Orwellian statement in support of government thought policing.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#730

Post by TeeMassive »

ethanbond wrote: post #635
Amezarak wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said I was shocked about it. The government and particularly agencies like the FBI have long engaged in illegal abuses of their power, ranging from illegal speech restrictions like this to the knowing legal persecution of innocent people to outright murder and blackmail. Nor is it news to me that companies are increasingly voluntarily sharing vast amounts of data with the government, to the point that the sur…

Shocked to learn that it’s legal , not that it happens. So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. Not considered a controversial topic. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... There are lots of dangers with this pattern but this is simply an extremely extremely poor case to try to take up the fight on.

> So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal.

If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply?

What about an even more powerful organization that can and do prosecute people for simply lying or obstructing?

Post reply on HN