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

731–740 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#731

Post by rayiner »

nverno wrote: post #679
somehnacct3757 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the same type of reasoning that gave us the Patriot Act/Homeland security etc., though. I'm sure there is some truth to it, I just hope people push back against giving the FBI, or whatever agency arises, free reign. Tilting in favor of extreme safety measures sounds pretty bad to me, but I guess this is largely a matter of personal risk tolerance. Notably, none of the content the FBI was monitoring in this th…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#732

Post by naasking »

Marazan wrote: post #706
naasking wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Let me google that for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+shadowban&oq=defin... verb: shadowban - block (a user) from a social media site or online forum without their knowledge, typically by making their posts and comments no longer visible to other users.

Yes, which matches exactly what Twitter did, and which is how most people understand the term. Or did you miss the part where they delisted some accounts from being discoverable by search.

The way Twitter defines shadowban is more narrow than that.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#733

Post by PathOfEclipse »

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…

What evidence do you have that domestic terrorism has experienced "exponential growth", whatever that means, as I'm pretty sure you're not using "exponential" in the mathematical sense? https://www.dailywire.com/news/whistleblowers-accuse-fbi-of-...

This is seriously some hitleresque reichstag fire stuff. The FBi manufactures a fake domestic terrorism crisis and uses it to justify their further expansion of power.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#734

Post by bigtex »

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…

They could be proactive in protection us companies from ransomware attacks but instead they worry about social media posts.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#735

Post by gfodor »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #611
gfodor wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government working with Twitter to create broad misinformation policies and then issuing requests for takedowns under those policies once adopted is a great way for the government to violate the first amendment with plausible deniability. I guess we’ll see what the courts think.

Do you believe free speech applies to foreign governments spreading propaganda and hate? https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/160385966043116748...

It doesn’t matter what I believe - but I do think SCOTUS will have something interesting to say here.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#736

Post by simple-thoughts »

Apocryphon wrote: post #209
colordrops wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's against HN rules to call people shills, but I am too flabbergasted at people acting like it's no big deal that the FBI is working in secret to shut down narratives.

It is neither leftist nor shill to avoid distractions from real scandals like PRISM or Epstein. As Orwell said in 1984 , his science fiction novel about big government, “If you kept the small rules, you could break the big ones.” The nitpickers in this thread stress out about content moderation when the FBI is getting away with the big stuff like failing to stop SBF or shutting down the Z-Library. That’s a case where…

“Don’t focus on the real, proven and documented conspiracy. Focus on the fake ones.” Epstein killed himself which is well documented. No, pizza gate is not real and a anon is a larper.

This Twitter leaks are on the same level as PRISM, except it’s FBI instead of NSA. It’s significant because USG is fairly decentralized and just because one agency has gone rogue does not mean all have. We now have evidence that both FBI and NSA are rogue agencies.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#737

Post by naasking »

MAGZine wrote: post #723
naasking wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Even if we agree that that's what journalism should be, what is your assessment of how accurately this definition matches most high profile journalism today? How much context did the Covington kids get, or how much context did the rail workers who wanted to strike get? There are very clearly some contexts that get priority coverage and are hammered non-stop, and some contexts that barely get any coverage at all.

To be clear, I'm not sure that I do agree with your definition. I think journalists typically do what you describe, but I think merely reporting raw data without context is also perfectly valid journalism. This "contextualisation" narrative is how some journalists are excusing their lack of support for Assange, and it's bullshit IMO.

> If feels like you're accusing journalists of lying to push an agenda, which is, by definition, not journalism

Unbiased journalism is a fiction. I agree that the best journalists try for objectivity, but this is an ethos that is slowly being pushed out of mainstream journalism, and activism has become standard practice (edit: this is probably because outrage generates more clicks/views, so activism "sells" in a sense).

I also think some professional journalists absolutely do outright lie for utilitarian reasons, such as "fighting evil" (typically Republicans). This goes back to the activism point.

Far more common are various forms of well known bias, my side bias, bias blind spot etc. This leads to one convincing oneself of a falsehood and then vehemently arguing for it, despite countervailing evidence.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#738

Post by nverno »

rayiner wrote: post #731
nverno wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same type of reasoning that gave us the Patriot Act/Homeland security etc., though. I'm sure there is some truth to it, I just hope people push back against giving the FBI, or whatever agency arises, free reign. Tilting in favor of extreme safety measures sounds pretty bad to me, but I guess this is largely a matter of personal risk tolerance. Notably, none of the content the FBI was monitoring in this th…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Because at least that was directed at a foreign terrorist threat that

And even with that prerogative, we all saw how the NSA's 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' expanded quickly, in breach of law, to encompass American citizens.

Government surveillance is going to be a hot button issue for the forseeable future, and if every time somebody does something bad is an excuse to expand its reach, there won't be anything beyond its reach before long.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#739

Post by ethanbond »

TeeMassive wrote: post #730
ethanbond wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

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

Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution. It's not unusual at all for police to pull people over for minor infractions and assert they have the ability to search their cars, and for people who know their rights to decline said search, and for everyone to go on their merry way. If the cop chooses to force a search anyway, it's not unusual at all for them to get sued and for all evidence collected to be deemed inadmissible. This is all, again, extremely well established.

Twitter surely has an army of extremely capable and well-paid lawyers who know very well which requests they have a right to decline. They've got to be more legally equipped than your average 9th grader.

This is why it's important for people to have an accurate understanding of their rights and their relationship with their government. The position you're taking weakens people's understanding of their rights.

So let it be known for any future operators of social media networks: the US government cannot coerce you – even implicitly – to remove legal content from your website. If they do, decline and let them bring you to court, hit up the ACLU to represent you, and sue the fucking daylights out of the US Government. It's your right and your duty!

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#740

Post by Marazan »

naasking wrote: post #732
Marazan wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me google that for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+shadowban&oq=defin... verb: shadowban - block (a user) from a social media site or online forum without their knowledge, typically by making their posts and comments no longer visible to other users.

Yes, which matches exactly what Twitter did, and which is how most people understand the term. Or did you miss the part where they delisted some accounts from being discoverable by search. The way Twitter defines shadowban is more narrow than that.

" We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). "

They literally wrote a blog post about it 4 years ago[1]. This wasn't hidden. Anyone who is "shocked" by Twitter's definition of shadow banning (which, in my opinion aligns with what I posted anyways) is doing performative outrage of an insincere nature.

[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...

Post reply on HN