751–760 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1- Biden wasn't in government, he was running for office. Private citizen at the time. 2- They weren't telling, they were asking, and if Twitter feels like they were told, they can sue the government for violating their First Amendment rights.
When an authority asks, they're not really asking, they're telling.
Yeah, so? It's THEIR website. It doesn't have to be fair. Why are all these brand new people to the internet trying to tell websites they have to allow things that they don't want? As much as I hate censorship, the fact is it's THEIR website and they can do whatever they want with it. I don't have to go there. I can make my own website if I don't like a particular site. As a user of the internet since 1995, I don't f…
But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus Twitter’s actions were subject to the 1st Amendment. Congress cannot launder their illegal activities through an intermediary. The intermediary becomes a government actor.
Untill actual laws are passed they can choose to comply or not as they see fit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> citing different policies that are obviously inconsistently applied Here's a better example: the Canadian trucker protests. GiveSendGo was hacked, and the names of people who had donated to the protests were made public - and Twitter had no problem with those "hacked materials" being shared on its platform. I'd think that if there was ever a reason to block the publication of hacked materials, it would be to preven…
While I agree that Twitter should have taken down the tweets about non-public figures, they're not against the rules: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... Names are explicitly listed as exceptions to the ban in sharing personal information.
1. Section 230 becoming overruled and obsolete as both GOP and DEMs want to eliminate it and yet despite debates over years no plans for a smooth transition.
Picture it say section 230 is outlawed in 2024. That would mean despite the noise here on this forum about non-factual things one would even have to do content moderation on the HN News forum.
Or in short words we get more of the same under section 230 going away despite the noisy claim that we get less as then it would be legal open season for every forum and social platform.
Also interesting about sex trafficking, i.e. the last paragraph about not being liable for state laws on sex trafficking, oh nice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These policies were always a pretext. The two major social networks blocking the same story at the same time citing different policies that are obviously inconsistently applied (did Twitter block the story about Trump's leaked tax returns? Did facebook block Biden when he claimed that covid would be gone once everyone was vaccinated?). These emails show twitter executives puzzled by the application of those policies.…
the life of a politically inconvenient story: 1. it's conspiracy theory 2. it was obvious to everyone 3. forgotten
Makes me wonder, if conspiracy theorists might have a point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus Twitter’s actions were subject to the 1st Amendment. Congress cannot launder their illegal activities through an intermediary. The intermediary becomes a government actor.
It really doesn't matter. As much as I don't like it, someone can still use things like rot13 to get their messages out on twitter to others. You could also link a youtube video that has material that "biden's team" doesn't want on twitter. If I came to your house and before I got there, the president called you and told you NOT to let me in, you may or may not do it. It's up to you. It's still YOUR HOUSE and you hav…
With that kind of power delta, there's always an implied "or else", I believe.
It's my first remark on this subject. I'm not even a Republican nor have a Twitter account - but I'm really considering creating one now. I know that I will be downvoted but I don't care. It just got impossible to ignore: Sam Bankman-Fried has better press than him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shows collusion with politicians to coordinate censorship.
Does it though? I don't think a campaign staff pointing out tweets that might violate the TOS counts as collusion. That's just a campaign interfacing with Twitter the same way everyone else does. If it was collusion, then every white house press briefing in history would be too. Which, sure, might be Chomsky's point of view, but I don't think anarchists need to be convinced that Joe Biden is bad.
Alex Berenson was unsuspended after he sued Twitter (unbannings were unprecedented, as this was before Musk's takeover), after he proved that Biden staffers had demanded his suspension. Government employees and legislators are not legally allowed to pressure companies to remove speech, as the Supreme Court ruled that it goes against the 1st Amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is pretty bad in my opinion: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 The government is not supposed to be censoring people's speech, however they are effectively doing just that using a layer of indirection.
The Biden campaign is not the government.
The Biden campaign, which became the government, perhaps in part due to the assistance provided, requested and received assistance. If the campaign wasn't the government and didn't have the power to compel assistance, why did Twitter help?