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

761–770 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#761

Post by fallingknife »

petesergeant wrote: post #695
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…

> 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? They have a limited budget. If the FBI reckons their mission is best accomplished this way, who are we to second-guess it?

> who are we to second-guess it?

The citizens of a democracy who have full political rights and whose government is not allowed to do anything at all without our approval.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#762

Post by nickthegreek »

starkd wrote: post #753
nickthegreek wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of them were posting the wrong election date. I personally think that crosses into immoral territory.

So, you're saying someone is going to try to vote on the day some random low-follower account told them was the correct date? Despite consistent messaging from a variety of other sources telling them the correct date? You really don't have a high estimation of the average voter. It was clearly a joke. Anyone getting fooled here is clearly the most uninformed voterimaginable. Not even low-informed, but completely unin…

We differ on the fact “clearly a joke”. I don’t think that is as self evident as you. I have no issue with my government asking a private company to take down posts with incorrect voting dates. I also believe that Twitter should have a government transparency report where they shed light on these requests.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#763

Post by petesergeant »

fallingknife wrote: post #761
petesergeant wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? They have a limited budget. If the FBI reckons their mission is best accomplished this way, who are we to second-guess it?

> who are we to second-guess it? The citizens of a democracy who have full political rights and whose government is not allowed to do anything at all without our approval.

> whose government is not allowed to do anything at all without our approval

Really? I thought you were restricted to voting for your representatives?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#764

Post by starkd »

russdill wrote: post #196
starkd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not mind it because you're side won. But that is incredibly short-sided. What if the FBI decides to sway an election to a candidate you don't support sometime in the future? See where this is going?

I fully support such communications from the government entities being made public to the full extent possible, just as with DMCA requests. But just take a step back for a second. Are you arguing that the FBI headed by a Trump appointee strong armed a very liberal silicon valley tech company into rigging the election for Biden? What?

Just because Wray was appointed by Trump does not mean the FBI operated at the whims of Trump. For one, these positions are merely nominated by the president. They still have to be confirmed by the senate. The president is effectively given a list of people from whom he can nominate. There is also strong institutional inertia here.

A lot of people get strong armed by the FBI. They hold a lot of power. This is not conspiracy territory either. There are congressional oversight committees, but their ability to use classified information gives them a lot of leverage.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#765

Post by jacquesm »

revscat wrote: post #670
jacquesm wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another name that I once looked up to.

It seems that to be included in the billionaire tech bro club you must adhere to a certain right-wing worldview. Or, if you are more Marxist in bent, that the accumulation of capital naturally and inevitably leads to the internalization of right-wing worldviews.

It may be a cause-and-effect thing. Possibly when you get into that kind of money you start to behave, think and act more like a king.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#766

Post by starkd »

nkozyra wrote: post #79
starkd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not mind it because you're side won. But that is incredibly short-sided. What if the FBI decides to sway an election to a candidate you don't support sometime in the future? See where this is going?

So far the only claim made that the government directly interfaced was that the Trump admin made requests for content deletion.

That's false. Matt Taibbi never said that. Read the whole thread. He claimed the Twitter was effectively operating as a subdiary to the FBI. You can claim that was perhaps hyperbole, and that the Trump admin did make some requests. But the FBI was having regular meetings with Twitter staff, most of which had nothing to do with the Trump administration.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#767

Post by starkd »

roflyear wrote: post #108
starkd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem was that it was entirely biased to one side. They were actively looking to sway an election. Some were fairly innocuous small accounts. And they couldn't make exceptions for jokes or satire.

This isn't true, though? Seems like the coms I have seen are largely either neutral or balanced between benefiting various political parties.

It was definitely not neutral. But any effort by a government body to censor public forums crosses a dangerous line. It's not the FBI's job to do that, and they lose credibility in the public eye as a neutral arm of law-enforcement.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#768

Post by candybar »

themgt wrote: post #624
beebmam wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How exactly does the FBI asking a private sector company to take down posts violate this amendment? In our system, law including the Constitution is interpreted by the judiciary. You could as well ask "where is the Miranda warning in the Bill of Rights?" The actual precedents around "jawboning" are murky and contradictory, but it's well-established that the government can step over the line in violating constitutiona…

In that case, Republican politicians publicly complaining about social media moderation in threatening terms would be far more problematic than the FBI notifying Twitter of tweets that are in violation of their TOS. Yet I don't remember the "Free Speech" proponents doing anything but applauding these types of "informal coercion."

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#769

Post by jacquesm »

TheHappyOddish wrote: post #589
jacquesm wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing to really worry about is that someone like Musk has direct access to all of your DMs, including those of politicians the world over.

As opposed to those who had access to them previously? They were never "your" DMs.

The people who had access to them previously had a modicum of ethics, the current management not so much.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#770

Post by jacquesm »

hgfdhgdhg wrote: post #591
jacquesm wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had not even considered that, good point, data integrity is not to be expected going forward. This also puts a rather interesting twist on any of the evidence presented.

Why was data integrity expected going backward?

In between there was a change of management. If you failed to notice that why are you commenting in this thread?
Post reply on HN