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

781–790 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#781

Post by candybar »

partiallypro wrote: post #582
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…

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…

This is what actual problematic coercion looks like:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/27/trump-t...

To the extent that "informal coercion" could be problematic. This is pretty standard practice for most politicians of course and I think we all know where all those "Free Speech" proponents that are worried that Twitter was "informally coerced by FBI's emails" stood on this, when Trump was constantly threatening Twitter.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#782

Post by crimsoneer »

hgfdhgdhg wrote: post #594
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.

They're not a normal user. Wouldn't you expect more transparency from your government? It appalls me that many find this okay.

You could absolutely submitted a freedom of information request to the FBI about this activity

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#783

Post by joshuaheard »

etchalon wrote: post #233
joshuaheard wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corruption is that the requests were ideologically based. In other words, they only requested conservative tweets to be removed.

That isn't reflected in the evidence posted.

It's been plain to see for years.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#784

Post by Apocryphon »

refurb wrote: post #615
Apocryphon wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that coercion? Taibbi also brings that up - https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928 > An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2) > “I feel like that’s the default p…

Then you agree that your earlier statement "That goes well beyond the remit of the FBI and violates numerous norms of law enforcement influence over public speech" is wrong and baseless, given the legal context that I have provided. No I don’t agree. “Norms” are separate from the legal context you gave. If no coercion took place, that doesn’t make what the FBI did “ok” even if no laws were broken. Like my earlier ana…

> It’s amazing to see a normally anti-law enforcement HN suddenly rally to the FBI’s defense.

The problem is that people are getting at the FBI for the wrong things. They should be getting mad at the shutting down of Z-Library instead, which holds far more impact for far more people than the two dozen accounts discussed in the OP (who weren’t even all suspended). When people are concerned about petty crimes, the big ones get unnoticed.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#785

Post by acdha »

rayiner wrote: post #772
tehwebguy wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Patriot act and it’s reauthorizations under different names are the worst federal legislation in decades. Comparing Twitter getting reports about ToS violations from FBI via email instead of from users via the report button isn’t in the same galaxy. I am struggling to think of a more bad faith argument than comparing this to the Patriot act.

I’m not talking about the overall scope of the program. Obviously the Patriot Act is much broader. I’m talking about the double standard of those supporting the FBI. The same people cheering on the FBI now would have flipped out if the FBI was engaged in the same communications with Twitter about imams preaching radical Islam. The same people justifying Twitter working with the FBI to respond to supposed “radicalizat…

> The same people cheering on the FBI now would have flipped out if the FBI was engaged in the same communications with Twitter about imams preaching radical Islam

Citation needed. The vast majority of the complaints during that era were due to portraying all Muslims as radical or focusing the efforts on Muslims without applying the same standards to the far more numerous (in the U.S., anyway) Christian extremists making anti-gay, anti-black, etc. messages. Clear rules which are fairly applied are a very different level.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#786

Post by Marazan »

naasking wrote: post #750
Marazan wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 insin…

Twitter is free to invent whatever narrow definition of shadowbanning they want, and we are free to call out their obfuscation for the bullshit it is. Language is about effective communication. Right now we're all trying to have an important conversation about relevant social issues which requires a common understanding. You cited the common understanding, I pointed out how Twitter engaged in practices covered by tha…

You've invented your own "common understanding"

They don't prevent people seeing tweets of anyone. If you follow soneone you see their tweets, if you dont follow them but gonto their profile you see their tweets.

Tweets are universally publically viewable. The policies they use are not secret.

Trying to start a conversation about their secret shadowbanning policy is a dead end as the policy is not shadow banning and it is not secret.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#787

Post by ethanbond »

Amezarak wrote: post #775
ethanbond wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Twitter and tech companies are regularly threatened with additional regulation and their executives called before Congress. This is the pressure. It’s already taken place and it’s ongoing. Sure, they could sue. They might or might not win. And Congress can make their life difficult in either outcome. There’s not much you do about that since, very nominally, Congress is supposed to represent the people and not securit…

Government employees get job in related field in private sector… not a groundbreaking revelation and not clear what to do about it. e.g. Trump’s proposal to ban former DoD employees from having jobs relating to American data for 7 years after service is a horrible solution. Well it’s a good way to further cripple our veterans and in general eliminate any remaining appeal of a government job for any half-competent person.

What evidence do you have of “a massive shift?” Because on my side there’s 200 years of case law that all pretty much concurs on every single instance of this happening.

Yes I do think it’s fine that our security apparatus attempts to maintain security within the confines of legislated and adjudicated law and that private corporations are able - both in theory and in practice - to resist unlawful pressure to control information. “Checks and balances” is a state of tension. Party X requests, Party Y denies, Party Z adjudicates. That’s how it works.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#789

Post by Apocryphon »

simple-thoughts wrote: post #736
Apocryphon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 F…

You know what is real? The FBI killed the Z-Library last month. They just let the InfraGard network get hacked. They’re spreading FUD against Apple’s new E2E encryption.

I’d rather us focus our energies on the substantive and real than embarking on another grandstanding set of histrionics about social media first amendment rights.

This is far from PRISM, which was surveillance. This is busybodying and enforcing federal election laws. Ho-hum. You want to call the FBI rogue, call them out for the important things they did wrong.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#790

Post by DoItToMe81 »

api wrote: post #700
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…

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.

Fascism is when you're critical of federal agencies having a privileged relationship with the media to the point of weekly meetings to influence moderation policy? What?
Post reply on HN