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

791–800 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#791

Post by acdha »

bigtex wrote: post #734
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…

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

They do both, with considerable other effort in the federal government on infrastructure protection as well as election integrity. You might not hear about it as much because there isn’t a big lobby opposed to infosec but it’s definitely there.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#792

Post by TeeMassive »

ethanbond wrote: post #739
TeeMassive wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution.

This is factually not true at all: https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/in... https://thenewamerican.com/poll-most-americans-dont-know-bil...

People talk to the police and incriminate themselves all the time. This has been a front-line of civil rights activists for decades now. What are you even talking about?

> 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.

"Not unusual" is a very subjective term and doesn't mean anything at all. And it is now confirmed that Twitter had daily meetings and contacts with the FBI/DHS, which means they did talk to federal law enforcement. There is no reason to make this statement is absurd knowing that they did talk...

> 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.

See the links above. Also Twitter is not a person and this does not apply to most employees and moderators. And the execs who knew what they were doing and wouldn't have done it if it weren't in their interest of those of the company. That's where the de facto coercion comes in. The DOJ coming for the Twitter "asking" or "indicating" that they do not approve some content is an undue pressure in and of itself.

>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!

Okay Mr. Goodman, at this point you're just grandstanding.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#793

Post by acdha »

pannSun wrote: post #691
cactusplant7374 wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the FBI has absolutely no right to try to get a private company to stop free speech. Do you believe freedom of speech applies to foreign governments? https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/160385966043116748...

From that thread: Some were domestic takedowns of, say, QAnon accounts So it was not limited to foreign government operations (or to QAnon, since it is phrased as a mere example).

Given the number of crimes and things like bomb threats linked to QAnon, it seems pretty reasonable to monitor them.

https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/qanon-offenders-united...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#794

Post by starkd »

Apocryphon wrote: post #777
starkd wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the winning side won. It's very short sided. That may be fine for now, but just imagine future elections, when those FBI agents have a different narrative they wish to enforce. It really is not that hard to imagine.

Trying to appeal with the “future elections” angle is amusing. Many on that “winning side” blame FBI interference for losing in 2016. So you would think your appeal would carry weight, yet it doesn’t. One wonders why?

No, they blame the former head of the FBI Comey for announcing that he's not going to prosecute Clinton for her carelessness with her emails, and then sort of reversing himself days ahead of the election. Maybe Clinton bears some blame here for being so careless with her classified emails in the first place? Comey was in an impossible situation and bound to get criticized no matter what he did. This was not the institution itself. This was a bungling director. Was the FBI supposed to not investigate lost/leaked emails from a SoS? Emails that contain all sorts of national security info?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#795

Post by tehwebguy »

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…

I don’t support or cheer on the FBI but I also don’t care at all about them sending these emails.

Doesn’t seem like a great use of FBI resources though — maybe they could put some focus on the crypto scams on Twitter that people keep falling for, or better yet the threads of thousands of videos of police brutality on Twitter from the last 2.5 years alone.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#796

Post by mola »

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…

This is not meant for anything but stirring up the far right and hoping it'll radicalize more right wingers. Being unhinged is part of the strategy. Musk is out on revenge for being force to buy Twitter, and for being framed as an idiot in the media. He is using his newly acquired media sledgehammer to do exactly what he bought it for. Creating the narrative for advancing his personal interests.

This is why it's bad for society to let individuals be richer than nation states. This is why aristocracy was bad. Too bad the notion of freedom was used to rebuild aristocracy.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#797

Post by ethanbond »

TeeMassive wrote: post #792
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…

> Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution. This is factually not true at all: https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/in... https://thenewamerican.com/poll-most-americans-dont-know-bil... People talk to the police and incriminate themselves all the time. This has been a front-line of civil rights activists for decades now. What are y…

Most people not exercising their rights is entirely distinct from people not having been educated on them. The Bill of Rights is surely a required item on every single curriculum in the country. I, having paid attention in high school, am aware that I have no obligation to comply with arbitrary LEO requests, and certainly not those pertaining to the content of speech.

Yes, they did talk of their own volition. As they are free (under their 1st Amendment rights) to do. We have no reason to suspect that they’ve been coerced except for the fact that you disagree with the choice they made! They on the other hand were surely aware of their rights when they chose to talk.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#798

Post by acdha »

spoiler wrote: post #599
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?

When governments ask companies to do something, they usually must comply though lol

What do you hope to accomplish with a low-effort comment which everyone knows is wrong? We’re talking about the FBI here so one of the events I’d expect most HN commenters to be familiar with is their dispute with Apple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...

Since then, Apple has stepped up their end to end encryption stance, which seems like the opposite of what you’re implying.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#799

Post by acdha »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #680
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? Imagine if the FBI came to your house and asked you to take down a sign in your front yard.

That might cause me to ask questions like how I felt about the message on the sign. If it was, say, my support for a political candidate I’d be calling the ACLU and local media. If, as in the case of Twitter, it was something untrue about the upcoming election left by someone at a party who I’d already had to ask to behave better, I would probably regret only that I hadn’t asked them to take their sign and leave earlier.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#800

Post by Georgelemental »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #581
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…

I think thats an obviously false cover story, along the lines of "states rights". By plotting when these "principles" are followed or broken you can map the real motives. For a centuries long historical review see: The Reactionary Mind https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reactionary_Mind > It argues that conservatism from the 17th century to today is based on the principle "that some are fit, and thus ought, to rule…

I should think that I know my own mind, and those of my self-described conservative friends and acquaintances, better than some randon guy I've never heard of. But please, tell me more about my secret plots
Post reply on HN