The Twitter Files, Part Six • Hacker News Board

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#851

Post by root_axis » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 9:35 PM UTC

ergocoder wrote: post #560

snowwrestler wrote: post #358

In a system of free speech, the government may also speak. I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendment means the government is not allowed to speak at all. That is incorrect. It prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," in other words, forcibly restraining other people from speaking. So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think.…

> So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish. This makes me think of "the implication" in it's always sunny in philadephia. FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally. People hate Musk way too much that they are blind. If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin. It would be drummed…

> FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally.

So what are you saying? The government doesn't actually have a right to speak? Without some evidence of threats or coercion I don't see the problem.

> People hate Musk way too much that they are blind.

You think Musk would act any differently?

> If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin.

Not true.

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-granted-requests-fro...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#852

Post by bennies4grojnd » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

Shared404 wrote: post #850

bennies4grojnd wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out that a man who desires to be a woman is still really a man, is an act of speech that neither causes him harm nor dehumanizes him. It's very silly to claim that this is some type of hate.

Aww, look at you making a throwaway to respond to my comments, it's cute :3 E: Removed the troll feeding bits.

See, you know it doesn't really make any sense to call this hate speech, otherwise you wouldn't have deflected into accusations of trolling.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#853

Post by Shared404 » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

bennies4grojnd wrote: post #852

Shared404 wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aww, look at you making a throwaway to respond to my comments, it's cute :3 E: Removed the troll feeding bits.

See, you know it doesn't really make any sense to call this hate speech, otherwise you wouldn't have deflected into accusations of trolling.

Then come back with your real handle and we'll talk. If you're not willing to interact in good faith, it is only safe to assume that you are a troll.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#854

Post by rayiner » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #845

rayiner wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clear rules which are fairly applied are a very different level. The disclosure here is that Twitter didn’t have “clear rules which are fairly applied.” It was filtered through people who believed wacky things—for example, ones so blinded by anti-Christian bias they think there is any comparison between Christian “extremism” and the global problem of Islamic radicalism.

Which disclosure was that, specifically? I haven’t seen any evidence of “anti-Christian bias”. If you’re referring to my comment, note that my position is that all radicals should be treated with concern, but their coreligionists shouldn’t be assumed to share their beliefs. In the United States the most common religion is Christianity so we have lots of people making various hate crimes using language derived from th…

> Which disclosure was that, specifically?

The Twitter internal discussions we are talking about.

> I haven’t seen any evidence of “anti-Christian bias”. If you’re referring to my comment, note that my position is that all radicals should be treated with concern

The anti-Christian bias is in creating a false equivalency between Christian “extremists” and Islamic radicals. You responded to my comment by bringing up “anti-gay anti-Black” statements from “Christian extremists.” That’s an absurd comparison. What you’re talking about is the average person in my Muslim home country: https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2.... The FBI shouldn’t be investigating those people. What I’m talking about is a different level entirely: https://time.com/4365890/bangladesh-arrests-5000-crackdown-r...

The bias reflected in your comment is exactly the sort of biases through which Twitter moderation decisions are filtered. Your average Twitter moderator is the kind of sheltered person who thinks his racist uncle back home in Indiana bears mention in the same breath as Islamic radicalism. These are the same people who flipped out when the FBI was investigating Islamic fundamentalism, but now cheers in the FBI now that the target is white Christians.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#855

Post by bennies4grojnd » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

Shared404 wrote: post #853

bennies4grojnd wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, you know it doesn't really make any sense to call this hate speech, otherwise you wouldn't have deflected into accusations of trolling.

Then come back with your real handle and we'll talk. If you're not willing to interact in good faith, it is only safe to assume that you are a troll.

You are still deflecting.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#856

Post by Shared404 » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 9:57 PM UTC

bennies4grojnd wrote: post #855

Shared404 wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then come back with your real handle and we'll talk. If you're not willing to interact in good faith, it is only safe to assume that you are a troll.

You are still deflecting.

Ugh, fine.

> neither causes harm

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transphobia#effect...

> Nor dehumanizes

Intentionally causing harm (see above) and pushing for it to be acceptable for others to cause harm is in fact dehumanizing.

I note you still fail to present any argument other than "I feel like you're wrong"

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#857

Post by acdha » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #854

acdha wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which disclosure was that, specifically? I haven’t seen any evidence of “anti-Christian bias”. If you’re referring to my comment, note that my position is that all radicals should be treated with concern, but their coreligionists shouldn’t be assumed to share their beliefs. In the United States the most common religion is Christianity so we have lots of people making various hate crimes using language derived from th…

> Which disclosure was that, specifically? The Twitter internal discussions we are talking about. > I haven’t seen any evidence of “anti-Christian bias”. If you’re referring to my comment, note that my position is that all radicals should be treated with concern The anti-Christian bias is in creating a false equivalency between Christian “extremists” and Islamic radicals. You responded to my comment by bringing up “a…

> The Twitter internal discussions we are talking about.

Can you point to a specific detail supporting this claim? I have read the thread and don’t know what this is based on.

> You responded to my comment by bringing up “anti-gay anti-Black” statements from “Christian extremists.” That’s an absurd comparison.

Not if you’re looking at who’s threatening or committing crimes here in the US. School children aren’t doing active shooter drills because of Muslims, public events aren’t being cancelled because of bomb threats made by Muslims, etc. This is exactly what I’d expect based on demographics, so again my point is simply that I’m not surprised that the FBI is finding more crimes committed by nominal Christians in a majority Christian country.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#858

Post by andirk » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:08 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #804

andirk wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stupid H Biden lap top story shows that factually the government can twist a private company's arm outside of legal channels and said company will do as it is told. That is very bad. I'm not sure people realize this. Every incriminating leak showcases it more and more and yet people are generally not worried about it because they themselves have not been affected. Yet.

Can you point to exactly where the government twisted arms? What Taibi published showed the opposite.

We learned before Taibbi's scoop that Twitter disallowed sharing of the story including in DMs. Blocking content in DMs was supposedly only used for illicit underage material until that story. Facebook's Zuck outright admitted in plain English that they got contacted by the government (maybe FBI, can't remember) so they buried the story. This is not my opinion or guessing. We know this to be absolute fact.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#859

Post by andirk » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #651

andirk wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stupid H Biden lap top story shows that factually the government can twist a private company's arm outside of legal channels and said company will do as it is told. That is very bad. I'm not sure people realize this. Every incriminating leak showcases it more and more and yet people are generally not worried about it because they themselves have not been affected. Yet.

Could have sworn these twitter files revealed that the government did zero arm twisting and it was Twitter on its own initiative.

"arm twisting" doesn't mean flat out forcing but strongly recommending with the idea that it may go further if their recommendation isn't followed. The laptop story being suppressed is now fact and admitted by both Twitter and Facebook and months before these Taibbi stories.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#860

Post by bennies4grojnd » Sat, Dec 17, 2022, 10:11 PM UTC

Shared404 wrote: post #856

bennies4grojnd wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are still deflecting.

Ugh, fine. > neither causes harm https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transphobia#effect... > Nor dehumanizes Intentionally causing harm (see above) and pushing for it to be acceptable for others to cause harm is in fact dehumanizing. I note you still fail to present any argument other than "I feel like you're wrong"

So, let's say that someone (like a user of Twitter, or a writer for the Babylon Bee) points out that Rachel Levine, a public figure, is a man.

How does that actually harm him?

He's in an incredibly privileged position, and indeed has enjoyed male privilege for pretty much all of his life.

Should we avoid saying any truth that might slightly upset a public figure, or anyone really, just in case they feel a bit sad if they happen to hear it?