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

881–890 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#881

Post by acdha »

woooooo wrote: post #442
cmdli wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because more important users get special treatment? If you are a user that are of special importance to the business (like politicians, news outlets, or major Twitter users), then of course their requests are going to get escalated more quickly. Twitter isn’t a democracy; some users matter a lot more to them than others, and it’s not really based on political lines.

That's the point of the Twitter Files (tm). Shining a light on how that process worked. It is of course tied up with partisan politics, who won or lost this week from some particular story, but more transparency is good.

Transparency would be full and open disclosure. Cherry-picking for right-wing writers to base stories on is pretty different, as evidenced by all of the people who think there was anything new revealed this week. This showed some of the internal conversations but the story matched what we already knew from statements at the time and subsequent testimony before the Congress. From a transparency win that seems small to non-existent but it’s clearly been successful at giving partisans more ammunition.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#882

Post by andirk »

acdha wrote: post #873
andirk wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 You might not have been aware of that but it was common knowledge years before. During the hours when that story was blocked using the same mechanism they used for other hacked materials like you might have seen if some celebr…

It's common knowledge yet here we are arguing whether these social media outlets block useless content that happens to be embarrassing to the State when suggested to by the FBI. You seem to agree with this but frame it as a counterpoint. "Mythology around conservative oppression"? I don't follow conservative whinings about how their hate speech is oppressed.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#883

Post by Apocryphon »

starkd wrote: post #880
Apocryphon wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are contradicting yourself. “The problem was that it was entirely one way.”

Entirely one way in the sense that they were out to re-inforce a narrative.

What would have made it more of a comfortably multilateral situation?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#884

Post by ergocoder »

root_axis wrote: post #851
ergocoder wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.c…

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

This is like saying employees have the right to reject when their bosses make sexual advances.

In theory, sure. In practice, not really. Employees fear for their careers

This is why it's such a big no even if employees have mutual romantic interests.

Same with the FBI. They can fuck up your life beyond repair if they want to.

Thus, "the implications"!

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#885

Post by ergocoder »

Apocryphon wrote: post #563
ergocoder wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

These companies are just as afraid, if not far more afraid, of "the implication" from other companies, namely their advertisers and sponsors, as well as influential individuals such as celebrity influencers who drive traffic for their sites. The G-men will have to get in line for Twitter bending over backwards to all of these interests. Threats to the bottom line are probably even more menacing than legal threats- an…

Not the companies who are afraid. It's the employees that are afraid of FBI.

This is like your bosses make sexual advances at you. The power dynamics would make you uncomfortable.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#886

Post by simpleblend »

llamaimperative wrote: post #839
simpleblend wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The FBI is prioritizing certain things and not prioritizing others. They're doing this for political reasons, which should outrage everyone. But it doesn't outrage you because you're in agreement with the shit they're shoveling.

The FBI: notoriously left wing Lol

The FBI is notoriously subversive, regardless of the political denomination.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#887

Post by nobody9999 »

ModernMech wrote: post #711
concordDance wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, I thought twitter DID suppress the story as part of their anti hacking policy?

They blocked some links, as did other social networks, but the story was not suppressed by any stretch. It was still all over the place and everyone was talking about it in real time, on Twitter even .

>They blocked some links, as did other social networks, but the story was not suppressed by any stretch. It was still all over the place and everyone was talking about it in real time, on Twitter even.

Twitter's actions almost guaranteed that this would blow up, prompting the wider media ecosystem to respond to the story about the blocked tweet, letting many, many more people know about the laptop story (which anyone/everyone could still read without hindrance) to people (like me) who don't read the Post or use Twitter.

In fact, had Twitter not flagged the NY Post's tweet about the article, I might never have heard about the laptop story at all.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#888

Post by naasking »

acdha wrote: post #878
naasking wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And still you persist. Go read the definition you provided again. Then read my immediate reply where I pointed out they delisted people from search. That is literally a case where Twitter was "making their posts and comments no longer visible to other users" and they did so "without their knowledge". That is shadowbanning by your own definition, and each ban was not disclosed and thus done in secret, because that's w…

> That is literally a case where Twitter was "making their posts and comments no longer visible to other users" and they did so "without their knowledge". This continues to be incorrect: their posts are visible to anyone on the internet and show up to their followers. The only thing twitter is not doing is having their algorithm highlight them to people who weren’t following them or participating in a conversation wi…

> This continues to be incorrect: their posts are visible to anyone on the internet and show up to their followers

No, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: if you use Twitter's search to try to find a delisted user on Twitter, you can't find them. Sometimes you can't even @ them. This fits the general definition of shadowbanning that the other poster provided, wherein their content cannot be found using Twitter, thereby that qualifies as being shadowbanned on Twitter.

The fact that you can sometimes find that content via other means is totally irrelevant.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#889

Post by theonething »

themitigating wrote: post #803
theonething wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34024832

Are they unwilling or unable? These stories don't show executives don't care or are encouraging it.

The story is saying they are not even trying. That seems to show they don't care and/or they have other priorities like trying to make a buck off porn.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#890

Post by snowwrestler »

ergocoder wrote: post #885
Apocryphon wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies are just as afraid, if not far more afraid, of "the implication" from other companies, namely their advertisers and sponsors, as well as influential individuals such as celebrity influencers who drive traffic for their sites. The G-men will have to get in line for Twitter bending over backwards to all of these interests. Threats to the bottom line are probably even more menacing than legal threats- an…

Not the companies who are afraid. It's the employees that are afraid of FBI. This is like your bosses make sexual advances at you. The power dynamics would make you uncomfortable.

This is getting a bit ridiculous. I’ve interacted with FBI agents in the course of my employment, and it did not feel like sexual harassment. It was fine; they helped us with a security problem and we appreciated the help.
Post reply on HN