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

891–900 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#891

Post by _kbh_ »

kodyo wrote: post #192
_kbh_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the Trump administration then? because we haven't seen anything to indicate that the Biden administration has asked for things to be censored, only that the Trump administration made requests whilst he was still in power.

Are you under the impression that the FBI was acting on behalf of Trump during his presidency?

I am talking about this tweet specifically.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752

That mentions that both parties had access to the tools at the time, and both had requests honoured.

But only party was in power at the time, and that was the Trump administration.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#892

Post by acdha »

naasking wrote: post #888
acdha wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this

Your frustration stems from angrily telling people something is wrong based on your misunderstanding of a term. You’re welcome not to like the practice or lobby against it but you’re just signing up for frustration trying to get everyone to switch to your redefinition.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#893

Post by roflyear »

simpleblend wrote: post #835
jacquesm wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And rightly so.

Stating facts is not hate speech -- especially if you're trying to force society to go along with your unreality for political reasons.

Stating facts can be hate speech. For example, if someone said "I was just attacked on my way home" and someone said "you're black" in response, yeah. Facts. Hate speech.

See? :)

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#894

Post by roflyear »

simpleblend wrote: post #836
roflyear wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that. I know several conservatives who posted that shit all the time and didn't get banned.

So Twitter needs to bad them all for you to be convinced?

No. I just don't believe there is a "ban this speech" b/c in my experience that didn't happen.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#895

Post by roflyear »

bennies4grojnd wrote: post #842
Shared404 wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're referring to a Babylon Bee article where they misgender a trans public figure repeatedly. It's the tweet that got the Bee suspended from twitter because they refused to delete it.

It was a satire on USA Today naming Levine as one of their Women Of The Year. This isn't hate speech, just social commentary on organizations giving awards and accolades reserved for women to men who want to be women.

The right is incredibly fucked up today. See this article: https://unherd.com/thepost/was-the-fake-boobs-teacher-a-hoax...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#896

Post by roflyear »

starkd wrote: post #767
roflyear wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Define "censor" for me, please. I think we have different definitions...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#897

Post by root_axis »

ergocoder wrote: post #884
root_axis wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

The main problem with your analogy is that sexual advances in a boss/employee power dynamic excludes many critical distinctions with respect to law enforcement vs a big tech company.

I'll concede that the big tech companies certainly have an incentive to comply with law enforcement because of their legal authority, however as we all know, big tech companies are well equipped in terms of political influence as well as powerful legal teams that ensure these companies don't have to do anything they don't want to if they're complying with the law, especially if law enforcement isn't issuing a legal command and is merely "telling you what they think".

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

In all cases of boss vs subordinate there is a near total power asymmetry in favor of the boss unless the boss is egregiously abusive or retaliatory, and often times even that doesn't matter. A boss also never has a genuine business interest in making sexual advances, whereas law enforcement may have a genuine law enforcement interest in asking for a company's cooperation.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#898

Post by simple-thoughts »

Apocryphon wrote: post #789
simple-thoughts wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 feder…

I’m using the term “rogue” here for a specific reason. Trump was president at the time and was nominally the head of the FBI. Did Trump give a directive to ask the FBI to ban people for political jokes on Twitter? It seems highly unlikely. A rogue agency is an agency which is no longer following its democratically elected leadership and is instead operating independently. The FBI is now proven to do what we all suspected before - operate as a completely parallel oligarchic institution to the democratic ones that are in place.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#899

Post by tootie »

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…

I work at a much smaller shop than Twitter, but notable enough to get reporters sniffing around when we have internal scandals. Without giving any details I was an insider on few actions that got media coverage that was framed in a very nefarious way. Having personally witnessed the deliberations, I can confirm it was a mix of inside baseball that outsiders just don't usually see and a handful of sincere people really trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation and not really knowing one way or the other how things will work out.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#900

Post by _kbh_ »

kodyo wrote: post #160
sleepybrett wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they were leaked BY FUCKING HACKERS (specifically 'fancy bear')

Quoted post unavailable.

> That's what the intelligence agencies who were simultaneously infiltrating the opposing political campaign claim, yes.

It’s actually what SecureWorks and other private companies said, SecureWorks is a private company that is a subsidiary of Dell but I’m sure you’ll find some other reason not to believe it.

Post reply on HN