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

931–940 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#931

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

partiallypro wrote: post #876
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing posted on some companies website is governed by free speech or the USA’s 1st amendment. The Terms Of Service apply and typically a user has agreed to those by simply participating on the site. This includes account bans, blocking content, etc. the company can do whatever it pleases, if it benefits them to listen to a gov’t agency request then they might do it. Its comical that people believe Musk is promoting…

I never said Twitter was protected by the 1st Amendment, that specifically is about government. I said once government (which is limited by the 1st) intervenes to try to get a company to stop free speech, that's an affront to the 1st Amendment. It's coercion. Do you really think governments don't try to kill speech and ideas through coercion? Do you really see no problem with that? I have no idea why people like your…

Your base argument is asserting that user contributed content on websites is governed by free speech, its not. I’m not for or against anything, just pointing out that the base of thinking user contributed content is somehow governed by 1st amendment is wrong. Does the US 1st amendment apply to people from other countries?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#932

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

miedpo wrote: post #872
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing posted on some companies website is governed by free speech or the USA’s 1st amendment. The Terms Of Service apply and typically a user has agreed to those by simply participating on the site. This includes account bans, blocking content, etc. the company can do whatever it pleases, if it benefits them to listen to a gov’t agency request then they might do it. Its comical that people believe Musk is promoting…

Just responding to one part of this, if that's cool. I think what the comment above is saying is that it's not about whether or not speech on Twitter is protected. It's that the government isn't supposed to act to restrict speech in any manner that doesn't cross the lines he listed. If I'm remembering correctly, there was a big court case because Trump was hiding critical responses to his tweets on Twitter. The judge…

The base of those thoughts is that user contributed content is somehow an expression of free speech. Is it? what if it the user contributed content is from someone from another nation? what if its a bot/ChatGPT generated content? I think there are arguments that user content online can’t be universally treated as protected by one countries laws. IANAL so I could be wrong.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#933

Post by bennies4grojnd »

roflyear wrote: post #928
bennies4grojnd wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems highly unlikely this is a satirical protest. More probably it's just a man bringing his fetish to work and expecting everyone to comply, as is the zeitgeist of today.

Of course you say that, nevermind the evidence saying otherwise!

An anonymous comment on 4chan is not evidence of anything.

Come on, do you really believe this is anything other than the usual trolling that goes on over there: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdXO_XkXgAsIMFy?format=jpg&name=...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#934

Post by themitigating »

theonething wrote: post #889
themitigating wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who is making the assessment that they aren't trying hard enough? And "seems like" isn't evidence

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#935

Post by snowwrestler »

ergocoder wrote: post #918
snowwrestler wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> they helped us with a security problem You are getting more and more obtuse. You know this is not the same, but you still use it in your argument. In this case, FBI asked for the location of the accounts that "Twitter will voluntarily provide to aid the FBI". Ref: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1604191731141984256 Why didn't FBI get a subpoena properly? why asking twitter to voluntarily provide information? Wer…

The FBI asked us for server logs and we supplied them. No subpoena required if both parties agree.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#936

Post by simpleblend »

llamaimperative wrote: post #929
simpleblend wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And your evidence of subverting the right wing here is that they reported people to Twitter for posting incorrect polling locations/dates? Yeah there’s plenty to critique of FBI, but this is a profoundly weak case.

If you think that's the only piece evidence, I strongly suggest you keep looking. I'm not even a right-winger and it's obvious to me.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#937

Post by simpleblend »

roflyear wrote: post #893
simpleblend wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? :)

Wait, so how is that hate speech?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#938

Post by nobody9999 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #598
jacquesm wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. For instance: LE might become aware of a sexting or suicide attempt or some other thing that people do that is not strictly illegal but that might be embarrassing or that could cause the person trouble in their private life. Having a degree of confidentiality helps to both speed up the process because not every word has to be weighed on the scale of 'how does this look in the public arena' and it helps to…

Sure, ,,let's think of the children''. We heared it many times, but we're talking about a govermental agency meddling with election results. Politics and these cases are very different in nature. Personally I wouldn't be comfortable not taking action when the FBI would ask anything from me, because it's safer to just comply.

>We heared it many times, but we're talking about a govermental agency meddling with election results. Politics and these cases are very different in nature.

Which specific government agency meddling in which specfic election? The Trump Administration meddling in the 2020 election with Hatch Act violations[0]? The FBI releasing a statement (which turned out to be nothing at all) about Hillary Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiner's computer[1]?

Or was it the FBI demanding that Twitter take down the NY Post's tweet about their "Hunter Biden laptop" article[2]?

>Personally I wouldn't be comfortable not taking action when the FBI would ask anything from me, because it's safer to just comply.

Then you don't know or understand your rights. And more's the pity.

[0] https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/violations-...

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/what-fbi-found-emails-anthony-weine...

[2] Except the FBI didn't demand (or request, for that matter) any such thing.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#939

Post by nobody9999 »

memish wrote: post #6

"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content." Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?

>"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content."

>Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?

Which specific security contractors? Which specific think tanks? The above assertion that you quoted makes several assertions, none of which (at least AFAICT) have any facts, data or evidence attached to them. Perhaps I'm missing something important? If so, what might that be?

What's more,. I receive multiple contacts from DHS daily[0]. And I (as an individual with minimal resources and little ability to "fight" the government) have never felt pressured by the Federal government to do anything.

I'd expect that corporations with multiple billions in revenue (like Twitter) and lawyers on staff would zealously protect their independence and reputation rather than being seen as shills for some shadowy "government conspiracy."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_and_Infrastructu...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#940

Post by nobody9999 »

starkd wrote: post #749
UncleMeat wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally one comment ago you said "the problem was that it was entirely one way."

Individuals accounts cannot always be categorized in one of two ways. There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.

>There was a consistent attempt to counter any ideas that ran counter to a certain narrative.

An attempt by whom? Please be specific and name names.

Counter to which specific narrative? Please be specific and detailed.

Otherwise, you're just making unsupported claims. Not a good look, friend.

Post reply on HN