4 ms·

Twitter bans and purges links to journalist org for publishing BlueLeaks

56 points by notthemessiah 6y ago

easterncalculus 6y ago
I'm definitely interested in how they justify this in comparison to Wikileaks. BlueLeaks certainly had sensitive information about victims and others that are innocent, but the line hasn't been officially drawn there by a statement or ToS policy. I don't see a Twitter statement in the future.
- ubertaco 6y ago
  I wonder how much of this has to do with the stripping-away of Section 230 protections that was started/attempted recently. A bit more paranoid response to published content that could create legal issues for Twitter now.
- kanox 6y ago
  From the article: > The group’s account, @DDoSecrets, was permanently suspended, a Twitter spokesperson told Gizmodo, citing the company’s policy against the distribution of hacked materials. The policy specifically prohibits accounts from sharing “content obtained through hacking that contains private information, may put people in harm or danger, or contains trade secrets.”
  - easterncalculus 6y ago
    I did actually see that, on second thought I worded my OP in a way that sounded like they didn't comment at all, when I was referring to if they would compare it to how they handled Wikileaks in their response. So I guess trade secrets are not in these leaks, but private information is certainly what Wikileaks is about. I think that the information of innocent people is more than enough reason not to host it, though. Just figured they'd want to clear the air of any accusations of favoritism.
mindslight 6y ago
Yet another tiny cut demonstrating how centralized platforms are intrinsically unsustainable for freedom. How many people will this further discourage from referring to the primary source for themselves? Instead of a democratic in-touch society where everyone is one step away from the files, we get pre-digested articles that vaguely refer to the primary source as if it's some kind of hot potato instead of simply including a link. Censorship always seems appealing for protecting sympathetic individuals, especially at its start when the cases are inherently worthy. But after the ruling power structure learns which levers to pull, censorship is inevitably used to protect and perpetuate the status quo at scale. This tragic arc was foreseeable over a decade ago when this trend of webcrapps was gaining popularity. Giving one entity power over the communications of hundreds of millions of users is an inevitable target for authoritarian control, and too concentrated to resist. But nobody wanted to listen, and now we're living the results.
- kanox 6y ago
  The argument seems to be that those files contains lots of personal data of innocent people so it falls outside any sort of free-speech debate.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    In our society censorship doesn't occur by blunt order, but rather follows some justifying narrative. Based on the reporting I've read, I'm guessing these "innocent people" are police officers who should already be subject to extreme transparency by virtue of their position. Any specific standard starts off being used to punch up to harassers and the like, but then gets internalized by the status quo and used to routinely punch down. No way to tell without looking at the source material though, which is the entire problem. Guess it's time to track down the torrent.
    - kanox 6y ago
      I'd imagine it also contains personal data of various crime suspects and victims.

56 points by notthemessiah 6y ago

I'm definitely interested in how they justify this in comparison to Wikileaks. BlueLeaks certainly had sensitive information about victims and others that are innocent, but the line hasn't been officially drawn there by a statement or ToS policy. I don't see a Twitter statement in the future.

ubertaco 6y ago
I wonder how much of this has to do with the stripping-away of Section 230 protections that was started/attempted recently. A bit more paranoid response to published content that could create legal issues for Twitter now.
kanox 6y ago
From the article: > The group’s account, @DDoSecrets, was permanently suspended, a Twitter spokesperson told Gizmodo, citing the company’s policy against the distribution of hacked materials. The policy specifically prohibits accounts from sharing “content obtained through hacking that contains private information, may put people in harm or danger, or contains trade secrets.”
- easterncalculus 6y ago
  I did actually see that, on second thought I worded my OP in a way that sounded like they didn't comment at all, when I was referring to if they would compare it to how they handled Wikileaks in their response. So I guess trade secrets are not in these leaks, but private information is certainly what Wikileaks is about. I think that the information of innocent people is more than enough reason not to host it, though. Just figured they'd want to clear the air of any accusations of favoritism.

mindslight 6y ago

Yet another tiny cut demonstrating how centralized platforms are intrinsically unsustainable for freedom. How many people will this further discourage from referring to the primary source for themselves? Instead of a democratic in-touch society where everyone is one step away from the files, we get pre-digested articles that vaguely refer to the primary source as if it's some kind of hot potato instead of simply including a link. Censorship always seems appealing for protecting sympathetic individuals, especially at its start when the cases are inherently worthy. But after the ruling power structure learns which levers to pull, censorship is inevitably used to protect and perpetuate the status quo at scale. This tragic arc was foreseeable over a decade ago when this trend of webcrapps was gaining popularity. Giving one entity power over the communications of hundreds of millions of users is an inevitable target for authoritarian control, and too concentrated to resist. But nobody wanted to listen, and now we're living the results.

kanox 6y ago
The argument seems to be that those files contains lots of personal data of innocent people so it falls outside any sort of free-speech debate.
- mindslight 6y ago
  In our society censorship doesn't occur by blunt order, but rather follows some justifying narrative. Based on the reporting I've read, I'm guessing these "innocent people" are police officers who should already be subject to extreme transparency by virtue of their position. Any specific standard starts off being used to punch up to harassers and the like, but then gets internalized by the status quo and used to routinely punch down. No way to tell without looking at the source material though, which is the entire problem. Guess it's time to track down the torrent.
  - kanox 6y ago
    I'd imagine it also contains personal data of various crime suspects and victims.