17 ms·

Judge Orders Twitter to Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy

247 points by uptown 6y ago

newacct583 6y ago
Not a fan of this order. I'm no expert on the Seth Rich insanity, but my understanding is that this account was basically just a scam artist or prankster. It claimed some stuff, and then when the Fox reporter took the bait provided some fabricated documents. This isn't a criminal suit. It's a civil thing having to do with Fox's behavior. And their failure to validate their sources and documents isn't really related to the original identity of those sources. I mean, we don't know who @whyspertech is, Fox certainly didn't know who @whyspertech was. No one knew. So why is it relevant for us to know now to determine whether or not Fox was at fault?
- chaz72 6y ago
  I am less certain that Fox didn't know who @whyspertech was.
- macintux 6y ago
  The structural problem is that the impersonator's identity is irrelevant. Q himself, if revealed to be some kid in their parents' basement, would still be treated as a hero by the true believers. I don't know how to cope with the knowledge that the system is so fundamentally broken that even simple facts are no longer able to be agreed upon. How can complex problems be addressed when truth is perceived to be entirely subjective?
- cure 6y ago
  Presumably they would like to know if there is a link between Fox and @whyspertech. What if @whyspertech was just a convenient 'anonymous' source for Fox?
- ggm 6y ago
  I see two faults. A prankster, who I believe should be uncovered, and that goes to the nature of anonymous communications in the commons, and I know its complex, and that the channels are not always "the commons" as we used to understand them. And, it goes to Fox being a non-journalist non-news agency which should be de-listed in any structural sense, since they are incapable of displaying what true journalism is. You seem to want to address the second. No problem, but I don't think that invalidates the first. I want to know who this is. I want to know who Q is. I want to know who the White House Deep Throat is. I am tired of anonymous sources.
  - tssva 6y ago
    Deep Throat was Mark Felt. This has been public knowledge since 2005.
    - ggm 6y ago
      And what lag from Nixon was this again? The rhetorical quality here, is that "eventually" isn't good enough. The dependency on inside behind-the-scenes is tainting journalism. Yes, they get deep inside knowledge. They also get fed a line.
  - megablast 6y ago
    You want to know so badly who deep throat is, that you can’t even be bothered googling??
    - ggm 6y ago
      Please, don't be literalist about the fact of who Deep throat is. The point was, the perpetuating (decades) lack of knowledge of who Deep throat was, and its effect on the news cycle and journalism. What we need, is whistleblowers. Not deep throat.
- ceedan 6y ago
  So why is it relevant for us to know now to determine whether or not Fox was at fault? "Learning the identity of @whysprtech is necessary in order to confirm that @whysprtech was not in fact a FBI 'insider' or otherwise someone who had access to non-public FBI material," Benedict Hu wrote in a filing."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kryogen1c 6y ago
> The Washington Times later reported [...] None of those allegations are true. That story has also been retracted. > In a now-retracted story, Fox News falsely claimed disruptive silicon valley news startup when? MSM is embarassing, and further embarrassing how watched they are.
- necubi 6y ago
  The Washington Times [0] (this is not the Post) and Fox News are both propaganda outfits, not legitimate news sources. The Washington Times is run by the Unification Church (popularly known as "moonies") which some consider a cult. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
  - godzulu 6y ago
    what a garbage comment.....cnn etc al are just propaganda for the dnc plantation... literally Baghdad Bob channels
    - dang 6y ago
      We've banned this account for using HN for flamewar. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. Those are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - Vaslo 6y ago
    Many could argue the same about the legitimacy of the Post.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
mStreamTeam 6y ago
Does anyone think this kind of action will backfire? Anyone who believes in this kind of conspiracy will just think government action gives validity to their claims. And this isn't just an assumption. I know a few of these people in real life and that's how they think. Personally, I think it would be a better move to just ignore this completely.
- danso 6y ago
  Backfire to whom? This ruling is a result of a civil defamation suit.
  - mStreamTeam 6y ago
    The Rich family. This kind of move might win them some money, but it will just fire up the conspiracy theorists who have been harassing them.
    - komali2 6y ago
      Oh, my other comment was on the wrong track. This idea smacks of "don't tattle on your abuser for fear of further abuse." If this riles up conspiracy theorists, Butowsky and friends should simply be made to pay for further shielding for Rich's family. It's not the Rich's fault this conspiracy theory spread like wildfire.
      - mStreamTeam 6y ago
        If you tattle on your abuser to someone who supports your abuser, youre just going to get abused more... If you're going to tattle, you have to be smart about how you go about it. For example, their lawyer could avoid unneeded attention by not pushing for motions that generate national news headlines and fire up the conspiracy theorists.
- ceedan 6y ago
  No
- 6y ago
kls 6y ago
In court filings, attorneys for the social media giant claimed such a disclosure would violate the First Amendment rights of a user to be anonymous. That ship has sailed, it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech. As a note before any projection I am a advocate of free speech and also a advocate of corporations being able to choose their direction. I am just not an advocate of hypocrisy and only pointing out the obvious.
- chki 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you think that the two arguments are contradictory. Rights are always rights of private entities against the state. It's perfectly normal not to be bound by some right that you are at the same time claiming against the state. Fundamental rights are very different from (for example) contract law where duties are often somewhat connected to each other.
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    It would be utterly contradictory to attempt to apply the restrictions placed on the government in regards to "free speech" to private entities.
- xoa 6y ago
  >That ship has sailed, it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech. No. You are operating under an extremely confused and muddled understanding of the law and its purpose. The First Amendment and associated case law is an actual specific legal thing, and is not necessarily the same as broader subjective feelings "free speech". Specifically, it applies exclusively to the government, not the people. From a legal point of view, the purpose of freedom of speech and freedom of association is to allow the public at large to sort out what ideas and information is useful within extremely loose boundaries rather then the government using its monopoly on physical force to impose it. Part of that freedom is naturally social and economic consequences (as opposed to physical consequences): you have the "right to generally say what you wish" but other people by the same token have the right to have nothing to do with you, and to refuse to help you if they think you are wrong. So no, like most of the times people use "hypocrisy" on the internet you've gotten it wrong. There is nothing hypocritical in the stance you describe, because the United States Government and private actors are not legally equivalent. The USG is both empowered to do things private actors may not, and forbidden from doing things that private actors can. Twitter may assert its rights to associate with whom it pleases. Under different law (the same that protects Hacker News and every other US-based user content site in existence), Section 230 of the CDA, Twitter is also empowered to moderate as it wishes to the best of its abilities without having to be 100% perfect without incurring liability rather then being forced to choose between full common carrier or full publisher. It could also voluntarily cooperate, within its various contracts and law. But the USG doesn't get to do the same. And rightfully so.
tedk-42 6y ago
While I do believe the person behind the twitter handle should be found out and investigated (forging fake government documents seems wrong, even though this is the internet after all), pressing criminal charges for any wrongdoing is off. The blame for the whole thing is definitely on news sources not fact checking the credibility of their sources (come on seriously a random twitter account?). Under a reasonable system, this person should be interviewed to see what their connection to Seth Rich was and possibly what their initial motive was for forging and publishing what they had. Having said this, I do see some issues down the line around how this unmasking could be abused. Someone might post something they think is trivial and a parody but could have dire consequences based on a chain reaction of events that happen.
- cowpig 6y ago
  ... the story says they forged FBI documents. Surely that's a crime?
  - Lammy 6y ago
    It seems like the only people who would need FBI documents would also know a fake wasn't theirs?
    - meroes 6y ago
      Fox ran and then retracted a story because the thought they were legit enough to publish a story based on them.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        I'm not surprised given their general history of journalistic integrity, but I still don't think that justifies trying to identify and charge the person who made it.
        mmcwilliams 6y ago
        Isn’t this article about a civil suit? I don’t think anyone is at risk of being charged, here.
not_a_moth 6y ago
Right, because the impersonator set off the conspiracy theory, not the facts of the events.
- lowiqengineer 6y ago
  ...yes? That is exactly what happened?
jowiar 6y ago
Ironic that this is #1 on HN, as I’m hellbanned here for calling out the mods for doing nothing about members of this site spreading this conspiracy.
irjustin 6y ago
All the threads are talking about Free Speech, but that ended when the person impersonated an FBI agent. That is not a protected act and is prosecutable[0]. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912
- centimeter 6y ago
  Oh cool, as long as the government hasn't chosen to protect it, I guess free speech doesn't apply.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    Are you seriously arguing that falsifying government documents is/should be protected/free speech? If so I have a tax return to sell you. P.S. My cousin is a prince form Nigeria that might want to discuss a business opportunity with you let me know if you’re interested.
    - W-Stool 6y ago
      Great guy your cousin. Would do business again 10/10.
      - uCantCauseUCant 6y ago
        I bought a bridge from him- like that bridge, its over troubled waters..
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      How convinient for the state to prosecute citizens spreading "fake" documents. I mean what could go wrong.
      - rsynnott 6y ago
        ... Hold on, are you just now realising that fraud isn't legal? Like, it's one of the first things to have been illegal; the oldest legal codes that we know about cover it. That said this isn't a criminal case and the state isn't prosecuting anyone. (Yet; I assume the person might be prosecuted at some point)
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
And this is the other side of the famed tech desire to collect tons of info but refuse to give it to the government. We get disinterested social networks allowing fake news that cause direct harm, created by anonymous users who they don't want to reveal. I am a strong privacy advocate, but the idea we should give corporations our data while hiding it from the government is kinda ludicrous when you look at the results.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  The fact that every online interaction (almost unavoidably) gives valuable data to corporations is bad enough. I do not understand why you would want to compound the damage by pouring that information directly into the hands of the government.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I am for keeping personal information siloed and ideally offline as much as possible. I am not sure that it is good to make it impossible to trace where online information came from though.
    - chii 6y ago
      if somebody "anonymously" taped banners and posters on the street espousing messages, would it make sense to have a camera record every public space and identify who placed those banners there?
      - silvester23 6y ago
        I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue but that analogy falls a little flat - the potential reach of a couple of posters on a couple of streets is much smaller than that of posts online.
        chii 6y ago
        so you're saying that as long as you can limit the reach of a message, anonymity is fine? Where and who decides that line? I think society should either accept that if there should be anonymity, that there must also be free speech (which includes free speech you may not like). And the inverse is also true - that if there's no anonymity, then there can be no free speech (including free speech you _do_ like).
29athrowaway 6y ago
Will the clowns behind QAnon, FBIAnon, CIAAnon also get prosecuted? that would be beyond fantastic.
nullc 6y ago
It's unclear to me why twitter was protecting this persons identity to begin with. They have no obligation to do so and this persons actions were dishonest, anti-social, and likely unlawful.
- creato 6y ago
  If twitter didn't stand up for their dishonest users, a whole lot of the outrage bait they depend on to keep people glued to their twitter feeds might disappear.
- sjy 6y ago
  From the article: “Twitter's primary goal is to ensure that the subpoena not be used to chill anonymous speech that does not rise to the level of defamation.”
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  The same reason you get a lawyer and a trial even if you look guilty.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    Because twitter is a court of law...?
fareesh 6y ago
Julian Assange suggested it on a Dutch news show
- lowiqengineer 6y ago
  More evidence of it being a crazed conspiracy theory then!
- slg 6y ago
  There has been a lot of support for Assange on HN lately, but I rarely see any discussion of his relation to the whole Seth Rich debacle. Is there any possible defense for Assange's role in that?
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    IF Julian was able to exercise his right to free speech, I'm sure he would provide ample evidence to support his position. However, that is not the case with Julian today - but he would be the one who actually knew whether Seth Rich leaked the DNC documents.
    - belorn 6y ago
      Unless Assange meet the person who provided the documents he would not be able to know for sure who it was.
    - slg 6y ago
      Assange had first started to insinuate a connection to Seth Rich in 2016. He has had plenty of opportunities since then to share any supporting evidence, but he hasn't. That isn't due to any free speech issue. Also Assange was still communicating with and receiving DNC documents from his source after Seth Rich was already dead. Seth Rich wasn't Assange's source. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-ri...
  - justaguy1 6y ago
    The possible defense would be that Julian wasn’t trying to mislead people, but he was actually telling the truth. He hinted that Seth rich was a Leaker to him, and encouraged people to think that without saying it explicitly. He was either A) lying to cover up getting information from The Russians, or B) telling the truth and the “analysis” that says the Russians hacked the DNC server is actually false.
JohnBerea 6y ago
I haven't followed much with Seth Rich since a couple years ago. I remember saving these points from a Zero Hedge article: 1. Kim DotCom said he knew Seth Rich and knew he was the leaker. He tried to Mueller to take his testimony about Seth Rich but he wouldn't reply to his emails. 2. "two men working with the Rich family - private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod Wheeler and family acquaintance Ed Butowsky, have previously stated that Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks before his death." 3. Friend of the family Ed Butowsky says there's an FBI report "establishing that Seth Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks." 4. Private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod "Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich’s brother, Aaron – a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth’s computer and stonewalled his investigation." 6. "Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone." Has any of this changed or been questioned since then? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/contradictions-seth-rich-murder-continue-challenge-hacking-narrative https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/contradictions-set...
- triangleman 6y ago
  Point 3 is what this whole article is about. Butowsky is being sued for defamation, that is, for lying about Seth Rich to serve his own political/personal ends.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Zero Hedge does not provide factual information. "...we rate Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    I agree about Zero Hedge up to a point, just from personal experience and seeing the kinds of articles it puts out .. but who is mediabiasfactcheck.com and why should I trust the unpaid interns* that work there to tell me what I should and shouldn't believe in, and who is and isn't credible? EDIT: From https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/ "Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages." All these fact checking organizations rely on young, inexperienced unpaid/low-paid interns to interpret complex situations and provide a final 'truth' score that is then used as some sort of authority. Insanity.
betwixthewires 6y ago
So I'm just going to point out that the first sentence of the article shows that the title is misleading. The twitter user didn't set off the conspiracy theory, the theory has been floating around since 2015 and is quite popular in certain circles.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  I'm with you on this. I used to drive late at night and occasionally would catch an episode of Coast to Coast (a conspiracy radio show). It felt like a kind of performance art where callers would world-build together, each adding or changing or clarifying another bit. The end result was a complicated parallel world of psychics and aliens and illuminati woven together into a kind of cohesive narrative. This 'FBI Impersonator' was just one individual adding to the existing conspiratorial narrative that Seth Rich was killed by Democrats because he knew too much.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    4chan theories work in a similar manner.
sneak 6y ago
Note that these days, you can’t just sign up for Twitter with a VPN or Tor and use it like anyone else. They will very shortly lock you out of the account until you provide a phone number. Removing the number gets you locked out again.
pessimizer 6y ago
This headline is propaganda, and isn't reflected in the content of the story (which quotes lawyers saying the document "fuel[ed]" the theory.) The Seth Rich as the DNC leaker "conspiracy" theory was set off by the fact that there was a DNC data leak large enough that some people think that it couldn't have been remote without being detected, so they think it was by an insider. Also, Seth Rich, a DNC IT guy was randomly murdered in an unsolved case. Nothing else. There was no evidence, just a suspicious coincidence. It is a theory with no evidence supporting it other than that coincidence, not a refuted or a false theory. This is a person who fabricated a document supporting the theory, not the person who set it off. Other outlets have generally been more careful.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > It is a theory with no evidence supporting it other than that coincidence, not a refuted or a false theory. Key elements of it were false, though. The conspiracy theory largely focused on his “assassination” by being shot in the head, when in reality he was shot twice in the back. There was also physical evidence of an altercation, suggesting robbery. The idea that a trained assassin would first try to fistfight the target and then shoot is pretty absurd. Later, the public found out that hackers tied to Russian intelligence hacked the DNC, which further refuted the conspiracy theory. There’s a lot out there that fundamentally contradicts the conspiracy theory.
  - shfheisi 6y ago
    >Later, the public found out that hackers tied to Russian intelligence hacked the DNC Now we're really in unfounded conspiracy territory :) I don't have an opinion on the rich case but there's as much evidence that he was assassinated as there is that the DNC leak was perpetrated by professional hackers. Or to use your tone: the idea that a trained hacker would use a Russian IP address is pretty absurd. I guess you've been further refuted and fundamentally contradicted, sorry bud.
  - mason240 6y ago
    >hackers tied to Russian intelligence hacked the DNC That was debunked this summer.
bart_spoon 6y ago
> "Twitter's primary goal is to ensure that the subpoena not be used to chill anonymous speech that does not rise to the level of defamation" Surely fabricating evidence to accuse a group of individuals of assassinating someone amounts to defamation?
JuliusPullo 6y ago
The man was shot twice in the back. Nothing was stolen and no one was arrested. There were no cameras or witnesses to confirm what happened. But the police said this was a robbery. Shouldn't the police version itself qualify as a "conspiracy theory".
- svrb 6y ago
  Yes, but that would damage the narrative, so no. Regardless of whether in actual fact the murder has anything to do with the leaks, the claims that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence serve only to promote an evil purpose. We will likely never know the truth, and the narrative that this couldn't possibly be related to the leaks is a major part of why. The answer to cui bono [from the narrative] is therefore "the murderer, whoever that is, regardless of whether there is in fact a conspiracy". Why then do so many support the narrative?! Why has the murderer been deemed "part of our tribe" and thus worthy of plot armor, as it were?!

247 points by uptown 6y ago

Not a fan of this order. I'm no expert on the Seth Rich insanity, but my understanding is that this account was basically just a scam artist or prankster. It claimed some stuff, and then when the Fox reporter took the bait provided some fabricated documents. This isn't a criminal suit. It's a civil thing having to do with Fox's behavior. And their failure to validate their sources and documents isn't really related to the original identity of those sources. I mean, we don't know who @whyspertech is, Fox certainly didn't know who @whyspertech was. No one knew. So why is it relevant for us to know now to determine whether or not Fox was at fault?

chaz72 6y ago
I am less certain that Fox didn't know who @whyspertech was.
macintux 6y ago
The structural problem is that the impersonator's identity is irrelevant. Q himself, if revealed to be some kid in their parents' basement, would still be treated as a hero by the true believers. I don't know how to cope with the knowledge that the system is so fundamentally broken that even simple facts are no longer able to be agreed upon. How can complex problems be addressed when truth is perceived to be entirely subjective?
cure 6y ago
Presumably they would like to know if there is a link between Fox and @whyspertech. What if @whyspertech was just a convenient 'anonymous' source for Fox?
ggm 6y ago
I see two faults. A prankster, who I believe should be uncovered, and that goes to the nature of anonymous communications in the commons, and I know its complex, and that the channels are not always "the commons" as we used to understand them. And, it goes to Fox being a non-journalist non-news agency which should be de-listed in any structural sense, since they are incapable of displaying what true journalism is. You seem to want to address the second. No problem, but I don't think that invalidates the first. I want to know who this is. I want to know who Q is. I want to know who the White House Deep Throat is. I am tired of anonymous sources.
- tssva 6y ago
  Deep Throat was Mark Felt. This has been public knowledge since 2005.
  - ggm 6y ago
    And what lag from Nixon was this again? The rhetorical quality here, is that "eventually" isn't good enough. The dependency on inside behind-the-scenes is tainting journalism. Yes, they get deep inside knowledge. They also get fed a line.
- megablast 6y ago
  You want to know so badly who deep throat is, that you can’t even be bothered googling??
  - ggm 6y ago
    Please, don't be literalist about the fact of who Deep throat is. The point was, the perpetuating (decades) lack of knowledge of who Deep throat was, and its effect on the news cycle and journalism. What we need, is whistleblowers. Not deep throat.
ceedan 6y ago
So why is it relevant for us to know now to determine whether or not Fox was at fault? "Learning the identity of @whysprtech is necessary in order to confirm that @whysprtech was not in fact a FBI 'insider' or otherwise someone who had access to non-public FBI material," Benedict Hu wrote in a filing."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kryogen1c 6y ago

> The Washington Times later reported [...] None of those allegations are true. That story has also been retracted. > In a now-retracted story, Fox News falsely claimed disruptive silicon valley news startup when? MSM is embarassing, and further embarrassing how watched they are.

necubi 6y ago
The Washington Times [0] (this is not the Post) and Fox News are both propaganda outfits, not legitimate news sources. The Washington Times is run by the Unification Church (popularly known as "moonies") which some consider a cult. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
- godzulu 6y ago
  what a garbage comment.....cnn etc al are just propaganda for the dnc plantation... literally Baghdad Bob channels
  - dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN for flamewar. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. Those are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Vaslo 6y ago
  Many could argue the same about the legitimacy of the Post.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

mStreamTeam 6y ago

Does anyone think this kind of action will backfire? Anyone who believes in this kind of conspiracy will just think government action gives validity to their claims. And this isn't just an assumption. I know a few of these people in real life and that's how they think. Personally, I think it would be a better move to just ignore this completely.

danso 6y ago
Backfire to whom? This ruling is a result of a civil defamation suit.
- mStreamTeam 6y ago
  The Rich family. This kind of move might win them some money, but it will just fire up the conspiracy theorists who have been harassing them.
  - komali2 6y ago
    Oh, my other comment was on the wrong track. This idea smacks of "don't tattle on your abuser for fear of further abuse." If this riles up conspiracy theorists, Butowsky and friends should simply be made to pay for further shielding for Rich's family. It's not the Rich's fault this conspiracy theory spread like wildfire.
    - mStreamTeam 6y ago
      If you tattle on your abuser to someone who supports your abuser, youre just going to get abused more... If you're going to tattle, you have to be smart about how you go about it. For example, their lawyer could avoid unneeded attention by not pushing for motions that generate national news headlines and fire up the conspiracy theorists.
ceedan 6y ago
No
6y ago

kls 6y ago

In court filings, attorneys for the social media giant claimed such a disclosure would violate the First Amendment rights of a user to be anonymous. That ship has sailed, it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech. As a note before any projection I am a advocate of free speech and also a advocate of corporations being able to choose their direction. I am just not an advocate of hypocrisy and only pointing out the obvious.

chki 6y ago
I'm not sure why you think that the two arguments are contradictory. Rights are always rights of private entities against the state. It's perfectly normal not to be bound by some right that you are at the same time claiming against the state. Fundamental rights are very different from (for example) contract law where duties are often somewhat connected to each other.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  It would be utterly contradictory to attempt to apply the restrictions placed on the government in regards to "free speech" to private entities.
xoa 6y ago
>That ship has sailed, it seems convenient to argue for their users first amendment rights when out the other side of their mouth they argue that they are a private platform and should not be subject to free speech regulations when they choose to censure speech. No. You are operating under an extremely confused and muddled understanding of the law and its purpose. The First Amendment and associated case law is an actual specific legal thing, and is not necessarily the same as broader subjective feelings "free speech". Specifically, it applies exclusively to the government, not the people. From a legal point of view, the purpose of freedom of speech and freedom of association is to allow the public at large to sort out what ideas and information is useful within extremely loose boundaries rather then the government using its monopoly on physical force to impose it. Part of that freedom is naturally social and economic consequences (as opposed to physical consequences): you have the "right to generally say what you wish" but other people by the same token have the right to have nothing to do with you, and to refuse to help you if they think you are wrong. So no, like most of the times people use "hypocrisy" on the internet you've gotten it wrong. There is nothing hypocritical in the stance you describe, because the United States Government and private actors are not legally equivalent. The USG is both empowered to do things private actors may not, and forbidden from doing things that private actors can. Twitter may assert its rights to associate with whom it pleases. Under different law (the same that protects Hacker News and every other US-based user content site in existence), Section 230 of the CDA, Twitter is also empowered to moderate as it wishes to the best of its abilities without having to be 100% perfect without incurring liability rather then being forced to choose between full common carrier or full publisher. It could also voluntarily cooperate, within its various contracts and law. But the USG doesn't get to do the same. And rightfully so.

tedk-42 6y ago

While I do believe the person behind the twitter handle should be found out and investigated (forging fake government documents seems wrong, even though this is the internet after all), pressing criminal charges for any wrongdoing is off. The blame for the whole thing is definitely on news sources not fact checking the credibility of their sources (come on seriously a random twitter account?). Under a reasonable system, this person should be interviewed to see what their connection to Seth Rich was and possibly what their initial motive was for forging and publishing what they had. Having said this, I do see some issues down the line around how this unmasking could be abused. Someone might post something they think is trivial and a parody but could have dire consequences based on a chain reaction of events that happen.

cowpig 6y ago
... the story says they forged FBI documents. Surely that's a crime?
- Lammy 6y ago
  It seems like the only people who would need FBI documents would also know a fake wasn't theirs?
  - meroes 6y ago
    Fox ran and then retracted a story because the thought they were legit enough to publish a story based on them.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      I'm not surprised given their general history of journalistic integrity, but I still don't think that justifies trying to identify and charge the person who made it.
      - mmcwilliams 6y ago
        Isn’t this article about a civil suit? I don’t think anyone is at risk of being charged, here.

not_a_moth 6y ago

Right, because the impersonator set off the conspiracy theory, not the facts of the events.

lowiqengineer 6y ago
...yes? That is exactly what happened?

jowiar 6y ago

Ironic that this is #1 on HN, as I’m hellbanned here for calling out the mods for doing nothing about members of this site spreading this conspiracy.

irjustin 6y ago

All the threads are talking about Free Speech, but that ended when the person impersonated an FBI agent. That is not a protected act and is prosecutable[0]. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

centimeter 6y ago
Oh cool, as long as the government hasn't chosen to protect it, I guess free speech doesn't apply.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Are you seriously arguing that falsifying government documents is/should be protected/free speech? If so I have a tax return to sell you. P.S. My cousin is a prince form Nigeria that might want to discuss a business opportunity with you let me know if you’re interested.
  - W-Stool 6y ago
    Great guy your cousin. Would do business again 10/10.
    - uCantCauseUCant 6y ago
      I bought a bridge from him- like that bridge, its over troubled waters..
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    How convinient for the state to prosecute citizens spreading "fake" documents. I mean what could go wrong.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      ... Hold on, are you just now realising that fraud isn't legal? Like, it's one of the first things to have been illegal; the oldest legal codes that we know about cover it. That said this isn't a criminal case and the state isn't prosecuting anyone. (Yet; I assume the person might be prosecuted at some point)

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

And this is the other side of the famed tech desire to collect tons of info but refuse to give it to the government. We get disinterested social networks allowing fake news that cause direct harm, created by anonymous users who they don't want to reveal. I am a strong privacy advocate, but the idea we should give corporations our data while hiding it from the government is kinda ludicrous when you look at the results.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
The fact that every online interaction (almost unavoidably) gives valuable data to corporations is bad enough. I do not understand why you would want to compound the damage by pouring that information directly into the hands of the government.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I am for keeping personal information siloed and ideally offline as much as possible. I am not sure that it is good to make it impossible to trace where online information came from though.
  - chii 6y ago
    if somebody "anonymously" taped banners and posters on the street espousing messages, would it make sense to have a camera record every public space and identify who placed those banners there?
    - silvester23 6y ago
      I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue but that analogy falls a little flat - the potential reach of a couple of posters on a couple of streets is much smaller than that of posts online.
      - chii 6y ago
        so you're saying that as long as you can limit the reach of a message, anonymity is fine? Where and who decides that line? I think society should either accept that if there should be anonymity, that there must also be free speech (which includes free speech you may not like). And the inverse is also true - that if there's no anonymity, then there can be no free speech (including free speech you _do_ like).

29athrowaway 6y ago

Will the clowns behind QAnon, FBIAnon, CIAAnon also get prosecuted? that would be beyond fantastic.

nullc 6y ago

It's unclear to me why twitter was protecting this persons identity to begin with. They have no obligation to do so and this persons actions were dishonest, anti-social, and likely unlawful.

creato 6y ago
If twitter didn't stand up for their dishonest users, a whole lot of the outrage bait they depend on to keep people glued to their twitter feeds might disappear.
sjy 6y ago
From the article: “Twitter's primary goal is to ensure that the subpoena not be used to chill anonymous speech that does not rise to the level of defamation.”
LatteLazy 6y ago
The same reason you get a lawyer and a trial even if you look guilty.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  Because twitter is a court of law...?

fareesh 6y ago

Julian Assange suggested it on a Dutch news show

lowiqengineer 6y ago
More evidence of it being a crazed conspiracy theory then!
slg 6y ago
There has been a lot of support for Assange on HN lately, but I rarely see any discussion of his relation to the whole Seth Rich debacle. Is there any possible defense for Assange's role in that?
- fit2rule 6y ago
  IF Julian was able to exercise his right to free speech, I'm sure he would provide ample evidence to support his position. However, that is not the case with Julian today - but he would be the one who actually knew whether Seth Rich leaked the DNC documents.
  - belorn 6y ago
    Unless Assange meet the person who provided the documents he would not be able to know for sure who it was.
  - slg 6y ago
    Assange had first started to insinuate a connection to Seth Rich in 2016. He has had plenty of opportunities since then to share any supporting evidence, but he hasn't. That isn't due to any free speech issue. Also Assange was still communicating with and receiving DNC documents from his source after Seth Rich was already dead. Seth Rich wasn't Assange's source. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-ri...
- justaguy1 6y ago
  The possible defense would be that Julian wasn’t trying to mislead people, but he was actually telling the truth. He hinted that Seth rich was a Leaker to him, and encouraged people to think that without saying it explicitly. He was either A) lying to cover up getting information from The Russians, or B) telling the truth and the “analysis” that says the Russians hacked the DNC server is actually false.

JohnBerea 6y ago

I haven't followed much with Seth Rich since a couple years ago. I remember saving these points from a Zero Hedge article: 1. Kim DotCom said he knew Seth Rich and knew he was the leaker. He tried to Mueller to take his testimony about Seth Rich but he wouldn't reply to his emails. 2. "two men working with the Rich family - private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod Wheeler and family acquaintance Ed Butowsky, have previously stated that Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks before his death." 3. Friend of the family Ed Butowsky says there's an FBI report "establishing that Seth Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks." 4. Private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod "Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich’s brother, Aaron – a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth’s computer and stonewalled his investigation." 6. "Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone." Has any of this changed or been questioned since then? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/contradictions-seth-rich-murder-continue-challenge-hacking-narrative https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/contradictions-set...

triangleman 6y ago
Point 3 is what this whole article is about. Butowsky is being sued for defamation, that is, for lying about Seth Rich to serve his own political/personal ends.
mike_d 6y ago
Zero Hedge does not provide factual information. "...we rate Zero Hedge an extreme right biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
- macspoofing 6y ago
  I agree about Zero Hedge up to a point, just from personal experience and seeing the kinds of articles it puts out .. but who is mediabiasfactcheck.com and why should I trust the unpaid interns* that work there to tell me what I should and shouldn't believe in, and who is and isn't credible? EDIT: From https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/ "Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages." All these fact checking organizations rely on young, inexperienced unpaid/low-paid interns to interpret complex situations and provide a final 'truth' score that is then used as some sort of authority. Insanity.

betwixthewires 6y ago

So I'm just going to point out that the first sentence of the article shows that the title is misleading. The twitter user didn't set off the conspiracy theory, the theory has been floating around since 2015 and is quite popular in certain circles.

macspoofing 6y ago
I'm with you on this. I used to drive late at night and occasionally would catch an episode of Coast to Coast (a conspiracy radio show). It felt like a kind of performance art where callers would world-build together, each adding or changing or clarifying another bit. The end result was a complicated parallel world of psychics and aliens and illuminati woven together into a kind of cohesive narrative. This 'FBI Impersonator' was just one individual adding to the existing conspiratorial narrative that Seth Rich was killed by Democrats because he knew too much.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  4chan theories work in a similar manner.

sneak 6y ago

Note that these days, you can’t just sign up for Twitter with a VPN or Tor and use it like anyone else. They will very shortly lock you out of the account until you provide a phone number. Removing the number gets you locked out again.

pessimizer 6y ago

This headline is propaganda, and isn't reflected in the content of the story (which quotes lawyers saying the document "fuel[ed]" the theory.) The Seth Rich as the DNC leaker "conspiracy" theory was set off by the fact that there was a DNC data leak large enough that some people think that it couldn't have been remote without being detected, so they think it was by an insider. Also, Seth Rich, a DNC IT guy was randomly murdered in an unsolved case. Nothing else. There was no evidence, just a suspicious coincidence. It is a theory with no evidence supporting it other than that coincidence, not a refuted or a false theory. This is a person who fabricated a document supporting the theory, not the person who set it off. Other outlets have generally been more careful.

save_ferris 6y ago
> It is a theory with no evidence supporting it other than that coincidence, not a refuted or a false theory. Key elements of it were false, though. The conspiracy theory largely focused on his “assassination” by being shot in the head, when in reality he was shot twice in the back. There was also physical evidence of an altercation, suggesting robbery. The idea that a trained assassin would first try to fistfight the target and then shoot is pretty absurd. Later, the public found out that hackers tied to Russian intelligence hacked the DNC, which further refuted the conspiracy theory. There’s a lot out there that fundamentally contradicts the conspiracy theory.
- shfheisi 6y ago
  >Later, the public found out that hackers tied to Russian intelligence hacked the DNC Now we're really in unfounded conspiracy territory :) I don't have an opinion on the rich case but there's as much evidence that he was assassinated as there is that the DNC leak was perpetrated by professional hackers. Or to use your tone: the idea that a trained hacker would use a Russian IP address is pretty absurd. I guess you've been further refuted and fundamentally contradicted, sorry bud.
- mason240 6y ago
  >hackers tied to Russian intelligence hacked the DNC That was debunked this summer.

bart_spoon 6y ago

> "Twitter's primary goal is to ensure that the subpoena not be used to chill anonymous speech that does not rise to the level of defamation" Surely fabricating evidence to accuse a group of individuals of assassinating someone amounts to defamation?

JuliusPullo 6y ago

The man was shot twice in the back. Nothing was stolen and no one was arrested. There were no cameras or witnesses to confirm what happened. But the police said this was a robbery. Shouldn't the police version itself qualify as a "conspiracy theory".

svrb 6y ago
Yes, but that would damage the narrative, so no. Regardless of whether in actual fact the murder has anything to do with the leaks, the claims that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence serve only to promote an evil purpose. We will likely never know the truth, and the narrative that this couldn't possibly be related to the leaks is a major part of why. The answer to cui bono [from the narrative] is therefore "the murderer, whoever that is, regardless of whether there is in fact a conspiracy". Why then do so many support the narrative?! Why has the murderer been deemed "part of our tribe" and thus worthy of plot armor, as it were?!