6 ms·

> It's not surprising or controversial that Twitter would try to contain a leak of its own internal comms (a screenshot of their slack). It's not surprising or

> It's not surprising or controversial that Twitter would try to contain a leak of its own internal comms (a screenshot of their slack). It's not surprising or controversial, but it's in direct opposition to the idea that Twitter should allow all legal speech.

blueprint 4y ago
But is it what you're calling "legal" speech to disclose confidential info? If so, is it not just like they issued themselves a takedown notice and immediately executed on it?
- jonny_eh 4y ago
  Yes, it's legal. Twitter can always sue the person that tweeted it to have them remove it, let a judge decide.
  - throwaway858 4y ago
    This isn't how it works. If a website is hosting content that infringes on some NDA, then you are supposed to sue the website (and not the person who posted it to the website -- who are often anonymous and can't be directly sued). So Twitter would need to sue itself to demand that it take down the content. And the judge would reject the suit and scold Twitter for wasting the courts time, and tell Twitter that if it wants something removed from its own website then it should just remove it.
    - ytpete 4y ago
      I don't believe that's true. For copyrighted work, you can issue a takedown notice to the website - but copyright is federal law. NDAs are just private contracts. If you could sue someone for hosting/posting NDA content, then any leaks or whistleblower content could be hidden from the public just by suing the all the news websites. Generally I think you can only sue the person who violated the NDA, not anyone further down the chain who posted the material. The same is even true for classified info in most cases - the NY Times won a famous Supreme Court cases about that over publishing the Pentagon Papers in the Vietnam era. Same principle that protected publishing the Snowden leaks, etc.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      > If a website is hosting content that infringes on some NDA, then you are supposed to sue the website > So Twitter would need to sue itself to demand that it take down the content. is this how it actually works, or is it make a request to the website and sue if request is deemed unduly denied? if the latter, then some Twitter HR/lawyer person can make a request to a Twitter moderation person and the request would be immediately approved. At that point, there's no "difference" in the procedures for internal/external moderation requests.
    - olliej 4y ago
      > This isn't how it works. If a website is hosting content that infringes on some NDA, then you are supposed to sue the website (and not the person who posted it to the website -- who are often anonymous and can't be directly sued). That's nonsense, because under that interpretation of the law no news agency could ever report anything with anonymous sources, or people "familiar with the situation", because under your definition they are now violating an agreement about which they know nothing.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      You could sue the website, but it wouldn't go very far, because website operators are not liable for user uploaded content because of Section 230 of the CDA.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > But is it what you're calling "legal" speech to disclose confidential info? If so, is it not just like they issued themselves a takedown notice and immediately executed on it? I think there are a lot of things that are legal that may cause civil penalties. E.g. there's no law banning the dissemination of screenshots of Twitter's internal Slack (so the screenshot is legal speech), but Twitter may have grounds to sue the leaker for breach of a private contract.
  - lupire 4y ago
    You are conflating "illegal" with "criminal". Civil law is still law.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      Assuming this all goes back to Elon's tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376, which reads: """ By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people. """ I don't think it's reasonable to interpret this as referring to any speech which constitutes a civil wrong. There is simply no way for a third party to have the slightest clue based on the content of a tweet whether that tweet causes someone to suffer a loss, or constitutes a breach of contract,
- hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
  Is a bunch of heart emojis confidential information? If so, lol.
  - theonething 4y ago
    Internal slack communication is confidential.
- boc 4y ago
  IANAL but restrictions on confidential information only apply to government classification of information. Private classification isn’t a “real” thing, it’s just a breach of a private contract. If you’re a “free speech platform”, who are you to adjudicate whether a leak of corporate information is malicious vs a brave whistleblower? This is why we have a court system. Twitter needs to decide what they are actually trying to accomplish with their direction, because right now it appears that this was all about changing the censors, not removing them.
  - moistofreason 4y ago
    All those employees signed NDAs that said they would not disclose private company communications… this is way different than censoring a user who is under no such agreement.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      The difference is that Twitter does not enforce those agreements as quickly for any company that's not Twitter. Hence what people are complaining about: one set of rules for Twitter (the company) making requests of Twitter (the platform) and another set of rules for everyone else. And really, it's the own-goalness of this that's likely irking everyone. Musk wants to get the high ground of a public space... and then he/someone at Twitter immediately burns that narrative on something trivial that doesn't even matter. The sheer stupidity of taking it down makes me think it's probably internal HR.
      - hbrn 4y ago
        But that's because Twitter has no capabilities to enforce them at the same speed for other companies. If processing speed depends on proximity to their legal department, of course Twitter will be able to verify their own agreements faster. That's just physics, not necessarily double standards. It's like complaining that Amazon ships faster to areas that are close to Amazon warehouses. Well duh.
        4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lupire 4y ago
  It's a potential antitrust violation to serve themselves better than other users of the platform. This is what Google and Apple get in trouble for all the time.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Did the screenshot actually expose any confidential information though? Musk seemed fine with leaking confidential information when Mudge was doing it, but now he is suddenly concerned about it?
memish 4y ago
That's a conflation of two different things. Twitter Inc. the Company and Twitter the App.
- yccs27 4y ago
  But they did take down content from Twitter the App...?
  - thevardanian 4y ago
    Would NYT publish scathing remarks about itself, or publish leaked internal data on itself? If not, I don't think such a thing should be expected of twitter either.
    - foldr 4y ago
      The BBC certainly broadcasts criticism of the BBC from time to time. Here’s one of the more trivial examples (easier to bring to mind because it’s amusing): https://youtu.be/MBWfCV4PjyU https://youtu.be/MBWfCV4PjyU
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        Crude, and hilarious to watch those two keep straight faces. Have I Got New For You has very regular criticism of the BBC too, slightly higher brow but entertaining.
    - Swenrekcah 4y ago
      Do you mean Twitter in it’s entirety is like a respectable newspaper that should edit all their content for correctness and propriety?
    - yunwal 4y ago
      The NYTimes has investigated itself from time to time and publishes remarks that reflect poorly on themselves. Last example I can remember is the Caliphate podcast scandal https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/world/middleeast/caliphate-chaudhry-hoax.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/world/middleeast/caliphat...
MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
> It's not surprising or controversial, but it's in direct opposition to the idea that Twitter should allow all legal speech. The world is full of hypocrisy and Elon has his share. But I don't really care if the guy is a hypocrite; I'd be more interested in discussing if the move is right. If it violated internal company policy, or revealed internal identities or anything of that sort, then maybe it was the right move? I'm just glad I don't have to make these decisions.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
  Which rule do you think it violated? https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
  - smittywerben 4y ago
    I think it violates private information policy. The last thing I want is my work name in a screenshot from an internal conversation posted on Twitter, reported by the news like I am a dissenter after getting terminated. I would want to be left completely alone. Extreme cases i.e. leaked passwords are under hacked materials policy. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materials https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materi...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mc32 4y ago
Also possible the user(s) deleted some themselves in order to not violate terms and thus retain their severance ---which typically hinge on such things.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  I don't think the message that the tweet in question violates Twitter's rules would appear in this case.
alsetmusic 4y ago
> It's not surprising or controversial, but it's in direct opposition to the idea that Twitter should allow all legal speech. The employees probably sign NDAs. It's only a civil suit, but I think that would still fall outside the realm of what he's been preaching. Note, I'm not taking his side or anyone else's.
Thorentis 4y ago
> should allow all legal speech. It is usually illegal or in breach of contract to share internal company communications. This isn't the "gotcha" you're looking for.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
  The speech is legal, it just might break a contract between two parities in the US. It's a far cry from a discussion around what kind of speech is acceptable in a public square. Twitter is using a privileged position to protect it's own IP. It's fine for a company to do, but just doesn't really sit with "we're just running a public square for the good of the world"
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    But by this logic we'd have to argue that Wikileaks is a public square. Real public squares have police, and those police have a mandate by the people to enforce contract law and private property law. This is why hate speech I think is a much more controversial topic than copyright.
    - rainbowzootsuit 4y ago
      Continuing that, i think that normally the ball would get rolling with some kind of civil suit. The police aren't judge and jury on contract law just doing blanket enforcement of that on their own. The police might have to enforce a court order sometime later. This is, to me, more like your neighbor ripping down your derogatory sign about them because he doesn't like what it says, and the neighbor happens to also be your boss and landlord.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
      Why do you think police enforce "contact law" I.e. civil law?

blueprint 4y ago

But is it what you're calling "legal" speech to disclose confidential info? If so, is it not just like they issued themselves a takedown notice and immediately executed on it?

jonny_eh 4y ago
Yes, it's legal. Twitter can always sue the person that tweeted it to have them remove it, let a judge decide.
- throwaway858 4y ago
  This isn't how it works. If a website is hosting content that infringes on some NDA, then you are supposed to sue the website (and not the person who posted it to the website -- who are often anonymous and can't be directly sued). So Twitter would need to sue itself to demand that it take down the content. And the judge would reject the suit and scold Twitter for wasting the courts time, and tell Twitter that if it wants something removed from its own website then it should just remove it.
  - ytpete 4y ago
    I don't believe that's true. For copyrighted work, you can issue a takedown notice to the website - but copyright is federal law. NDAs are just private contracts. If you could sue someone for hosting/posting NDA content, then any leaks or whistleblower content could be hidden from the public just by suing the all the news websites. Generally I think you can only sue the person who violated the NDA, not anyone further down the chain who posted the material. The same is even true for classified info in most cases - the NY Times won a famous Supreme Court cases about that over publishing the Pentagon Papers in the Vietnam era. Same principle that protected publishing the Snowden leaks, etc.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    > If a website is hosting content that infringes on some NDA, then you are supposed to sue the website > So Twitter would need to sue itself to demand that it take down the content. is this how it actually works, or is it make a request to the website and sue if request is deemed unduly denied? if the latter, then some Twitter HR/lawyer person can make a request to a Twitter moderation person and the request would be immediately approved. At that point, there's no "difference" in the procedures for internal/external moderation requests.
  - olliej 4y ago
    > This isn't how it works. If a website is hosting content that infringes on some NDA, then you are supposed to sue the website (and not the person who posted it to the website -- who are often anonymous and can't be directly sued). That's nonsense, because under that interpretation of the law no news agency could ever report anything with anonymous sources, or people "familiar with the situation", because under your definition they are now violating an agreement about which they know nothing.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    You could sue the website, but it wouldn't go very far, because website operators are not liable for user uploaded content because of Section 230 of the CDA.
tablespoon 4y ago
> But is it what you're calling "legal" speech to disclose confidential info? If so, is it not just like they issued themselves a takedown notice and immediately executed on it? I think there are a lot of things that are legal that may cause civil penalties. E.g. there's no law banning the dissemination of screenshots of Twitter's internal Slack (so the screenshot is legal speech), but Twitter may have grounds to sue the leaker for breach of a private contract.
- lupire 4y ago
  You are conflating "illegal" with "criminal". Civil law is still law.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Assuming this all goes back to Elon's tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376, which reads: """ By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people. """ I don't think it's reasonable to interpret this as referring to any speech which constitutes a civil wrong. There is simply no way for a third party to have the slightest clue based on the content of a tweet whether that tweet causes someone to suffer a loss, or constitutes a breach of contract,
hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
Is a bunch of heart emojis confidential information? If so, lol.
- theonething 4y ago
  Internal slack communication is confidential.
boc 4y ago
IANAL but restrictions on confidential information only apply to government classification of information. Private classification isn’t a “real” thing, it’s just a breach of a private contract. If you’re a “free speech platform”, who are you to adjudicate whether a leak of corporate information is malicious vs a brave whistleblower? This is why we have a court system. Twitter needs to decide what they are actually trying to accomplish with their direction, because right now it appears that this was all about changing the censors, not removing them.
- moistofreason 4y ago
  All those employees signed NDAs that said they would not disclose private company communications… this is way different than censoring a user who is under no such agreement.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The difference is that Twitter does not enforce those agreements as quickly for any company that's not Twitter. Hence what people are complaining about: one set of rules for Twitter (the company) making requests of Twitter (the platform) and another set of rules for everyone else. And really, it's the own-goalness of this that's likely irking everyone. Musk wants to get the high ground of a public space... and then he/someone at Twitter immediately burns that narrative on something trivial that doesn't even matter. The sheer stupidity of taking it down makes me think it's probably internal HR.
    - hbrn 4y ago
      But that's because Twitter has no capabilities to enforce them at the same speed for other companies. If processing speed depends on proximity to their legal department, of course Twitter will be able to verify their own agreements faster. That's just physics, not necessarily double standards. It's like complaining that Amazon ships faster to areas that are close to Amazon warehouses. Well duh.
      - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lupire 4y ago
It's a potential antitrust violation to serve themselves better than other users of the platform. This is what Google and Apple get in trouble for all the time.
encryptluks2 4y ago
Did the screenshot actually expose any confidential information though? Musk seemed fine with leaking confidential information when Mudge was doing it, but now he is suddenly concerned about it?

memish 4y ago

That's a conflation of two different things. Twitter Inc. the Company and Twitter the App.

yccs27 4y ago
But they did take down content from Twitter the App...?
- thevardanian 4y ago
  Would NYT publish scathing remarks about itself, or publish leaked internal data on itself? If not, I don't think such a thing should be expected of twitter either.
  - foldr 4y ago
    The BBC certainly broadcasts criticism of the BBC from time to time. Here’s one of the more trivial examples (easier to bring to mind because it’s amusing): https://youtu.be/MBWfCV4PjyU https://youtu.be/MBWfCV4PjyU
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      Crude, and hilarious to watch those two keep straight faces. Have I Got New For You has very regular criticism of the BBC too, slightly higher brow but entertaining.
  - Swenrekcah 4y ago
    Do you mean Twitter in it’s entirety is like a respectable newspaper that should edit all their content for correctness and propriety?
  - yunwal 4y ago
    The NYTimes has investigated itself from time to time and publishes remarks that reflect poorly on themselves. Last example I can remember is the Caliphate podcast scandal https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/world/middleeast/caliphate-chaudhry-hoax.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/world/middleeast/caliphat...

MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago

> It's not surprising or controversial, but it's in direct opposition to the idea that Twitter should allow all legal speech. The world is full of hypocrisy and Elon has his share. But I don't really care if the guy is a hypocrite; I'd be more interested in discussing if the move is right. If it violated internal company policy, or revealed internal identities or anything of that sort, then maybe it was the right move? I'm just glad I don't have to make these decisions.

X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
Which rule do you think it violated? https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
- smittywerben 4y ago
  I think it violates private information policy. The last thing I want is my work name in a screenshot from an internal conversation posted on Twitter, reported by the news like I am a dissenter after getting terminated. I would want to be left completely alone. Extreme cases i.e. leaked passwords are under hacked materials policy. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-info... https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materials https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materi...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mc32 4y ago

Also possible the user(s) deleted some themselves in order to not violate terms and thus retain their severance ---which typically hinge on such things.

jupp0r 4y ago
I don't think the message that the tweet in question violates Twitter's rules would appear in this case.

alsetmusic 4y ago

> It's not surprising or controversial, but it's in direct opposition to the idea that Twitter should allow all legal speech. The employees probably sign NDAs. It's only a civil suit, but I think that would still fall outside the realm of what he's been preaching. Note, I'm not taking his side or anyone else's.

Thorentis 4y ago

> should allow all legal speech. It is usually illegal or in breach of contract to share internal company communications. This isn't the "gotcha" you're looking for.

X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
The speech is legal, it just might break a contract between two parities in the US. It's a far cry from a discussion around what kind of speech is acceptable in a public square. Twitter is using a privileged position to protect it's own IP. It's fine for a company to do, but just doesn't really sit with "we're just running a public square for the good of the world"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Thorentis 4y ago
  But by this logic we'd have to argue that Wikileaks is a public square. Real public squares have police, and those police have a mandate by the people to enforce contract law and private property law. This is why hate speech I think is a much more controversial topic than copyright.
  - rainbowzootsuit 4y ago
    Continuing that, i think that normally the ball would get rolling with some kind of civil suit. The police aren't judge and jury on contract law just doing blanket enforcement of that on their own. The police might have to enforce a court order sometime later. This is, to me, more like your neighbor ripping down your derogatory sign about them because he doesn't like what it says, and the neighbor happens to also be your boss and landlord.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 4y ago
    Why do you think police enforce "contact law" I.e. civil law?