5 ms·

Probably this > In a note posted to Twitter’s Slack and viewable to all staff that was obtained by The Verge, an attorney on the company’s privacy team wrote,

by joecot 4y ago

Probably this > In a note posted to Twitter’s Slack and viewable to all staff that was obtained by The Verge, an attorney on the company’s privacy team wrote, “Elon has shown that his only priority with Twitter users is how to monetize them. I do not believe he cares about the human rights activists. the dissidents, our users in un-monetizable regions, and all the other users who have made Twitter the global town square you have all spent so long building, and we all love.” Twitter became a de facto official communication channel for many organizations and politicians. Despite all his flaws Trump showed how important Twitter was to political discourse. I'm hopeful that the move to the Fediverse / Mastodon will allow organizations to maintain official discourse, but using their own server instances, such that they're not beholden to the whims and changing owners of a VC funded corporation, who apparently stopped caring about FTC decrees.

yucky 4y ago
But wait, when people said they shouldn't censor unpopular or non-mainstream speech due to them being "a global town square", they protested that they were simply a website and people were free to make their own Twitter. What happened to that? Now all of a sudden it matters that all voices be heard?
- deleted_account 4y ago
  The FTC decree isn't related to free speech. It was a part of a settlement the FTC reached with Twitter regarding their mishandling of customer data[1]. The original article is anticipating a messy collision Twitter's legal obligations to the FTC and Musk's inscrutable product development roadmap given the recent employee churn (both layoffs and exits from key roles, e.g. CISO, CPO, & CCO.) [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2011/03/ftc-accepts-final-settlement-twitter-failure-safeguard-personal-information-0 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2011/03/...
  - yucky 4y ago
    anticipating a messy collision Ah yes, the backbone of current day journalism.
    - deleted_account 4y ago
      In contrast to what, the impartial journalism of the past[1]? It doesn't serve well to surrender your worldview to the journalistic authority over truth any more today than it did then. But now, articles like the TechDirt post are extremely verifiable (admittedly, the "anticipating a messy collision" is my own editorializing.) Don't believe Twitter is under a consent order? Go read it[2]. Don't believe their CSIO quit? Go look at their LinkedIn profile[3] But I suspect your issue is not with the facts of the article, but the motivation behind making this /news/. I'd argue it absolutely is news regardless of the circus surrounding surrounding the acquisition especially if you care about consumer privacy. You can go read the 2011 complaint[4]; TLDR Twitter was super cavalier with non-public consumer data and the FTC was, "Clean this shit up and put a process in place so it doesn't happen again." And it did happen again! This year Twitter paid $150M for using 2FA numbers for ad targeting[5]. So you now have to think: is Musk going to make consumer privacy a priority? Maybe these exoduses are a good thing? Clean house and all. Or maybe he still coming up with a plan while courting advertisers[6] and scrambling for recurring revenue? But that comes back to the original question: even if Musk gave a shit, does Twitter retain the organizational capacity to police itself? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism [2] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010/06/100624twitteragree.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010... [3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lea-kissner/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/lea-kissner/ [4] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2011/03/110311twittercmpt.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2011... [5] https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/05/twitter-pay-150-million-penalty-allegedly-breaking-its-privacy-promises-again https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/05/twitter-p... [6] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728

by joecot 4y ago

yucky 4y ago

But wait, when people said they shouldn't censor unpopular or non-mainstream speech due to them being "a global town square", they protested that they were simply a website and people were free to make their own Twitter. What happened to that? Now all of a sudden it matters that all voices be heard?

deleted_account 4y ago
The FTC decree isn't related to free speech. It was a part of a settlement the FTC reached with Twitter regarding their mishandling of customer data[1]. The original article is anticipating a messy collision Twitter's legal obligations to the FTC and Musk's inscrutable product development roadmap given the recent employee churn (both layoffs and exits from key roles, e.g. CISO, CPO, & CCO.) [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2011/03/ftc-accepts-final-settlement-twitter-failure-safeguard-personal-information-0 https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2011/03/...
- yucky 4y ago
  anticipating a messy collision Ah yes, the backbone of current day journalism.
  - deleted_account 4y ago
    In contrast to what, the impartial journalism of the past[1]? It doesn't serve well to surrender your worldview to the journalistic authority over truth any more today than it did then. But now, articles like the TechDirt post are extremely verifiable (admittedly, the "anticipating a messy collision" is my own editorializing.) Don't believe Twitter is under a consent order? Go read it[2]. Don't believe their CSIO quit? Go look at their LinkedIn profile[3] But I suspect your issue is not with the facts of the article, but the motivation behind making this /news/. I'd argue it absolutely is news regardless of the circus surrounding surrounding the acquisition especially if you care about consumer privacy. You can go read the 2011 complaint[4]; TLDR Twitter was super cavalier with non-public consumer data and the FTC was, "Clean this shit up and put a process in place so it doesn't happen again." And it did happen again! This year Twitter paid $150M for using 2FA numbers for ad targeting[5]. So you now have to think: is Musk going to make consumer privacy a priority? Maybe these exoduses are a good thing? Clean house and all. Or maybe he still coming up with a plan while courting advertisers[6] and scrambling for recurring revenue? But that comes back to the original question: even if Musk gave a shit, does Twitter retain the organizational capacity to police itself? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism [2] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010/06/100624twitteragree.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010... [3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lea-kissner/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/lea-kissner/ [4] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2011/03/110311twittercmpt.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2011... [5] https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/05/twitter-pay-150-million-penalty-allegedly-breaking-its-privacy-promises-again https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/05/twitter-p... [6] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728