4 ms·
Maybe I’m not deep enough in the weeds on the laptop story to understand the bigger picture, but so far, all the emails have shown are that members of the US go
by phphphphp 4y ago
Maybe I’m not deep enough in the weeds on the laptop story to understand the bigger picture, but so far, all the emails have shown are that members of the US government (which regulates Twitter) have the ability to contact Twitter and Twitter (as an organisation) does what it thinks will best ensure the survival of the company. This is a company that has executives forced to sit in front of and answer to congress, of course they would behave this way? What other possible outcome could there be? The problem here is, surely, using the NSA example, that the government has the power to regulate Twitter (which in turn puts pressure on Twitter to comply with the government). But that’s not what the story is apparently about, apparently the story is about the democrats?
- nathanaldensr 4y agoThe US government regulates Twitter? News to me.
- phphphphp 4y agoI guess you could try to massage the word “regulate” to make it untrue but given Twitter has literally been fined by the FTC multiple times and is subject to a consent decree which applies legal culpability to Twitter executives unless they do what the FTC require… they are absolutely at the behest of the US government.
- idlewords 4y agoThey also have to obey fire codes and file extensive reports to the IRS about each employee!
- cwkoss 4y agoTwitter censoring at the behest of political party operatives is pretty sketchy if true. The claim was made in the thread, I'm curious if there will be more evidence in this thread to substantiate it.
- mikkergp 4y agoI agree with you, and I’m surprised Matt glossed over it. I think the question for me as a more government trusting person is; What is the difference between the government providing unique information, because of its potential Intelligence insights, and what is the government trying to get things taken down that are not against twitters policies
- dmix 4y ago> what is the government trying to get things taken down that are not against twitters policies Twitter's policies being the basis of credibility in this question? If this story showed us anything it's clear they were censoring at the whims of the moderators feelings, not based on some predefined set of rules or conditions. Even when multiple people brought up the fact the hacking angle was mere speculation, the Twitter execs glossed over it and said to say it's true in public communiqués anyway (until they have time to find out if it is true). As long as there's a strong culture of censorship, all that matters is who has influence on the gatekeepers. Not what arbitrary rules they set for themselves.
- mikkergp 4y agoA day of deliberation is not a strong culture of censorship.
- dmix 4y agoAre you saying they were expecting to get proof it was a hack within the next day and simply jumped the gun? What happened after those 24hrs of “deliberation” then? Did they backtrack? It took almost a year to find out it wasn’t hacked and it was bullshit like everyone thought it might be from day 1 (including we found out today even Twitter employees). Plenty of time to deliberate I guess.