6 ms·

1- Biden wasn't in government, he was running for office. Private citizen at the time. 2- They weren't telling, they were asking, and if Twitter feels like th

1- Biden wasn't in government, he was running for office. Private citizen at the time. 2- They weren't telling, they were asking, and if Twitter feels like they were told, they can sue the government for violating their First Amendment rights.

yourealldumb 4y ago
laborcontract 4y ago
picking apart semantics is not sufficient to allay concerns expressed in parent
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  There are people up and down this thread claiming this is a 1A violation. Parent's sentiment may just be a conceptual one but I am much more concerned with the legal aspect, and everyone understanding that correctly.
- dd36 4y ago
  Can political campaigns not lobby the media? Do you think that’s something new?
- jshen 4y ago
  Pointing of the most critical fact, that he was not in government at the time, is not “picking apart semantics”.
- s3p 4y ago
  Please elaborate on the semantics you're referring to. The comment above seems to make a point about the context in which the tweets were removed. They do seem to allay those concerns you mention.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Dig1t 4y ago
Okay well, this doesn't feel like a good faith discussion if we're resorting to technicalities like this. You are correct, technically Joe Biden was not a part of the government at the time that this email was sent. Do you honestly believe that this behavior is keeping with the spirit of the first amendment? His team, and the DNC (here's one that's very similar, except that its from the DNC instead of the Biden team https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjAuD6eWAAEFiXY.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjAuD6eWAAEFiXY.jpg) are enormous and very powerful, and effectively a part of the government. Do you think this kind of emailing Twitter and asking them to "handle" tweets they don't like, stopped on the day that Biden was inaugurated?
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  I guess the main question is, are we having a legal or moral conversation? Because when you're discussing law- which I think is the vastly more important aspect here- these aren't technicalities. I don't believe there's a thing called "the spirit of the First Amendment". There's just the First Amendment, and how the courts have enforced it and are likely to continue enforcing it. I don't think it would be a 1A violation if he did it in office- in fact, Taibbi's thread says the Trump admin did the same thing, and I don't think that's a 1A violation (legally) either.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    I think you have it exactly backwards. The technicalities of the law are meaningless - morality is what's important. We created the law to codify morals, and, to the extent that it is good to follow the law, it is good only to the extent that the law agrees with morality. And, of course, it's a moot point anyway because Taibi says requests came, and were honored, from both sides, including the White House. Even if "Joe Biden wasn't President yet" is true, Trump was President and his White House was working with Twitter to suppress speech. I just don't see how it is a question, either legally or morally, that the Federal Government, with Twitter, has been violating the first amendment.
archsurface 4y ago
When an authority asks, they're not really asking, they're telling.
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  Then Twitter should not only make that claim, but sue!
  - dusing 4y ago
    The point is they didn’t complain because they were aligned with the people asking them to handle, and they also handled it real quick, not stand tos report flow for sure.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  Funny you’re getting downvoted, yet this was the entire reason for the metoo movement.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Huh? Me Too was triggered by Weinstein which was very, very far from “someone in authority asked and I said yes.” So no, it’s not “the entire reason.”
    - cloutchaser 4y ago
      There are maybe 1-2 reports of Weinstein using actual force for rape. For the other 2000 or more women, it was exactly what you say, he asked, and they had to say yes (to get anywhere)
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        There are eighteen separate allegations of rape (separate from coerced “consent”) What a weird thing to try to nitpick. There are plenty of shakier instances of takedowns by Me Too. Weinstein isn’t one of them and they’re not “the entire reason” for the movement.
zaroth 4y ago
The point isn’t that Twitter felt compelled. Isn’t the point that Twitter happily complied, and even made up reasons to censor the stuff they thought was the most damaging “in order to prevent another 2016”.
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  The point is that if you don’t like that, take it up with twitter. Framing it as government forcibly censoring twitter is just straight up untrue. Insofar as the Biden campaign is concerned, it is impossible to violate 1A when you are not imbued with government power. There is no such thing as a private citizen compelling Twitter to take something down, the only possible thing you can be doing is requesting. Both campaigns did this so feel free to draw your own conclusions as to whether the Trump campaign did something wrong, but I will point you to the word “campaign” and note that a campaign is also a private party, so pretty unlikely.
  - hgfdhgdfhgdf 4y ago
    The point is that social media with vast influence is taking cues from one political party.
    - cormacrelf 4y ago
      Mate, one of the alleged bits of "censorship" was a request to take down... literally nude photos of Biden's son posted from a Chinese-language account. Anyone can ask for that to be taken down and Twitter will say yes. It's not improper to say yes just because the person asking happens to be running for President. Twitter is not under an obligation to distribute non-consensual nude photos just because the person involved is a celebrity. Imagine if that were the rule.
      - cozos 4y ago
        And you're just going to ignore the censored NYT article due to "hacked content""?
dudeinjapan 4y ago
goodluckchuck 4y ago
Yes, Twitter could sue, but users could also sue if they feel Twitter was colluding with and acting on behalf of the government, congresspeople, etc.

yourealldumb 4y ago

laborcontract 4y ago

picking apart semantics is not sufficient to allay concerns expressed in parent

anoonmoose 4y ago
There are people up and down this thread claiming this is a 1A violation. Parent's sentiment may just be a conceptual one but I am much more concerned with the legal aspect, and everyone understanding that correctly.
dd36 4y ago
Can political campaigns not lobby the media? Do you think that’s something new?
jshen 4y ago
Pointing of the most critical fact, that he was not in government at the time, is not “picking apart semantics”.
s3p 4y ago
Please elaborate on the semantics you're referring to. The comment above seems to make a point about the context in which the tweets were removed. They do seem to allay those concerns you mention.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Dig1t 4y ago

Okay well, this doesn't feel like a good faith discussion if we're resorting to technicalities like this. You are correct, technically Joe Biden was not a part of the government at the time that this email was sent. Do you honestly believe that this behavior is keeping with the spirit of the first amendment? His team, and the DNC (here's one that's very similar, except that its from the DNC instead of the Biden team https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjAuD6eWAAEFiXY.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjAuD6eWAAEFiXY.jpg) are enormous and very powerful, and effectively a part of the government. Do you think this kind of emailing Twitter and asking them to "handle" tweets they don't like, stopped on the day that Biden was inaugurated?

anoonmoose 4y ago
I guess the main question is, are we having a legal or moral conversation? Because when you're discussing law- which I think is the vastly more important aspect here- these aren't technicalities. I don't believe there's a thing called "the spirit of the First Amendment". There's just the First Amendment, and how the courts have enforced it and are likely to continue enforcing it. I don't think it would be a 1A violation if he did it in office- in fact, Taibbi's thread says the Trump admin did the same thing, and I don't think that's a 1A violation (legally) either.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I think you have it exactly backwards. The technicalities of the law are meaningless - morality is what's important. We created the law to codify morals, and, to the extent that it is good to follow the law, it is good only to the extent that the law agrees with morality. And, of course, it's a moot point anyway because Taibi says requests came, and were honored, from both sides, including the White House. Even if "Joe Biden wasn't President yet" is true, Trump was President and his White House was working with Twitter to suppress speech. I just don't see how it is a question, either legally or morally, that the Federal Government, with Twitter, has been violating the first amendment.

archsurface 4y ago

When an authority asks, they're not really asking, they're telling.

anoonmoose 4y ago
Then Twitter should not only make that claim, but sue!
- dusing 4y ago
  The point is they didn’t complain because they were aligned with the people asking them to handle, and they also handled it real quick, not stand tos report flow for sure.
cloutchaser 4y ago
Funny you’re getting downvoted, yet this was the entire reason for the metoo movement.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Huh? Me Too was triggered by Weinstein which was very, very far from “someone in authority asked and I said yes.” So no, it’s not “the entire reason.”
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    There are maybe 1-2 reports of Weinstein using actual force for rape. For the other 2000 or more women, it was exactly what you say, he asked, and they had to say yes (to get anywhere)
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      There are eighteen separate allegations of rape (separate from coerced “consent”) What a weird thing to try to nitpick. There are plenty of shakier instances of takedowns by Me Too. Weinstein isn’t one of them and they’re not “the entire reason” for the movement.

zaroth 4y ago

The point isn’t that Twitter felt compelled. Isn’t the point that Twitter happily complied, and even made up reasons to censor the stuff they thought was the most damaging “in order to prevent another 2016”.

cormacrelf 4y ago
The point is that if you don’t like that, take it up with twitter. Framing it as government forcibly censoring twitter is just straight up untrue. Insofar as the Biden campaign is concerned, it is impossible to violate 1A when you are not imbued with government power. There is no such thing as a private citizen compelling Twitter to take something down, the only possible thing you can be doing is requesting. Both campaigns did this so feel free to draw your own conclusions as to whether the Trump campaign did something wrong, but I will point you to the word “campaign” and note that a campaign is also a private party, so pretty unlikely.
- hgfdhgdfhgdf 4y ago
  The point is that social media with vast influence is taking cues from one political party.
  - cormacrelf 4y ago
    Mate, one of the alleged bits of "censorship" was a request to take down... literally nude photos of Biden's son posted from a Chinese-language account. Anyone can ask for that to be taken down and Twitter will say yes. It's not improper to say yes just because the person asking happens to be running for President. Twitter is not under an obligation to distribute non-consensual nude photos just because the person involved is a celebrity. Imagine if that were the rule.
    - cozos 4y ago
      And you're just going to ignore the censored NYT article due to "hacked content""?

dudeinjapan 4y ago

goodluckchuck 4y ago

Yes, Twitter could sue, but users could also sue if they feel Twitter was colluding with and acting on behalf of the government, congresspeople, etc.