4 ms·

> This seems like nothing more than a big redirection to get people to move on from the last story. I find government comms with social media to be interesting

by rhaksw 4y ago

> This seems like nothing more than a big redirection to get people to move on from the last story. I find government comms with social media to be interesting. Do you not? I'm not sure if there's a bombshell there or not. I believe all public servants since Nixon understand about their actions being reviewable. Not that they shouldn't be able to have private conversations, of course. That's a whole 'nother issue.

MBCook 4y ago
It could be. Here it seems they alerted Twitter to a few tweets containing nudes of someone posted without their consent. That was against the TOS and likely against the law in the 48 (?) states with anti-revenge porn laws. They didn’t try to stifle debate. They didn’t try to hide news articles. There has been tons of Hunter Biden tweets they did nothing about. This doesn’t seem like anything shady at all. So I’m not worried. Show me political game playing, I’ll be on your side.
sanderjd 4y ago
What "government comms" were exposed here, specifically? The specific claims seem to be about comms with private, albeit political, entities.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  I found the Ro Khanna one interesting, https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 "Exposed" is your word, not mine. Also, Biden's been a lifelong politician. I guess we disagree that his team's comms during candidacy were not "governmental" in nature.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    I re-read your comment and I agree that these communications are interesting. But Khanna's message is clearly not a government official demanding that Twitter censor something (indeed, he's suggesting the opposite). > I guess we disagree that his team's comms during candidacy were not "governmental" in nature. This isn't like a disagreeing on a judgment call sort of thing; it is factually not the case that the Biden campaign was governmental in nature. It was, in an objective legal sense, a private entity, and not a government entity. The US Constitution simply does not apply to a private entity that is not part of the US government.
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      > Khanna's message is clearly not a government official demanding that Twitter censor something (indeed, he's suggesting the opposite). I never claimed it was, and yes I think he nailed what should have been said at that moment. You're assuming that I'm arguing there were government misdeeds exposed by this release, but if you reread the chain above you'll find that I (1) felt this is not merely a "big redirection", (2) find government comms interesting, and (3) only speculated about a potential bombshell, which need not be a legal issue. (3) is based on us not having all of the data. Musk is probably trolling us all per usual. He's got an even bigger megaphone now than before, so I'm interested to hear what he is saying. > This isn't like a disagreeing on a judgment call sort of thing; it is factually not the case that the Biden campaign was governmental in nature. Is Trump still influential within the Republican party? It's fine if you don't think so. Again I'm not saying that whoever wrote the "Biden team" email should be investigated as if they were a government official in 2020. I don't even know if the content of the messages would merit action if they were a government official. I'm saying, Biden was influential, and that makes these conversations interesting, particularly in light of what Josh Hawley has been sharing regarding this admin's communications with Facebook [1]. Plus, one of the government agencies, CISA, was established under Trump, so it's not even like this is a partisan issue. Both democrats and republicans will censor you if given the chance. We need to represent ourselves on the free speech issue. They are simply not incentivized to support the first amendment as written. Government officials regularly openly state that they want the private sector to voluntarily censor constitutionally protected speech [2], and the reason they do that is because they can't legally force private entities to censor protected speech. Per jurisprudence (I don't know which case, sorry), it is also illegal for the government to get around the limits of the first amendment by compelling private entities to limit speech. I guess that would be hard to prove, but that's the other shoe that everyone in free-speech land seems to be expecting to drop at some point. Reason being, when you censor a little, it tends to grow and grow until you're censoring criticism of your censorship, and it starts to consume everything. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfJZ2MTDEWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfJZ2MTDEWY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s
      - 4y ago
cma 4y ago
Biden wasn't in government at the time, though they did say the Trump admin was working with Twitter on removing stuff as well if that's what you meant. Taibbi also revealed: "34.NetChoice lets Twitter know a “blood bath” awaits in upcoming Hill hearings, with members saying it's a "tipping point," complaining tech has “grown so big that they can’t even regulate themselves, so government may need to intervene.”" https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598839971451838465 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598839971451838465 And on that one posts a screenshot that it was a "tipping point" for Republicans. Meaning they didn't like a moderation action (a curation decision: part of free speech unless Twitter is a gov't utility or something, the government doesn't tell newspapers who they have to publish in the opinion section) and were going to use government threats of regulation to punish it.

by rhaksw 4y ago

MBCook 4y ago

It could be. Here it seems they alerted Twitter to a few tweets containing nudes of someone posted without their consent. That was against the TOS and likely against the law in the 48 (?) states with anti-revenge porn laws. They didn’t try to stifle debate. They didn’t try to hide news articles. There has been tons of Hunter Biden tweets they did nothing about. This doesn’t seem like anything shady at all. So I’m not worried. Show me political game playing, I’ll be on your side.

sanderjd 4y ago

What "government comms" were exposed here, specifically? The specific claims seem to be about comms with private, albeit political, entities.

rhaksw 4y ago
I found the Ro Khanna one interesting, https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 "Exposed" is your word, not mine. Also, Biden's been a lifelong politician. I guess we disagree that his team's comms during candidacy were not "governmental" in nature.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  I re-read your comment and I agree that these communications are interesting. But Khanna's message is clearly not a government official demanding that Twitter censor something (indeed, he's suggesting the opposite). > I guess we disagree that his team's comms during candidacy were not "governmental" in nature. This isn't like a disagreeing on a judgment call sort of thing; it is factually not the case that the Biden campaign was governmental in nature. It was, in an objective legal sense, a private entity, and not a government entity. The US Constitution simply does not apply to a private entity that is not part of the US government.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    > Khanna's message is clearly not a government official demanding that Twitter censor something (indeed, he's suggesting the opposite). I never claimed it was, and yes I think he nailed what should have been said at that moment. You're assuming that I'm arguing there were government misdeeds exposed by this release, but if you reread the chain above you'll find that I (1) felt this is not merely a "big redirection", (2) find government comms interesting, and (3) only speculated about a potential bombshell, which need not be a legal issue. (3) is based on us not having all of the data. Musk is probably trolling us all per usual. He's got an even bigger megaphone now than before, so I'm interested to hear what he is saying. > This isn't like a disagreeing on a judgment call sort of thing; it is factually not the case that the Biden campaign was governmental in nature. Is Trump still influential within the Republican party? It's fine if you don't think so. Again I'm not saying that whoever wrote the "Biden team" email should be investigated as if they were a government official in 2020. I don't even know if the content of the messages would merit action if they were a government official. I'm saying, Biden was influential, and that makes these conversations interesting, particularly in light of what Josh Hawley has been sharing regarding this admin's communications with Facebook [1]. Plus, one of the government agencies, CISA, was established under Trump, so it's not even like this is a partisan issue. Both democrats and republicans will censor you if given the chance. We need to represent ourselves on the free speech issue. They are simply not incentivized to support the first amendment as written. Government officials regularly openly state that they want the private sector to voluntarily censor constitutionally protected speech [2], and the reason they do that is because they can't legally force private entities to censor protected speech. Per jurisprudence (I don't know which case, sorry), it is also illegal for the government to get around the limits of the first amendment by compelling private entities to limit speech. I guess that would be hard to prove, but that's the other shoe that everyone in free-speech land seems to be expecting to drop at some point. Reason being, when you censor a little, it tends to grow and grow until you're censoring criticism of your censorship, and it starts to consume everything. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfJZ2MTDEWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfJZ2MTDEWY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxZ0EGLDDaM&t=8329s
    - 4y ago

cma 4y ago

Biden wasn't in government at the time, though they did say the Trump admin was working with Twitter on removing stuff as well if that's what you meant. Taibbi also revealed: "34.NetChoice lets Twitter know a “blood bath” awaits in upcoming Hill hearings, with members saying it's a "tipping point," complaining tech has “grown so big that they can’t even regulate themselves, so government may need to intervene.”" https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598839971451838465 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598839971451838465 And on that one posts a screenshot that it was a "tipping point" for Republicans. Meaning they didn't like a moderation action (a curation decision: part of free speech unless Twitter is a gov't utility or something, the government doesn't tell newspapers who they have to publish in the opinion section) and were going to use government threats of regulation to punish it.