8 ms·

Surely, this will be addressed in the next installment of the "Twitter Files". /s

by rrmm 4y ago

ismepornnahi 4y ago
Part 69
yosefk 4y ago
I feel like the really interesting part of "The Twitter Files" isn't the arbitrary moderation decisions made (we sort of knew what they were thru their implementation and it's hard for moderation to be "not arbitrary" whether you agree with the decisions or not) but the involvement of US government representatives in it. I'm neither a lawyer nor an American but AFAIK according to past SCOTUS rulings, it is illegal for the government to "outsource censorship" to private parties in order to silence speech protected by 1A. A relative of DNC's Podesta or an FBI lawyer working for Twitter add to the impression more than the legal argument I guess. I think from the legal POV, an @ElonJet suspension backstory wouldn't be as interesting as the other installment of "The Twitter Files."
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > I feel like the really interesting part of "The Twitter Files" isn't the arbitrary moderation decisions made (we sort of knew what they were thru their implementation and it's hard for moderation to be "not arbitrary" whether you agree with the decisions or not) but the involvement of US government representatives in it. I haven't followed parts 2 & 3 of the Twitter files. But the irony here is that the government officials involved in part 1 were the Trump administration. Biden was not yet elected and should be considered a private citizen.
  - Jiro 4y ago
    This is one of the ways in which the deep state matters. "The Trump Administration" can be opposed to actual-Trump.
    - djur 4y ago
      The FBI helped him get elected in 2016 and was headed by his own appointee. If it was acting against his interests in 2020 that's an extraordinary failure in leadership.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      It must be nice to have an escape-hatch to use whenever something doesn't line up with how you feel it should.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - LMYahooTFY 4y ago
    Perhaps legally this is how it would work (IANAL), but given what's played out during elections I think that subjecting a candidate to the criteria of a public official in this regard has merit.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  >it is illegal for the government to "outsource censorship" to private parties in order to silence speech protected by 1A. A relative of DNC's Podesta or an FBI lawyer working for Twitter add to the impression more than the legal argument I guess. This is the entire story, but lede buried by MuskHate. Does no one out here realize this is the same hate-everything-acknowledge-nothing behavior regarding Trump? That you must hate the person and nothing else matters... "always shoot the messenger"... It seems clear as day to me, but I guess I'm the crazy one. EDIT: It's called cathartic scapegoating. And if you point it out, it must mean you're a Trump loving far-right loonie toon. Look at the extent that people will go to prove they aren't just shooting the messenger right here, it's just evidence it is happening.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    You’ve bought into right wing propaganda, so of course it’s clear as day that it’s a government conspiracy and a first amendment violation to you. To normals, “DNC Podesta FBI” are keywords signifying far-right conspiracy talk.
  - enumjorge 4y ago
    > That you must hate the person and nothing else matters... It’s funny you mention that because a lot of the alt-right’s success the past few years has been fueled by a pure, unadulterated hatred of anything deemed liberal or progressive.
  - chc 4y ago
    You seem to both be mad about government interference in 2020 and mad about people criticizing the Trump Administration. But the government in 2020 was the Trump Administration, so it seems like only one or the other can be a valid complaint.
  - welterde 4y ago
    Wasn't the government at the time still the Trump government?
  - penultimatename 4y ago
    The disclosures actually showed that the Trump government and Biden campaign both requested removals. But only one of those two is a government entity and (oddly) evidence of that government entity's request was left out of the disclosures. Talk about burying the lede.
- AdamN 4y ago
  The current Twitter Files aren't that interesting either. I haven't seen anything related to them that even seems different than how I thought it was working at the time, nor that seems illegal or incorrect. The idea that the fruits of a hack should not be published by media outlets (including Twitter) for at least a cooling off period makes alot of sense. Also for Podesta to be involved in that since the hacking of his emails was one of the main events of the 2016 election cycle and he was keenly aware of the speed at which those hacks can entangle people and have a profound impact on the democratic process. There's no way a responsible company would want that traffic on their site.
  - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
    Do you feel the same about Snowden or the other WikiLeaks dumps? I am not accusing you of being in this camp, but the conventional wisdom at that time was that information should be released as soon as possible with no redactions, even if doing so risked the lives of agents in the field
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > conventional wisdom at that time was that information should be released as soon as possible with no redactions, even if doing so risked the lives of agents in the field Actually I feel very differently about these two things specifically because Snowden didn't just blindly dump everything he could get regardless of the consequences.
      - meepmorp 4y ago
        > Snowden didn't just blindly dump everything he could get regardless of the consequences. Snowden leaked information about NSA surveillance of foreign persons not on US soil - that kind of activity is explicitly within the NSA's core mission and the legal framework around it. I'll leave aside any debate of the domestic programs - he very definitely did expose entirely legal secret activities. That's either careless or malicious.
        4y ago
- nkozyra 4y ago
  A not-so-fine line between compulsion and requests. The government is allowed to reach out to and talk to Twitter. Taibbi mentions two "suppression" interactions: > Taibbi reported Twitter had "received and honored" deletion requests from both the Biden campaign and the Trump White House; he presented examples of the former but not of the latter. (per Wiki) Only one of those groups was actively in government and as expressed both were requests.
  - zugi 4y ago
    Social media company censoring and so-called "fact checking" really stepped up around 2018. That's when Congress hauled heads of social media companies into Congressional hearings and both Democrats and Republicans demanded that they start filtering out "bad" information, or else Congress would make them! In a strictly legal sense this was not "compulsion", but given Government's power to destroy their businesses if it chose, this was essentially government outsourcing censorship.
- dmode 4y ago
  According to a heavily edited, and biased Twitter files release the only government entity that was censoring stuff was the Trump administration. But it’s unclear what they were censoring as Elon edited that part in his lame attempt to created a false narrative

Surely, this will be addressed in the next installment of the "Twitter Files". /s

by rrmm 4y ago

Surely, this will be addressed in the next installment of the "Twitter Files". /s

ismepornnahi 4y ago

Part 69

yosefk 4y ago

I feel like the really interesting part of "The Twitter Files" isn't the arbitrary moderation decisions made (we sort of knew what they were thru their implementation and it's hard for moderation to be "not arbitrary" whether you agree with the decisions or not) but the involvement of US government representatives in it. I'm neither a lawyer nor an American but AFAIK according to past SCOTUS rulings, it is illegal for the government to "outsource censorship" to private parties in order to silence speech protected by 1A. A relative of DNC's Podesta or an FBI lawyer working for Twitter add to the impression more than the legal argument I guess. I think from the legal POV, an @ElonJet suspension backstory wouldn't be as interesting as the other installment of "The Twitter Files."

AlexandrB 4y ago
> I feel like the really interesting part of "The Twitter Files" isn't the arbitrary moderation decisions made (we sort of knew what they were thru their implementation and it's hard for moderation to be "not arbitrary" whether you agree with the decisions or not) but the involvement of US government representatives in it. I haven't followed parts 2 & 3 of the Twitter files. But the irony here is that the government officials involved in part 1 were the Trump administration. Biden was not yet elected and should be considered a private citizen.
- Jiro 4y ago
  This is one of the ways in which the deep state matters. "The Trump Administration" can be opposed to actual-Trump.
  - djur 4y ago
    The FBI helped him get elected in 2016 and was headed by his own appointee. If it was acting against his interests in 2020 that's an extraordinary failure in leadership.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    It must be nice to have an escape-hatch to use whenever something doesn't line up with how you feel it should.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- LMYahooTFY 4y ago
  Perhaps legally this is how it would work (IANAL), but given what's played out during elections I think that subjecting a candidate to the criteria of a public official in this regard has merit.
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
>it is illegal for the government to "outsource censorship" to private parties in order to silence speech protected by 1A. A relative of DNC's Podesta or an FBI lawyer working for Twitter add to the impression more than the legal argument I guess. This is the entire story, but lede buried by MuskHate. Does no one out here realize this is the same hate-everything-acknowledge-nothing behavior regarding Trump? That you must hate the person and nothing else matters... "always shoot the messenger"... It seems clear as day to me, but I guess I'm the crazy one. EDIT: It's called cathartic scapegoating. And if you point it out, it must mean you're a Trump loving far-right loonie toon. Look at the extent that people will go to prove they aren't just shooting the messenger right here, it's just evidence it is happening.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  You’ve bought into right wing propaganda, so of course it’s clear as day that it’s a government conspiracy and a first amendment violation to you. To normals, “DNC Podesta FBI” are keywords signifying far-right conspiracy talk.
- enumjorge 4y ago
  > That you must hate the person and nothing else matters... It’s funny you mention that because a lot of the alt-right’s success the past few years has been fueled by a pure, unadulterated hatred of anything deemed liberal or progressive.
- chc 4y ago
  You seem to both be mad about government interference in 2020 and mad about people criticizing the Trump Administration. But the government in 2020 was the Trump Administration, so it seems like only one or the other can be a valid complaint.
- welterde 4y ago
  Wasn't the government at the time still the Trump government?
- penultimatename 4y ago
  The disclosures actually showed that the Trump government and Biden campaign both requested removals. But only one of those two is a government entity and (oddly) evidence of that government entity's request was left out of the disclosures. Talk about burying the lede.
AdamN 4y ago
The current Twitter Files aren't that interesting either. I haven't seen anything related to them that even seems different than how I thought it was working at the time, nor that seems illegal or incorrect. The idea that the fruits of a hack should not be published by media outlets (including Twitter) for at least a cooling off period makes alot of sense. Also for Podesta to be involved in that since the hacking of his emails was one of the main events of the 2016 election cycle and he was keenly aware of the speed at which those hacks can entangle people and have a profound impact on the democratic process. There's no way a responsible company would want that traffic on their site.
- PraetorianGourd 4y ago
  Do you feel the same about Snowden or the other WikiLeaks dumps? I am not accusing you of being in this camp, but the conventional wisdom at that time was that information should be released as soon as possible with no redactions, even if doing so risked the lives of agents in the field
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > conventional wisdom at that time was that information should be released as soon as possible with no redactions, even if doing so risked the lives of agents in the field Actually I feel very differently about these two things specifically because Snowden didn't just blindly dump everything he could get regardless of the consequences.
    - meepmorp 4y ago
      > Snowden didn't just blindly dump everything he could get regardless of the consequences. Snowden leaked information about NSA surveillance of foreign persons not on US soil - that kind of activity is explicitly within the NSA's core mission and the legal framework around it. I'll leave aside any debate of the domestic programs - he very definitely did expose entirely legal secret activities. That's either careless or malicious.
      - 4y ago
nkozyra 4y ago
A not-so-fine line between compulsion and requests. The government is allowed to reach out to and talk to Twitter. Taibbi mentions two "suppression" interactions: > Taibbi reported Twitter had "received and honored" deletion requests from both the Biden campaign and the Trump White House; he presented examples of the former but not of the latter. (per Wiki) Only one of those groups was actively in government and as expressed both were requests.
- zugi 4y ago
  Social media company censoring and so-called "fact checking" really stepped up around 2018. That's when Congress hauled heads of social media companies into Congressional hearings and both Democrats and Republicans demanded that they start filtering out "bad" information, or else Congress would make them! In a strictly legal sense this was not "compulsion", but given Government's power to destroy their businesses if it chose, this was essentially government outsourcing censorship.
dmode 4y ago
According to a heavily edited, and biased Twitter files release the only government entity that was censoring stuff was the Trump administration. But it’s unclear what they were censoring as Elon edited that part in his lame attempt to created a false narrative