5 ms·

So you think it is totally normal that FBI just helps a company to moderate stuff that is legal but doesn't comply with the company's Terms of Service?

jacquesm 4y ago
Yes. Because 'legal' and 'damaging to society' are different bars and both the FBI and Twitter probably felt that cooperating on that front was better than to let things get out of hand. The alternative may well have been a dead VP, or worse, so be happy that these channels exist(ed). With that whole department axed we are now in much more dangerous territory. That said I'm pretty sure that Elon Musk knows which side his bread is buttered on and that given an appropriately worded request Twitter will comply just like it did in the past. Or do you think they'll give the FBI the finger now?
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The FBI should absolutely not be trying to manage or control activity that isn't illegal, especially when that activity is speech. When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    > When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO. You could. But that's not what happened here, judging by the evidence on display. All I see is what I expected to see: law enforcement engaging in a careful manner with a company that is dealing with an extremely large flow of communications. And if some of those communications are of a society destabilizing nature it is well within the mandate of the FBI to stick their noses in and make requests. You then have the option to refuse those requests, in which case you may either end up in court, they could forget about the whole thing or you are served with a piece of paper signed off by a judge. What is illegal and what isn't is ultimately for a judge to decide but not every two-bit issue needs to go by a judge if all parties agree that the world is better off with moderating it out of existence.
    - tomcam 4y ago
      Careful? Targeting shit poster Billy Baldwin is careful?
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      What I see is the government involved in pressuring and directing companies to censor legal speech. You seem to think this is OK because you think it will only ever be done to people you disagree with. History has repeatedly shown that is a dangerously naive view. The whole point is that these cases aren't going in front of a judge or jury to decide. Without that system of checks and balances, "all parties agree" is meaningless because it can't be challenged. "All parties agreed" that the civil rights or anti-war movement were destabilizing and needed to be suppressed...you seem to support that kind of unchecked power. I don't know why people are so quick to forget our very recent history.
- colordrops 4y ago
  It's not in the FBI's charter to "fix society" outside of the bounds of law. It's mind boggling to me that people are acting nonchalant about a government entity shaping public discourse in secret.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    If - for instance - Mike Pence had been murdered (and I believe there was a real possibility that that could have happened) I'm pretty sure that you'd be playing an entirely different tune. The FBI is free to interpret the law and you are free to take them to court if you don't agree with their interpretation. This does not normally need to be spelled out. Next time you receive a request from the police that you think is reasonable try stonewalling them and see what happens. I guarantee you won't like it. And as far as the secrecy is concerned: records were kept, that's why you are reading about this.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      I have no idea how to respond to your comment. You seem to be coming from a world view that has no overlap with mine. I have zero understanding why you'd so condescendingly argue that we should just accept shady behavior by the FBI.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        I don't see anything shady. And being pretty anti-authoritarian and having been in contact with LE many, many times over the years including the FBI what struck me first and foremost in all of that is that they did their utmost best to keep it clean.
        colordrops 4y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies And these are just the big ones. They've pushed for back doors into iPhones for instance. I don't care how trustworthy anyone thinks they are. No one should be able to just arbitrarily transcend the law because they are "clean".
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  The alternative to censoring "Americans, Vote today. Democrats you vote Wednesday 9th." and "If you're not wearing a mask, I'm not counting your vote." is a dead VP? I don’t see a connection.
we_never_see_it 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago

Yes. Because 'legal' and 'damaging to society' are different bars and both the FBI and Twitter probably felt that cooperating on that front was better than to let things get out of hand. The alternative may well have been a dead VP, or worse, so be happy that these channels exist(ed). With that whole department axed we are now in much more dangerous territory. That said I'm pretty sure that Elon Musk knows which side his bread is buttered on and that given an appropriately worded request Twitter will comply just like it did in the past. Or do you think they'll give the FBI the finger now?

shkkmo 4y ago
The FBI should absolutely not be trying to manage or control activity that isn't illegal, especially when that activity is speech. When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > When the FBI does, we end up with horrible stuff like COINTELPRO. You could. But that's not what happened here, judging by the evidence on display. All I see is what I expected to see: law enforcement engaging in a careful manner with a company that is dealing with an extremely large flow of communications. And if some of those communications are of a society destabilizing nature it is well within the mandate of the FBI to stick their noses in and make requests. You then have the option to refuse those requests, in which case you may either end up in court, they could forget about the whole thing or you are served with a piece of paper signed off by a judge. What is illegal and what isn't is ultimately for a judge to decide but not every two-bit issue needs to go by a judge if all parties agree that the world is better off with moderating it out of existence.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    Careful? Targeting shit poster Billy Baldwin is careful?
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    What I see is the government involved in pressuring and directing companies to censor legal speech. You seem to think this is OK because you think it will only ever be done to people you disagree with. History has repeatedly shown that is a dangerously naive view. The whole point is that these cases aren't going in front of a judge or jury to decide. Without that system of checks and balances, "all parties agree" is meaningless because it can't be challenged. "All parties agreed" that the civil rights or anti-war movement were destabilizing and needed to be suppressed...you seem to support that kind of unchecked power. I don't know why people are so quick to forget our very recent history.
colordrops 4y ago
It's not in the FBI's charter to "fix society" outside of the bounds of law. It's mind boggling to me that people are acting nonchalant about a government entity shaping public discourse in secret.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  If - for instance - Mike Pence had been murdered (and I believe there was a real possibility that that could have happened) I'm pretty sure that you'd be playing an entirely different tune. The FBI is free to interpret the law and you are free to take them to court if you don't agree with their interpretation. This does not normally need to be spelled out. Next time you receive a request from the police that you think is reasonable try stonewalling them and see what happens. I guarantee you won't like it. And as far as the secrecy is concerned: records were kept, that's why you are reading about this.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    I have no idea how to respond to your comment. You seem to be coming from a world view that has no overlap with mine. I have zero understanding why you'd so condescendingly argue that we should just accept shady behavior by the FBI.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      I don't see anything shady. And being pretty anti-authoritarian and having been in contact with LE many, many times over the years including the FBI what struck me first and foremost in all of that is that they did their utmost best to keep it clean.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies And these are just the big ones. They've pushed for back doors into iPhones for instance. I don't care how trustworthy anyone thinks they are. No one should be able to just arbitrarily transcend the law because they are "clean".
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
The alternative to censoring "Americans, Vote today. Democrats you vote Wednesday 9th." and "If you're not wearing a mask, I'm not counting your vote." is a dead VP? I don’t see a connection.

we_never_see_it 4y ago