4 ms·

I don't see anything about being a "small fry" mattering when it comes to the law. It's pretty cut and dried. What the FBI is doing is unconstitutional and ille

I don't see anything about being a "small fry" mattering when it comes to the law. It's pretty cut and dried. What the FBI is doing is unconstitutional and illegal. Why are you minimizing it? That they are doing it all is extremely alarming. It's like saying "the concentration camp only has 5 people, what's the big deal?" And why are you comparing them to private companies? Private companies are not covered by the same laws when it comes to the first amendment.

Apocryphon 4y ago
What is the law that is being broken here, and how are punishments measured for its infraction? Is it based on amount of impact? Because if so, then asking moderation for a dozen or two accounts with limited reach is something that might carry a small amount of punishment, if any at all. The first amendment is about the government making laws to infringe upon free speech. I see no laws being made here. So it is the government behaving exactly like a private company. Which may be problematic, but not unlawful.
- colordrops 4y ago
  If the FBI suggested to the various tech companies to shut down all your accounts and they complied, you'd be singing a different tune.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    I already am. The FBI just shut down the Z-Library with the help of Google and Amazon, which is a far more significant scandal over unjust power than this is. This is nothing more than chaff meant to distract from that atrocity. You are all crying about two dozen low-follower accounts while the FBI has successfully shuttered an immense knowledge repository. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33646513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33646513
    - colordrops 4y ago
      I'm confused as to why only one of these can be criticized.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        It's about priorities. This is distraction while FBI makes all sorts of boneheaded mistakes, like getting all of their secure contacts hacked. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33982223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33982223 Wouldn't be surprising if these files are an op to get the public riled up about something other than what they are up to now.
        colordrops 4y ago
        Distraction for whom? Is HN ground zero for prosecuting the FBI? The audience here is capable of holding many things in their heads at once.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        The FBI is putting pressure on Apple to drop Enhanced Encryption, and still refusing to declassify their JFK files. Those are far more urgent issues than getting mad at mods. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33906649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33906649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33883834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33883834
        colordrops 4y ago
        We are just trying to achieve concensus on facts here, not strategize on our plan to prosecute the FBI. This is a pseudo anonymous forum, not a law firm or activist group. We can talk about all of these things at once, despite your protestations.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Yes, and my free speech as protected by the First Amendment gives me the right to call this as plainly falling into the FBI's distraction trap, not to mention the whole giving cover to the sell-off of TSLA stock thing.
djur 4y ago
If the FBI was legally compelling or coercing Twitter into banning users, that would be unconstitutional. That is not what has been demonstrated here.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Why is the FBI spending tax payer dollars trying to influence media outlets at all? Do you not find this alarming? It's absolutely outside their realm of responsibility.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    The Pentagon routinely screens Hollywood blockbusters to ensure the content does not offend the military, and makes suggestions to studio executives as to how to best portray the military. The government is constantly influencing media outlets, none of this is new.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      Let me cut and paste my comment with a minor change: Why is the Pentagon spending tax payer dollars trying to influence media outlets at all? Do you not find this alarming? It's absolutely outside their realm of responsibility. What does being "new" have anything to do with whether it matters or not?
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        It's not alarming because it's so pervasive it's the way things are. Thus when something new is brought up their impact needs to be weighed accordingly to prioritize.
        colordrops 4y ago
        Growing up in a fascist regime may make it seem normal but at some point you need to raise your hackles and feel alarmed regardless of the past, because it's a fascist regime.
drewbeck 4y ago
Every time the government tells anyone that something possibly harmful is happening, with the hope that folks stop that, it's censorship. The government shouldn't be involved at ALL in talking or thinking about what its citizens do or say. Any time the FBI posts a most-wanted list it's clearly an attempt to shut down speech or behavior. This is censorship and is just like a concentration camp.

Apocryphon 4y ago

What is the law that is being broken here, and how are punishments measured for its infraction? Is it based on amount of impact? Because if so, then asking moderation for a dozen or two accounts with limited reach is something that might carry a small amount of punishment, if any at all. The first amendment is about the government making laws to infringe upon free speech. I see no laws being made here. So it is the government behaving exactly like a private company. Which may be problematic, but not unlawful.

colordrops 4y ago
If the FBI suggested to the various tech companies to shut down all your accounts and they complied, you'd be singing a different tune.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  I already am. The FBI just shut down the Z-Library with the help of Google and Amazon, which is a far more significant scandal over unjust power than this is. This is nothing more than chaff meant to distract from that atrocity. You are all crying about two dozen low-follower accounts while the FBI has successfully shuttered an immense knowledge repository. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33646513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33646513
  - colordrops 4y ago
    I'm confused as to why only one of these can be criticized.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      It's about priorities. This is distraction while FBI makes all sorts of boneheaded mistakes, like getting all of their secure contacts hacked. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33982223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33982223 Wouldn't be surprising if these files are an op to get the public riled up about something other than what they are up to now.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        Distraction for whom? Is HN ground zero for prosecuting the FBI? The audience here is capable of holding many things in their heads at once.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        The FBI is putting pressure on Apple to drop Enhanced Encryption, and still refusing to declassify their JFK files. Those are far more urgent issues than getting mad at mods. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33906649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33906649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33883834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33883834
        colordrops 4y ago
        We are just trying to achieve concensus on facts here, not strategize on our plan to prosecute the FBI. This is a pseudo anonymous forum, not a law firm or activist group. We can talk about all of these things at once, despite your protestations.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Yes, and my free speech as protected by the First Amendment gives me the right to call this as plainly falling into the FBI's distraction trap, not to mention the whole giving cover to the sell-off of TSLA stock thing.

djur 4y ago

If the FBI was legally compelling or coercing Twitter into banning users, that would be unconstitutional. That is not what has been demonstrated here.

colordrops 4y ago
Why is the FBI spending tax payer dollars trying to influence media outlets at all? Do you not find this alarming? It's absolutely outside their realm of responsibility.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  The Pentagon routinely screens Hollywood blockbusters to ensure the content does not offend the military, and makes suggestions to studio executives as to how to best portray the military. The government is constantly influencing media outlets, none of this is new.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Let me cut and paste my comment with a minor change: Why is the Pentagon spending tax payer dollars trying to influence media outlets at all? Do you not find this alarming? It's absolutely outside their realm of responsibility. What does being "new" have anything to do with whether it matters or not?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      It's not alarming because it's so pervasive it's the way things are. Thus when something new is brought up their impact needs to be weighed accordingly to prioritize.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        Growing up in a fascist regime may make it seem normal but at some point you need to raise your hackles and feel alarmed regardless of the past, because it's a fascist regime.

drewbeck 4y ago

Every time the government tells anyone that something possibly harmful is happening, with the hope that folks stop that, it's censorship. The government shouldn't be involved at ALL in talking or thinking about what its citizens do or say. Any time the FBI posts a most-wanted list it's clearly an attempt to shut down speech or behavior. This is censorship and is just like a concentration camp.