5 ms·

When governments ask companies to do something, they usually must comply though lol

ethanbond 4y ago
Literally not true. They can simply decline and if the Govt wants to come after them they can sue each other and in cases where it’s legal content then Twitter will win. This is extremely well established and not even remotely weird or some dark unexplored corner of Constitutional law. Edit: Here’s a link with some relevant case law. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Disagree with the established precedent if you want, but if you do, I’d recommend picking a different battleground than whatever this Twitter Files fiasco is. This stuff isn’t even on the questionable end of the spectrum.
- koolba 4y ago
  Any voluntary request from the government comes with an implied consequence for refusal or an implied benefit for acceptance. They don’t have to say it out loud for the message to come across.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    By this logic the government can’t use the Report Tweet button either, right?
    - koolba 4y ago
      Unless it’s in the furtherance of catching or stopping an active criminal, I’d say no. Why would we be wasting government resources alerting private companies of their terms of service anyway?
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        I don’t think it’s a waste of government resources to be reporting people who are trying to suppress voting by e.g. giving incorrect polling dates or locations. Also don’t think it’s a waste to try to prevent ISIS recruiting material from reaching more confused and angry young men. Both are legal though!
        TeeMassive 4y ago
        The Taliban were on Twitter...
        ethanbond 4y ago
        And?
        TeeMassive 4y ago
        Well clearly the FBI don't find the Taliban bad enough for some reasons...
        ethanbond 4y ago
        Or… it turns out that the FBI has specific mandates and they include things like “counter election disinformation” and it doesn’t include things like “report every bad guy on Twitter.” This is only confusing starting from your own incorrect premise.
        TeeMassive 4y ago
        The FBI don't have "mandates" against the Talibans? That doesn't seem to make sense...
        ethanbond 4y ago
        The FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency. The Taliban does not really break US laws as a matter of course. If you hear otherwise please report them to the FBI. Honestly it’s not very fruitful arguing this stuff with someone who clearly doesn’t understand the basics of the American system. There are plenty of resources online to learn about all this stuff if you’re interested.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    If Twitter was being coerced by the government, they could have said so in court. They are a multibillion dollar multinational corporation with deep pockets and connection in high places, not a helpless mom and pop.
  - candybar 4y ago
    Republicans - and Trump specifically - have been directly threatening Twitter for years to try to get them to act in a way that benefits them and you think this "implied consequence for refusal" is some big issue?
- Amezarak 4y ago
  You're right, this isn't unexplored. The ACLU says this specific example is unconstitutional. There's also been legal cases about this in the past. It's illegal for the government to do this. "They could sue if they don't want to do it" does not make the request legal. https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 What's shocking is that people's perceptions of what's legal have changed so dramatically in just a few years. I can't imagine anyone making these arguments in 2005. It seems some powerful interests have been able to successfully co-opt SV companies and change the entire public conversation about what the First Amendment means. I would like to know a lot more about what's going on here. I don't think the same tired arguments about "disinformation" and "social harmony" that have been trotted out for centuries against free speech have suddenly gained all this credence by accident.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Not clear what you mean by “this specific example” given that your linked article is about DHS’s defunct Disinformation board and AFAIK this board never even became operational (and in any case hasn’t been mentioned in Twitter Files). It seems to me rather that all these folks shocked to hear this stuff just haven’t been paying attention to either their high school civics course or to current events of the last 20 years. You actually think the FBI doesn’t report content? Obviously they do. You don’t think the FBI gets a privileged reporting line over newuser1848391? Obviously they do. You don’t think Twitter regularly gets content moderation requests, from governments or elsewhere, that they simply decline? Obviously they do. And you don’t think they sometimes get content moderation requests from governments or elsewhere that they oblige? Obviously they do. Here’s a good overview of relevant case law: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Will you also be surprised to hear that almost all private companies can (and many will) simply choose to hand over your private data to the government upon warrantless request?
    - Amezarak 4y ago
      I never said I was shocked about it. The government and particularly agencies like the FBI have long engaged in illegal abuses of their power, ranging from illegal speech restrictions like this to the knowing legal persecution of innocent people to outright murder and blackmail. Nor is it news to me that companies are increasingly voluntarily sharing vast amounts of data with the government, to the point that the surveillance state we feared has come to pass as a corporate-state partnership. What I’m surprised about is the increasing number of people who see it as normal and acceptable, or choose to dismiss it as “oh, this has been happening.” Yeah, that doesn’t make it okay.
UncleMeat 4y ago
That’s why every company has adopted NISTs password guidance and those that refused had their CEOs thrown in prison.
acdha 4y ago
What do you hope to accomplish with a low-effort comment which everyone knows is wrong? We’re talking about the FBI here so one of the events I’d expect most HN commenters to be familiar with is their dispute with Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d... Since then, Apple has stepped up their end to end encryption stance, which seems like the opposite of what you’re implying.

Literally not true. They can simply decline and if the Govt wants to come after them they can sue each other and in cases where it’s legal content then Twitter will win. This is extremely well established and not even remotely weird or some dark unexplored corner of Constitutional law. Edit: Here’s a link with some relevant case law. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Disagree with the established precedent if you want, but if you do, I’d recommend picking a different battleground than whatever this Twitter Files fiasco is. This stuff isn’t even on the questionable end of the spectrum.

koolba 4y ago
Any voluntary request from the government comes with an implied consequence for refusal or an implied benefit for acceptance. They don’t have to say it out loud for the message to come across.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  By this logic the government can’t use the Report Tweet button either, right?
  - koolba 4y ago
    Unless it’s in the furtherance of catching or stopping an active criminal, I’d say no. Why would we be wasting government resources alerting private companies of their terms of service anyway?
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      I don’t think it’s a waste of government resources to be reporting people who are trying to suppress voting by e.g. giving incorrect polling dates or locations. Also don’t think it’s a waste to try to prevent ISIS recruiting material from reaching more confused and angry young men. Both are legal though!
      - TeeMassive 4y ago
        The Taliban were on Twitter...
        ethanbond 4y ago
        And?
        TeeMassive 4y ago
        Well clearly the FBI don't find the Taliban bad enough for some reasons...
        ethanbond 4y ago
        Or… it turns out that the FBI has specific mandates and they include things like “counter election disinformation” and it doesn’t include things like “report every bad guy on Twitter.” This is only confusing starting from your own incorrect premise.
        TeeMassive 4y ago
        The FBI don't have "mandates" against the Talibans? That doesn't seem to make sense...
        ethanbond 4y ago
        The FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency. The Taliban does not really break US laws as a matter of course. If you hear otherwise please report them to the FBI. Honestly it’s not very fruitful arguing this stuff with someone who clearly doesn’t understand the basics of the American system. There are plenty of resources online to learn about all this stuff if you’re interested.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  If Twitter was being coerced by the government, they could have said so in court. They are a multibillion dollar multinational corporation with deep pockets and connection in high places, not a helpless mom and pop.
- candybar 4y ago
  Republicans - and Trump specifically - have been directly threatening Twitter for years to try to get them to act in a way that benefits them and you think this "implied consequence for refusal" is some big issue?
Amezarak 4y ago
You're right, this isn't unexplored. The ACLU says this specific example is unconstitutional. There's also been legal cases about this in the past. It's illegal for the government to do this. "They could sue if they don't want to do it" does not make the request legal. https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 What's shocking is that people's perceptions of what's legal have changed so dramatically in just a few years. I can't imagine anyone making these arguments in 2005. It seems some powerful interests have been able to successfully co-opt SV companies and change the entire public conversation about what the First Amendment means. I would like to know a lot more about what's going on here. I don't think the same tired arguments about "disinformation" and "social harmony" that have been trotted out for centuries against free speech have suddenly gained all this credence by accident.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Not clear what you mean by “this specific example” given that your linked article is about DHS’s defunct Disinformation board and AFAIK this board never even became operational (and in any case hasn’t been mentioned in Twitter Files). It seems to me rather that all these folks shocked to hear this stuff just haven’t been paying attention to either their high school civics course or to current events of the last 20 years. You actually think the FBI doesn’t report content? Obviously they do. You don’t think the FBI gets a privileged reporting line over newuser1848391? Obviously they do. You don’t think Twitter regularly gets content moderation requests, from governments or elsewhere, that they simply decline? Obviously they do. And you don’t think they sometimes get content moderation requests from governments or elsewhere that they oblige? Obviously they do. Here’s a good overview of relevant case law: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p... Will you also be surprised to hear that almost all private companies can (and many will) simply choose to hand over your private data to the government upon warrantless request?
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    I never said I was shocked about it. The government and particularly agencies like the FBI have long engaged in illegal abuses of their power, ranging from illegal speech restrictions like this to the knowing legal persecution of innocent people to outright murder and blackmail. Nor is it news to me that companies are increasingly voluntarily sharing vast amounts of data with the government, to the point that the surveillance state we feared has come to pass as a corporate-state partnership. What I’m surprised about is the increasing number of people who see it as normal and acceptable, or choose to dismiss it as “oh, this has been happening.” Yeah, that doesn’t make it okay.

UncleMeat 4y ago

That’s why every company has adopted NISTs password guidance and those that refused had their CEOs thrown in prison.

acdha 4y ago

What do you hope to accomplish with a low-effort comment which everyone knows is wrong? We’re talking about the FBI here so one of the events I’d expect most HN commenters to be familiar with is their dispute with Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d... Since then, Apple has stepped up their end to end encryption stance, which seems like the opposite of what you’re implying.