4 ms·

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 ille

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.

ethanbond 4y ago
Shocked to learn that it’s legal, not that it happens. So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. Not considered a controversial topic. 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... There are lots of dangers with this pattern but this is simply an extremely extremely poor case to try to take up the fight on.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  > So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? What about an even more powerful organization that can and do prosecute people for simply lying or obstructing?
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    > If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution. It's not unusual at all for police to pull people over for minor infractions and assert they have the ability to search their cars, and for people who know their rights to decline said search, and for everyone to go on their merry way. If the cop chooses to force a search anyway, it's not unusual at all for them to get sued and for all evidence collected to be deemed inadmissible. This is all, again, extremely well established. Twitter surely has an army of extremely capable and well-paid lawyers who know very well which requests they have a right to decline. They've got to be more legally equipped than your average 9th grader. This is why it's important for people to have an accurate understanding of their rights and their relationship with their government. The position you're taking weakens people's understanding of their rights. So let it be known for any future operators of social media networks: the US government cannot coerce you – even implicitly – to remove legal content from your website. If they do, decline and let them bring you to court, hit up the ACLU to represent you, and sue the fucking daylights out of the US Government. It's your right and your duty!
    - Amezarak 4y ago
      Twitter and tech companies are regularly threatened with additional regulation and their executives called before Congress. This is the pressure. It’s already taken place and it’s ongoing. Sure, they could sue. They might or might not win. And Congress can make their life difficult in either outcome. There’s not much you do about that since, very nominally, Congress is supposed to represent the people and not security state interests. This comment also totally ignores the fact that the “Twitter files” have also contributed to the realization that these companies are riddled with ex-FBI and other government employees who were partly responsible for responding to these requests, let alone the idea of corporate employees toadying up to the government security state is incompatible with democracy whether or not someone could hypothetically sue. Also, it’s great to hear my duty is to sue the government if it does wrong. That’s true. That also works out very badly for people all the time and entails spending a lot of money and years of your life on an uncertain outcome. These stories are additional proof the FBI needs huge reforms and mass layoffs. It’s still the agency of J Edgar Hoover, who to this day was in charge for nearly half its existence. But the culture of these tech companies is also extremely concerning. And even moreso, as I said in my original comment (and which you misunderstood even in your response), the shocking part is that people think this is fine, and nobody is asking who and what has caused such a massive shift in American beliefs.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        Government employees get job in related field in private sector… not a groundbreaking revelation and not clear what to do about it. e.g. Trump’s proposal to ban former DoD employees from having jobs relating to American data for 7 years after service is a horrible solution. Well it’s a good way to further cripple our veterans and in general eliminate any remaining appeal of a government job for any half-competent person. What evidence do you have of “a massive shift?” Because on my side there’s 200 years of case law that all pretty much concurs on every single instance of this happening. Yes I do think it’s fine that our security apparatus attempts to maintain security within the confines of legislated and adjudicated law and that private corporations are able - both in theory and in practice - to resist unlawful pressure to control information. “Checks and balances” is a state of tension. Party X requests, Party Y denies, Party Z adjudicates. That’s how it works.

ethanbond 4y ago

Shocked to learn that it’s legal, not that it happens. So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. Not considered a controversial topic. 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... There are lots of dangers with this pattern but this is simply an extremely extremely poor case to try to take up the fight on.

TeeMassive 4y ago
> So long as there’s no coercion it’s completely legal. If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? What about an even more powerful organization that can and do prosecute people for simply lying or obstructing?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  > If the police ask you to do something, do you usually feel generally obligated to comply? Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution. It's not unusual at all for police to pull people over for minor infractions and assert they have the ability to search their cars, and for people who know their rights to decline said search, and for everyone to go on their merry way. If the cop chooses to force a search anyway, it's not unusual at all for them to get sued and for all evidence collected to be deemed inadmissible. This is all, again, extremely well established. Twitter surely has an army of extremely capable and well-paid lawyers who know very well which requests they have a right to decline. They've got to be more legally equipped than your average 9th grader. This is why it's important for people to have an accurate understanding of their rights and their relationship with their government. The position you're taking weakens people's understanding of their rights. So let it be known for any future operators of social media networks: the US government cannot coerce you – even implicitly – to remove legal content from your website. If they do, decline and let them bring you to court, hit up the ACLU to represent you, and sue the fucking daylights out of the US Government. It's your right and your duty!
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    Twitter and tech companies are regularly threatened with additional regulation and their executives called before Congress. This is the pressure. It’s already taken place and it’s ongoing. Sure, they could sue. They might or might not win. And Congress can make their life difficult in either outcome. There’s not much you do about that since, very nominally, Congress is supposed to represent the people and not security state interests. This comment also totally ignores the fact that the “Twitter files” have also contributed to the realization that these companies are riddled with ex-FBI and other government employees who were partly responsible for responding to these requests, let alone the idea of corporate employees toadying up to the government security state is incompatible with democracy whether or not someone could hypothetically sue. Also, it’s great to hear my duty is to sue the government if it does wrong. That’s true. That also works out very badly for people all the time and entails spending a lot of money and years of your life on an uncertain outcome. These stories are additional proof the FBI needs huge reforms and mass layoffs. It’s still the agency of J Edgar Hoover, who to this day was in charge for nearly half its existence. But the culture of these tech companies is also extremely concerning. And even moreso, as I said in my original comment (and which you misunderstood even in your response), the shocking part is that people think this is fine, and nobody is asking who and what has caused such a massive shift in American beliefs.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      Government employees get job in related field in private sector… not a groundbreaking revelation and not clear what to do about it. e.g. Trump’s proposal to ban former DoD employees from having jobs relating to American data for 7 years after service is a horrible solution. Well it’s a good way to further cripple our veterans and in general eliminate any remaining appeal of a government job for any half-competent person. What evidence do you have of “a massive shift?” Because on my side there’s 200 years of case law that all pretty much concurs on every single instance of this happening. Yes I do think it’s fine that our security apparatus attempts to maintain security within the confines of legislated and adjudicated law and that private corporations are able - both in theory and in practice - to resist unlawful pressure to control information. “Checks and balances” is a state of tension. Party X requests, Party Y denies, Party Z adjudicates. That’s how it works.