9 ms·

What bothers me most about the FBI's behaviour here is that it is unnecessary. Do we really want the FBI manning a task force of 80+(according to Taibbi) agent

by nverno 4y ago

What bothers me most about the FBI's behaviour here is that it is unnecessary. Do we really want the FBI manning a task force of 80+(according to Taibbi) agents to monitor social media threads, and if so, what's to stop that number from just growing and growing? I'd prefer to see the FBI acting in a passive role, here, rather than a proactive one. Meaning, they act more in response to people reporting social media behavior, instead of creating their own missions, so to speak. One of the problems with this sort of governmental creep, is once it happens it's nearly impossible to take it back - look at the Patriot act/Homeland security, for example, or the god-awful and useless TSA. It's very easy to imagine this social media task force growing into another branch, and, as with all of these agencies, the Big Brother potential is a scary one.

bigtex 4y ago
They could be proactive in protection us companies from ransomware attacks but instead they worry about social media posts.
- acdha 4y ago
  They do both, with considerable other effort in the federal government on infrastructure protection as well as election integrity. You might not hear about it as much because there isn’t a big lobby opposed to infosec but it’s definitely there.
canucklady 4y ago
I think using social media to gather intel is entirely reasonable. Given the number of people who have committed mass shootings and other acts of domestic terrorism after being radicalized online, they would be negligent to not be proactively looking at the internet. Your whole argument is just "sure this is reasonable now but what if there were 8000 agents online and they could extraordinary rendition you". 80 agents for the whole country is not absurd. That's less than 2 per state.
somehnacct3757 4y ago
Social media products have been critical to the exponential growth of domestic terrorism and CSAM. So I definitely want the FBI being proactive on these platforms and to have a much, much, bigger team than 80. It should be 80 per state. People with poor information diets hear the FBI is involved with Twitter and immediately think it has something to do with red team blue team politics. These are the people the Twitter Files content is produced for. It's written vaguely enough to give potato chip peddlers creative license, so they can monetize attention.
- nverno 4y ago
  This is the same type of reasoning that gave us the Patriot Act/Homeland security etc., though. I'm sure there is some truth to it, I just hope people push back against giving the FBI, or whatever agency arises, free reign. Tilting in favor of extreme safety measures sounds pretty bad to me, but I guess this is largely a matter of personal risk tolerance. Notably, none of the content the FBI was monitoring in this thread had anything to do with terrorism, but that fear is still guiding many people's responses.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    - nverno 4y ago
      > Because at least that was directed at a foreign terrorist threat that And even with that prerogative, we all saw how the NSA's 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' expanded quickly, in breach of law, to encompass American citizens. Government surveillance is going to be a hot button issue for the forseeable future, and if every time somebody does something bad is an excuse to expand its reach, there won't be anything beyond its reach before long.
    - tehwebguy 4y ago
      The Patriot act and it’s reauthorizations under different names are the worst federal legislation in decades. Comparing Twitter getting reports about ToS violations from FBI via email instead of from users via the report button isn’t in the same galaxy. I am struggling to think of a more bad faith argument than comparing this to the Patriot act.
TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
I think it’s clear, by implication, that this is where a lot of the expunged headcount at Twitter spent their time: policing accounts, according to both internal and external machinations.
petesergeant 4y ago
> Do we really want the FBI manning a task force of 80+(according to Taibbi) agents to monitor social media threads, and if so, what's to stop that number from just growing and growing? They have a limited budget. If the FBI reckons their mission is best accomplished this way, who are we to second-guess it?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fallingknife 4y ago
  > who are we to second-guess it? The citizens of a democracy who have full political rights and whose government is not allowed to do anything at all without our approval.
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    > whose government is not allowed to do anything at all without our approval Really? I thought you were restricted to voting for your representatives?
tootie 4y ago
What do think the FBI does? They monitor threats. Just following media (social and traditional) is pretty mandatory first step in collecting intel. A lot of Jan 6 insurrections were organizing on digital platforms. Foreign adversaries are using it too.

by nverno 4y ago

bigtex 4y ago

They could be proactive in protection us companies from ransomware attacks but instead they worry about social media posts.

acdha 4y ago
They do both, with considerable other effort in the federal government on infrastructure protection as well as election integrity. You might not hear about it as much because there isn’t a big lobby opposed to infosec but it’s definitely there.

canucklady 4y ago

I think using social media to gather intel is entirely reasonable. Given the number of people who have committed mass shootings and other acts of domestic terrorism after being radicalized online, they would be negligent to not be proactively looking at the internet. Your whole argument is just "sure this is reasonable now but what if there were 8000 agents online and they could extraordinary rendition you". 80 agents for the whole country is not absurd. That's less than 2 per state.

somehnacct3757 4y ago

Social media products have been critical to the exponential growth of domestic terrorism and CSAM. So I definitely want the FBI being proactive on these platforms and to have a much, much, bigger team than 80. It should be 80 per state. People with poor information diets hear the FBI is involved with Twitter and immediately think it has something to do with red team blue team politics. These are the people the Twitter Files content is produced for. It's written vaguely enough to give potato chip peddlers creative license, so they can monetize attention.

nverno 4y ago
This is the same type of reasoning that gave us the Patriot Act/Homeland security etc., though. I'm sure there is some truth to it, I just hope people push back against giving the FBI, or whatever agency arises, free reign. Tilting in favor of extreme safety measures sounds pretty bad to me, but I guess this is largely a matter of personal risk tolerance. Notably, none of the content the FBI was monitoring in this thread had anything to do with terrorism, but that fear is still guiding many people's responses.
- rayiner 4y ago
  - nverno 4y ago
    > Because at least that was directed at a foreign terrorist threat that And even with that prerogative, we all saw how the NSA's 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' expanded quickly, in breach of law, to encompass American citizens. Government surveillance is going to be a hot button issue for the forseeable future, and if every time somebody does something bad is an excuse to expand its reach, there won't be anything beyond its reach before long.
  - tehwebguy 4y ago
    The Patriot act and it’s reauthorizations under different names are the worst federal legislation in decades. Comparing Twitter getting reports about ToS violations from FBI via email instead of from users via the report button isn’t in the same galaxy. I am struggling to think of a more bad faith argument than comparing this to the Patriot act.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago

I think it’s clear, by implication, that this is where a lot of the expunged headcount at Twitter spent their time: policing accounts, according to both internal and external machinations.

petesergeant 4y ago

> Do we really want the FBI manning a task force of 80+(according to Taibbi) agents to monitor social media threads, and if so, what's to stop that number from just growing and growing? They have a limited budget. If the FBI reckons their mission is best accomplished this way, who are we to second-guess it?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fallingknife 4y ago
> who are we to second-guess it? The citizens of a democracy who have full political rights and whose government is not allowed to do anything at all without our approval.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  > whose government is not allowed to do anything at all without our approval Really? I thought you were restricted to voting for your representatives?

tootie 4y ago

What do think the FBI does? They monitor threats. Just following media (social and traditional) is pretty mandatory first step in collecting intel. A lot of Jan 6 insurrections were organizing on digital platforms. Foreign adversaries are using it too.