7 ms·

You can downplay this all you want - but remember: stuff like this is a microcosm of a larger issue. Sections of your government worked directly with Twitter t

You can downplay this all you want - but remember: stuff like this is a microcosm of a larger issue. Sections of your government worked directly with Twitter to control what information you saw. Much bigger organizations - Facebook comes to mind - must be doing the same thing every.single.day. And no one finds this even a little bit alarming?

elurg 4y ago
A lot of people completely agree with heavy-handed information control.
- quacked 4y ago
  "A well-armed and informed populace governing itself" is a pipe dream by indigenous uncontacted people and certain very intelligent dissenters. The majority of "civilized" people in the world are very happy to live in an authoritarian information-sanitized nation so long as the people in power cater to their own in-group.
  - barnabee 4y ago
    I’d like to think this site of all places might be populated with very intermittent dissenters willing to be or at least support activists trying to change that, with the internet and technology as their tool. It’s always jarring to discover the extent to which it’s not.
    - MarkPNeyer 4y ago
      Bitcoin is people striving for financial self sovereignty. “Crypto” is a bunch of people trying to get rich using some cool new technology they nobody understands. See how much bigger the second is than the first.
      - quacked 4y ago
        The reason Bitcoin got so large so quickly is the same reason that "Crypto" got large so quickly. The majority of people who "invest" in Bitcoin aren't trying to figure out a way to trade goods and services in a way that undermines the Federal Reserve and the IRS, they're trying to increase their holdings in USD in order to better participate in the existing economy.
      - barnabee 4y ago
        Meh. People will try to get rich off anything— crypto, the internet, SMS scams, every type of physical business, legit or otherwise. As a hacker I want to find out what else we can do with it. What surprising things can we build? What if we could use some kind of blockchain tech to incentivise people to do great things despite what you’ve seen so far? (Some people really are trying to do that.) What if we can help activists all over the world with Tor and end to end encryption? What if the internet can give a voice to people who never had one? What if we can find a better way than copyright to compensate people for their creations with restricting sharing and reuse? What if we can build and online encyclopaedia many orders of magnitude grander in scope than anything that’s gone before? Let someone else worry about what the grifters are doing to screw us this time. Let’s see the hackers hack.
      - dale_glass 4y ago
        That vision of bitcoin died somewhere around 2017, back when blocks filled, commerce ground to a halt and nobody in charge thought this was a problem. Because the people that were in control already figured that what they wanted to use the system for is to buy low and sell high for huge profits, and so it didn't matter if the network didn't perform well for regular commerce. You don't need a lot of TPS if your ideal scenario is to ever make two.
    - colpabar 4y ago
      I've realized this recently too, and I'm trying to just ignore/flag everything even remotely political that gets posted here. If you disagree with the idea that information control is something the government has no business of doing, you're in the minority here. The response to the twitter files was the slap in the face I needed to finally understand that. After all, it's a blog for a VC fund. I'd say a lot of people here are building things that do much worse than what the twitter files exposed.
      - lovich 4y ago
        You don’t like that people aren’t as open minded as you’d like, so you flipped on your values and now try to flag anything you disagree with(i.e. political content)? Am I misinterpreting your comment?
        colpabar 4y ago
        I think dang kinda just looks the other way because he knows people want to talk politics, but it's literally the first thing in the "off topic" section of the guidelines. > What to Submit > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. The exception clause is "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon, but according to all the top comments on the twitter files threads, "this is nothing new". So yeah, you are misinterpreting my comment. I've just realized what HN is meant to be, or at least what dang wants it to be. I think he's an excellent mod, and I respect the guidelines. I want to come here and see cool nerd stuff like "can you play minecraft inside doom inside minecraft" and as soon as I see something political it puts me in a bad mood. And yes, if you scroll my comment history, you will see that I post mostly in political threads. But I have learned my lesson - this place isn't for that. There's no revolution to be started here, given the userbase is mostly financially well-off tech bros who benefit from the status quo. Just like me!
    - chaosbolt 4y ago
      The age of cypherpunks is dead, we live in the age of the "programmer who blindly believes the same thing everyone at his company believes and thinks he's right because he's intelligent because he's a programmer". And the scary thing is, this came out of nowhere, one day everyone online is for freedom and freespeech, the next day everyone became against it, it's the same thing for Elon Musk, it's crazy how popular he was online and how everyone loved him, he didn't do anything bad between then and now (except insult a couple people here and there and other asshole things we have all done in the past) but went from "invented X" to "merely invested in X", and from "genius" to "idiot", etc. The people who said they couldn't tame the internet were as wrong as those who said the same thing about crypto.
      - helloworld11 4y ago
        >And the scary thing is, this came out of nowhere, one day everyone online is for freedom and freespeech, the next day everyone became against it I don't think it came from nowhere. Specifically, I'd say a lot of it started very specifically after Trump won the 2016 election and a whole obsessive craze struck the progressive media and wider communities that follow it (among them, many programmers, techies and other academically educated, otherwise supposedly intelligent people) who rapidly also started to follow the line of this same craze over supposed "misinformation" and other "harmful" information. Rapidly, the notion of free speech became something that needed to be modulated, coordinated, controlled and carefully allowed because it might lead to another case in which something disliked by the media/academic/cultural ingroup happens. The related Russian disinformation mania of that same timeframe also introduced a strong and strangely absurd nationalist streak of controlling foreign influence in how people see information to the debate, this further reinforced the wider argument of free expression and access to it being dangerous for people. Totally outside one's personal politics, this idea is absurd and hypocritical, but it notably became the case after that specific point in time among many people who previously used to aggressively defend the notion of free speech and online freedom. Remember the whole previous-to-that debate about net neutrality? Much of it faded away because it tacitly goes against the grain of these superseding notions about how discourse should be controlled. The "trust science and lockdown measures" narratives during the COVID pandemic only expanded the scope of the above, and for similar reasons of partisan politics.
    - tastyfreeze 4y ago
      If you know a site with reasonable discussions of governance, with voices from all points of view, don't hold back. I am often a dissenter here and take the down votes for it. But HN isn't really for such discussions even if dang let's it fly. Thanks to dang I do find HN to be much more balanced on most viewpoints than the majority of sites. I can't recall a time here where I have been disgusted with someone's comment like I have on Arstechnica reading comments wishing death to Trump supporters or the unvaccinated.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- bell-cot 4y ago
  And a whole lot more people don't want to think too hard - especially about complex & unhappy stuff, where they can't just wait 'till the end of the movie for "happily ever after", nor ask their doctor for the latest pill to fix it.
whatsu 4y ago
It is true that governments have always had an influence on how we live our lives, whether through traditional media like newspapers and television, or more modern platforms like social media. This is not a new phenomenon, but rather something that has always existed in society. However, with the proliferation of the internet and social media, it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online content, and this has led to increased scrutiny and debate about the role of government in moderating online speech. The United States has a distorted view of free speech, as some people believe that it should be absolute and without any limitations. However, it is important to recognize that the collective good and well-being of society should always be a priority, and that includes protecting against harmful or extremist ideas that could cause harm to others. While it is important to protect individuals' right to express themselves freely, it is also important to ensure that this freedom is not used to spread hateful or harmful messages. In short, the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  I believe your comment represents speech that puts the well-being of society at serious risk, is harmful, and possibly even extremist. If I manage to convince 50.1% of the population of the same, should we be permitted to censor your speech, and enforce prior restraint on your future speech under penalty of law?
  - birken 4y ago
    I'll go one further... if even 1 single person (the person who owns HN), decides that they don't like the content of that comment, then they should be free to delete/censor the comment on HN and ban the person in perpetuity from HN. Your argument doesn't really make any sense because everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person. That is a completely different situation than what you are alluding to. I can just as easily prevent the reverse question: I have a blog with a comment section, and somebody I don't know posts a horrific, rude and distasteful comment that I don't want associated with my blog post. Can the government force me to not delete that due to free speech, or do I have the power to moderate my blog however I want?
SyzygistSix 4y ago
Exactly. What if I WANT to be tricked by a Russian disinformation campaign? What if I just want a juicy story that justifies my biases and I have no regard for the truth at all? Is there a Mastodon server that straight up admits that it may include Russian disinformation and is primarily for entertainment purposes rather than factual discussion? edit: Or a mix of both true news items and disinformation! See if you can tell which is which!
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Is there a Mastodon server that straight up admits that it may include Russian disinformation and is primarily for entertainment purposes rather than factual discussion? It doesn't quite admit it, and its a fork, but Truth Social may be close enough.
- chaosbolt 4y ago
  Reading your comment felt like that hearing Anakin saying he knows what's best for the people better than they do. As soon as you start assuming you know more than the people and that you have a right to censor the information they can access because it's bad for them, you become a tyrant. Am I the only one who finds this rotten? I want to read disinformation, tell me the sky is green I don't care, I can stitch stories together and arrive to a conclusion myself, false things (won't use that "(d/m)isinformation" media clickbait word) don't make sense, real things do, sure there are false things that do sound correct, but trust the people to make the difference, have your experts argue against falsehoods, let the people hear those arguments, if your expert's arguments disprove X or Y the people will not believe it, if the Russian experts disprove your arguments, then they're right and you're the one spreading falsehoods...
  - SyzygistSix 4y ago
    I don't like censorship but I also know that I am not unbiased/intelligent/non-human enough to not fall for disinformation. And so will anyone, if they are honest about it. Not every time but we will fall for it. And foreign operations like that should not have the freedom to be conducted on US soil and in US media. I think labels that say who has determined something is disinformation, produced by whom, and why they have labeled it thus might be a better solution.
eternalban 4y ago
This buck stops with congress. Be alarmed if you want but make sure you address the actual root cause. In our system of governance, it is the responsibility of Congress to hold the executive accountable. All these agencies are part of the Executive arm of the United States of America. If there is over-reach by secretive agencies of the Executive, it is the duty and responsibility of congressional members, representatives of the public, to be rigorous in the exercise of their duty and hold them accountable. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/senator-frank-church-and-senator-john-tower-cia-poison-dart-gun-photograph https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/senator... [p.s. Support archive.org .. ^ is archived below] "Allegations of domestic spying by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) surfaced in the 1970s, triggering public demand for an investigation of federal surveillance operations. In 1975 the Senate established the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, headed by Senator Frank Church of Idaho. The Church Committee’s reports exposed abuses and led to legislation governing domestic and foreign surveillance—most notably, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. House and Senate permanent select committees established at that time now oversee U.S. intelligence. The critical question before the committee was to determine how the fundamental liberties of the people can be maintained in the course of the Government’s effort to protect their security." https://web.archive.org/web/20180227204516/https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/senator-frank-church-and-senator-john-tower-cia-poison-dart-gun-photograph https://web.archive.org/web/20180227204516/https://www.visit... -- I'll admit I never read the Church Committee report before, but it's actually shocking in the sense that an official report from the Senate of the United States would today be read almost as a 'radical' position, which itself is a telling reflection of the changes that have occurred in the past 47 years: "Our investigation has confirmed that warning. We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes. We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what witnesses characterized as "vacuum cleaners"," sweeping in information about lawful activities of American citizens." The Church Committee Report: "INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS - Final Report - 1976" https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1976Churchcommittee.pdf https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1976Churchcommittee.pdf
matthewdgreen 4y ago
Of course we find it concerning, and we'd want to look closely at it to see if it crosses legal or ethical lines. I don't currently see any line-crossing, but I guess it's good to have the discussion. The problem with this "Twitter Files" reporting is that it's not making the situation any clearer. If anything it feels like these journalists are being used to do PR work for Twitter's new owner in order to promote the idea that Something Really Bad Happened Here, but this advocacy makes it much harder to see the real picture.
wallfacer120 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

elurg 4y ago

A lot of people completely agree with heavy-handed information control.

quacked 4y ago
"A well-armed and informed populace governing itself" is a pipe dream by indigenous uncontacted people and certain very intelligent dissenters. The majority of "civilized" people in the world are very happy to live in an authoritarian information-sanitized nation so long as the people in power cater to their own in-group.
- barnabee 4y ago
  I’d like to think this site of all places might be populated with very intermittent dissenters willing to be or at least support activists trying to change that, with the internet and technology as their tool. It’s always jarring to discover the extent to which it’s not.
  - MarkPNeyer 4y ago
    Bitcoin is people striving for financial self sovereignty. “Crypto” is a bunch of people trying to get rich using some cool new technology they nobody understands. See how much bigger the second is than the first.
    - quacked 4y ago
      The reason Bitcoin got so large so quickly is the same reason that "Crypto" got large so quickly. The majority of people who "invest" in Bitcoin aren't trying to figure out a way to trade goods and services in a way that undermines the Federal Reserve and the IRS, they're trying to increase their holdings in USD in order to better participate in the existing economy.
    - barnabee 4y ago
      Meh. People will try to get rich off anything— crypto, the internet, SMS scams, every type of physical business, legit or otherwise. As a hacker I want to find out what else we can do with it. What surprising things can we build? What if we could use some kind of blockchain tech to incentivise people to do great things despite what you’ve seen so far? (Some people really are trying to do that.) What if we can help activists all over the world with Tor and end to end encryption? What if the internet can give a voice to people who never had one? What if we can find a better way than copyright to compensate people for their creations with restricting sharing and reuse? What if we can build and online encyclopaedia many orders of magnitude grander in scope than anything that’s gone before? Let someone else worry about what the grifters are doing to screw us this time. Let’s see the hackers hack.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      That vision of bitcoin died somewhere around 2017, back when blocks filled, commerce ground to a halt and nobody in charge thought this was a problem. Because the people that were in control already figured that what they wanted to use the system for is to buy low and sell high for huge profits, and so it didn't matter if the network didn't perform well for regular commerce. You don't need a lot of TPS if your ideal scenario is to ever make two.
  - colpabar 4y ago
    I've realized this recently too, and I'm trying to just ignore/flag everything even remotely political that gets posted here. If you disagree with the idea that information control is something the government has no business of doing, you're in the minority here. The response to the twitter files was the slap in the face I needed to finally understand that. After all, it's a blog for a VC fund. I'd say a lot of people here are building things that do much worse than what the twitter files exposed.
    - lovich 4y ago
      You don’t like that people aren’t as open minded as you’d like, so you flipped on your values and now try to flag anything you disagree with(i.e. political content)? Am I misinterpreting your comment?
      - colpabar 4y ago
        I think dang kinda just looks the other way because he knows people want to talk politics, but it's literally the first thing in the "off topic" section of the guidelines. > What to Submit > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. The exception clause is "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon, but according to all the top comments on the twitter files threads, "this is nothing new". So yeah, you are misinterpreting my comment. I've just realized what HN is meant to be, or at least what dang wants it to be. I think he's an excellent mod, and I respect the guidelines. I want to come here and see cool nerd stuff like "can you play minecraft inside doom inside minecraft" and as soon as I see something political it puts me in a bad mood. And yes, if you scroll my comment history, you will see that I post mostly in political threads. But I have learned my lesson - this place isn't for that. There's no revolution to be started here, given the userbase is mostly financially well-off tech bros who benefit from the status quo. Just like me!
  - chaosbolt 4y ago
    The age of cypherpunks is dead, we live in the age of the "programmer who blindly believes the same thing everyone at his company believes and thinks he's right because he's intelligent because he's a programmer". And the scary thing is, this came out of nowhere, one day everyone online is for freedom and freespeech, the next day everyone became against it, it's the same thing for Elon Musk, it's crazy how popular he was online and how everyone loved him, he didn't do anything bad between then and now (except insult a couple people here and there and other asshole things we have all done in the past) but went from "invented X" to "merely invested in X", and from "genius" to "idiot", etc. The people who said they couldn't tame the internet were as wrong as those who said the same thing about crypto.
    - helloworld11 4y ago
      >And the scary thing is, this came out of nowhere, one day everyone online is for freedom and freespeech, the next day everyone became against it I don't think it came from nowhere. Specifically, I'd say a lot of it started very specifically after Trump won the 2016 election and a whole obsessive craze struck the progressive media and wider communities that follow it (among them, many programmers, techies and other academically educated, otherwise supposedly intelligent people) who rapidly also started to follow the line of this same craze over supposed "misinformation" and other "harmful" information. Rapidly, the notion of free speech became something that needed to be modulated, coordinated, controlled and carefully allowed because it might lead to another case in which something disliked by the media/academic/cultural ingroup happens. The related Russian disinformation mania of that same timeframe also introduced a strong and strangely absurd nationalist streak of controlling foreign influence in how people see information to the debate, this further reinforced the wider argument of free expression and access to it being dangerous for people. Totally outside one's personal politics, this idea is absurd and hypocritical, but it notably became the case after that specific point in time among many people who previously used to aggressively defend the notion of free speech and online freedom. Remember the whole previous-to-that debate about net neutrality? Much of it faded away because it tacitly goes against the grain of these superseding notions about how discourse should be controlled. The "trust science and lockdown measures" narratives during the COVID pandemic only expanded the scope of the above, and for similar reasons of partisan politics.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    If you know a site with reasonable discussions of governance, with voices from all points of view, don't hold back. I am often a dissenter here and take the down votes for it. But HN isn't really for such discussions even if dang let's it fly. Thanks to dang I do find HN to be much more balanced on most viewpoints than the majority of sites. I can't recall a time here where I have been disgusted with someone's comment like I have on Arstechnica reading comments wishing death to Trump supporters or the unvaccinated.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bell-cot 4y ago
And a whole lot more people don't want to think too hard - especially about complex & unhappy stuff, where they can't just wait 'till the end of the movie for "happily ever after", nor ask their doctor for the latest pill to fix it.

whatsu 4y ago

It is true that governments have always had an influence on how we live our lives, whether through traditional media like newspapers and television, or more modern platforms like social media. This is not a new phenomenon, but rather something that has always existed in society. However, with the proliferation of the internet and social media, it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online content, and this has led to increased scrutiny and debate about the role of government in moderating online speech. The United States has a distorted view of free speech, as some people believe that it should be absolute and without any limitations. However, it is important to recognize that the collective good and well-being of society should always be a priority, and that includes protecting against harmful or extremist ideas that could cause harm to others. While it is important to protect individuals' right to express themselves freely, it is also important to ensure that this freedom is not used to spread hateful or harmful messages. In short, the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet.

catiopatio 4y ago
I believe your comment represents speech that puts the well-being of society at serious risk, is harmful, and possibly even extremist. If I manage to convince 50.1% of the population of the same, should we be permitted to censor your speech, and enforce prior restraint on your future speech under penalty of law?
- birken 4y ago
  I'll go one further... if even 1 single person (the person who owns HN), decides that they don't like the content of that comment, then they should be free to delete/censor the comment on HN and ban the person in perpetuity from HN. Your argument doesn't really make any sense because everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person. That is a completely different situation than what you are alluding to. I can just as easily prevent the reverse question: I have a blog with a comment section, and somebody I don't know posts a horrific, rude and distasteful comment that I don't want associated with my blog post. Can the government force me to not delete that due to free speech, or do I have the power to moderate my blog however I want?

SyzygistSix 4y ago

Exactly. What if I WANT to be tricked by a Russian disinformation campaign? What if I just want a juicy story that justifies my biases and I have no regard for the truth at all? Is there a Mastodon server that straight up admits that it may include Russian disinformation and is primarily for entertainment purposes rather than factual discussion? edit: Or a mix of both true news items and disinformation! See if you can tell which is which!

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Is there a Mastodon server that straight up admits that it may include Russian disinformation and is primarily for entertainment purposes rather than factual discussion? It doesn't quite admit it, and its a fork, but Truth Social may be close enough.
chaosbolt 4y ago
Reading your comment felt like that hearing Anakin saying he knows what's best for the people better than they do. As soon as you start assuming you know more than the people and that you have a right to censor the information they can access because it's bad for them, you become a tyrant. Am I the only one who finds this rotten? I want to read disinformation, tell me the sky is green I don't care, I can stitch stories together and arrive to a conclusion myself, false things (won't use that "(d/m)isinformation" media clickbait word) don't make sense, real things do, sure there are false things that do sound correct, but trust the people to make the difference, have your experts argue against falsehoods, let the people hear those arguments, if your expert's arguments disprove X or Y the people will not believe it, if the Russian experts disprove your arguments, then they're right and you're the one spreading falsehoods...
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  I don't like censorship but I also know that I am not unbiased/intelligent/non-human enough to not fall for disinformation. And so will anyone, if they are honest about it. Not every time but we will fall for it. And foreign operations like that should not have the freedom to be conducted on US soil and in US media. I think labels that say who has determined something is disinformation, produced by whom, and why they have labeled it thus might be a better solution.

eternalban 4y ago

This buck stops with congress. Be alarmed if you want but make sure you address the actual root cause. In our system of governance, it is the responsibility of Congress to hold the executive accountable. All these agencies are part of the Executive arm of the United States of America. If there is over-reach by secretive agencies of the Executive, it is the duty and responsibility of congressional members, representatives of the public, to be rigorous in the exercise of their duty and hold them accountable. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/senator-frank-church-and-senator-john-tower-cia-poison-dart-gun-photograph https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/senator... [p.s. Support archive.org .. ^ is archived below] "Allegations of domestic spying by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) surfaced in the 1970s, triggering public demand for an investigation of federal surveillance operations. In 1975 the Senate established the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, headed by Senator Frank Church of Idaho. The Church Committee’s reports exposed abuses and led to legislation governing domestic and foreign surveillance—most notably, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. House and Senate permanent select committees established at that time now oversee U.S. intelligence. The critical question before the committee was to determine how the fundamental liberties of the people can be maintained in the course of the Government’s effort to protect their security." https://web.archive.org/web/20180227204516/https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/senator-frank-church-and-senator-john-tower-cia-poison-dart-gun-photograph https://web.archive.org/web/20180227204516/https://www.visit... -- I'll admit I never read the Church Committee report before, but it's actually shocking in the sense that an official report from the Senate of the United States would today be read almost as a 'radical' position, which itself is a telling reflection of the changes that have occurred in the past 47 years: "Our investigation has confirmed that warning. We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes. We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what witnesses characterized as "vacuum cleaners"," sweeping in information about lawful activities of American citizens." The Church Committee Report: "INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS - Final Report - 1976" https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1976Churchcommittee.pdf https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1976Churchcommittee.pdf

matthewdgreen 4y ago

Of course we find it concerning, and we'd want to look closely at it to see if it crosses legal or ethical lines. I don't currently see any line-crossing, but I guess it's good to have the discussion. The problem with this "Twitter Files" reporting is that it's not making the situation any clearer. If anything it feels like these journalists are being used to do PR work for Twitter's new owner in order to promote the idea that Something Really Bad Happened Here, but this advocacy makes it much harder to see the real picture.

wallfacer120 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]