15 ms·

I am someone who didn’t see anything seriously objectionable in the Twitter files, but I do think it raised some questions worth thinking about. If the FBI mes

I am someone who didn’t see anything seriously objectionable in the Twitter files, but I do think it raised some questions worth thinking about. If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. Could anything be done to reduce the ability of a large organization to extort an online platform into censoring content that complies with their guidelines? Should the requests be public unless part of an active investigation, or is that sort of thing too easily gamed?

acdha 4y ago
> I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. This is possible but I would expect people to look for evidence of it before presenting it as a fact. Something like that would show up in internal communications either directly or as people talking like they didn’t really have a choice, or as a trend of tweets being taken down for reasons which don’t seem warranted when you look at them. The closest we’ve seen to that were things like the guy who was telling Republicans to vote on Wednesday, which is clearly a dumb joke but also something most people aren’t going to shed tears about when made a couple days beforehand.
- lurquer 4y ago
  The US is a limited govt. No govt agency can do anything for which it isn’t explicitly authorized. The FBI is not authorized to be ensuring private companies adhere to their policies. If a agent is being paid — with taxpayer dollars - to check on Twitter and give it ‘advice’ on how to run itself, that agent is acting outside the scope of his authority. It’s an abuse and misuse of power. It doesn’t matter what the ‘greater good’ is. The FBI’s purpose isn’t to generally look out for the greater good. Rather, it’s to investigate federal crimes. There is no crime in telling people to ‘vote this Wednesday.’ There is no crime of ‘misinformation.’
  - acdha 4y ago
    Which specific actions do you think the FBI took which aren’t part of their mandate? Please link to the sources for those claims.
    - lurquer 4y ago
      You have it backwards. The Federal Statutes grant specific authority to the FBI. The burden is in the FBI to point to a specific grant of statutory authority to justify any particular action. What federal statute gives the FBI (or any agency) the right to advise, suggest, or even comment on a particular company’s policies? What statute gives the FBI the power to ‘suggest’ certain accounts be blocked?
      - acdha 4y ago
        I note you’re continuing to present vague claims. Can you point to a specific example of something you think they don’t have legal authority for being involved in? For example, the Twitter Files had a lot of stuff under election misinformation. Since that’s an entire mission, you can argue about effectiveness but it’s not like it’s a stretch: https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    So, cops are not allowed to do welfare checks because there is no crime of 'dying alone in your house' and there is no explicit authorization for police to enforce wellbeing? Don't be adsurd.
    - NickNameNick 4y ago
      Under the above theory, Federal agents shouldnt. Local/state police have that power (the general police power) Not the federal government.
- tootie 4y ago
  It's the slightest whiff of a hint of abuse or intimidation but there's no evidence to suggest they ever even threatened retribution for non-compliance. US intelligence agencies have gone after media a handful of times but the courts have been appropriately skeptical of their claims. And everytime I see a slippery slope argument about law enforcement sneaking into quiet corners of private enterprise, I like to remind people that local police shoot people pretty frequently.
  - acdha 4y ago
    > I see a slippery slope argument about law enforcement sneaking into quiet corners of private enterprise, I like to remind people that local police shoot people pretty frequently. Indeed - from the perspective of civil liberties there are many issues which seem more pressing.
brian-armstrong 4y ago
Chances are, they probably really did violate the TOS. Or most of them did, at least. So then you, as the employee receiving it, probably do feel some real pressure to remove the tweets when the FBI has correctly pointed out that, yes, these tweets are against the site's terms of service. Many tweets likely are against TOS, but nobody would give them any real thought.
- ummonk 4y ago
  Yeah, and some of the tweets reported by the FBI didn't violate TOS and were allowed to stand by Twitter.
Romanulus 4y ago
[dead]
zmgsabst 4y ago
I would argue that selectively recommending political comments which may be censored has a chilling effect on political speech — and therefore is illegal. I also think it’s interesting how many people I know who “protested” things like COINTELPRO, but cheer this.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Did they do that though? Selectively recommend political comments?
root_axis 4y ago
> If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. I've seen this hypothetical raised a lot but I don't find it very compelling. If the post isn't in violation of twitter's TOS then twitter has strong legal protections to deny the request and both sides understand this. Without evidence that the FBI actually pressured twitter to take down non-violating content after it was deemed ok, I don't see the issue.
- philippejara 4y ago
  I'm not going to claim to be an american law expert, but when the agencies can just say "nope" to evidence against them in said court of law, it becomes hard to claim strong legal protections. I may be wrong and misunderstanding the law, but it does seem like that. And as a shot in the dark here I doubt it got any better after the patriot act. "Joseph P. Nacchio (born June 22, 1949 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American executive... Nacchio was convicted of insider trading during his time heading Qwest. He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was the only company to demand legal authority for surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA which began prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks.[1] He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007[2] – charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001.[3] This defense was not admissible in court because the U.S. Department of Justice filed an in limine motion,[4] which is often used in national security cases, to exclude information which may reveal state secrets. Information from the Classified Information Procedures Act hearings in Nacchio's case was likewise ruled inadmissible.[5] " [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
  - bbbbb5 4y ago
    The government proved insider trading. >I'm not going to claim to be an american law expert, but when the agencies can just say "nope" to evidence against them in said court of law, it becomes hard to claim strong legal protections. I may be wrong and misunderstanding the law, but it does seem like that. And as a shot in the dark here I doubt it got any better after the patriot act. This is nonsense. In your example the court said "nope" to the defendant trying to push a conspiracy theory which could not possibly have exonerated him. Here's a decent read on the Nacchio case without weird conspiracy theory bullshit https://truthonthemarket.com/2008/03/31/some-thoughts-on-the-nacchio-decision-and-insider-trading/ https://truthonthemarket.com/2008/03/31/some-thoughts-on-the...
pyuser583 4y ago
The process by which Trump was pushed off is concerning. It seems internal employee activism played a large role. That’s not good. While Twitter has a right as a private company to moderate based on internal popularity, it doesn’t build confidence. It seemed the professional moderators were saying “Trump is pushing the limits, but not crossing them” - the other employees were lobbying to get him banned. And they won. The message is, if you want to run for office on a controversial platform, make sure you have supporters among the rank and file at Twitter, FB, Reddit, etc, The parts about the FBI are less concerning. Good content moderation creates a firewall between (say) the software development team and the moderation team. While Twitter had such a wall, it didn’t withstand pressure.
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  > The process by which Trump was pushed off is concerning. Trump tried to destroy our democracy. I’m not being hyperbolic. The evidence is all there and all from Trump’s mouth.
  - monetus 4y ago
    > tried to destroy our democracy He is still trying; that fact hangs over these conversations like Damocles' sword.
  - ultrablack 4y ago
    By censoring data, so did Twitter.
  - philippejara 4y ago
    and hopefully he'll get prosecuted for it if it is really the case, but that didn't stop even european leaders from saying the ban was a mistake and concerning[0]. [0]:https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problematic-and-perplexing-european-leaders-side-with-trump-over-twitter-ban/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problemat...
    - cactusplant7374 4y ago
weaksauce 4y ago
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/foreign-influence https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/foreign-... they aren't exactly quiet about it. > Private sector partnerships: The FBI considers strategic engagement with U.S. technology companies, including threat indicator sharing, to be important in combating foreign influence actors.
bbbbb5 4y ago
>I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. That's not the world we live in. If you reply with "Blow me", the FBI will do nothing.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  You think. Senator Markey: “Fix your companies or Congress will.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/senator-ed-markey-tells-elon-musk-fix-your-companies-or-congress-will/ar-AA144sVd https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/senator-ed-markey-tell...
  - bbbbb5 4y ago
    The Congress is obviously a completely different entity than the FBI. If the Congress wants to force companies work with the FBI, they have the absolute power to do so.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      It's not obvious. The Beltway networks are in place.
      - bbbbb5 4y ago
        The thing about this kind of vague insinuations is that they're impossible to refute, but not necessarily impossible to show examples of. Do you have any?
        wrycoder 4y ago
        In the same way that the Beltway connections are somewhat hard to pin down. I don't have much ready to hand - and it may be hard to come up with hard proof. There is Greenwald[0] and the infamous Homeland Security Disinformation Best Practices and Safeguards Subcommittee - here are the bios[1]. Note how interlinked these people are. They don't need to document their interactions, because they basically think alike and know what to do without specific instructions. The FBI acts as the primary point of contact from the letter agencies, as per the title if the article we are discussing. The Beltway revolving door takes care of the rest of the interactions, including providing experts to the media, so the rest of the Beltway can just listen and act. [0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure... [1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/HSAC%20Disinformation%20Best%20Practices%20and%20Safeguards%20Study%20Group%20-%20Member%20Bios.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/HSAC%20Disin... [pdf]
ilyt 4y ago
>If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. Sounds like "hey, review it and find any half-assed reason to ban it according to your TOS" to me. Loose and wide reaching TOS makes it hard for bad actors to get around it, but it also makes it easy for moderators to remove anything they don't want while hiding behind TOS > Should the requests be public unless part of an active investigation, or is that sort of thing too easily gamed? All moderation should be, and with exact violation breached, not generic "it broke something in our TOS", else there is zero accountability. I'd also say that unless it is outright illegal or abhorrent the original should also be viewable so there can be no doubt the moderation is legit. People will save the spicy tweets to archive or screenshot it anyway so there is no real point completely hiding it.
pessimizer 4y ago
> If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. While this is true, it is not necessary for twitter to resist requests from the government in order for this kind of contact to be effective state censorship. Twitter has seemed to be eager to do whatever the government says. Why wouldn't they be? It's a favor that the government owes them now, and additionally, they were charging the government for their time. It's a completely profitable interaction. With media consolidation, there are only a few dozen people who ultimately own all western media, and they got that way through good relationships with governments. The real troubling question is why the FBI has a department of 80 people combing through tweets and tweeting in order to push or suppress policy. Thinking of Twitter as the victim entirely misses the point.

acdha 4y ago

> I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. This is possible but I would expect people to look for evidence of it before presenting it as a fact. Something like that would show up in internal communications either directly or as people talking like they didn’t really have a choice, or as a trend of tweets being taken down for reasons which don’t seem warranted when you look at them. The closest we’ve seen to that were things like the guy who was telling Republicans to vote on Wednesday, which is clearly a dumb joke but also something most people aren’t going to shed tears about when made a couple days beforehand.

lurquer 4y ago
The US is a limited govt. No govt agency can do anything for which it isn’t explicitly authorized. The FBI is not authorized to be ensuring private companies adhere to their policies. If a agent is being paid — with taxpayer dollars - to check on Twitter and give it ‘advice’ on how to run itself, that agent is acting outside the scope of his authority. It’s an abuse and misuse of power. It doesn’t matter what the ‘greater good’ is. The FBI’s purpose isn’t to generally look out for the greater good. Rather, it’s to investigate federal crimes. There is no crime in telling people to ‘vote this Wednesday.’ There is no crime of ‘misinformation.’
- acdha 4y ago
  Which specific actions do you think the FBI took which aren’t part of their mandate? Please link to the sources for those claims.
  - lurquer 4y ago
    You have it backwards. The Federal Statutes grant specific authority to the FBI. The burden is in the FBI to point to a specific grant of statutory authority to justify any particular action. What federal statute gives the FBI (or any agency) the right to advise, suggest, or even comment on a particular company’s policies? What statute gives the FBI the power to ‘suggest’ certain accounts be blocked?
    - acdha 4y ago
      I note you’re continuing to present vague claims. Can you point to a specific example of something you think they don’t have legal authority for being involved in? For example, the Twitter Files had a lot of stuff under election misinformation. Since that’s an entire mission, you can argue about effectiveness but it’s not like it’s a stretch: https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  So, cops are not allowed to do welfare checks because there is no crime of 'dying alone in your house' and there is no explicit authorization for police to enforce wellbeing? Don't be adsurd.
  - NickNameNick 4y ago
    Under the above theory, Federal agents shouldnt. Local/state police have that power (the general police power) Not the federal government.
tootie 4y ago
It's the slightest whiff of a hint of abuse or intimidation but there's no evidence to suggest they ever even threatened retribution for non-compliance. US intelligence agencies have gone after media a handful of times but the courts have been appropriately skeptical of their claims. And everytime I see a slippery slope argument about law enforcement sneaking into quiet corners of private enterprise, I like to remind people that local police shoot people pretty frequently.
- acdha 4y ago
  > I see a slippery slope argument about law enforcement sneaking into quiet corners of private enterprise, I like to remind people that local police shoot people pretty frequently. Indeed - from the perspective of civil liberties there are many issues which seem more pressing.

brian-armstrong 4y ago

Chances are, they probably really did violate the TOS. Or most of them did, at least. So then you, as the employee receiving it, probably do feel some real pressure to remove the tweets when the FBI has correctly pointed out that, yes, these tweets are against the site's terms of service. Many tweets likely are against TOS, but nobody would give them any real thought.

ummonk 4y ago
Yeah, and some of the tweets reported by the FBI didn't violate TOS and were allowed to stand by Twitter.

Romanulus 4y ago

[dead]

zmgsabst 4y ago

I would argue that selectively recommending political comments which may be censored has a chilling effect on political speech — and therefore is illegal. I also think it’s interesting how many people I know who “protested” things like COINTELPRO, but cheer this.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Did they do that though? Selectively recommend political comments?

root_axis 4y ago

philippejara 4y ago
I'm not going to claim to be an american law expert, but when the agencies can just say "nope" to evidence against them in said court of law, it becomes hard to claim strong legal protections. I may be wrong and misunderstanding the law, but it does seem like that. And as a shot in the dark here I doubt it got any better after the patriot act. "Joseph P. Nacchio (born June 22, 1949 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American executive... Nacchio was convicted of insider trading during his time heading Qwest. He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was the only company to demand legal authority for surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA which began prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks.[1] He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007[2] – charges his defense team claimed were U.S. government retaliation for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency in February, 2001.[3] This defense was not admissible in court because the U.S. Department of Justice filed an in limine motion,[4] which is often used in national security cases, to exclude information which may reveal state secrets. Information from the Classified Information Procedures Act hearings in Nacchio's case was likewise ruled inadmissible.[5] " [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
- bbbbb5 4y ago
  The government proved insider trading. >I'm not going to claim to be an american law expert, but when the agencies can just say "nope" to evidence against them in said court of law, it becomes hard to claim strong legal protections. I may be wrong and misunderstanding the law, but it does seem like that. And as a shot in the dark here I doubt it got any better after the patriot act. This is nonsense. In your example the court said "nope" to the defendant trying to push a conspiracy theory which could not possibly have exonerated him. Here's a decent read on the Nacchio case without weird conspiracy theory bullshit https://truthonthemarket.com/2008/03/31/some-thoughts-on-the-nacchio-decision-and-insider-trading/ https://truthonthemarket.com/2008/03/31/some-thoughts-on-the...

pyuser583 4y ago

The process by which Trump was pushed off is concerning. It seems internal employee activism played a large role. That’s not good. While Twitter has a right as a private company to moderate based on internal popularity, it doesn’t build confidence. It seemed the professional moderators were saying “Trump is pushing the limits, but not crossing them” - the other employees were lobbying to get him banned. And they won. The message is, if you want to run for office on a controversial platform, make sure you have supporters among the rank and file at Twitter, FB, Reddit, etc, The parts about the FBI are less concerning. Good content moderation creates a firewall between (say) the software development team and the moderation team. While Twitter had such a wall, it didn’t withstand pressure.

cactusplant7374 4y ago
> The process by which Trump was pushed off is concerning. Trump tried to destroy our democracy. I’m not being hyperbolic. The evidence is all there and all from Trump’s mouth.
- monetus 4y ago
  > tried to destroy our democracy He is still trying; that fact hangs over these conversations like Damocles' sword.
- ultrablack 4y ago
  By censoring data, so did Twitter.
- philippejara 4y ago
  and hopefully he'll get prosecuted for it if it is really the case, but that didn't stop even european leaders from saying the ban was a mistake and concerning[0]. [0]:https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problematic-and-perplexing-european-leaders-side-with-trump-over-twitter-ban/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/11/problemat...
  - cactusplant7374 4y ago

weaksauce 4y ago

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/foreign-influence https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/foreign-... they aren't exactly quiet about it. > Private sector partnerships: The FBI considers strategic engagement with U.S. technology companies, including threat indicator sharing, to be important in combating foreign influence actors.

bbbbb5 4y ago

>I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. That's not the world we live in. If you reply with "Blow me", the FBI will do nothing.

wrycoder 4y ago
You think. Senator Markey: “Fix your companies or Congress will.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/senator-ed-markey-tells-elon-musk-fix-your-companies-or-congress-will/ar-AA144sVd https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/senator-ed-markey-tell...
- bbbbb5 4y ago
  The Congress is obviously a completely different entity than the FBI. If the Congress wants to force companies work with the FBI, they have the absolute power to do so.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    It's not obvious. The Beltway networks are in place.
    - bbbbb5 4y ago
      The thing about this kind of vague insinuations is that they're impossible to refute, but not necessarily impossible to show examples of. Do you have any?
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        In the same way that the Beltway connections are somewhat hard to pin down. I don't have much ready to hand - and it may be hard to come up with hard proof. There is Greenwald[0] and the infamous Homeland Security Disinformation Best Practices and Safeguards Subcommittee - here are the bios[1]. Note how interlinked these people are. They don't need to document their interactions, because they basically think alike and know what to do without specific instructions. The FBI acts as the primary point of contact from the letter agencies, as per the title if the article we are discussing. The Beltway revolving door takes care of the rest of the interactions, including providing experts to the media, so the rest of the Beltway can just listen and act. [0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure... [1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/HSAC%20Disinformation%20Best%20Practices%20and%20Safeguards%20Study%20Group%20-%20Member%20Bios.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/HSAC%20Disin... [pdf]

ilyt 4y ago

>If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. Sounds like "hey, review it and find any half-assed reason to ban it according to your TOS" to me. Loose and wide reaching TOS makes it hard for bad actors to get around it, but it also makes it easy for moderators to remove anything they don't want while hiding behind TOS > Should the requests be public unless part of an active investigation, or is that sort of thing too easily gamed? All moderation should be, and with exact violation breached, not generic "it broke something in our TOS", else there is zero accountability. I'd also say that unless it is outright illegal or abhorrent the original should also be viewable so there can be no doubt the moderation is legit. People will save the spicy tweets to archive or screenshot it anyway so there is no real point completely hiding it.

pessimizer 4y ago

> If the FBI messages you and says ‘hey… review this content and see if it’s violating your own policies,’ is that inherently an innocent request? I could see a world where ‘see if it violates your own policies’ is a code for extortion with plausible deniability. While this is true, it is not necessary for twitter to resist requests from the government in order for this kind of contact to be effective state censorship. Twitter has seemed to be eager to do whatever the government says. Why wouldn't they be? It's a favor that the government owes them now, and additionally, they were charging the government for their time. It's a completely profitable interaction. With media consolidation, there are only a few dozen people who ultimately own all western media, and they got that way through good relationships with governments. The real troubling question is why the FBI has a department of 80 people combing through tweets and tweeting in order to push or suppress policy. Thinking of Twitter as the victim entirely misses the point.