4 ms·

It's also an anthromorphization fallacy argument. "Twitter" is a company, not a private individual. If the FBI contacts "Twitter" then they're not talking to a

by XorNot 4y ago

It's also an anthromorphization fallacy argument. "Twitter" is a company, not a private individual. If the FBI contacts "Twitter" then they're not talking to any one individual, in fact there's no requirement that be the same person at all. So Twitter cannot be threatened or threatened with implied threats - it's a limited liability corporation, there's no individual who can be overly inconvenienced or have any emotional reaction to the request.

mypastself 4y ago
Threats of regulations or hefty fines can definitely inconvenience the company’s owners, who have a stake in the company’s future. And importantly, if the individuals using the platform are (hypothetically) being silenced by government agencies levelling threats against the company unless it complies, this could be seen as tantamount to censorship.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The imagery you and others are trying to invoke is one of burly men in black suits turning up on your doorstep at the family home. Twitter doesn't have that. The employee handling the request doesn't own Twitter. If something happens to Twitter it doesn't happen to them except in a very abstract way (and the person who did fire them was Elon Musk in the end). Governments absolutely have a means to intimidate company owners: it's subpoenaing them to testify before Congress. Not emailing a mid-level content moderation supervisor who has no way to directly talk to the board of executives or shareholders.
  - mikrotikker 4y ago
    You are very naive. Of course the FBI could target an individual at the company to do their bidding if they wanted. Hell, even law enforcement does similar stuff chasing drug dealers. In such cases the govt has no regard for the individuals safety or financial well being. At the corporate level its also threatening because of the actions the govt could take against the corporation. Look at all Musks companies now undergoing heavy auditing since he messed with the FBIs twitter. You have to be naive and only see the happy path and think the govt always has your best interests in mind to think otherwise.
    - acdha 4y ago
      > Look at all Musks companies now undergoing heavy auditing since he messed with the FBIs twitter. Can you point to examples of this? I hope you’re not referring to things like the earlier investigation of Tesla’s FSD claims when that’s been underway for years and so widely predicted.
antiterra 4y ago
You really think an AG or similar can’t have a little brunch with a C level executive resulting in a mandate on operational guidelines in response?
- XorNot 4y ago
  Yes, I absolutely think that. Because how the heck are you going to keep that going as a company wide mandate? Where's the directives that things are now this way? Where's the weirdly timed corporate memorandums? Corporations are not people: you can't "tell" a corporation to do something, because the people who make it up are a mercurial, constantly varying group. Even if the owners know something, the employees don't: training materials have to be updated, policies modified etc. You can't "imply" a threat to a corporation, because how do you "imply" the threat to all the people who have to actually implement the desired action? How do you replace staff who are not in on "the implication"? You can't: somewhere and somehow you would have to have internal emails, training and onboarding materials.

by XorNot 4y ago

mypastself 4y ago

Threats of regulations or hefty fines can definitely inconvenience the company’s owners, who have a stake in the company’s future. And importantly, if the individuals using the platform are (hypothetically) being silenced by government agencies levelling threats against the company unless it complies, this could be seen as tantamount to censorship.

XorNot 4y ago
The imagery you and others are trying to invoke is one of burly men in black suits turning up on your doorstep at the family home. Twitter doesn't have that. The employee handling the request doesn't own Twitter. If something happens to Twitter it doesn't happen to them except in a very abstract way (and the person who did fire them was Elon Musk in the end). Governments absolutely have a means to intimidate company owners: it's subpoenaing them to testify before Congress. Not emailing a mid-level content moderation supervisor who has no way to directly talk to the board of executives or shareholders.
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  You are very naive. Of course the FBI could target an individual at the company to do their bidding if they wanted. Hell, even law enforcement does similar stuff chasing drug dealers. In such cases the govt has no regard for the individuals safety or financial well being. At the corporate level its also threatening because of the actions the govt could take against the corporation. Look at all Musks companies now undergoing heavy auditing since he messed with the FBIs twitter. You have to be naive and only see the happy path and think the govt always has your best interests in mind to think otherwise.
  - acdha 4y ago
    > Look at all Musks companies now undergoing heavy auditing since he messed with the FBIs twitter. Can you point to examples of this? I hope you’re not referring to things like the earlier investigation of Tesla’s FSD claims when that’s been underway for years and so widely predicted.

antiterra 4y ago

You really think an AG or similar can’t have a little brunch with a C level executive resulting in a mandate on operational guidelines in response?

XorNot 4y ago
Yes, I absolutely think that. Because how the heck are you going to keep that going as a company wide mandate? Where's the directives that things are now this way? Where's the weirdly timed corporate memorandums? Corporations are not people: you can't "tell" a corporation to do something, because the people who make it up are a mercurial, constantly varying group. Even if the owners know something, the employees don't: training materials have to be updated, policies modified etc. You can't "imply" a threat to a corporation, because how do you "imply" the threat to all the people who have to actually implement the desired action? How do you replace staff who are not in on "the implication"? You can't: somewhere and somehow you would have to have internal emails, training and onboarding materials.