4 ms·

Twitter Let the Intelligence Community In

7 points by tomohawk 4y ago

refurb 4y ago
So if one steps back, the overall situation seems to be: - if social media helps politicians (Obama campaign) then it's good - if social media hurts politicians (Hilary campaign) then it should be attacked as a "weapon of foreign interference" not only by politicians, but also by intelligence agencies - if you're a social media company being attacked, facts don't matter [like Twitter determining there was maybe one account that could be linked to Russian propaganda], only whether or not you're on the government's "good side" - as a social media company, to get on a government's "good side" you basically agree to whatever they ask for - "Twitter was soon apologizing for the same accounts they'd initially told the Senate were not a problem" - Eventually you kowtow to the government to the point you're censoring stories at the government's request, immediately before an election, without pushing back or requesting any proof or corroboration that the stories are indeed false [in fact censoring stories the gov't know are true] - as a social media company you end up being a scapegoat for censoring stories at the government's request while the government ignores the entire incident And that's how we got to where we are today!
- darthrupert 4y ago
  Twitter is seen as bad when it provides a platform for foreign intelligence operatives to do subterfuge, and disrupt democracy. Very good that FBI/CIA are on top of this, if they really are.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Twitter is a platform for foreign subterfuge according to who? I’d love for someone to give me an example of where a foreign country successfully conducted a high impact operation through social media. So far, the biggest examples so far are the Hunter Biden Laptop pushed by US media (censored, but turns out it’s true) and the Steele dossier (pushed by US media, but turns out it’s entirely false). I think the bigger theme is when it comes to disinformation the US govt doesn’t like competition.
    - darthrupert 4y ago
      Excuse me? In what way is the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory "true"? You sound a bit biased.
      - refurb 4y ago
        It's true in the sense that the Hunter Biden laptop data is actually data from Hunter Biden's laptop. It's not what the media or intelligence services said "suspect Russian disinformation". The same accusations that cause multiple social media companies to censor the story right before an election. And of course it was true, the FBI had the laptop almost a year in advance before it was disclosed in the media.
        darthrupert 4y ago
        It happened to be disclosed to the media by the FBI (ran by a Trump appointee) so close to the 2020 elections that actual debunking before election day would have been impossible. And debunked it was, as the laptop had nothing of significance. Seems like releasing the information only after the election was the only way to protect the integrity of the vote.
        refurb 4y ago
        Huh? The FBI received the laptop in the fall of 2019. They 100% knew it was the real deal at election time. So why did intelligence agencies tell the media it looked like "Russian disinformation"?
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > Steele dossier (pushed by US media, but turns out it’s entirely false) The Steele Dossier was raw intelligence, assessed by its own author at the time to likely be 50% true. The idea that it discredits itself by portions of it being false is a misunderstanding of the nature of raw intel. In fact, the main point of the Steele Dossier was to alert the FBI that Russia was working to influence the 2016 election while making overtures toward the Trump campaign, which were received with open arms. This claim was shown to be true by at least the Mueller Report, the Senate Intel Reports on the 2016 election, the CIA, and the Treasury Department. “The media” has no relevance as to the truth of the matter.

7 points by tomohawk 4y ago

So if one steps back, the overall situation seems to be: - if social media helps politicians (Obama campaign) then it's good - if social media hurts politicians (Hilary campaign) then it should be attacked as a "weapon of foreign interference" not only by politicians, but also by intelligence agencies - if you're a social media company being attacked, facts don't matter [like Twitter determining there was maybe one account that could be linked to Russian propaganda], only whether or not you're on the government's "good side" - as a social media company, to get on a government's "good side" you basically agree to whatever they ask for - "Twitter was soon apologizing for the same accounts they'd initially told the Senate were not a problem" - Eventually you kowtow to the government to the point you're censoring stories at the government's request, immediately before an election, without pushing back or requesting any proof or corroboration that the stories are indeed false [in fact censoring stories the gov't know are true] - as a social media company you end up being a scapegoat for censoring stories at the government's request while the government ignores the entire incident And that's how we got to where we are today!

darthrupert 4y ago
Twitter is seen as bad when it provides a platform for foreign intelligence operatives to do subterfuge, and disrupt democracy. Very good that FBI/CIA are on top of this, if they really are.
- refurb 4y ago
  Twitter is a platform for foreign subterfuge according to who? I’d love for someone to give me an example of where a foreign country successfully conducted a high impact operation through social media. So far, the biggest examples so far are the Hunter Biden Laptop pushed by US media (censored, but turns out it’s true) and the Steele dossier (pushed by US media, but turns out it’s entirely false). I think the bigger theme is when it comes to disinformation the US govt doesn’t like competition.
  - darthrupert 4y ago
    Excuse me? In what way is the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory "true"? You sound a bit biased.
    - refurb 4y ago
      It's true in the sense that the Hunter Biden laptop data is actually data from Hunter Biden's laptop. It's not what the media or intelligence services said "suspect Russian disinformation". The same accusations that cause multiple social media companies to censor the story right before an election. And of course it was true, the FBI had the laptop almost a year in advance before it was disclosed in the media.
      - darthrupert 4y ago
        It happened to be disclosed to the media by the FBI (ran by a Trump appointee) so close to the 2020 elections that actual debunking before election day would have been impossible. And debunked it was, as the laptop had nothing of significance. Seems like releasing the information only after the election was the only way to protect the integrity of the vote.
        refurb 4y ago
        Huh? The FBI received the laptop in the fall of 2019. They 100% knew it was the real deal at election time. So why did intelligence agencies tell the media it looked like "Russian disinformation"?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Steele dossier (pushed by US media, but turns out it’s entirely false) The Steele Dossier was raw intelligence, assessed by its own author at the time to likely be 50% true. The idea that it discredits itself by portions of it being false is a misunderstanding of the nature of raw intel. In fact, the main point of the Steele Dossier was to alert the FBI that Russia was working to influence the 2016 election while making overtures toward the Trump campaign, which were received with open arms. This claim was shown to be true by at least the Mueller Report, the Senate Intel Reports on the 2016 election, the CIA, and the Treasury Department. “The media” has no relevance as to the truth of the matter.