3 ms·

This article is all correct, but omits an important distinction in Section 1. The government WAS involved in censorship activities on social media. https://ju

This article is all correct, but omits an important distinction in Section 1. The government WAS involved in censorship activities on social media. https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-gop-wants-fbis-twitter-censorship-reimbursement-records https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-gop-want...

eesmith 3y ago
That is a copy of a New York Post article at https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/house-gop-slaps-fbi-with-preservation-notice-for-twitter-censorship-records/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/house-gop-slaps-fbi-with-prese... . It describes claims made by some House Republicans in response to the Twitter Files. As far as I can tell, the link you provided does not demonstrate censorship activities. For example, the NY Post story you linked to has: > An internal Twitter document published Monday by journalist Michael Shellenberger said that the FBI reimbursed Twitter to the tune of nearly $3.5 million for time spent processing law enforcement requests around the 2020 election. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files > Shellenberger shared screenshots of an email from 2021, which included a communication from Twitter's Safety, Content, & Law Enforcement (SCALE) team that Twitter had received $3,415,323 from a 2019 program designed to meet the "statutory right of reimbursement" for the cost of processing requests from the FBI. Musk claimed in a tweet that this payment is proof of the U.S. government bribing the company "to censor info from the public", despite such payments being commonplace for processing legal requests. Twitter's guidelines under law enforcement state that "Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706)". Alex Stamos, former chief security officer at Facebook and partner at cyber consulting firm Krebs Stamos Group, wrote that the reimbursements from the FBI have "absolutely nothing to do with content moderation". At the very least, please point to the specific example of censorship, rather than a set of second- or third-hand claims.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  Is this a better source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Like, literally the source I posted in my comment? The one with the line "In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly rejected any suggestion that the Files showed what Musk and many Republicans claimed."? Where does it show "The government WAS involved in censorship activities on social media"? Note: asking to remove nude photos of Hunter Biden spread without his consent is not censorship.

eesmith 3y ago

That is a copy of a New York Post article at https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/house-gop-slaps-fbi-with-preservation-notice-for-twitter-censorship-records/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/house-gop-slaps-fbi-with-prese... . It describes claims made by some House Republicans in response to the Twitter Files. As far as I can tell, the link you provided does not demonstrate censorship activities. For example, the NY Post story you linked to has: > An internal Twitter document published Monday by journalist Michael Shellenberger said that the FBI reimbursed Twitter to the tune of nearly $3.5 million for time spent processing law enforcement requests around the 2020 election. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files > Shellenberger shared screenshots of an email from 2021, which included a communication from Twitter's Safety, Content, & Law Enforcement (SCALE) team that Twitter had received $3,415,323 from a 2019 program designed to meet the "statutory right of reimbursement" for the cost of processing requests from the FBI. Musk claimed in a tweet that this payment is proof of the U.S. government bribing the company "to censor info from the public", despite such payments being commonplace for processing legal requests. Twitter's guidelines under law enforcement state that "Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706)". Alex Stamos, former chief security officer at Facebook and partner at cyber consulting firm Krebs Stamos Group, wrote that the reimbursements from the FBI have "absolutely nothing to do with content moderation". At the very least, please point to the specific example of censorship, rather than a set of second- or third-hand claims.

anonymousiam 3y ago
Is this a better source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
- eesmith 3y ago
  Like, literally the source I posted in my comment? The one with the line "In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly rejected any suggestion that the Files showed what Musk and many Republicans claimed."? Where does it show "The government WAS involved in censorship activities on social media"? Note: asking to remove nude photos of Hunter Biden spread without his consent is not censorship.