3 ms·

this is like arguing against speeding tickets because it gives cops too much discretion to enforce it and drives them to corruption.

• somenameforme 3y ago
  It's all about risk vs reward for both parties. If a cop pulls you over for a speeding ticket, trying to bribe him is a high risk option that could suddenly see you facing felony charges to try to get out of a low cost ticket. And similarly for the officer. You're not going to pay more than the ticket in the bribe, certainly not much more, so it's negligible, and accepting it could completely destroy his livelihood if found out. On occasion it still does happen, but it tends to be because the mutual risk/reward ratios are changed. One of the most common bribes cops are found taking is sexual stuff. That may have a much higher value for the officer than the bribe price would, and a much lower risk for the briber since they can be overtly flirtatious without ever making it clear (from the point of view of a criminal prosecution) they're offering to exchange some sexual favor for a way out. By contrast in the government scenario the risk for both parties is effectively zero since much will go on without a single word even needing to be said. When various government agencies were pressuring Twitter to censor all sorts of things, they never made a single overt threat - yet they simultaneously spoke both threateningly and demandingly. It's the same sort of relationship. The people making the "requests" of Twitter had a million ways of going after Twitter, or the people in charge of it, and Twitter knew this. So they played ball. Even if you got access to every single email, you wouldn't be able to prosecute anybody over it. It was all completely legal, which creates a near infinite risk:reward ratio.