5 ms·

> As the Twitter Files revealed... Haha. These people aren't interested in "censorship." And they're not acting in good faith.

ksec 3y ago
Care to expand what you mean?
yukkuri 3y ago
They never argue in good faith, because to argue in good faith they would have to admit their real goals, which are deeply regressive, reactionary, and worse. So they publish lies like this.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  Like what?
dabbledash 3y ago
Are you saying they fabricated the material?
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  Doesn't matter if it's fabricated. It promotes a philosophy that is contrary to Freedom of Speech. You can't label some speech "dangerous" because you don't like it. They don't like others labeling speech "misinformation" or "disinformation". But here's the thing, the act of stating that something is "misinformation" or "disinformation", is, in and of itself, an act of exercising Freedom of Speech.
  - colpabar 3y ago
    But isn't the whole point of the twitter files that the government compelled these companies to apply those labels, even when they felt they shouldn't have? I am genuinely asking becuase I do not understand the majority opinion here.
    - hotnfresh 3y ago
      I thought the point was that people tried to frame the twitter files as evidence that the government compelled these companies to apply those labels, but actually the twitter files weren't evidence of that (the compelling, especially—asking, usually with a reference to site policy violations, and sometimes having the request granted, sure).
    - bilbo0s 3y ago
      No. The point of the Twitter files is that politicians wanted to label information detrimental to their campaigns as lies. Which is Free Speech. Politicians lie. Or maybe they don't. But whether they do or don't is irrelevant to them being able to say what they want to say. Now your problem with them lying is apparently that Twitter moderated content on its website in response to the claims of political parties that the content was lies. That's Twitter's prerogative. That's also called Freedom of Speech. But no one at the FBI or the CIA came in and told Twitter, "Hey, this is misinformation." In fact, unless I miss my guess, those agencies have vanishingly little interest in me as an American citizen being told the facts about just about anything. The Twitter files prove that the government did not ask Twitter to take down anything. Liberal and Conservative political gangs did. To put Freedom of Speech in perspective here, you can claim the government is out to label everything misinformation. I can claim the acceleration of gravity on Earth is roughly 9.8 m/s^2. And the government can make the claim that both of our claims are misinformation. All 3 of those claims are Freedom of Speech. You can't say the government's claim is "bad", because it's claiming we're spreading misinformation. It doesn't matter if I'm "correct" or "incorrect", others, including the government, have the right to say I'm full of it.
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        > But no one at the FBI or the CIA came in and told Twitter, "Hey, this is misinformation." The Twitter Files are full of emails and meetings with the FBI where they do exactly that, along with many references to meetings with the CIA (which they called "OGA" for "other government agency"). https://www.racket.news/p/twitter-files-thread-the-spies-who https://www.racket.news/p/twitter-files-thread-the-spies-who Especially as the election approached in 2020, the FITF/FBI overwhelmed Twitter with requests, sending spreadsheets with hundreds of accounts One of the most common forums was a regular meeting of the multi-agency Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), attended by spates of executives, FBI personnel, and – nearly always – one or two attendees marked “OGA.” Despite its official remit being “Foreign Influence,” the FITF and the SF FBI office became conduit for mountains of domestic moderation requests, from state governments, even local police. Example email: "Hi Stacia, Our FBI Baltimore office identified these Twitter handles and tweets which appear to provide misleading information" > The Twitter files prove that the government did not ask Twitter to take down anything It's baffling to me that anyone could read about the Files and conclude this given the entire spreadsheets of users being sent directly from US Government police and intelligence agencies to Twitter, requesting takedowns of that content. They literally prove the exact opposite of this.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  Less that the material was fabricated (not true to my understanding), more that the material didn't say what readers think it said. Certain signatories like Matt Taibbi [1] misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted the Twitter Files and believe that the US government is more involved in social media companies' moderation than in reality. More importantly, the Westminster Declaration wants social media companies to host speech that the companies might not want on the platform. > We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion. Suppose for the sake of example that moderation on Twitter has been politically motivated [2]. Then according to the Westminster Declaration, Twitter shouldn't ban conservative opinions, nor liberal opinions, nor anti-semitic opinions, nor support of the January 6th resurrection, even if some of the posts expressing those opinions might happen to break Twitter's current terms of service. But what does it matter that a moderation decision was motivated by something or other, so long as the government isn't pressuring (not the same as merely suggesting) the company to make the decision? Users who aren't welcome on one social media platform for their opinions can join another social media platform, such as a Mastodon instance. Having freedom of speech doesn't require that a few platforms host all opinions, but that anyone who wants a social media platform to host certain opinions can join or make one without fear that the country's governments would restrict/punish such a platform. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/07/mehdi-hasan-dismantles-the-entire-foundation-of-the-twitter-files-as-matt-taibbi-stumbles-to-defend-it/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/07/mehdi-hasan-dismantles-t... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-reveals-twitter-bent-over-backwards-to-protect-trump-and-pro-trump-insurrectionists/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-r...
colpabar 3y ago
I genuinely do not understand why this always gets dismissed so easily in this way. Do we live in the same universe? Why is even mentioning it an act of bad faith?
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  Because they mention it in the same breath that they express their desire to censor others. Which is an act of bad faith where the support of Free Speech is concerned.
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    - Because they mention it in the same breath that they express their desire to censor others. How? Explain, please.
js8 3y ago
I am a leftist, and agree that many of them don't act in a good faith, for exactly that reason. However, I recently watched (for a reason I won't go into here) Nelson Mandela talking about apartheid, and why he accepted support from communist dictators such as Castro or Khaddafi, when it was clearly in bad faith. And he explained that he is looking at it solely from the perspective of ANC goals, and the dictator's (material) support for their cause. So this got me thinking, I as a leftist do not define my identity around a cultural or ethnic group, and I instead ground my identity around moral universalism of human rights. Which means, I have to reject guilt by association, because in some sense, I am not loyal to any group. Even if you only support free speech, you should reject guilt by association, because it makes engagement with the opposing side impossible. So I don't really see how supporting a declaration I pretty much agree with can hurt the cause, despite the fact I think some of the signatories are acting in a bad faith.
- catlover76 3y ago
  I believe this is the video the above poster is referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcGTjAFGjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcGTjAFGjk (I neither agree nor disagree with their post)

ksec 3y ago

Care to expand what you mean?

yukkuri 3y ago

They never argue in good faith, because to argue in good faith they would have to admit their real goals, which are deeply regressive, reactionary, and worse. So they publish lies like this.

t0bia_s 3y ago
Like what?

dabbledash 3y ago

Are you saying they fabricated the material?

bilbo0s 3y ago
Doesn't matter if it's fabricated. It promotes a philosophy that is contrary to Freedom of Speech. You can't label some speech "dangerous" because you don't like it. They don't like others labeling speech "misinformation" or "disinformation". But here's the thing, the act of stating that something is "misinformation" or "disinformation", is, in and of itself, an act of exercising Freedom of Speech.
- colpabar 3y ago
  But isn't the whole point of the twitter files that the government compelled these companies to apply those labels, even when they felt they shouldn't have? I am genuinely asking becuase I do not understand the majority opinion here.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    I thought the point was that people tried to frame the twitter files as evidence that the government compelled these companies to apply those labels, but actually the twitter files weren't evidence of that (the compelling, especially—asking, usually with a reference to site policy violations, and sometimes having the request granted, sure).
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    No. The point of the Twitter files is that politicians wanted to label information detrimental to their campaigns as lies. Which is Free Speech. Politicians lie. Or maybe they don't. But whether they do or don't is irrelevant to them being able to say what they want to say. Now your problem with them lying is apparently that Twitter moderated content on its website in response to the claims of political parties that the content was lies. That's Twitter's prerogative. That's also called Freedom of Speech. But no one at the FBI or the CIA came in and told Twitter, "Hey, this is misinformation." In fact, unless I miss my guess, those agencies have vanishingly little interest in me as an American citizen being told the facts about just about anything. The Twitter files prove that the government did not ask Twitter to take down anything. Liberal and Conservative political gangs did. To put Freedom of Speech in perspective here, you can claim the government is out to label everything misinformation. I can claim the acceleration of gravity on Earth is roughly 9.8 m/s^2. And the government can make the claim that both of our claims are misinformation. All 3 of those claims are Freedom of Speech. You can't say the government's claim is "bad", because it's claiming we're spreading misinformation. It doesn't matter if I'm "correct" or "incorrect", others, including the government, have the right to say I'm full of it.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      > But no one at the FBI or the CIA came in and told Twitter, "Hey, this is misinformation." The Twitter Files are full of emails and meetings with the FBI where they do exactly that, along with many references to meetings with the CIA (which they called "OGA" for "other government agency"). https://www.racket.news/p/twitter-files-thread-the-spies-who https://www.racket.news/p/twitter-files-thread-the-spies-who Especially as the election approached in 2020, the FITF/FBI overwhelmed Twitter with requests, sending spreadsheets with hundreds of accounts One of the most common forums was a regular meeting of the multi-agency Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), attended by spates of executives, FBI personnel, and – nearly always – one or two attendees marked “OGA.” Despite its official remit being “Foreign Influence,” the FITF and the SF FBI office became conduit for mountains of domestic moderation requests, from state governments, even local police. Example email: "Hi Stacia, Our FBI Baltimore office identified these Twitter handles and tweets which appear to provide misleading information" > The Twitter files prove that the government did not ask Twitter to take down anything It's baffling to me that anyone could read about the Files and conclude this given the entire spreadsheets of users being sent directly from US Government police and intelligence agencies to Twitter, requesting takedowns of that content. They literally prove the exact opposite of this.
hn_acker 3y ago
Less that the material was fabricated (not true to my understanding), more that the material didn't say what readers think it said. Certain signatories like Matt Taibbi [1] misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted the Twitter Files and believe that the US government is more involved in social media companies' moderation than in reality. More importantly, the Westminster Declaration wants social media companies to host speech that the companies might not want on the platform. > We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion. Suppose for the sake of example that moderation on Twitter has been politically motivated [2]. Then according to the Westminster Declaration, Twitter shouldn't ban conservative opinions, nor liberal opinions, nor anti-semitic opinions, nor support of the January 6th resurrection, even if some of the posts expressing those opinions might happen to break Twitter's current terms of service. But what does it matter that a moderation decision was motivated by something or other, so long as the government isn't pressuring (not the same as merely suggesting) the company to make the decision? Users who aren't welcome on one social media platform for their opinions can join another social media platform, such as a Mastodon instance. Having freedom of speech doesn't require that a few platforms host all opinions, but that anyone who wants a social media platform to host certain opinions can join or make one without fear that the country's governments would restrict/punish such a platform. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/07/mehdi-hasan-dismantles-the-entire-foundation-of-the-twitter-files-as-matt-taibbi-stumbles-to-defend-it/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/07/mehdi-hasan-dismantles-t... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-reveals-twitter-bent-over-backwards-to-protect-trump-and-pro-trump-insurrectionists/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/29/internal-twitter-video-r...

colpabar 3y ago

I genuinely do not understand why this always gets dismissed so easily in this way. Do we live in the same universe? Why is even mentioning it an act of bad faith?

bilbo0s 3y ago
Because they mention it in the same breath that they express their desire to censor others. Which is an act of bad faith where the support of Free Speech is concerned.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  - Because they mention it in the same breath that they express their desire to censor others. How? Explain, please.

js8 3y ago

I am a leftist, and agree that many of them don't act in a good faith, for exactly that reason. However, I recently watched (for a reason I won't go into here) Nelson Mandela talking about apartheid, and why he accepted support from communist dictators such as Castro or Khaddafi, when it was clearly in bad faith. And he explained that he is looking at it solely from the perspective of ANC goals, and the dictator's (material) support for their cause. So this got me thinking, I as a leftist do not define my identity around a cultural or ethnic group, and I instead ground my identity around moral universalism of human rights. Which means, I have to reject guilt by association, because in some sense, I am not loyal to any group. Even if you only support free speech, you should reject guilt by association, because it makes engagement with the opposing side impossible. So I don't really see how supporting a declaration I pretty much agree with can hurt the cause, despite the fact I think some of the signatories are acting in a bad faith.

catlover76 3y ago
I believe this is the video the above poster is referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcGTjAFGjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcGTjAFGjk (I neither agree nor disagree with their post)