3 ms·

Oh, him with his Twitter Files nonsense that he was pretending was a story.

Amezarak 3y ago
This particular article goes deeper into the same subject and among other things, details government employees working for government agencies actively participating a way people attacking the Twitter files reporting claimed did not happen. What would make government censorship a story in your opinion?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > What would make government censorship a story in your opinion? A single damning report too ugly to cover up, corroborated by a major source (either journalistic or investigative). The Twitter files were not Snowden-level, and the drip-feed release schedule tired everyone out real fast. It was written with dramatic intent, and that exhausted his credibility in my eyes. I don't read news for the eye candy, I read it to get a fair and level-headed understanding of the situation at hand. Even the FBI managed a reasonable response: > The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers. The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    What constitutes damning? I guess that’s in the eye in the beholder; as far as I can tell, the Overton window on this subject shifted hugely in the past 20 years. There’s certainly been much bigger outrage in the past over smaller instances. This article verifies that CTIL: - got direction to do what it did from the White House - consisted of contractors and actual government employees - operates under the legal theory that “public-private partnerships” where the government directs and the companies execute doesn’t count as government censorship - actively crafted and pushed its own propaganda using the same techniques as bad actors - actively suppressed views that did not contain misinformation - pushed to cut off financial services to people they considered problems I consider all of these pretty damning. Do I like the format of the reporting? Nope. But that doesn’t make it irrelevant. > Even the FBI managed a reasonable response: There’s nothing reasonable about their response. They’re simply normalizing their behavior. There has never been a time when the FBI was not embroiled in multiple massive rights violation scandals, going back to its very beginning. J Edgar Hoover founded it and was in charge for 37 years and it still shows. They never cleaned house and Congressional oversight has been ineffectual.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > What constitutes damning? Something new? Something we didn't know already, like the fact that intelligence agencies have workers stationed in every Fortune 500 company? Facebook, AOL and YouTube were all listed on the original PRISM leaks. If you didn't think Twitter was next, were you even paying attention? > operates under the legal theory that “public-private partnerships” where the government directs and the companies execute doesn’t count as government censorship lmao The US isn't going to surrender warrantless surveillance, ever, so good luck rallying against this. You'll need all the luck you can get, because your hardware and software manufacturers certainly won't be working in your favor. We learned that from Snowden. I got a cold, hard truth incoming to all the entrepreneurial spirits of the world; if you can be bought at a price, the US government can write an even bigger check.
wdb 3y ago
Twitter big shots getting protected by Twitter was indeed a story
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  I think all the story was is that people from both political parties and the FBI were trying to take down disinformation. Sometimes Twitter agreed to these requests other times they did not. What I am surprised about is the attempt to turn this nonsense into a story, it’s unbelievably weak stuff to most people that just doesn’t hold up… Do you think government should be able to ask social networks to take things down?
  - wdb 3y ago
    I think the story was they said they didn't do this but it was shown they actually did. Like shadow banning, suspending accounts on request etc
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - andy_ppp 3y ago
      Only Twitter could do this. The security services could ask Twitter for anything they like it doesn’t mean they are getting it. Or that the requests from politicians are bad either. Each case would need to be reviewed on its individual merits and both Trump and Biden campaigns asked for things. My suggestion is that bureaucrats dealing with these requests probably tried their best to treat them in a reasonable way - have a look at them and apply the Twitter policy if applicable. There’s no evidence they were doing anything more than that but it was manufactured into a story, arguably the fact you believe it is a bigger piece of manipulation than reasonable attempts to reduce disinformation on Twitter during a political campaign.

This particular article goes deeper into the same subject and among other things, details government employees working for government agencies actively participating a way people attacking the Twitter files reporting claimed did not happen. What would make government censorship a story in your opinion?

smoldesu 3y ago
> What would make government censorship a story in your opinion? A single damning report too ugly to cover up, corroborated by a major source (either journalistic or investigative). The Twitter files were not Snowden-level, and the drip-feed release schedule tired everyone out real fast. It was written with dramatic intent, and that exhausted his credibility in my eyes. I don't read news for the eye candy, I read it to get a fair and level-headed understanding of the situation at hand. Even the FBI managed a reasonable response: > The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers. The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  What constitutes damning? I guess that’s in the eye in the beholder; as far as I can tell, the Overton window on this subject shifted hugely in the past 20 years. There’s certainly been much bigger outrage in the past over smaller instances. This article verifies that CTIL: - got direction to do what it did from the White House - consisted of contractors and actual government employees - operates under the legal theory that “public-private partnerships” where the government directs and the companies execute doesn’t count as government censorship - actively crafted and pushed its own propaganda using the same techniques as bad actors - actively suppressed views that did not contain misinformation - pushed to cut off financial services to people they considered problems I consider all of these pretty damning. Do I like the format of the reporting? Nope. But that doesn’t make it irrelevant. > Even the FBI managed a reasonable response: There’s nothing reasonable about their response. They’re simply normalizing their behavior. There has never been a time when the FBI was not embroiled in multiple massive rights violation scandals, going back to its very beginning. J Edgar Hoover founded it and was in charge for 37 years and it still shows. They never cleaned house and Congressional oversight has been ineffectual.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > What constitutes damning? Something new? Something we didn't know already, like the fact that intelligence agencies have workers stationed in every Fortune 500 company? Facebook, AOL and YouTube were all listed on the original PRISM leaks. If you didn't think Twitter was next, were you even paying attention? > operates under the legal theory that “public-private partnerships” where the government directs and the companies execute doesn’t count as government censorship lmao The US isn't going to surrender warrantless surveillance, ever, so good luck rallying against this. You'll need all the luck you can get, because your hardware and software manufacturers certainly won't be working in your favor. We learned that from Snowden. I got a cold, hard truth incoming to all the entrepreneurial spirits of the world; if you can be bought at a price, the US government can write an even bigger check.

wdb 3y ago

Twitter big shots getting protected by Twitter was indeed a story

andy_ppp 3y ago
I think all the story was is that people from both political parties and the FBI were trying to take down disinformation. Sometimes Twitter agreed to these requests other times they did not. What I am surprised about is the attempt to turn this nonsense into a story, it’s unbelievably weak stuff to most people that just doesn’t hold up… Do you think government should be able to ask social networks to take things down?
- wdb 3y ago
  I think the story was they said they didn't do this but it was shown they actually did. Like shadow banning, suspending accounts on request etc
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - andy_ppp 3y ago
    Only Twitter could do this. The security services could ask Twitter for anything they like it doesn’t mean they are getting it. Or that the requests from politicians are bad either. Each case would need to be reviewed on its individual merits and both Trump and Biden campaigns asked for things. My suggestion is that bureaucrats dealing with these requests probably tried their best to treat them in a reasonable way - have a look at them and apply the Twitter policy if applicable. There’s no evidence they were doing anything more than that but it was manufactured into a story, arguably the fact you believe it is a bigger piece of manipulation than reasonable attempts to reduce disinformation on Twitter during a political campaign.