3 ms·
If you look at the extensive reporting done by racket.news around the Twitter Files and Facebook Files, you can learn about the direct back channels many govern
by kornhole 3y ago
If you look at the extensive reporting done by racket.news around the Twitter Files and Facebook Files, you can learn about the direct back channels many government agencies had to directly report thousands of people to be banned or shadow banned. A federal court judge concluded that it was the biggest violation of free speech in modern history. He ordered the government to no longer contact the social media companies unless something is found to be illegal. This applied to government agencies but does not apply to these groups that might be organized or funded by a foreign government.
- Yoric 3y agoI remember browsing through the Twitter Files and finding nothing interesting in them. Yes, all social media have open channels with law enforcement. That's because social media have legal obligations and when someone comes to a moderator claiming to be a law enforcement officer working on a kidnapping or preventing a terrorist attack and needing time-sensitive help to save lives, you don't want the moderator to have to guess whether that's a real emergency or a hoax. It's... not a secret. If you live in a democracy, you can quickly find out the name of these channels, they have websites. Source: I've been part of a moderation team. Not on something that large, though.
- SlickNixon 3y ago>they have websites That's interesting, can you link to one?
- shadowgovt 3y agoGoogle's, for example, is LERS. https://lers.google.com https://lers.google.com
- SlickNixon 3y agoUpvoted. I'd hazard that-- "LERS is a system in which a verified law enforcement agent can securely submit a legal request for user data, view the status of the submitted request, and download the response submitted by Google. If you are a sworn law enforcement agent or other government official who is authorized to issue legal process in connection with an official investigation, you may submit your request through this system." --is not the height of transparency, though.
- Yoric 3y agoIn France, https://www.internet-signalement.gouv.fr/PharosS1/ https://www.internet-signalement.gouv.fr/PharosS1/ .
- SlickNixon 3y agoThis appears to be for private citizens to report illegal content?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kornhole 3y agoYou may not have read enough. It went way beyond law enforcement which would have been fine and legal. People were censored for talking about dangers of vaccines, war with Russia, and whatever the administration, FBI, or other government agencies determined to be malinformation. The impact of this censorship is still being felt to this day. People were misinformed about the vaccine and the war causing the deaths of millions of people. If people understood that Ukraine had no chance of defeating Russia or that the largely untested vaccine was not safe, many people could still be alive today.
- Yoric 3y agoCould you point me to the source?
- shadowgovt 3y ago> or that the largely untested vaccine was not safe At this point, I think enough of us have lived through being vaccinated that this canard fails to hold water. (Nothing is 100% safe, and the deaths due to vaccine reaction were tragic. The vaccine was orders of magnitude safer than COVID ripping through the population unchecked).
- kergonath 3y ago> If you look at the extensive reporting done by racket.news around the Twitter Files and Facebook Files, you can learn about the direct back channels many government agencies had to directly report thousands of people to be banned or shadow banned. A federal court judge concluded that it was the biggest violation of free speech in modern history. There was no such thing in the Twitter files.