5 ms·

They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obli

• throwaway48476 2y ago
  And what would happen if they did not comply? It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgUvwcU6P7I
  • tootie 2y ago
    That's a stretch. They could have decided twitter was non compliant and started treating them a little less gently but would they order content be removed or issue fines or some other direct punishment? Probably not.
    • throwaway48476 2y ago
      This is a failure of imagination. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/schumer-intelligence-agencies-have-six-ways-from-sunday-of-getting-back-at-you/ https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/schumer-intelligence-ag...
      • tootie 2y ago
        Yeah, this article is really very imaginative.
• blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  If you look at the revelations from Zuckerberg‘s letter this week, you will see that they were not good faith recommendations. They were highly aggressive demands made in forceful ways. Remember, the administration that issued these demands is also in control of the agencies that regulate the same company. For example, the FTC, who could determine that the company is acting anti-competitively or whatever else. They are in a position of power above this company, and therefore, even if they had made the suggestion in a friendly way, it would still be from a position of power that could compel them.
  • tootie 2y ago
    Good faith meaning they believed the analysis of likely disinformation was correct and not politically motivated.