zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.

>>leoh+eM
So you think it is totally normal that FBI just helps a company to moderate stuff that is legal but doesn't comply with the company's Terms of Service?

>>Ludwig+ER
Yes. Because 'legal' and 'damaging to society' are different bars and both the FBI and Twitter probably felt that cooperating on that front was better than to let things get out of hand.

The alternative may well have been a dead VP, or worse, so be happy that these channels exist(ed). With that whole department axed we are now in much more dangerous territory. That said I'm pretty sure that Elon Musk knows which side his bread is buttered on and that given an appropriately worded request Twitter will comply just like it did in the past. Or do you think they'll give the FBI the finger now?

>>jacque+8S
It's not in the FBI's charter to "fix society" outside of the bounds of law. It's mind boggling to me that people are acting nonchalant about a government entity shaping public discourse in secret.

>>colord+CT
If - for instance - Mike Pence had been murdered (and I believe there was a real possibility that that could have happened) I'm pretty sure that you'd be playing an entirely different tune. The FBI is free to interpret the law and you are free to take them to court if you don't agree with their interpretation. This does not normally need to be spelled out.

Next time you receive a request from the police that you think is reasonable try stonewalling them and see what happens. I guarantee you won't like it.

And as far as the secrecy is concerned: records were kept, that's why you are reading about this.