zlacker

[return to "The Twitter Files, Part Six"]
◧
1. leoh+eM[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:20:40
>>GavCo+(OP)
Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.
◧◩
2. joshua+3P[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:43:54
>>leoh+eM
It's corruption. It's a violation of the First Amendment. It's a dangerous collusion between state and media. We should all be concerned.
◧◩◪
3. sleepy+SP[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:50:20
>>joshua+3P
It's literally none of those things.

The FBI contacted trust and safety and said 'Hey we have concerns about these tweets'. Twitter decided to take them down in some cases.

Who is corrupted here? Twitter for taking reports and then deciding how to react to them? The FBI for finding misinformation that might lead to crazies creating mass casualty events?

The FBI at no time FORCED twitter to do anything. So it's not violating the first amendment.

◧◩◪◨
4. oceanp+9R[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:58:33
>>sleepy+SP
Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion. Government law enforcement agencies shouldn’t be “asking” for anything unless it’s done under due process of law. Sorry but I 100% disagree.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jacque+zS[view] [source] 2022-12-17 03:08:13
>>oceanp+9R
> Any time the FBI “asks” a company to do something it’s immediately a form of coercion.

Strong disagree. I've been on the receiving side of many such requests and all of them came with reasons and citations to back up the request. I've never had a single LE request (including some from the FBI even though we were located in Toronto, Canada and in IJmuiden, NL meaning that we could have refused them simply on account of not being in their jurisdiction) that did not make perfect sense to me.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. simple+xT[view] [source] 2022-12-17 03:15:23
>>jacque+zS
1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.

2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. jacque+8V[view] [source] 2022-12-17 03:24:55
>>simple+xT
> 1. We're not talking about your company which probably had a different context. We're talking about the FBI telling Twitter to silence opinions and facts.

The context was quite comparable: live conversations, messages both public and private.

> 2. Whether you agree with the LE request has no influence on whether it's legal or not.

Twitter had an extensive legal team before Musk fired them all, I'm pretty sure they were well capable of determining which requests were legal and which were not.

[go to top]