zlacker

[return to "The Twitter Files, Part Six"]
1. memish+g3[view] [source] 2022-12-16 21:42:18
>>GavCo+(OP)
"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content."

Is this a violation of the 1st Amendment or a way to skirt around it?

◧◩
2. devind+qI[view] [source] 2022-12-17 01:50:26
>>memish+g3
Neither. Social media companies are in regular contact with all major governments about lots of issues. A weekly "hey all here are some accounts we noticed, have a great week" email to a designated Twitter contact for review requests is completely ordinary. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, everyone hears from the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Australia, Japan.... and decides what to do with the information.
◧◩◪
3. simple+9N[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:28:06
>>devind+qI
So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?
◧◩◪◨
4. acdha+GN[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:32:05
>>simple+9N
You run a bar. There’s a drunk guy on one end of the patio screaming at people. If a cop walks by and tells the bouncer “that guy seems pretty drunk”, is it a 1A violation when they subsequently enforce their rules?

The question to ask is whether any of these accounts would have been allowed if reported by people. There’s no evidence that the FBI was making threats that something otherwise allowed had to be removed.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. simple+hO[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:37:31
>>acdha+GN
You're not seeing the point.

The cop was telling the bouncer, "Throw that guy out."

And the bar owner did what the cop said, because the police department had threatened to shut down bar owners in the city for the last three years.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. jacque+pP[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:46:31
>>simple+hO
You do realize that the police have been vested with the authority to enforce the law?

A bar owner that does not follow the instructions of the authorities is going to find their bar closed in short order because they have to comply with the law and with instructions by parties authorized to give them.

To paraphrase the trope that those that don't like Twitter are free to create their own: if you don't like the way society works then you are free to create your own. On Mars or something.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. simple+JQ[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:55:41
>>jacque+pP
You do realize that it's not the job of the FBI to police 1A speech, especially about an election, right?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Apocry+KR[view] [source] 2022-12-17 03:02:32
>>simple+JQ
What is your definition of policing? If those FBI agents had been individual citizens who found misinformation and hit the report button, little different would have occurred. They got to cut the line, perhaps, but I doubt it would be much ahead of organizations like Microsoft, Stanford University, or the Archdiocese of Boston, to name some random bigwig organizations who could potentially complain to Twitter about something on Twitter.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. simple+9U[view] [source] 2022-12-17 03:19:05
>>Apocry+KR
I have a really hard time believing Twitter would have reacted in similar way if an individual or company initiated the same takedowns
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. jacque+ZV[view] [source] 2022-12-17 03:31:19
>>simple+9U
As the source of multiple such requests to Twitter I guarantee you that they would.
[go to top]