zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
3. Twitter’s contact with the FBI was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary.

4. Between January 2020 and November 2022, there were over 150 emails between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth.

How is this constant? This is just 1 request every 7 days . I figured it would be more. Also, it's called the FBI. Their job is to investigate federal matters, which includes content on social social media. They do with with all major social networks. It's not just politics or the media, but things related to safety, terrorism, kidnaping, child exploitation, etc.

It seems like these files are becoming more and more underwhelming.

>>paulpa+34
What would a bureau investigating crimes have any involvement in sifting through accounts looking for ToS violations?

Are they the TOS violation cops ala BSA?

What other companies were they helping in hunting down ToS violators?

This is not their scope of work and it has the appearance of impropriety by suggesting accounts that should be reviewed for suspension.

Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose accounts to review?

>>mc32+131
That's not how it works. How it works is that they come across something that is either illegal or that could snowball into a problem and it happens to violate the TOS. This gives them enough grounds to ask for a removal. If it isn't against the TOS but they feel that they need to have it removed anyway they'll go by a judge and get an order, or, if contact is good they might first ask you politely.

>>jacque+K31
Presumably, those fielded by agents would, given the distribution of online crime, fall all over the political spectrum, then and would not lean one way or the other?

What crimes are vaccine sceptics guilty of? Given they had some sex crimes going on on the platform, where the mounds of those ToS review requests?

In the examples, are they alleging the potential crime or just saying, hey, guys, it looks like these accounts may be violating your ToS, can you take a look?

>>mc32+S41
Pretty much.

As for vaccine sceptics: there were a lot of people amplifying utter bullshit messages around that theme and arguably shutting those accounts down saved a bunch of lives. You may well disagree with that but in a fluid situation I can see why they did what they did. It does not deserve the beauty prize but since we're still learning how to deal with this social media thing where everybody has a megaphone that can reach around the world in a heartbeat I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. For the record, I'm pro-vaxx, but against mandatory vaccination.

>>jacque+J51
>As for vaccine sceptics: there were a lot of people amplifying utter bullshit messages..."

What is the actual crime that precipitates their appetite to nonchalantly ask for review? Moreover, the CDC and govt officials, including Biden himself, spread bullshit messages about Covid and its vaccines.

Did they ask Twitter to suspend Antifa accounts because of the violent nature of some of their demos? Or people amplifying bullshit stories about cops such that "ACABs"? Where were they supplicating for those reviews?

As an independent it looks to me, the FBI trod dangerously close to censorship (as in the Government censoring speech unwanted by the gov).

>>mc32+861
I think we don’t know. All we’re being shown is what Taibbi is tweeting.