zlacker

>>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?

>>memish+g3
For the most part, the US government is allowed to ask anyone to voluntarily remove anything (a few limits such as those set by the establishment clause notwithstanding). That's what happened here.

>>pcwalt+m8
If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them?

Or are they doing it under duress?

Of course it's the latter.

The US gov. has been threatening to take down social media companies for years. Do you think Twitter really wanted to upset them now?

>>simple+BN
They reported users/posts for review. Happens on my forum all the time from all sorts of users (public, lawyers, etc). Up to the publisher to make their call from that point. In one case I bothered reading in this set, they mentioned that legal docs would follow if they were seeking to identify and pursue an author (pre-action discovery).

It didn’t seem that the FBI were going into detail on any cases. I wondered if some were likely to be considered concerted foreign interference that they’d unearthed and policing that was within their remit. I assume there’s some overlap between Twitter’s ToS re misinformation and the FBI’s assessment, if that makes sense.