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
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.

>>devind+qI
So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?

>>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.

>>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.

>>simple+hO
> 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.

If that is true, that would make it government coercion. But no one has properly alleged anything with regards to Twitter on that analogue.

>>jcranm+wQ
The FBI would not pass on something in the nature of a direct order without having a paper signed by a judge to back it up.

>>jacque+WQ
Never worked in a Trust&Safety team for a major platform, I see.