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
Where is current twitter's lawsuit if that's the case? There hasn't been anything released that indicates these moderation actions were taken under duress. Old twitter wanted to moderate their platform in that way.

>>epakai+g91
Because that would be so hard to prove.

It's like when people "voluntarily" do things that cops ask during traffic stops that are beyond what's necessary by law. It's not that people want, they are just scared and don't want to get in trouble.