zlacker

[return to "The Twitter Files, Part Six"]
◧
1. leoh+eM[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:20:40
>>GavCo+(OP)
Learned basically nothing here. So the FBI helped Twitter with content moderation? Who gives a crap.
◧◩
2. tomoha+nP[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:46:05
>>leoh+eM
When people become a sworn officer of the FBI or any other federal LEO officer, they take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. When instead of upholding the Constitution, they ask a private company to violate people's first ammendment rights, that is an abuse of power.

It may be within Twitters terms of service to ban people and censor people, and that may be fine for Twitter, but for a sworn officer to use Twitter to censor people - that is an abuse of power.

Of course, the files also show that Twitter personnel acted in bad faith and didn't follow their own ToS.

◧◩◪
3. roflye+vQ[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:54:39
>>tomoha+nP
Not a violation of free speech to tell Twitter to take down illegal content.
◧◩◪◨
4. tomoha+3R[view] [source] 2022-12-17 02:57:56
>>roflye+vQ
What was illegal about the NYPost breaking a story about content found on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop?

If you have allegations of illegality, who determined that? Are you saying FBI should just say "Trust us, it's illegal - we don't need a jury or a judge"?

Since when does the FBI just get to accuse people of things and take their rights away?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ceejay+WR[view] [source] 2022-12-17 03:03:41
>>tomoha+3R
> What was illegal about the NYPost breaking a story about content found on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop?

Who said it was illegal? The FBI? Twitter? Can you highlight a quote here?

Look at the sort of wording used in the examples in the thread.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857573219819529 - "notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter's Terms of Service"

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. lp0_on+461[view] [source] 2022-12-17 04:58:18
>>ceejay+WR
That sort of wording makes it worse, IMO.

It's one thing for the FBI to contact twitter to say "hey there's this account that's posting instructions on how to make and plant pipe bombs so you should remove it" but a completely different thing for the FBI to say "hey there's thing thing that violates one your arbitrary terms of service so you should take it down".

Why is the FBI spending time and resources looking for TOS violations for a private company?

Why is the FBI spending time looking into _anything_ that's not illegal, period?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. roflye+i52[view] [source] 2022-12-17 15:43:05
>>lp0_on+461
I think it's perfectly fine for any agency to ask any platform to remove content. Keyword: ASK.

You can say no to these requests. Possibly, twitter did.

[go to top]