zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
In a system of free speech, the government may also speak.

I think that is where a lot of people are getting confused or hung up. They think the First Amendment means the government is not allowed to speak at all. That is incorrect. It prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," in other words, forcibly restraining other people from speaking.

So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish.

If the FBI wishes to apply the force of law, that is when they would need to show evidence, get a warrant, etc. But just speaking to companies is normal, and often welcomed by the company if the FBI is sharing information that is useful.

>>snowwr+I51
> So: it is legal for the FBI to call up a company and say what they think. And the company is free to act on that, or not, as they wish.

This makes me think of "the implication" in it's always sunny in philadephia.

FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally.

People hate Musk way too much that they are blind. If this was trump, the shitstorm would begin. It would be drummed up as the biggest scandal ever.

>>ergoco+us1
These companies are just as afraid, if not far more afraid, of "the implication" from other companies, namely their advertisers and sponsors, as well as influential individuals such as celebrity influencers who drive traffic for their sites. The G-men will have to get in line for Twitter bending over backwards to all of these interests. Threats to the bottom line are probably even more menacing than legal threats- and many of these businesses and individuals are just as litigious as the FBI, as well.

> FBI calls you up and tell you what they think, and you'll totally ignore FBI. Totally.

The OP literally says that's an option that certain companies have opted to do:

> An FBI agent just reached out with a key point about the “gross” subservience of Twitter before the FBI: “A lot of companies we deal with are adversarial to us. Like T-Mobile is totally adversarial. They love leaking things we're saying if we don't get our process right.” (1/2)

> “I feel like that’s the default position. People used to get mad about that in the Bureau, but — they're supposed to represent their clients and their customers. Why in the hell would you expect them to make it easy on you? Do the right thing. Do it the right way.”

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603890210252668928

It sounds like Twitter was choosing to play nice with the feds, unless any evidence of coercion arises.

>>Apocry+Ws1
Not the companies who are afraid. It's the employees that are afraid of FBI.

This is like your bosses make sexual advances at you. The power dynamics would make you uncomfortable.

>>ergoco+Ct3
This is getting a bit ridiculous. I’ve interacted with FBI agents in the course of my employment, and it did not feel like sexual harassment. It was fine; they helped us with a security problem and we appreciated the help.