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
Right, but the cop didn't come by so he could look for people to throw out. The FBI isn't just "walking by" Twitter, they're there for a reason.

>>scythe+I81
But if all they’re doing is politely asking for the company’s own policy to be enforced, and doing so evenly as shown in the thread it’s really hard to see this in the light which right-media is hyping it. This is the most they’ve found and it’s notable for what we don’t see: no hint of threats, nothing which isn’t a policy violation getting taken down, just a bunch of people doing their jobs and dealing with grey areas.

>>acdha+vc2
>and doing so evenly as shown in the thread

It doesn't matter, and I don't care, if the FBI requests were "even" on some partisan scoreboard.

>all they’re doing is politely asking for the company’s own policy to be enforced

This makes the incorrect assumption that the FBI's stated concerns are equal to their actual concerns. But this is the FBI we're talking about here. If they were actually investigating a crime it would be one thing. But randomly harassing private citizens by rules-lawyering is not appropriate.