zlacker

>>ilamon+(OP)
Many of us are in the tech industry. Has anyone seen this sort of thing happen? Or is this something we wouldn't be aware of since it's usually on the "content moderation" side of the house? (I haven't ever worked in social media, so not really familiar with content moderation other than removing the occasional dick pic)

Edit:

> Most of them are product managers, software developers. … They work with the policy teams with an internal set of tools to forward links and explanations about why they need to be removed.

>>octopo+6p
If you look at the extensive reporting done by racket.news around the Twitter Files and Facebook Files, you can learn about the direct back channels many government agencies had to directly report thousands of people to be banned or shadow banned. A federal court judge concluded that it was the biggest violation of free speech in modern history. He ordered the government to no longer contact the social media companies unless something is found to be illegal. This applied to government agencies but does not apply to these groups that might be organized or funded by a foreign government.

>>kornho+cq
I remember browsing through the Twitter Files and finding nothing interesting in them.

Yes, all social media have open channels with law enforcement. That's because social media have legal obligations and when someone comes to a moderator claiming to be a law enforcement officer working on a kidnapping or preventing a terrorist attack and needing time-sensitive help to save lives, you don't want the moderator to have to guess whether that's a real emergency or a hoax.

It's... not a secret. If you live in a democracy, you can quickly find out the name of these channels, they have websites.

Source: I've been part of a moderation team. Not on something that large, though.

>>Yoric+QD
>they have websites

That's interesting, can you link to one?