zlacker

So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?

>>simple+(OP)
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+x
You're not seeing the point.

The cop was telling the bouncer, "Throw that guy out."

And the bar owner did what the cop said, because the police department had threatened to shut down bar owners in the city for the last three years.

>>simple+81
Your last paragraph is pure supposition. This thread clearly shows Twitter staff receiving reports and seeing whether those accounts did in fact violate the rules. What’s missing is any sign of what you’re confidently saying happened: something otherwise allowed being blocked because the FBI insisted. Please feel free to provide specific examples.

>>simple+81
You do realize that the police have been vested with the authority to enforce the law?

A bar owner that does not follow the instructions of the authorities is going to find their bar closed in short order because they have to comply with the law and with instructions by parties authorized to give them.

To paraphrase the trope that those that don't like Twitter are free to create their own: if you don't like the way society works then you are free to create your own. On Mars or something.

>>simple+81
> And the bar owner did what the cop said, because the police department had threatened to shut down bar owners in the city for the last three years.

If that is true, that would make it government coercion. But no one has properly alleged anything with regards to Twitter on that analogue.

>>jacque+g2
You do realize that it's not the job of the FBI to police 1A speech, especially about an election, right?

>>jcranm+n3
The FBI would not pass on something in the nature of a direct order without having a paper signed by a judge to back it up.

>>simple+A3
What is your definition of policing? If those FBI agents had been individual citizens who found misinformation and hit the report button, little different would have occurred. They got to cut the line, perhaps, but I doubt it would be much ahead of organizations like Microsoft, Stanford University, or the Archdiocese of Boston, to name some random bigwig organizations who could potentially complain to Twitter about something on Twitter.

>>jacque+N3
Good point

>>Apocry+B4
I have a really hard time believing Twitter would have reacted in similar way if an individual or company initiated the same takedowns

>>simple+07
You bet your ass they would if those individuals were celebrity influencers. Or if those companies were advertisers.

Twitter needs such entities to survive. Displeasing then is more existentially threatening than running afoul of the FBI.

>>simple+07
As the source of multiple such requests to Twitter I guarantee you that they would.

>>acdha+x
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.

>>jacque+N3
They didn't - as I said before, this kind of communication is commonplace between large tech properties and governments, other large companies, NGOs, etc. It wasn't anything like a direct order. Local law enforcement, city councils, lobbyists, PR people, anyone with information or access will often have a more direct line to Twitter, Youtube, etc than the 'report' button.

There do exist direct orders to reveal or conceal information that do require a judge to sign, things like National Security Letters. It's remarkable that NSLs and other compelling documents don't get more play in these conversations. They actually are what people think these friendly emails are.

>>jacque+N3
Never worked in a Trust&Safety team for a major platform, I see.

>>UncleM+0F
Actually owned what was at the time the #23 site in the world with pretty much all of th e issues that Twitter had to contend with.

>>scythe+zl
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+mp1
>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.