zlacker

> 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.

>>jcranm+(OP)
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.

>>jacque+q
Good point

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

>>UncleM+DB
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.