zlacker

So far this whole Twitter Files thing seems underwhelming, but not exactly a "nothing burger". I feel like it's a good thing that they got published, but the details aren't big news, more like a whole bunch of mildly unsatisfactory situations that probably should be addressed by people directly involved.

For example FBI trawling through social media and flagging accounts for review doesn't seem like a strict constitutional violation unless you can prove some coercion; but it does seem like a questionable use of the FBI to be doing content moderation for Twitter absent a criminal investigation.

Maybe this sort of stuff (i.e. government/law enforcement communications with social media companies) should be automatically in the public domain if it isn't part of a criminal investigation.

>>jackso+(OP)
A moderate, and reasonable position. I would definitely agree that this sort of stuff should be readily available for review, not requiring FOIA requests.

>>Apocry+j
I disagree. For instance: LE might become aware of a sexting or suicide attempt or some other thing that people do that is not strictly illegal but that might be embarrassing or that could cause the person trouble in their private life. Having a degree of confidentiality helps to both speed up the process because not every word has to be weighed on the scale of 'how does this look in the public arena' and it helps to preserve the privacy of all parties involved.

>>jackso+(OP)
It would certainly be a lot more interesting if new Twitter had a real solution/policy for each of these situations. It just feels like a lot of mud-slinging, but to what end besides culture war points?

>>jackso+(OP)
>but it does seem like a questionable use of the FBI to be doing content moderation for Twitter absent a criminal investigation.

Law enforcement, people in corporate risk, and business intelligence groups very often use social media to perform open source research. In fact, when they don't, people exclaim that the police are incompetent for not knowing the shooter said he was going to shoot a place up after a history of deranged posting and a call to violence on facebook or something.

There are platforms built on top of Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/Etc that will do automated sentiment analysis, key into keyword trends, etc. You can build reports, see how much impact or reach certain calls to violence have, etc. and then triage the threats that you think are credible vs. those that are full of shit.

There are people out there trying to recruit people to firebomb tax buildings. Telling Twitter to shadowban them before they develop networks and get off the platform is a lot more innocuous than raiding the guy's house to see if he has bombmaking equipment.

>>epakai+sg
Probably just a desperate attempt to increase DAU’s and “engagement” by posting rage bait.

>>jacque+A
Sure, ,,let's think of the children''.

We heared it many times, but we're talking about a govermental agency meddling with election results. Politics and these cases are very different in nature. Personally I wouldn't be comfortable not taking action when the FBI would ask anything from me, because it's safer to just comply.

>>xiphia+ZC
Not just children - adults can be suicidal too, and in certain places that's a pretty bad crime.

Radical transparency only works if you remove all externalities - but we live in the real world.

>>xiphia+ZC
Keeping investigations private in order to protect those presumed innocent in a normal part of any law enforcement.

Should police officers dump the body cam footage of every domestic abuse situation they walk into online?

If you want to fault the oversight and transparency of the goals of these agencies, then sure. But let's also not pretend that making all elements of investigations public would be a good idea.

>>ABCLAW+vy
> a lot more innocuous than raiding the guy's house to see if he has bombmaking equipment.

Musk himself has recently used a similar example, asking journalists how they'd feel if somebody actually got hurt as a result of doxxing on Twitter. So how would folks at Twitter feel if they ignored an FBI report of activity that then led to a terrorist attack? They wouldn't just feel bad, they might actually be liable for helping to facilitate it. Companies do all sorts of things to avoid potential liability, or forego doing things even if those things are perfectly legal and the company would prefer to do them otherwise. It's not weird or nefarious at all for a company to err on the side of caution when the receipt of information increases their potential liability.

It's also extremely hypocritical of Musk (or his fans) to oscillate between maximalist free speech and protection of privacy, invoking extreme examples in both cases, clearly according only to which one suits him personally at any particular moment.

>>xiphia+ZC
>We heared it many times, but we're talking about a govermental agency meddling with election results. Politics and these cases are very different in nature.

Which specific government agency meddling in which specfic election? The Trump Administration meddling in the 2020 election with Hatch Act violations[0]? The FBI releasing a statement (which turned out to be nothing at all) about Hillary Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiner's computer[1]?

Or was it the FBI demanding that Twitter take down the NY Post's tweet about their "Hunter Biden laptop" article[2]?

>Personally I wouldn't be comfortable not taking action when the FBI would ask anything from me, because it's safer to just comply.

Then you don't know or understand your rights. And more's the pity.

[0] https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/violations-...

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/what-fbi-found-emails-anthony-weine...

[2] Except the FBI didn't demand (or request, for that matter) any such thing.