6 ms·

"Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think t

by memish 4y ago

"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?

nobody9999 4y ago
>"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? Which specific security contractors? Which specific think tanks? The above assertion that you quoted makes several assertions, none of which (at least AFAICT) have any facts, data or evidence attached to them. Perhaps I'm missing something important? If so, what might that be? What's more,. I receive multiple contacts from DHS daily[0]. And I (as an individual with minimal resources and little ability to "fight" the government) have never felt pressured by the Federal government to do anything. I'd expect that corporations with multiple billions in revenue (like Twitter) and lawyers on staff would zealously protect their independence and reputation rather than being seen as shills for some shadowy "government conspiracy." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_and_Infrastructure_Security_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_and_Infrastructu...
pcwalton 4y ago
For the most part, the US government is allowed to ask anyone to voluntarily remove anything (a few limits such as those set by the establishment clause notwithstanding). That's what happened here.
- simpleblend 4y ago
  If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them? Or are they doing it under duress? Of course it's the latter. The US gov. has been threatening to take down social media companies for years. Do you think Twitter really wanted to upset them now?
  - pcwalton 4y ago
    > If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them? Yes? When the CDC says "we recommend you get vaccinated against the flu", and you get vaccinated, you're acting voluntarily, despite the government recommendation.
    - simpleblend 4y ago
      So, did you just not read the rest of my comment?
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        What duress was Twitter under? It sounds like they happily cooperated because they mostly agreed with the FBI’s recommendations. Perhaps you can call that bias in favor of Trump’s government. But based on the OP account, it was freely voluntary.
      - pcwalton 4y ago
        I disagree with the premise that the US has been threatening to take down social media companies, so I didn't feel it was worth responding to. Also, the guidelines ask you not to write comments like that.
  - djur 4y ago
    Who did the FBI ask to have banned? I'm not seeing that in the emails Taibbi published.
  - prawn 4y ago
    They reported users/posts for review. Happens on my forum all the time from all sorts of users (public, lawyers, etc). Up to the publisher to make their call from that point. In one case I bothered reading in this set, they mentioned that legal docs would follow if they were seeking to identify and pursue an author (pre-action discovery). It didn’t seem that the FBI were going into detail on any cases. I wondered if some were likely to be considered concerted foreign interference that they’d unearthed and policing that was within their remit. I assume there’s some overlap between Twitter’s ToS re misinformation and the FBI’s assessment, if that makes sense.
starkd 4y ago
The problem was that it was entirely one way. This was not about dangerous misinformation. Many of the accounts they wanted suppressed were low-follower accounts making jokes. A ton of FBI agents paid to sway an election. Even if you are comfortable with the outcome of the election, what about future elections when they decide to back a candidate you do not support?
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  What do you mean by one way? They clearly asked for scrutiny of pro-Democratic tweeters in addition to pro-Republican ones: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232 Perhaps you should actually read Taibbi's work in this thread.
  - starkd 4y ago
    It doesn't matter if they were pro-dem or pro-republican. They were doing nothing wrong. What business is it to the FBI. The FBI had partisan agents working on government time to censor American citizens during an election. If you step out of your partisan headspace for a moment, you might realize how dangerous this is. Imagine how this my play out in a future election with different candidates.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      But there is no partisan headspace if both parties were impacted. Clearly their lack of interest is due to other factors, which you must learn to appeal to. Not everyone fails to care because of petty political concerns.
      - simpleblend 4y ago
        So it's your estimation that both parties were censored an equal amount?
devindotcom 4y ago
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.
- simpleblend 4y ago
  So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?
  - acdha 4y ago
    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.
    - simpleblend 4y ago
      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.
      - acdha 4y ago
        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.
      - 4y ago
DantesKite 4y ago
It seems like it. But I’m no legal scholar. Would love to see how something like this would fare in a Supreme Court case.

by memish 4y ago

nobody9999 4y ago

>"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? Which specific security contractors? Which specific think tanks? The above assertion that you quoted makes several assertions, none of which (at least AFAICT) have any facts, data or evidence attached to them. Perhaps I'm missing something important? If so, what might that be? What's more,. I receive multiple contacts from DHS daily[0]. And I (as an individual with minimal resources and little ability to "fight" the government) have never felt pressured by the Federal government to do anything. I'd expect that corporations with multiple billions in revenue (like Twitter) and lawyers on staff would zealously protect their independence and reputation rather than being seen as shills for some shadowy "government conspiracy." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_and_Infrastructure_Security_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_and_Infrastructu...

pcwalton 4y ago

For the most part, the US government is allowed to ask anyone to voluntarily remove anything (a few limits such as those set by the establishment clause notwithstanding). That's what happened here.

simpleblend 4y ago
If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them? Or are they doing it under duress? Of course it's the latter. The US gov. has been threatening to take down social media companies for years. Do you think Twitter really wanted to upset them now?
- pcwalton 4y ago
  > If you run a social media company and the government tells you, "Hey, we want these people banned", and you ban them, is the company "voluntarily" choosing to ban them? Yes? When the CDC says "we recommend you get vaccinated against the flu", and you get vaccinated, you're acting voluntarily, despite the government recommendation.
  - simpleblend 4y ago
    So, did you just not read the rest of my comment?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      What duress was Twitter under? It sounds like they happily cooperated because they mostly agreed with the FBI’s recommendations. Perhaps you can call that bias in favor of Trump’s government. But based on the OP account, it was freely voluntary.
    - pcwalton 4y ago
      I disagree with the premise that the US has been threatening to take down social media companies, so I didn't feel it was worth responding to. Also, the guidelines ask you not to write comments like that.
- djur 4y ago
  Who did the FBI ask to have banned? I'm not seeing that in the emails Taibbi published.
- prawn 4y ago
  They reported users/posts for review. Happens on my forum all the time from all sorts of users (public, lawyers, etc). Up to the publisher to make their call from that point. In one case I bothered reading in this set, they mentioned that legal docs would follow if they were seeking to identify and pursue an author (pre-action discovery). It didn’t seem that the FBI were going into detail on any cases. I wondered if some were likely to be considered concerted foreign interference that they’d unearthed and policing that was within their remit. I assume there’s some overlap between Twitter’s ToS re misinformation and the FBI’s assessment, if that makes sense.

starkd 4y ago

The problem was that it was entirely one way. This was not about dangerous misinformation. Many of the accounts they wanted suppressed were low-follower accounts making jokes. A ton of FBI agents paid to sway an election. Even if you are comfortable with the outcome of the election, what about future elections when they decide to back a candidate you do not support?

Apocryphon 4y ago
What do you mean by one way? They clearly asked for scrutiny of pro-Democratic tweeters in addition to pro-Republican ones: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857581503569929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232 Perhaps you should actually read Taibbi's work in this thread.
- starkd 4y ago
  It doesn't matter if they were pro-dem or pro-republican. They were doing nothing wrong. What business is it to the FBI. The FBI had partisan agents working on government time to censor American citizens during an election. If you step out of your partisan headspace for a moment, you might realize how dangerous this is. Imagine how this my play out in a future election with different candidates.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    But there is no partisan headspace if both parties were impacted. Clearly their lack of interest is due to other factors, which you must learn to appeal to. Not everyone fails to care because of petty political concerns.
    - simpleblend 4y ago
      So it's your estimation that both parties were censored an equal amount?

devindotcom 4y ago

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.

simpleblend 4y ago
So... because it's ordinary it doesn't violate 1A?
- acdha 4y ago
  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.
  - simpleblend 4y ago
    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.
    - acdha 4y ago
      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.
    - 4y ago

DantesKite 4y ago

It seems like it. But I’m no legal scholar. Would love to see how something like this would fare in a Supreme Court case.