Don't get me wrong both party work for the same entity and have the same end goals, but no doubt the democrat narrative is the dominant one and the one being pushed down everyones throat.
downvote away left leaning hackernews, lol
Throwing a tantrum over other people recognizing this as the nothing-burger it is isn't really an argument.
The contents of Hunter's laptop didn't stop me from voting for Biden, but that's because I'm a cynical jerk that already thinks politicians are corrupt by default.
How about this: you don't get to decide what's remotely important to people in the context of the election?
No, "the Hunter Biden story is insignificant" is not a fact, it's a judgement. I'd say that calling it "misinformation" is bizarre, except that most prominent allegations of misinformation boil down to judgements too.
Twitter's actions almost guaranteed that this would blow up, prompting the wider media ecosystem to respond to the story about the blocked tweet, letting many, many more people know about the laptop story (which anyone/everyone could still read without hindrance) to people (like me) who don't read the Post or use Twitter.
In fact, had Twitter not flagged the NY Post's tweet about the article, I might never have heard about the laptop story at all.
Can you imagine the reaction of Elon Musk if this happened? Musk can't even handle public information being published (i.e. elon jet). He would go nuclear if nude pictures were leaked.
I've had some contact with the FBI over the years regarding stuff happening on one of my sites and they were - it has to be said - polite and arguing their case quite well, in no way did I feel like figuring out whether if I refused them what the next step would be, it felt like I would be the unreasonable party. But if they had made an unreasonable request I would have told them to fuck off.
It's absurdly easy for Musk and his cronies to cherry-pick which pieces of context they do or do not include, to make any user's behavior seem more benign or nefarious than it really was. Every time they reveal something, we should ask what they're leaving out. Anyone who fails to do so, whether they're a journalist or an HN commenter, is effectively doing Musk's dirty work for free.
Having gone through an acquisition, I guarantee that our acquired org gets more than 150 emails from our acquirer every two years. Let alone each day. To call it a "subsidiary" is ludicrous.
>How is this constant?
not
>How is it a subsidiary?
and my comment is related to that :^)
What controls when you have to respond to them is the law, not them. You'll know when that is, because it'll come with legal process.
It’s still very interesting data. Now I want to know how this compares to the other big tech companies.
BTW every week is of course constant but so is one a year or once every ten years. It's constant but not often.
Additionally an email isn't an individual issue; an email thread almost always has multiple replies, forwards, etc. On the low end, if we assume only 4 emails per topic between the parties, that means the FBI only approached twitter 75ish times in three years, or 25 issues per year.
I can tell you from my time doing social media threat monitoring that I'd monitor and alert organizations of maybe 10-15 people per month for things like threatening to blow up buildings followed with active attempts to recruit people to support those efforts. And that's for relatively niche, unpoliticized, institutions.
If the FBI is only identifying and acting on 25 instances of active recruitment for crime on twitter per year, it doesn't indicate that they're strong-arming twitter. It means they're asleep at the wheel.
If the worst Taibbi can find is the FBI trying to take down a tweet trying to get republicans to vote on the wrong day, he's found fuck all.
> If the FBI is only identifying and acting on 25 instances of active recruitment for crime on twitter per year, it doesn't indicate that they're strong-arming twitter. It means they're asleep at the wheel.
... or it could be they're not wanting to identify and act on their own entrapment (oops I mean sting) operations.
It's weird that it's turned into some sort of naive left vs right issue.
I'd be asking what the goal is, but apparently it's that. Point fingers, suggest no solutions beyond vote for us.
Good idea in theory except that many of those users aren't as well-behaved so to speak.
And so the overall quality of the discourse has noticeably dropped since Musk took over.
The replies I got from Musk fans were shockingly (maybe not so shockingly) vile.
Turns out Musk sold his Tesla shares at the same time as I did — I wonder how those people replying to me would square that with their insults.
If Twitter had a proper functioning board doesn't everyone think they would have prevented him from driving away advertisers and then threatening them with lawsuits for not advertising? If I was an investor in Twitter I would be livid. It appears most investors take it in stride because they worship Musk.
This sort of activity is what the government 100% shouldn't be involved in. Having a department of What is Allowed To Be Said is one of those ideas that gets tried regularly and has a terrible track record that - inevitably - ranges between a source of mild shame in hindsight to a nightmare influence on society.
There are nearly no scenarios where it is acceptable for the FBI to be in regular contact with Twitter asking for Tweets to be taken down, and if there are it should be transparent and documented - in public, in real time. It shouldn't take Elon Musk spending too much money to get details on the FBI's censorship programs (similarly it should have taken Assange-Manning-Snowden to get details on the pervasive spying).
You might not have been aware of that but it was common knowledge years before. During the hours when that story was blocked using the same mechanism they used for other hacked materials like you might have seen if some celebrity’s nudes had been leaked. Within a day that was removed for the NY Post news story since they were individually taking down the tweets with the actual nudes.
> This is not my opinion or guessing. We know this to be absolute fact.
What we know as absolute fact is that you’re getting your information from people who carefully lie to you, and you didn’t verify the source. It sounds like you’re referring to Zuckerberg’s interview with Rogan, where he said this:
“The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'."
That’s important because what he said doesn’t support that narrative:
Rogan: “Did [the FBI] specifically say you need to be on guard about that story?”
Zuckerberg: “No, I don’t remember if it was that specifically, but it basically fit the pattern.”
https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi...
Now, this is all off topic from the “Twitter Files” but again it’s important to remember that the mythology around conservative oppression is being used to distract from the real point that the laptop story failed to have the impact Giuliani & Trump wanted was because there wasn’t much of substance there and the evidence was tainted by sloppy handling. They’re trying to market it as a tale of censorship because they know that it wasn’t effective as a scandal.
There's a fundamental contradiction in the narrative presented in the Twitter Files, apparently we're supposed to believe that Twitter is this overwhelmingly liberal place where employees were highly biased against conservatives in their content moderation and also the FBI, of course that famously leftist institution, coerced Twitter in a highly biased way to get them to silence conservative narratives. If Twitter and FBI were aligned, there's no coercion. If Twitter was being forced, it remains to be shown exactly how. And to the extent that Twitter is institutionally biased towards liberals, then it's those that sit on the opposite political spectrum that are most suspicious. After all, if Twitter was going out of their way to help the Democrats, why would they need to be coerced in that same direction?
There's plenty of public evidence that Republican politicians including the sitting President threatened Twitter and other social media companies in order to influence their moderation policies. Where's the outrage among the "FBI asking Twitter nicely is a First Amendment issue" crowd?
If he's asking for something completely reasonable that ~80+% of people think is a good idea, sure. The appropriate thing for Twitter to do would still probably be to ignore him.
Giving Trump influence of Twitter's moderation policies is one of those obviously bad ideas (much like giving the FBI influence, in fact, for similar reasons).
> If Twitter and FBI were aligned, there's no coercion.
Yeah it isn't really a question of coercion, obviously if Twitter wants to support the FBI in political causes they are free to do that. The issue is that the FBI is being funded by taxpayers, not leftists, and shouldn't be deployed in a political capacity to support partisan management policies like what Twitter turned out to have. The easy way to achieve that is a blanket rule - something like "the government doesn't police what people say" which is fair and reasonably objective.
> ...also the FBI, of course that famously leftist institution...
There was the institutional support for the Trump-Russia hoax and the FBI's help in suppression of the Hunter Biden story. While I agree the FBI probably isn't leftist (I'm arguing it is authoritarian and status-quo biased, for what it is worth - they'd pull all the same tricks on someone like Bernie Sanders if he had made it through the primary), it is politically active and spreading a lot of this "misinformation" stuff to try and keep Trump out of office. That is corrupt, and it shouldn't be working with Twitter like it is.
To me, it's rather clear that a bunch of people who are not particularly principled or have a strong understanding of the ethics or laws involved, but are prone to thinking that anyone working against their own agenda must be evil or nefarious in some ways, reverse-engineering their way into finding faults with how things more or less have always worked. This also isn't some nefarious hidden secret motivated by partisan concerns. Trump's own Director of FBI, Christopher Wray stated that Russia was attempting to interfere in the presidential election:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-security-idU...
> Russia is determined to interfere in U.S. elections despite sanctions and other efforts to deter such actions before the next presidential election in 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray said on Tuesday.
And he specifically told the public what the FBI is doing about this:
https://time.com/5548544/russian-internet-trolls-strategies-...
> FBI Director Christopher Wray, speaking at the RSA Conference in San Francisco on Tuesday, said social media remains a primary avenue for foreign actors to influence U.S. elections, and the bureau is working with companies on the problem.
> “What has continued virtually unabated and just intensifies during the election cycles is this malign foreign influence campaign, especially using social media,” Wray said. “That continues, and we’re gearing up for it to continue and grow again for 2020.”
All the stuff observing that the FBI is politically active (and has been pretty much since inception I suspect) is interesting but not really news. It is context for why they are supposed to avoid chummy relationships with Twitter's team of moderators.
> Trump's own Director of FBI, Christopher Wray stated that Russia was attempting to interfere in the presidential election
Yeah, but the Muller report came out around the time he said that and basically debunked the issue as a serious problem; raising the question of what exactly Wray was trying to stir up. He looks like part of the anti-Trump crowd that has been active in the FBI for the last few years.
Which is substantially less problematic that the sitting President threatening Twitter. Yet here we are.
> Yeah, but the Muller report came out around the time he said that and basically debunked the issue as a serious problem; raising the question of what exactly Wray was trying to stir up. He looks like part of the anti-Trump crowd that has been active in the FBI for the last few years.
This is so far off the mark that it's hard to take you seriously. The Mueller report extensively documented Russia's attempt to interfere in the 2016 election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report
> However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion
It didn't exonerate the Trump campaign either. It more or less said that it couldn't prove the collusion in large part due to extensive attempts by the President's attempt to torpedo the investigation. It describes these attempts at obstruction of justice, without specifically accusing him (or exonerating) because Mueller didn't think it would be fair even if he believes a crime occurred:
> The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected, noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation". The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly, referencing impeachment
> Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment
No, in fact quite the reverse. It is quite problematic. Active cooperation between the FBI and Twitter is a threat to the institutions of democratic governance. That is why it is a scandal and there are things like the 1st amendment that basically say "government shouldn't do this, it is illegal".
Part of the draw of Trump was his ongoing battles with every reporting institution on the face of the earth. His Fake News routine was entertaining. And, critically, all happening publicly and with extensive documentation of every act and insult. Compare that to the FBI here where it is almost coincidence that we even have firm evidence of what is going on despite the fact they were handing out names to be blocked.
> The Mueller report extensively documented Russia's attempt to interfere in the 2016 election.
Which aspects of the Russian interference do you think are a bigger deal than the FBI interference in the political process that are being documented in the linked twitter thread?
You can refer to the Muller report if you like. I ask people to cite which bits of it they are worried about and usually their turn out to be bluffing about there being anything defensible in it. There is a lot of bark and no bite, it looks like to maintain credibility they were relying on the report being so think that nobody reads it.
To take the Muller report seriously requires someone to believe in devious Russian plans to reveal the truth to Americans. And that the Chinese are all angels and have no influence operations of note whatsoever. The whole scenario that Muller tried to paint is an insult to the intelligence, which casts a poor light on Wray because he had presumably read and understood the report.
> It didn't exonerate the Trump campaign either.
I'm going to be polite and listen to your opinion despite you likely not being exonerated for any horrible crimes.
That was always political weasel language, and goes a long way to discrediting Muller as purposefully adding spin to the situation. He was looking very hard for a problem and couldn't find anything. When the politicians are forced back to insinuation that means they don't have any actual evidence - because if they have it they lead with it.
It's virtually impossible for the government to do its job without the private individuals and institutions "actively cooperating" with them. Nearly all interactions between the government and private institutions can be described that way.
> That is why it is a scandal and there are things like the 1st amendment that basically say "government shouldn't do this, it is illegal".
This is completely incoherent - the first amendment of course does not say that the government shouldn't cooperate with private individuals or institutions. Like how is it even possible to interpret the first amendment that way? I mean, it's very obvious you have no idea what you're talking about and your motivation here is entirely political, but how is it possible to get things so wrong?
I mean there are so many things wrong here, but one additional thing is that the Constitution enumerates and limits the power of the federal government. The Constitution does not grant the FBI any power whatsoever, except indirectly through the President.
What you're saying (rather extremely incoherently) amounts to saying President Trump was unconstitutionally abusing his powers to hurt his own campaign.
Also, this is how you started:
> the Muller report came out around the time he said that and basically debunked the issue as a serious problem
And this is where you ended:
> To take the Muller report seriously requires someone to believe in devious Russian plans to reveal the truth to Americans
> That was always political weasel language, and goes a long way to discrediting Muller as purposefully adding spin to the situation
And no the Mueller report doesn't insinuate - it extensively documents criminal ways in which Trump obstructed the investigation. He simply felt it was the job of Congress to act on the evidence he found.
Regardless, while you may call this “underwhelming” it’s actually hard proof of illegal activity. The FBI cannot censor people, period. That’s fascism and illegal in the US, per multiple Supreme Court rulings.
This effectively gives trump, et al a direct path to a lawsuit against the federal government and AGs of states cause to sue the federal government. It could very well (and imo will) lead to a church committee of sorts.
That said, not sure if the powers are established enough to just resist all of it (they might be).
That’s not even remotely true.
> That’s fascism
May I suggest looking up fascism?
Here, we see the merger of state and corporate power.
The problem isn't free speech.
The FBI emailing Twitter to report possible violations of Twitter's terms of service is not censorship and it is not illegal.
> This effectively gives trump, et al a direct path to a lawsuit against the federal government
The FBI reported to Trump during the 2020 election cycle. It was headed by his own handpicked director, under the supervision of his own handpicked Attorney General.
It's clearly the FBI asking "will anyone rid me of this troublesome priest".
Jail for everyone involved, these people need to be made an example of
What if the FBI only happened to report violations by Asians. Or only violations by women?
I guess it would not be censorship, and I guess it would not be not illegal either, but it would make people wonder if there is an agenda.
It’s as much about the violations reported as the violations left unreported.
It's worse than illegal, it's state funded goons acting to suppress US Citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
How about you take a look at the rules and consider which of them are wrong, and what got you into this situation in the first place.
Your compliance is appreciated.
Are they the TOS violation cops ala BSA?
What other companies were they helping in hunting down ToS violators?
This is not their scope of work and it has the appearance of impropriety by suggesting accounts that should be reviewed for suspension.
Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose accounts to review?
What crimes are vaccine sceptics guilty of? Given they had some sex crimes going on on the platform, where the mounds of those ToS review requests?
In the examples, are they alleging the potential crime or just saying, hey, guys, it looks like these accounts may be violating your ToS, can you take a look?
As for vaccine sceptics: there were a lot of people amplifying utter bullshit messages around that theme and arguably shutting those accounts down saved a bunch of lives. You may well disagree with that but in a fluid situation I can see why they did what they did. It does not deserve the beauty prize but since we're still learning how to deal with this social media thing where everybody has a megaphone that can reach around the world in a heartbeat I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. For the record, I'm pro-vaxx, but against mandatory vaccination.
What is the actual crime that precipitates their appetite to nonchalantly ask for review? Moreover, the CDC and govt officials, including Biden himself, spread bullshit messages about Covid and its vaccines.
Did they ask Twitter to suspend Antifa accounts because of the violent nature of some of their demos? Or people amplifying bullshit stories about cops such that "ACABs"? Where were they supplicating for those reviews?
As an independent it looks to me, the FBI trod dangerously close to censorship (as in the Government censoring speech unwanted by the gov).
That's possible, but only a judge will be able to determine that and possibly your ideas about censorship do not line up with the views of that judge. The questions is who will bring suit?
Um yes it fucking is. These fat cats operate on funds they steal from me under threat of armed men coming to my house to collect.
The least they can do is act according to their charter (taking down mafia, corrupt cops, white collar crime).
Patrolling twitter for ToS violations is fraud against the taxpayers who pay them to exist.
They did, for 4 years. I'd certainly be curious to see those emails, but they don't really fit the narrative of these "twitter files" threads.
The highly publicized examples of taking down tweets with nude images of Hunter Biden happened when Trump was president. Is everybody ignoring that fact in this story and just assuming that the FBI is aligned with the democrats regardless of who runs the executive branch?
their job is not to interfere with the 1st amemndment.
That includes content that isn't protected by free speech e.g. child pornography.
It’s ok to just say you don’t know sometimes.
Do such statutes even exist? I suspect the answer is no, and that the FBI is just engaging in extralegal, extrajudicial monkeyshines.
> If this information was never leaked then the people effected by the FBI’s secret speech suppression may never have known and would never had a chance to contest it in court.
From a certain point of view (which seems distressingly popular on HN lately) that’s considered a feature and not a bug.
> Bad actors use various methods to spread disinformation about voting, such as social media platforms, texting, or peer-to-peer messaging applications on smartphones. They may provide misleading information about the time, manner, or place of voting. This can include inaccurate election dates or false claims about voting qualifications or methods, such as false information suggesting that one may vote by text, which is not allowed in any jurisdiction.
> Help defend the right to vote by reporting any suspected instances of voter suppression—especially those received through a private communication channel like texting—to your local FBI field office or at tips.fbi.gov.
Guess this is in their purview.
In this milieu, I find all of this alarmism to be misplaced, and thus worth calling out.
That is only 1 VIP twitter recipient, not the total received by Twitter.
4. Between January 2020 and November 2022, there were over 150 emails between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth.
How is this constant? This is just 1 request every 7 days . I figured it would be more. Also, it's called the FBI. Their job is to investigate federal matters, which includes content on social social media. They do with with all major social networks. It's not just politics or the media, but things related to safety, terrorism, kidnaping, child exploitation, etc.
It seems like these files are becoming more and more underwhelming.