That's not how it works. How it works is that they come across something that is either illegal or that could snowball into a problem and it happens to violate the TOS. This gives them enough grounds to ask for a removal. If it isn't against the TOS but they feel that they need to have it removed anyway they'll go by a judge and get an order, or, if contact is good they might first ask you politely.

Presumably, those fielded by agents would, given the distribution of online crime, fall all over the political spectrum, then and would not lean one way or the other?

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?

Pretty much.

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.

>As for vaccine sceptics: there were a lot of people amplifying utter bullshit messages..."

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).

> 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?

I think we don’t know. All we’re being shown is what Taibbi is tweeting.

"It does not deserve the beauty prize" so the ends justify the means? Do you understand the historical equivalents of your position?

>That's not how it works.

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.

I suspect you landed on the wrong website.

>Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose accounts to review?

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.

What dep't made what kinds of requests to Twitter that were carried out?

My guess is every three letter agency, the White House, members of Congress, everybody. Just like the current admin and previous admin. They would all be in conversation with all the major social platforms, for lots of reasons.

> Imagine if you had the Trump admin suggesting whose accounts to review?

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?