We are discussing whether the event is notable, not if it is legal. And as someone not from the US, I care more about making people aware that Twitter collaborates with the US to help spread their govt. propaganda (in the same way I would want them to know if the doctor they're discussing smoking with is employed by the tobacco industry), than whether Twitter complies with laws written by that same government.

I.e. claiming no laws were violated (hypothetically) is as much a defense of Twitter as claiming TikTok hasn't broken Chinese law.

People should definitely know. For any government and public-facing system, that government will use that public-facing system to achieve its ends.

Sometimes this is asking that system to print a PSA. Sometimes this is asking that system to maintain propaganda accounts.

This definitely exists, and I'm not sure why people think it wouldn't.

We can complain, but the real remedy is to put laws in place if this is something we really care about.

The First Amendment:

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's since been expanded through court cases to extend from congress to every government entity including local ones.

The government is constitutionally forbidden from meddling with the press, even through private entities via the 14th amendment. The FBI and CIA meddled with twitter. The particulars aren't relevant. They're expressly forbidden from doing what they did.

This isn't true asking for your post to be removed doesn't violate your rights. It would if requests were accompanied by legal threats. Twitter is the one removing content and with every right to do so.

This doesn't mean the government can't make requests to private companies, including the press.

Government “requests” are usually treated as directives, since it’s well understood that they have many seemingly unrelated ways to make life difficult for a company and its officers.

That’s not even true for Twitter.

https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests...:

> Overall, Twitter withheld or otherwise removed some or all of the reported content in response to 51% of global legal demands, down 5% from the previous reporting period.

Your category is "global" "legal" requests i.e. take-down requests. The FBI has special access and its requests aren't included in that report.

The FBI was issuing these sorts of requests. I’d welcome specific evidence to the contrary.

Good idea, it's high time this practice gets banned

I am a strong supporter of the intelligence community when it is focused on its correct mission of nation-state hostiles, real terrorists like Bin Ladin & international/federal criminals, but I think the government overstepped the line in multiple ways that favored partisan political campaigns and certain parties. Though I believe firmly that these institutions are vital to our success as a nation, I also think they can be internally weaponized against specific groups, and that is going on currently.

It is pretty clear that these are Hatch Act violations which is about preventing your tax dollars being put to use as a part of partisan political campaigns, which is what happened.

Civilian "unempowered" agencies fall under the Less Restricted Hatch Act category, and certain Agencies like the IC, fall under a more stringent part of this, the Further Restricted category, see [1]

Some of these IC members in the Further Restricted Category were prompting BigTech censorship, or, running defense for the "Laptop from Hell" story, similar to some of the things they did back in the 60s when they were involved with unlawful activities regarding Civil Rights and Civil Liberties campaigns.

I'd argue in favor of:

(1) Strengthening the Hatch Act

(2) Handling Constitutional violations by the IC under the Hatch Act

(3) Prosecutions of the Hatch Act under existing Law

(4) Clearance revocations

(5) Removal of Section 230 protections for BigTech when acting as an agent of govt censorship

(6) Budget cuts / Budget reformations for some select Federal Agencies, FBI being foremost

(7) Forced retirement / exit from federal service of those involved in these behaviors.

(8) Debarring of contractors involved in some of these heinious activities

(9) Strengthening Federal Acquisition Regulation

(10) Diffusion of Federal Agencies HQs throughout the United States to prevent centralization in overly partisan areas

(11) Applying Diversity & Inclusion to political parties and other important characteristics of job seekers

(12) Adding restrictions or longer "Cooling Off Periods" for the revolving doors between IC, Congress, BigTech, Lobbyists, and the Consultant Class.

[1] https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx