Since this is true, then where else are political parties trying to get unflattering speech suppressed that we don't even know of yet?
Since this is true, then where else are political parties trying to get unflattering speech suppressed that we don't even know of yet?
Of course those requests can and will be made in a biased manner, and it's naive to assume that the nature of the request isn't going to influence how Twitter responds to it, but it's definitely a murky grey area at that point.
The wording probably matters too. The Biden team asked Twitter to "review" certain tweets instead of "remove" certain tweets. So technically they're not suppressing speech explicitly but implicitly we (and twitter employees) all know what they mean by "review".
I referenced the Biden team's verbiage because that's the only verbiage that was posted with the implied intent on getting tweets removed (besides the DNC). I'd love to see the email's from the White House asking for tweets to be removed.
Oh wait, it’s because clearly this information from a “Twitter source” (aka Elon) is disseminated with a viewpoint and is hardly impartial.
All of this should be viewed with extreme skepticism, and so far none of this seems damning in any way. I haven’t seen anything that says Elon is remotely operating in good faith.
The only solution is to not provide the power in the first place instead of trying to fix it with layers of easily bypassed rules. You can’t have easy censorship if there isn’t an established censorship system already in place.
A system that is limited by law and very fundamental policies is much less prone to abuse (ie, a constitutional republic with transparent but limited policy making power vs monarchical systems with backroom dealing by elites). The minute it became about broadly policing speech via backroom dealing was the minute it became wide open to abuse.
This creates a new kind of abuse. If Twitter has no way of removing illegal content from its platform, then your opponent can use that fact to post illegal content about you (i.e. hacked pictures of your naked body), and you have no recourse.
government used to be weary of any appearance of impropriety, lest people believe they are acting improperly -being slimy. That seems to have gone by the wayside.
two, if the requests were to suppress sensitive government information --secrets, ok, I might lend a sympathetic ear, if they could prove it was so (not because they said "take our word". But this is "don't make us look bad" --sorry, but no, it stays.
And now we are hearing the gov wants to amp up domestic surveillance. The ACLU and EFF, etc should get off their butts and perform their claimed duty. We're not China in that sense yet, but if we let them, we'll get there.
Voters used to punish politicians that seemed improper. They don't anymore. The Trump administration was the capstone on this, obviously, but the trend has been developing for decades.
The white house in this case was the Trump white house so it could have been received positively by the media that twitter is standing up to Trump by suing.
Could you elaborate on why you dont think it would be a free speech violation? Is internet communication not considered speech?
If Twitter decided to remove Hunter Biden content completely on their own, that would be legal. If Twitter decided to remove that content because someone asked nicely- regardless of who that person is, whether they are President or not- that would be legal. It's only a legal issue if the government forces Twitter to remove the content, which is not something Twitter has asserted.
https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622
The government pressuring private companies to censor is a First Amendment violation.
Otherwise what happens when the party in power changes?
"What happens when the party in power changes?" Twitter, like every other company, gets to decide whether or not they want to support or oppose the party in power, and if Twitter feels the government is violating their 1A rights, Twitter can sue them
You do understand that they can collude? It's funny we have spent countless hours hearing about Trump Russia collusion. Now suddenly people can't seem to figure out there is a thing called collusion.
Censorship of this story doesn't exist in vaccum. There is a legitimate argument why this shouldn't be investigated as election interference when we've spent countless hours based on Steele dossier, which turned out to be a political ploy.
There is nothing illegal about requesting review of tweets even through special channels. If Twitter actually has evidence of an illegal act to coerce the review then they should probably rehire whoever was coerced and file suit.
Collusion with a domestically owned bird app re revenge porn of your crackhead son: Worst scandal in US history
Got it.
Where is this information coming from?
The chart displays a breakdown of total employee contributions to the two political parties. As you can see, the "% to democrats" column contains 95%+ for the last 4 years. It would be safe to assume that this metric is a reasonable proxy for Twitter staff's political leanings.
Just to be safe I recommend you review the suite guidelines, specifically about assuming good faith when replying to comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No it wouldn't be because it doesn't way what percent of employees donate at all. I assume the percentage is pretty low because it's <$200,000 going to Democrats from the entire company.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/twitter/totals?id=D00006711...
Consider https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dscc-ads-ga - go through the pay with card and stop before you actual enter in any details.
The page will look like https://imgur.com/sNJFkjS
https://www.quora.com/U-S-Presidential-Campaign-Donations-wh...
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/keeping-r...
> For each contribution that exceeds $200, either by itself or when added to the contributor’s previous contributions made during the same calendar year, records must identify that contribution by:
Amount; Date of receipt; and Contributor’s full name and mailing address, occupation and employer. If a person has already contributed an aggregate amount of over $200 during a calendar year, each subsequent contribution, regardless of amount, must be identified in the same way.
Please note that contributions to authorized committees are aggregated on a calendar-year basis for recordkeeping purposes, but are aggregated on a per-election basis for purposes of monitoring contribution limits, and on an election-cycle basis for reporting purposes.
---
And thus open secrets is getting the aggregate data that and releasing that.
Please don't post this type of advice here or elsewhere. Don't think that if you are paying with a credit card in your name, that your employer information can't be easily determined if there is an FEC investigation of a candidate receiving a large number of contributions from "unemployed" people. You are telling people not only to break the law, but to do so in a very public way that is impossible for them to hide.
Always tell the truth in all legally required financial disclosures, especially when this is touching campaign financing.
Congress passed no laws in this regard. Whether or not this was illegal activity on the part of the Executive Branch is another question entirely -- and a good one.
The government "asking" a private entity to take some action is inherently coercive due to the power imbalance.
The executive branch can violate the first amendment…
But by this reasoning it sounds like the president could just create an executive order limiting free speech and that would be just fine? Is the president really aloud to create an executive order saying "anyone with red hair is no longer aloud to speak in public" (obviously silly example)?
Initiate a policy or order, mitigating the immediate damage. Then, days, months or years later, a court will decide you didn't have that power and will reverse it. But the threat or problem was already dealt with and there are no repurcussions except political capital spent.
They are instructions from the head of the executive branch (be it President or a state's governor) for an agency in the executive branch to do a certain thing.
For example: Executive Order 14087 of October 14, 2022 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/19/2022-22...
> HHS Actions. In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, the Secretary shall, consistent with the criteria set out in 42 U.S.C. 1315a(b)(2), consider whether to select for testing by the Innovation Center new health care payment and delivery models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including models that may lead to lower cost-sharing for commonly used drugs and support value-based payment that promotes high-quality care. The Secretary shall, not later than 90 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy enumerating and describing any models that the Secretary has selected. The report shall also include the Secretary's plan and timeline to test any such models. Following the submission of the report, the Secretary shall take appropriate actions to test any health care payment and delivery models discussed in the report.
This directs the Department of Health and Human Services (under the executive branch) to do certain things.
---
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex...
> Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:
> (a) secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism;
> ...
> (d) Except as otherwise noted, “the Secretary” shall refer to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
> Sec. 4. Physical Security of the Southern Border of the United States. The Secretary shall immediately take the following steps to obtain complete operational control, as determined by the Secretary, of the southern border:
Note again, the Department of Homeland Security is under the executive branch.
---
And so, the "could you create an executive order ordering {department} to arrest someone with red hair speaking in public?" The answer is "no" because the ability to arrest someone is under the Judicial branch - not the executive branch.
Secondly, you will note that all of the executive orders are citing the law under which the president (or governor) is given that authority from congress. To arrest a red head for speaking congress would need to have a law (First Amendment!) that allows the executive branch to silence someone.
---
I will also point out gag orders which are, well, fairly straight forward censorship. Except that the gag order is from the judicial branch - not the legislative branch.
https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/when-silence-isnt-g...
> The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
This is because the Constitution only authorizes Congress to make any laws in the first place, so only Congress could be guilty of making a law impacting speech. Taking all of the document in the narrow sense you’re taking it would mean the executive branch couldn’t limit speech either because they couldn’t do 99.9% of the things they do today in the first place.
The mainstream test just looks for a "state actor" but even if you want to go textualist, things probably break down like this: if a law empowers the executive to do an act that violates the First Amendment, the law itself is a violation of the First Amendment. If no law empowers the executive to do the action at issue, then the action is illegal by virtue of being in excess of the executive's authority.
Take the state actor doctrine in combination with the fact that the First Amendment is incorporated against the states, and you get the reality that it even applies to, for example, state colleges and universities disciplining students and teachers, despite them not being "Congress," a "law," or even an agent of the federal government at all.
Twitter officers conspired with rogue elements of the US government to defraud US citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
This is not a game. The people involved should be facing 30 year prison sentences.
If twitter bans me for spamming, do you think I can sue them?
Do we know what they contained? Were they threats? Spam? Copyright infringing? Disagreements about tax policy?
United States citizens have explicit rights, and corporate employees colluding with government officials to “voluntarily” nullify those rights are guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States
The government represents us, a collusion to defeat our rights is conspiracy against us and subject to civil and criminal action
It actually can not.
The dude behind you with a pipe in his hand asks for your car keys in the parking lot.
Is that ok? He just asked is all…
Could you describe the government at the time this action was taken? What relationship did the people asking Twitter to do things with the government? Did the people making the requests have any authority to direct any department of the Federal Government to take any action?
They committed conspiracy to defraud the United States, and will in due time be charged as such by the Department of Justice.
State employees who participated are traitors.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
They abused technology designed to prevent the spread of child pornography to censor information harmful to their preferred political candidate at the behest of government officials.
Would be curious on your take of what DeSantis was trying to do to Disney in FL? 30 years in prison for threatening Disney about its speech?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ron-desantiss-military...
For what crime, specifically?
> The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
"The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government."
What false statements/representations were made, by anyone?
In addition, they had to in some way "defraud the United States" which is: "They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality." - None of which apply.
For example, a teacher hired at a school cannot argue that they could not be expected to teach.
Much in the same way, a government employee cannot in good faith argue that they cannot be expected to uphold the constitution.
By secretly colluding with private companies (that the government has failed to regulate, I might add) to suppress otherwise constitutionally protected activity government employees are criminally liable
Bigly constitutional
Now, if there's lawmaking/regulation/rulemaking/enforcement aimed at Twitter by the executive branch, that's a very different thing.
But in this particualr case it's also sorta nonsensical. The stuff released today is about the Biden campaign, which was a private entity. Biden himself held no government position at all, so the point gets pretty strained.
But I think it is wrong for the white house to do anything that gifts the impropriety of restricting speech.
Given Elon Musk handling of other tweets, I doubt he was being transparent. That swastika post just gave him an excuse to remove Kayne.
In the daily business there is much less transparency.
Just look at the accounts that got suspended since Musk's takeover.
I saw an article about a bunch of antifa accounts, but they were posting how to disrupt protests with violence which seems like a pretty clear violation.
Of course mainstream TV and print "news" has been doing this for decades, but for some strange reason people assume they're somehow "better".
I personally think it's great all this is coming out, because it shows how dangerous and manipulative large media (in all forms) really is.
They say if you don't like it you can just start your own Twitter - but when Parler tried to do exactly that, Big Tech colluded to destroy it.
Might is doing a LOT of work in that statement. You know as well as I do stories get buried all over.
> If Twitter decides you're not allowed to read something, where else can you go?
Twitter is insignificant compared to Facebook, YouTube, Fox, CNN, and other global news outlets controlled by a handful of billionaires.
The much more important question is where do you go when THEY bury a story.
Now that we know the laptop is real, what do you think will come of it?
I suppose Musk is saving the real bombshell for... later?
Matt said that the Trump administration also participated in the censoring, yet he did not provide one single example.
Having "stuff they dislike" removed would be one thing, but using the direct line at Twitter for reporting explicit ToS violations isn't a big deal.
I'm getting increasingly annoyed by people pointing to those removed tweets as a smoking gun while being completely unaware that we know the contents of said tweet and said tweets can easily be interpreted as violating Twitter's ToS at minimum and actively violating California law at worst.
The pornographic images, to what extent they were shown in the NY Post, were redacted. The main function they played is in showing that the laptop contents couldn't have been fake.
Just because they want to offer up 10% to the big guy doesn't mean he took it.
If he was guilty he should have been prosecuted (and would have been). Would you be willing to say the same about Trump?
Then there was a NY Post story blocked by Twitter - that move is much harder to defend, but crucially it seems Twitter took it upon themselves to remove that story, with no evidence presented that the Biden campaign had anything to do with it.
A lot of the debate here seems to be conflating those two things.
So many people seem to conflate the requests for review of ToS violating messages with some kind of power the Democrats had to get Twitter to block the story.
If the Democrats had that kind of power and it was visible in the info available, no doubt this would be shown upfront. Instead we get pretty loaded (lying?) mentions of "requests from connected actors to delete tweets" when the message clearly mentions tweets to review.
In fact the answer "handled" doesn't even imply anything was deleted. Also this so called journalist didn't even try to see what had been deleted in the end to see if it wasn't just blattant ToS violations and worse, material that had really nothing much to do with the campaign in the first place. I fail to see how the right of some tweets of revenge porn to survive a few hours longer because they had to go through the regular queue of moderation was of any import.
It's easy to paint a team as having excessive influence on Twitter. Just have your own team post a lot of ToS abusing materials then later on show the stats of deleted tweets to show the "bias"
It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Someone who can put that up and think of it as a serious interpretation is not working from the same reality as most people.
EDIT It is hard to find, here is the link to the reasoning. It is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Twitter executives: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
Can anyone square this? It seems indefensible.
Regardless, I dont see any sense in it. I wonder if anywhere he can defend it.
I don’t support this as a grounds. It’s so flexible that you can see or not see it at will, so, you can give a charitable read to someone you like or a threatening read to someone you don’t. It also relies on mind reading.
Nevertheless a lot of people can read it that way.
No police were killed on that day, contrary to initial reports - but one protester was.
Trump never specifically called for violence but remarked to show protest “peacefully at the capitol” on Twitter. For the lack of evidence, the Jan 6 committee has been running in circles begging for people to step forward.
I don’t have to like Trump or support him to know this claim is asinine.
Also, I think any explainations from Twitter, considering who was running them, are one-sided and should not be taken on face value. That still is the case for who is running it now. I do not trust either for a remotely unbiased assessment.
Especially given that in the "pee tapes" trump is clothed while the women are nude and unknown individuals
The only point of the laptop saga is to cast doubt on Biden's integrity and to counter any sort of similar questions about Trump's.
This was yet another October surprise -- a spiced up rendition of Buttery Males v2.
Mueller also made a point of declaring that his report did not exonerate Trump: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-crime-po...
> the likelihood of some sort of kompromat on Trump is possible and probable.
What "kompromat" could possibly be a big enough deal to compromise Trump at this point? His enemies are trying to persuade the world that he attempted to overthrow the US government and he is still a top-10 candidate for the presidency in the next election.
How are foreigners meant to compete with that?
So often they'll reach for "it's different when my party does it because the other party are nazis/communists/russians/pedophiles/etc." It's just so tiresome and anyone outside the circus can see how unproductive it all is, but people in the thick of it really do see it as Marvel vs Thanos.
Seriously, Rudy Giuliani spent most of 2020 in Ukraine trying to dig up dirt on Biden. He would send his findings to the DoJ, and they were so out there that Barr had to set up a to quarantine the noise he was generating.
Then all of a sudden in a classic October surprise, a blind computer repairman finds out what he is in possession of, and instead of calling the FBI he calls none other than Rudy Giuliani.
And wouldn’t you know, what he has found is exactly the kind of bullshit Giuliani had been trying to dredge up in Ukraine for a year but couldn’t get past the DoJ.
So no, the provenance of this thing is in deep question.
I looked at the tweets mentioned by Taibbi in the Wayback Machine, and they didn't actually appear to be unflattering speech or even speech at all but rather photos. The first tweet, for example, was some explicit photos (which I assume would violate Twitter's rules whether or not they were of Hunter Biden).
Completely reasonable to have them removed.
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/revenge-porn-california-...
Twitter HQ is in California.
>Is it the fact that the person did not intend on those images being released? Do they have a claim if those images were no longer their property given the terms of service of the repair shop where the laptop was abandoned?
I can understand the repair shop owning the hardware and being able to wipe the data and resell it. But do those terms also give the repair shop the right to login to bank accounts via saved passwords and transfer money? Or use the SSNs to apply for loans? Where is the line drawn?
If your company HR's data including your SSN and bank account numbers were on a laptop they abandoned at a repair shop, does the repair shop get to post them on their website?
Are you arguing that it would be ok to post intimate pictures of you or someone in your family, or anybody, basically, without them explicitly agreeing to?
Are you seriously saying that a repair shop could take your personal data and publish it online as they wished because they just got access to your laptop (however they got it)?
In what world does a laptop repair shop has terms of services that would explicitly allow that?
> political parties... have a direct line to Twitter to get stuff they dislike removed
...to:
> in America you cannot say negative things about political leaders online
Twitter is not the internet. It's a tiny part of the internet. You can say whatever you want on many, many platforms. In fact, people can't stop talking about some of this stuff on HN and Reddit.
It's the whole internet in terms of journalist and politician communications.
The story was still up on the NY Post website.
Most people outside of your (and my) bubble don't read the news, don't pay much attention to politics, aren't particularly well educated, don't think very hard about who they're going to vote for (if they even vote), and if they use Twitter at all it's to post cat videos and keep up with the Kardashians.
You might not cross paths with this kind of person much in your daily life, but I promise you they're everywhere - and most of them would struggle to tell you what Joe Biden's son's name is, let alone what controversies he's been involved in.
But it's not there! All Taibbi has is some bland emails pointing out that the Biden administration requested Twitter look at a handful of tweets. That's it! Were they bad tweets? Was there salacious content censored? Did Twitter even remove them? We don't know! But Taibbi and Musk clearly want us to think this is bad, and most of the posters here seem to be on board.
Someone point me to the smoking gun here? Where's the actual censorship? Who said what that Biden managed to suppress? Where was the unfair moderation by Twitter?
I'm... a little stunned actually. This isn't just a non-story, it's almost a smear job.
Snippets of email conversations with the context removed. Why not share the whole email? If it’s this weak with this much context removal, the context must be pretty detrimental to the smear job.
What Biden administration? What government? This was in the summer of 2020.
I repeat: if that happened, it would be bad. The government, indeed, shouldn't be doing that. But Taibbi doesn't have the story! The evidence doesn't exist. He pushed this thing out, with Musk's backing, implying strongly (strongly enough to fool you) that he had evidence for this. But he doesn't.
You get that, right? It really feels like we're being played. They have Twitter emails from two years back but nothing incriminating from a month ago? That argues strongly that they don't have it.
I suspect your answer is going to rely, as I point out, on facts not in evidence. You are just assuming that (1) Twitter did as the Biden campaign demanded for political reasons and (2) the tweets were valid and should have been left up. And if those facts are true, you're right! That's not OK.
So now let's go back to the Taibbi article and see if you're right. And... you're not. He doesn't have that evidence. He just wants you to believe it, so he (and Musk) are pretending that the article says things it doesn't.
we've known about the business world having direct lines to governmental agencies for decades.
many have been screaming at the tops of their lungs for decades to remove these communication lines between religious leaders/industries and the government.
to add some very relevant context to this, we just saw texts between elon and kanye yesterday. kanye is running for president in 2024. all week long has been doing interviews attacking jewish people, praising hitler, and posting swastikas. again, elon has been texting directly with him as recently as yesterday.
this communication between political figures and industry seems to be entirely commonplace. is it right? i don't personally think so. i think its problematic as hell. but the problem is significantly larger than twitter. significantly larger. religions, extractive industries, transportation companies, etc.. etc... etc...
while some may personally have a problem with it, i'll believe elon thinks its a problem when he ceases communication with all political figures, including for business related reasons.
Have some perspective man or woman, you're acting like we're supposed to treat you like some babe in the woods and pretend this is genuinely shocking to you? Please. Yes, powerful governments influence actors within their nations. We get it. Let's all feign surprise for a few hours online.
But that's not what bothers me. The most frustrating thing is that your perspective fails to acknowledge how this is so painfully, hilariously, boringly mild compared to the corruption and abuses of power that are the baseline norm. It's like when people treat "gig workers" like they're the new 10-year-olds in a coal mine. Yes, all abuses of power are bad, we agree. But do you really expect us to pretend this is anything other than an extremely mild, boring footnote in the grand legacy of abused power?
Equally nonsensical point.
These same people that are "censoring speech" be removing some pictures from Twitter, create wars - ukraine the latest - risk nuclear war, print money at will disrupting huge numbers of people and plant narratives about "the economy needs to cool down", and this is somehow the biggest issue of the day. You can call it whataboutism, but if you're worrying about drops of water on the floor while there's a raging fire in the living room, and someone mentions the raging fire, is it really whataboutism?
The only things that I'd be concerned about are (a) why is it informal? and (b) what did Twitter do about the requests?
Re (a): This should not be an informal process based upon personal contacts. This should have been a well documented procedure, if for not other reason than to remove the appearance of bias. Sure, Twitter could have assigned a "case-manager" type of contact for each group. But the process for requesting such access should have been formalized (and reviewable).
Re (b): Having a direct line to flag to request review/removal of posts is fine. You can request all you want. It's only an issue if Twitter felt like they couldn't reject the request. Again, because it was an informal process, it's not possible to have any sort of comprehensive statistics on who requested what, how often, and how many requests were approved. And again, the biggest benefit would have been to avoid the appearance of any bias.
Many people (at least on Twitter currently) are conflating a "request" with a "demand". Just because some tweets were flagged doesn't mean they were removed. If they were removed, they might have been against the Twitter ToS and this back channel operated as a batch "report tweet" button.
I "request" Twitter to remove Tweets all the time. Normally it's a spam message... sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't.
My point is that as an informal mechanism, there is no way to know what was happening. We have no idea how many requests were made, and of those, how many were approved/denied/etc...
That is an issue, but the request itself isn't...
(Now, if any of these parties had unrestricted, automatic "veto" power over tweets they didn't like, then that would be a major issue. But thus far, I haven't seen that... but I'm still reading)
Trying to say censorship is fine as long as the current party in power also gets it like the last guy isn’t a persuasive argument.
You can’t abuse power you don’t have. We stopped letting monarchs control things via backroom dealings with their elite friends back in the 1700s for a good reason.
Creating a system with zero transparency that’s at the whims of whoever currently has power and influence is not a healthy way to build a system of governance.
Having a limited set of publicly defined powers + transparency is the only way to prevent abuse and biases. Neither an anarchist free-for-all nor a system directly controlled by elites and influence groups. Bias and power will always exist, all you can do is create systems that reduce those inherent risks in the most optimal way possible.
But backchannels can certainly be helpful. Twitter is the backchannel for customer service for many companies. But let's take HN as another case.
How many times has HN been used as an informal mechanism to get Google to fix something? There are few formal methods to contact Google customer support, so having an informal method (HN) has been quite helpful.
Is this an optimal method? Certainly not, but the existence of an informal communication method to request a review of a tweet is not an issue.
Google fixing broken things in the products? Sure I guess that’s good absent alternatives.
A whale type customer getting a backchanel to the CEO is also good for business.
Twitter using backchannels to censor what the influential parties want? I don’t see who that is valuable to. It doesn’t help Twitters business and I doubt it’s how the public expects their speech to be censored. So only really their friends at Twitter benefit? Or anoint themselves gatekeeper and public benefactor.
Idk why you keep bringing up “both sides do it” as some excuse. Of course both sides have power/influence over big tech employees. Even unelected ones. It is entirely natural for established institutions and powerful individuals to have influence.
That’s why you should build in protections and processes to prevent that from happening. And if you do end up doing it then be transparent… have a public list of times you censored tweets at the request of public servants and powerful individuals.
It’s for the public’s good right? It’s not just about their own personal gain…right?
It is well-known that Hannity among many others are in direct communication with republicans and directly coordinate their messages. Nobody bats an eye because nobody is surprised that Fox/Murdoch are conservative media despite an explicit mission to be "fair and balanced" news. Yet somehow reading emails from Democrats makes Twitter a complete traitor to their mission.
(c) The lack of transparency around this process.
People get things resolved via Hacker News when people comment on CEO account comments (Stripe comes to mind).
Nearly every company probably has direct lines of access for resolutions for VIPs, politicians not excluded.
Politicians should be excluded from what you're talking about IMO.
They're elected to serve the people and stand for our American beliefs including the freedom of speech. A political party (the DNC in this case) getting tweets removed probably isn't a 1st amendment violation. But it's really shady and anyone from government (the white house in this case) getting tweets removed is likely violating the first amendment (or coming REALLY close to it).
Can I kick you out of my hours if I disagree with your view?
Can I kick you out of my bar if I disagree with your views?
Can I kick you out of my platform if I disagree with you?
Wealthy people in America have access?
Nobody reached out to me but I think even a statistician skeptic would have to entertain the idea that there's some "red phone" style back channel between them mods that occasionally is triggered.
I pulled the article and replaced it with a description of what happened because out of sincerity I felt compelled to follow in whatever footsteps those were. I never got an explanation about it.
Kind of a pity. I had been working on a book on tech and mental health but I abandoned it. Seems like it's an obvious topic these days
A nobel prize awaits discovery of the scale equation for when the law begins to exert force, theorizing anti-hypocrisy particles.
Both are slimy and abusive but the latter is a violation of constitutional rights.
> It [the system] was based on contacts.
This reminds me of past "you have to know an employee to get you ban fixed" discussions about not-Twitter here.
I'm now wondering about a general - as in not specific to any one company - "favors for friends" culture at the brand-name tech places, over what I guess would be called a "rule of law" culture.
How is that not directly helping people you know?
This is the historical norm not anything new. This is very true about Fox News, CNN, and especially all the other "old media" major (alphabet soup) networks
Speaking internationally, there's no stronger propaganda force than the US. Americans very often fail to acknowledge this when criticizing "foreign election meddlers" (which the US has BY FAR the longest and most egregious record of doing)
A brief perusal of Twitter would reveal that, yes, you totally can, and people totally do, and you're making much ado over not much at all.
I'll bet most big corporations advertising on Twitter have one too.
What if there was, say a spy, that was being outted?
Government and politics has an interest here because statecraft has a need to veto things if they want to be effective.
I would say its not a huge leap to think that.
I would even say its more than just other social media platforms. I would say it goes into main stream media on BOTH sides, Hollywood, sports, etc including global corporations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI&ab_channel=Shoot...
They lost anyway, but we have no idea what kind of effect they had and what stories were suppressed.
Zuckerberg said it himself on Joe Rogan, it's been common knowledge for years now, only contrarians and stubborn shills claimed otherwise
Algorithms, Shmalgorithms - in the end it's just some guy in the backroom who is takimg phone calls from the political commissars, just like in the old Soviet Union and nowadays China...
Absolutely everywhere.
The previous White House admin saw their press secretary’s account suspended because the campaign didn’t like the fact that she tweeted about this story.
The current White House likely wouldn’t see that same fate.
People say it’s a hard problem to define the limits of content moderation, but when you have politicians and influence groups sending lists of tweets to silence and the only response is “thanks we handled it” then obviously the limits have gone out the window.
We don’t have to have a free-for-all to massively reduce the risks in the current system.
Limitations and transparency are what defines a good system of governance. Bias in administrations will always exist, but honesty and shining sunlight on it is the only thing that will stop it from turning into a cancer.
The “White House” was trump at the time.