Given what’s been found with Twitters censorship and governmental collusion, curious if the data they have is in the same vein and how people will react to it - if what they say is true
Specifically, (unless I missed some document) they received reports and acted on them independently. There were cases of "report received and acted on", but no proof of "action forced even though employee disagreed".
1. https://time.com/6286814/india-twitter-jack-dorsey-clash/
2. Elon Musk: https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el...
This whole Twitter Files thing was embarrassing mundane and the amount of censoring twitter does right now is 100x worse. Just look at the Turkish elections...
2. It is also bad when Elon Musk does it.
I am not interested in any back and forth of "well ackshually now its this percentage worse", I only have a desire for it to stop entirely.
Only recently did Twitter stop fighting back and Musk just announced it - it wasn't something hidden.
Capitulation is the cessation of resistance. It does not stipulate perpetuity. A person/entity can capitulate and then at a later point change their mind. This does not mean they never capitulated.
>Only recently did Twitter stop fighting back
Complying with censorship is not what I consider fighting back. Once you have aided the government in censorship at the moment when dissidents have the opportunity to create change, the damage is done.
>and Musk just announced it - it wasn't something hidden.
I did not state or imply that "it" was hidden.
What you're missing is it's ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do such a thing in the US by the US government, which is at the heart of the Twitter Files controversy. Censoring public discourse among the voting electorate especially concerning matters of national importance and electoral candidates is without question a form of election manipulation, which has, and will continue to, affect the outcome. So it is not wrong to say that our elections, or any elections amidst broad, systemic censorship/collusion by the government with contractors, academia and corporations, was a government-manipulated one.
With free speech one can accept that there will be inaccurate takes from all sides that have to be distilled and debated, but that stops when these ideas can't even be spoken about.
Ok. Could you quote specifically when that was documented to happen? As in actually forced by a government agency, not just links provided to Twitter as "you should check out these tweets".
In case my previous comment was misunderstood, I meant that: I have not seen any cases where Twitter was forced to do anything. Every case I'm aware of, someone provided a tweet/account and twitter employees made the decision themselves (sometimes agreeing, sometimes pushing back).
> What you're missing is it's ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do such a thing in the US by the US government, which is at the heart of the Twitter Files controversy.
You're still missing the point. Read the quoted text. You said once again you haven't seen that Twitter was forced to do anything.
The unconstitutional and illegal bit is the US government merely _asking_ Twitter to censor content.
Here's a bite-sized video of the EIP and Atlantic Council under CISA openly bragging about how they accomplish it - pressure them to draft policy, then pressure them to uphold those policies.
Coercion to self-regulate: https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1608688753052377088
The Election Integrity Project was also recently highlighted in this recent WaPO Article: https://archive.ph/PjiVe
With this retort citing direct conversations that highlight that succinctly lays out everything: https://rumble.com/v2t4bha-censorship-industry-decoded-ep.-1...
It bears repeating how these allegations would make it unconstitutional via Supreme Court precedent and the law of agency (citations within link): https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-...
It's not like any of this was a secret, either: CISA openly admitted such on their website and even tried to quietly scrub it. Thanks to the Internet Archive preventing a rewrite of history (archive.org links within): https://theohiostar.com/commentary/commentary-government-cen...
At the very least it's a civil action called 'tortious interference'; using Federal money (employee time) wrongly might rise to the level of 'fraudulent conversion'...
TI is when a 3rd party interferes with a the interactions between 2 parties. In this case the feds interfered with the user's use of Twitter.
The second is obvious, you spend Federal money on a wrong purpose , just like if you had employees help you remodel your house while they were supposed to be working.
Also known as complying with local laws.
It's always amusing when Americans realise that most of the world doesn't ascribe to their views on free speech.
And in fact governments with broad support from their citizens want social media companies to be regulated.
That's one form of "censorship and governmental collusion". There are others. Parts of government collude with companies outside of actual law too.
I never knew in the first place. Is this a solid fact? I find it hard to imagine people sharing cp via twitter.
And personally, yes, I came across accounts that were doing this. Seemed like they were mostly based outside of the USA, and the exploitation is usually something along the lines of someone using existing porn, advertising a series of link shorteners to access said porn, then profiting from the ad clicks. This is probably not profitable for anyone in a developed country, and is also probably only profitable due to child porn being outright banned from most of the internet, with no free access to material, people will jump through hoops to access said material. I'd been reporting those accounts for years to no avail until recently. Instagram has the same issue. I gave up on reporting on Instagram as I couldn't stomach seeing this stuff and my reports never had any results. The people sharing this stuff on Instagram fall into a few categories, occasionally parents, and other adults selling access to pictures/videos of their young children and toddlers in bikinis, something that would otherwise not be sexual, except that they are selling to an audience that is sexualizing it. Instagram will not take any of this down as it's not technically nudity. Maybe it's changed though. The other class of abusers are usually non USA based, and they'll exploit Instagram live to share, multiple broadcasters will be streaming, but one will be broadcasting hardcore child porn. You can only report one host of the stream, and by the time anyone looks at it, presumably, they've switched to another account to stream. It will usually be another broadcaster that was on the previous stream. I couldn't continue spending time reporting this stuff due to the hardcore nature of it. Instagram really needs to fix their reporting and allow reporting of every single broadcaster that is part of a live stream.
The FBI does not enforce supreme laws to which they are subject to, they have throughout their pathetic existence continue to routinely break laws largely with impunity.
No. The US executive branch via government agency can't tell a website to silence speech, that's a violation of the first amendement. That's exactly what happened with Twitter. Twitter didn't comply with any law, Twitter just did the binding of the US executive branch when it came to censorship. Completely unlawful.
They prefer a more managed version of it where hate speech, doxxing, abuse, defamation etc aren't rampant.