Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Translation: While I agree that they didn't compel anyone to do anything, if I repeat it often enough credulous MAGAMorons like me will believe it.
|
Translation - I'll just call you names 'cuz I got nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Twitter's own lawyers refuted Musk and Taibbi's assertion of coercion in court filings:
[I]“Nothing in the new materials shows any governmental actor compelling or even discussing any content-moderation action with respect to Trump” and others participating in the suit, Twitter argued.
|
So what? That asserts they didn't flag posts about Trump.
The FBI indeed flagged specific posts for Twitter to "moderate". This includes FBI requests to act against posts on accounts with few "followers" on Twitter.
Who cares if they weren't about Trump. What legitimate role does the FBI have in flagging specific posts and telling Twitter they need to take action on them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.”
|
No government actors? "DHS worked with "security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content." The DHS outsourced the "coercive action" to third parties.
Describing the Twitter-FBI relationship as "The master-canine quality," Taibbi said that this came through in this November 2022 email, in which "FBI San Francisco is notifying you" it wants action on four accounts: One account on the list tweeted mostly satire, but Twitter employees still rushed to "look for reasons to suspend" the account for "civic misinformation."
Yoel Roth was getting 150 emails a month from the FBI with specific "moderation requests". "In an internal email from November 5, 2022, the FBI's National Election Command Post, which compiles and sends on complaints, sent the SF field office a long list of accounts that 'may warrant additional action'," he (Talibbi) added.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.”
|
The FBI calls you or emails you and directs you to take action. Is your first response to do it? Or is your first response to not do it and wait to see what the FBI's response is?
Not very compelling arguments you're making in light of the facts, Finn.