FBI / Social media collusion with career politicians

[temporal1]

The doctor who exposed this portal through litigation is named Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai.

Sigh. So many celebrity political figures promoting iffy controversies.

And Shiva seems to spend a lot of time and energy filing lawsuits and publicizing them, losing the lawsuit, but winning the publicity. Which makes him a celebrity.

Shiva's case was dismissed. I think this is a good description of the case:

On September 1, 2020, the plaintiff learned that he had lost the 2020 Massachusetts Republican primary senate race. Shortly after, the plaintiff and his volunteers issued Freedom of Information Act requests to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office and over a dozen jurisdictions respectively, seeking ballot images, log files, voters lists, and other election records. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiff tweeted the false claim that Massachusetts had “destroy[ed] over 1 million ballots,” citing communications with a Massachusetts elections attorney.

The defendants notified Twitter through the Partner Support Portal that the plaintiff was spreading election misinformation. The platform subsequently removed the plaintiff’s tweets and suspended his account on September 26, 2020. The plaintiff filed a complaint on October 20, 2020, arguing that the reporting of his tweets, subsequent takedown, and the suspension of his accounts were in violation of his First Amendment rights.

My view:

1. Twitter is a private company. They aren't bound by the 1st Amendment.
2. Massachusetts, on the other hand, is a branch of the government, and they are bound by the 1st Amendment (via the 14th Amendment). But they didn't seem to demand that Twitter take his posts down, they simply told Twitter that his posts were false. That's an important difference.
3. Shiva's claims were clearly false, but he continues to make them in public without getting arrested. His 1st Amendment rights seem to be intact.
4. If Shiva wanted to demonstrate that they are true, he could take them to court with some evidence, or persuade electoral boards with some evidence. But he prefers YouTube.

On August 10, 2021, the case was voluntarily dismissed and all parties agreed that there was no remaining controversy between them.

Because he didn't have the evidence to win in court.

“celebrity?” - i never heard of Dr Shiva.
however, the central question posed in several posts above, P.5-6, and some elsewhere,
are questioning government over reach by way of well-intentioned but unrestricted policies put in place during knee-jerk reactions to 9-11-2001 / DHS / DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY / THE PATRIOT ACT. Awesome language! Easy to trust!

so, these would be deemed legal - the questioners are asking, “should they be legal?”
of course those implementing them are satisfied.

it’s smilar to the overturn of RvW.
abortions were legal, popular, profitable, none of which makes them either Constitutional or morally correct.
1) the USSC is to rule on Constitutionality; 2) churches, communities/states, individuals determine morality;
3) the market depends on profits.

nothing is improved or corrected unless some have the willingness to observe, think, ask hard questions.

(i happen to recall) some were wise enough to foresee future abuse of power right away, questions about DHS and The Patriot Act.
esp in times of duress/emergencies, not all decisions are wise. there was tremendous emotion/confusion following 9-11-2001.

If i recall, on this forum, Mr Jim was an early questioner of DHS / The Patriot Act.

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE,
but, prevention requires unusual presence of foresight often lacking.

i do not expect you to read text or listen to videos/tapes, or respond to them.
let’s not pretend we’re talking about the same things. that changes the topic to something else and gets confusing.

the most recent bend in this thread is, in retrospect, questioning the wisdom of DHS / HOMELAND SECURITY / THE PATRIOT ACT.
several years and a few presidents have passed, there are examples of implementation to review.

in this thread, and the other, Twitter thread, the main questions are about gov collusion with social media -
in another thread, military over reach is another serious component of these questions.

P.17 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=160

P.4 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... 9&start=30

[Josh]

Funny how “Twitter is a private company” doesn’t seem to extend to the current government harassment of Twitter for changing some of its moderation practices. Try again, Boot.

[Ken]

Funny how “Twitter is a private company” doesn’t seem to extend to the current government harassment of Twitter for changing some of its moderation practices. Try again, Boot.

Don't you get tired of being wrong about everything Josh?

The government isn't interested in twitter's moderation practices. If Elon wants to turn twitter into Gab or Parler or Truth-Social that is his business.

What the government is interested in is whether Twitter continues to comply with data privacy laws which it is obligated to do so by law and by previous consent decree due to Twitter's history of data privacy violations.

Do you think it is a bad thing to expect Twitter to comply with the same data privacy standards as other data firms?

[Bootstrap]

Funny how “Twitter is a private company” doesn’t seem to extend to the current government harassment of Twitter for changing some of its moderation practices. Try again, Boot.

What government harassment for changing moderation practices, Josh? Please be specific and provide evidence. When I look, I can't see evidence that this is happening.

[Josh]

Funny how “Twitter is a private company” doesn’t seem to extend to the current government harassment of Twitter for changing some of its moderation practices. Try again, Boot.

Don't you get tired of being wrong about everything Josh?

The government isn't interested in twitter's moderation practices. If Elon wants to turn twitter into Gab or Parler or Truth-Social that is his business.

What the government is interested in is whether Twitter continues to comply with data privacy laws which it is obligated to do so by law and by previous consent decree due to Twitter's history of data privacy violations.

Do you think it is a bad thing to expect Twitter to comply with the same data privacy standards as other data firms?

It’s entirely targeted political harassment. Do any of us seriously expect to have any “privacy” on social media sites? Absolutely not.

[Josh]

Funny how “Twitter is a private company” doesn’t seem to extend to the current government harassment of Twitter for changing some of its moderation practices. Try again, Boot.

What government harassment for changing moderation practices, Josh? Please be specific and provide evidence. When I look, I can't see evidence that this is happening.

#1. Musk takes over twitter and announces big changes, supporting free speech, and less left-wing censorship.
#2. A lot of Twitter’s radical left wing liberals get mad and quit because they don’t want to obey their boss.
#3. Within one week, the FTC is issuing pressers about how it plans “enforcement”.

The federal government’s position is, apparently, you have to keep far-left radicals on staff. If you fire them or they quit, they will try to financially ruin you and bring “enforcement” action. This is entirely political and has zero to do with protecting consumers.

If the government is concerned about consumers… perhaps they should look a bit closer into FTX which just lost $10 billion in customer deposits. FTX marketed itself as an alternative to a bank account, complete with debit card and bill pay. Many people are completely financially ruined now.

Zero enforcement action from the FTC. FTX’s principals are all Americans.

[Bootstrap]

Funny how “Twitter is a private company” doesn’t seem to extend to the current government harassment of Twitter for changing some of its moderation practices. Try again, Boot.

What government harassment for changing moderation practices, Josh? Please be specific and provide evidence. When I look, I can't see evidence that this is happening.

#1. Musk takes over twitter and announces big changes, supporting free speech, and less left-wing censorship.
#2. A lot of Twitter’s radical left wing liberals get mad and quit because they don’t want to obey their boss.
#3. Within one week, the FTC is issuing pressers about how it plans “enforcement”.

#1 is accurate.

#2 is not. Musk fired 1/2 of the company, including most of the executive team. Yes, some people also quit, but that's a tiny number of people compared to those who were fired.

#3 completely mischaracterizes what actually happened, unless there's something I don't know. Perhaps you are shoehorning this into one of your predefined narratives?

As Politico reported:

Elon Musk’s Twitter came under sudden and unusual fire from the Federal Trade Commission in Washington Thursday, after a chaotic 24 hours in which new subscription rules triggered a raft of fake “verified” accounts, and key privacy and security executives quit.

Last night’s rollout of a new policy in which Twitter users could purchase “blue check” verifications for $8 a month uncorked a wave of bogus accounts, each bearing a blue “verified” check, impersonating a swath of public figures — former President Donald Trump, former President George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani and President Joe Biden.

We have seen stock prices plunge because someone impersonated their account and posted scary Tweets. And the impersonators had accounts that said "verified", because they paid $8. When someone did the same to Musk, her account was immediately terminated. So that's the context.

Here's what the FCC actually said:

We are tracking recent developments at Twitter with deep concern,” adding that "no CEO or company is above the law, and companies must follow our consent decrees.”

The two consent decrees say:

1. You can't collect people's cell phone numbers to secure their account, then sell their cell phone numbers to advertisers without their knowledge or consent.
2. You have to do your best to protect people's private data from hackers.

As far as I can tell, the FCC did not say that it "plans enforcement". If it did, could you please provide a link to a reliable source for that claim? As far as I can tell, the FCC said that Twitter needs to follow laws that have nothing at all to do with conservative versus liberal views. Just as they did before Musk took over. These consent decrees came from the time during which you say Twitter was run by "radical left wing liberals", they apparently apply to Musk just exactly the same way.

[Josh]

Twitter did not list impersonated accounts as “verified”. The blue check just said “this account has paid for Twitter Blue”. Existing verified accounts said the person was a famous person, etc.

[temporal1]

Up next: YouTube - ??

“YouTube CEO quits as FEDS get ready to drop the hammer on censorship” | Redacted with Clayton Morris / 8min

Description:
“The CEO of YouTube Susan Wojcicki announced that she will step down.
She says that she wants to focus on her family, health and personal projects.
That’s nice for her but she may still have to testify before the House Judiciary Committee to comply with recent subpoenas about “censorship” collaboration.
Under Wojcicki, YouTube has been one of the strictest platforms for censorship
and we've never been given reasons why.
She has named YouTube Chief Product Officer Neal Mohan to replace her.
Will we get answers from him?”

Falco - From Page 1: Throwing elections

^^ To clarify, i’d never heard of CHD, i know little of this Kennedy (or others).

My interest in the above post is about questions of Big Tech/social media’s strong lib bias - in the U.S. and abroad.
Big money, big rules, big influence.

Which results in throwing elections - before they are held - in the U.S. and abroad.

The U.S. is sadly far removed from what was once HIGHLY valued,
“i may not agree with you, BUT, i will defend your right to disagree.” A great loss.

That was classical liberalism.
What we have now is post-liberal progressivism, all very comfortably ensconced in our institutions. (Neomarxist in inspiration.).
They no longer believe in the classical liberal order of things order of things.

They're better than that. They've moved on. They're communists, basically.

Eyes wide shut.

[temporal1]

BABYLON BEE

“Is The FBI Listening To Your Phone Calls?” / -5min