If the FBI had this ability they didn't use it very well.  Twitter staffed people to manage this project and .

 The thing about "backdoor" claims is that it pisses people off, so it's an overused term in my opinion to rile people up.  Anytime any organization wants access to something they call it "backdoor" this and "backdoor" that.

 As usual it comes down to personal definitions.  Backdoor access, to me, means the FBI can access information on Twitter using FBI staff and resources.  They have access.  

 If the FBI needs Twitter to compile and hand over information, they do not have backdoor access.

I disagree with you on this Eegore. When the FBI applies pressure to social media companies by telling them to censor content under the false pretense that the information is fabricated to effect an election in one direction (when in fact they did that to effect the election in another direction) and the effect of that is people using this platform as a means to express themselves, having been told this was a means to publicly do so, are forbidden to do so, is a 1st Amendment case.

Still not about legalities.
It's the fact that someone chose to crush the voices of everyone who engaged in Wrong speak
And the GOVERNMENT asked them to.
So, two bad actors.
Government and tech.
It's
FUKKING
WRONG

Eegore wrote on 11/04/22 at 20:43:29:


Would that be kinda like a 'baker' of cakes' ?

Eegore wrote on 11/04/22 at 20:43:29:



It's wrong
For government to use them to crush the voices of everyone who engages in WrongThink.
It's wrong to play along with it.

Just because you CALL something Mis or Dis information, that doesn't make it so.
And even If it's incorrect, the answer is not to cut out your tongue, but to have the conversation.

Don't you see what tyranny you are agreeing with?

I think what you’re failing to see is when social media platforms become so prevalent, so widespread that the government intervening in what gets published in order to affect an election in a manner that they want, is the same as if the government directly censored information. It’s a subtle difference that wouldn’t apply to a small newspaper with a subscription 500 but it does apply to social media platforms that reach the vast majority of the population. Even if you don’t have anything to do with social media, don’t have an account etc, the fact is their presence impacts the lives of everyone else because they control so much of the information whether directly or indirectly.

I agree there are nuances in this argument that make it impossible to draw on historical examples because there are no historical examples. This is unchartered territory.

Eegore wrote on 11/06/22 at 07:30:24:


Did the FBI ask Twitter to remove his posts claiming they were fabricated by Russia because they felt it would help their preferred candidate win an election? Otherwise, that’s not a valid comparison.