[Zuider]

Not just any service. For instance, Apple refused to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone belonging to one of the late prime suspects in the San Bernadino massacre. Wikileaks is refusing to co-operate with the CIA. Microsoft is resisting the FBIs demand to conduct so-called 'sneak and peek' searches on emails held on foreign servers.

Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down.

[anarazel]

> Not just any service. For instance, Apple refused to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone belonging to one of the late prime suspects in the San Bernadino massacre. Wikileaks is refusing to co-operate with the CIA. Microsoft is resisting the FBIs demand to conduct so-called 'sneak and peek' searches on emails held on foreign servers.

Oh, for crying out loud. These are absolutely apples and oranges. Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data; in this case we're talking about public and payments data. Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws. Wikileaks, wait, what?

> Bowers also had profiles on Twitter and facebook which were probably just as nasty, but we are not hearing any calls to shut those services down.

Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable.

[Zuider]

You said:

>That ANY service is going to [provide the data on a suspect to law enforcement]?

Are the aforementioned not services?

>Apple refusing to unlock - wasn't about disclosing readily available data;

They refused to provide information required by the FBI to investigate an extremist attack. And there was data that was not readily available to the public in the Bowers' profile.

> Microsoft v US has been mooted by a change of the relevant laws

So what? It was still data that law enforcement wished to acquire in order to investigate criminal activity, in this case organized crime.

>Wikileaks, wait, what?

I am sure the authorities are very interested in who was responsible for leaking classified information. Something Wikileaks refuses to provide.

>Yes. Their monitoring isn't great, but they do some. Not comparable.

'Not comparable'? Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitic rants are directly 'comparable' for one, and he is not alone. Twitter's 'monitors' appear to be more concerned with influencing elections than removing extremist content.

Also, try searching Youtube for 'six gorillion' or 'six million lies'. Reporting the content that is revealed appears to be completely ineffective. Again, such 'censorship' as is done is largely concerned with influencing elections.