[stimpson_j_cat]

It's not a bug to disallow "distribution of hacked material" in your Terms of Service.

If you think it was political, you should certainly inform the FEC! They found that Twitter had acted "for commercial reasons and not for the purpose of influencing an election" so they'd appreciate the heads up.

[mardifoufs]

Which would've been more believable, if they literally did nothing about the thousands of tweets sharing the hacked Trucker rally database. And it wasn't just random accounts, a lot of major north American/Canadian newspapers shared articles that not only mentionned the hacks and hinted at where to find them, but also explicitly detailed the contents of the database.

[stimpson_j_cat]

Yes that's the go-to copypasta reply. ("Literally" here meaning "not literally.")

Twitter changed their policy in response to criticism of the Biden tweets to "no longer remove hacked material unless it’s directly shared by hackers or those working with them" including the rally database, and they restored previously removed tweets about Biden.

So by your own measure, very believable.

[mardifoufs]

That's very convenient! The problem is that they didn't enforce that policy before the laptop leaks either. Not in any significant way and no media outlet ever got their account banned for reporting on a hack before (or after).

[stimpson_j_cat]

The ~7000 QAnon accounts they banned don't fit your narrative I'm afraid.

There are now several intermediate steps they've added since then, like clear warnings [1]. This allows the account to stay active and still report on stolen data. Much better IMO, banning accounts is common practice, but too heavy-handed as to be the only tool Twitter has.

https://twitter.com/TheGrayzoneNews/status/13632755827845529...

[colpabar]

ah yes, because when a federal agency doesn't punish a multi billion dollar corporation, we all know it's because they definitely didn't do anything wrong. They're so trustworthy!

[TAKEMYMONEY]

Please refrain from replies without content. Why did the FEC fine the DNC and Clinton for violating rules related to the Steele dossier? My understanding is that the DNC also has a few dollars. Did they forget their bias?

[colpabar]

My point isn't about the FEC being biased, I just reject appeals to the authority of US federal agencies, because they aren't trustworthy. They don't (meaningfully) punish rich people, and they are usually staffed by various former/future C-level people from the organizations they're supposed to be regulating.

[TAKEMYMONEY]

Yes you said that already. I asked why they meaningfully punished a very rich entity in response.