[viraptor]

> which is at the heart of the Twitter Files controversy

Ok. Could you quote specifically when that was documented to happen? As in actually forced by a government agency, not just links provided to Twitter as "you should check out these tweets".

[torpid]

A person who is more concerned about the source or origin of potential evidence rather than weighing the merits on the content itself isn't engaging in a good faith discussion.

[viraptor]

Did you respond to the wrong comment? I'm literally asking you to show us the content itself which corresponds to what you've written above. Please link to specific examples of the illegal and unconstitutional activity from the US Gov.

In case my previous comment was misunderstood, I meant that: I have not seen any cases where Twitter was forced to do anything. Every case I'm aware of, someone provided a tweet/account and twitter employees made the decision themselves (sometimes agreeing, sometimes pushing back).

[evandale]

> They've been shown to follow the law in jurisdictions where it's lawful for the government to censor citizens' speech.

> What you're missing is it's ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do such a thing in the US by the US government, which is at the heart of the Twitter Files controversy.

You're still missing the point. Read the quoted text. You said once again you haven't seen that Twitter was forced to do anything.

The unconstitutional and illegal bit is the US government merely _asking_ Twitter to censor content.

[satvikpendem]

We are asking where the US government is asking Twitter to censor content? Or is the point that no one has asked yet but if they did, it'd be illegal?

[stjohnswarts]

Cite where it's illegal or unconstitutional. The US government makes deals with private corps all the time, and Twitter is under no legal requirement to publish anything that it doesn't want to.

[torpid]

I was replying to yours and took issue with what seemed to be a dismissal of allegations based on where or how these allegations are communicated. My understanding of these specific first amendment violations is in part based on the revelations by Mike Benz, former US State Dept official who is behind the Foundation for Freedom Online. He asserts Twitter Files are the tip of the iceberg.

Here's a bite-sized video of the EIP and Atlantic Council under CISA openly bragging about how they accomplish it - pressure them to draft policy, then pressure them to uphold those policies.

Coercion to self-regulate: https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1608688753052377088

The Election Integrity Project was also recently highlighted in this recent WaPO Article: https://archive.ph/PjiVe

With this retort citing direct conversations that highlight that succinctly lays out everything: https://rumble.com/v2t4bha-censorship-industry-decoded-ep.-1...

It bears repeating how these allegations would make it unconstitutional via Supreme Court precedent and the law of agency (citations within link): https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-...

It's not like any of this was a secret, either: CISA openly admitted such on their website and even tried to quietly scrub it. Thanks to the Internet Archive preventing a rewrite of history (archive.org links within): https://theohiostar.com/commentary/commentary-government-cen...