<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>partiallypro</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s all well and good, and I am not a fan of Elon&amp;#x27;s latest moves toward Twitter (banning some journalists and sources of freely available information on other platforms), but the FBI has absolutely no right to try to get a private company to stop free speech. That&amp;#x27;s a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. This is a story because the FBI has absolutely no business doing this. There is no &amp;quot;framing&amp;quot; in that, the FBI has overstepped its bounds, forget Twitter and Elon Musk.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve seen people here say, &amp;quot;this is normal&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the FBI is making no threats, so no big deal.&amp;quot; That viewpoint is very problematic and has a fundamental lack of understanding about how federal agencies coerce private companies to do their bidding. I&amp;#x27;ve seen other comments &amp;quot;it didn&amp;#x27;t happen that often, only once a week,&amp;quot; it should have never happened at all. Unless there is something that is a threat to an investigation, jury identity, literally against federal law, etc...the FBI has absolutely no business doing this. I&amp;#x27;m baffled it has any sort of support.</text><parent_chain><item><author>angelbreakfree</author><text>The wildest part of the Twitter files is the unhinged framing that they are presented under.&lt;p&gt;1. Anyone who has been in a tech company knows that there is internal lingo that refers to features we devs make. But it&amp;#x27;s presented as being an &amp;quot;Orwellian language&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;2. Based on the emails he posts, the agencies give links to review based on tips they receive or their own intel and twitter then decides if it violates ToS or not (and they sometimes did not act or simply temporarily suspended). But it&amp;#x27;s presented as a &amp;quot;deep state&amp;quot;-like collusion where the agencies control if twitter act on them or not.&lt;p&gt;3. The people in the company discuss internal matters and are sometimes critical of potential decisions. But they are presented mostly stripped of context and the focus is on anonymized employees snarky comments to make it seem like decisions were arbitrary, partisan, and without any regard to logic or context.&lt;p&gt;I could go for hours listing these.&lt;p&gt;Most quote tweets are people thinking this confirms a suspected malicious intent from twitter and that they intentionally dramatically shifted the outcomes while colluding with one side.&lt;p&gt;If anything, this confirms that Twitter acted (outside of a couple isolated occurences) in a way tamer way than I ever imagined them acting while handling the issues at hand.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Formatting</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Twitter Files, Part Six</title><url>https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rlt</author><text>&amp;gt; Based on the emails he posts, the agencies give links to review based on tips they receive or their own intel and twitter then decides if it violates ToS or not (and they sometimes did not act or simply temporarily suspended). But it&amp;#x27;s presented as a &amp;quot;deep state&amp;quot;-like collusion where the agencies control if twitter act on them or not.&lt;p&gt;This is an extension of the whole “Three Felonies a Day” idea: it’s likely any prolific account will violate Twitter Terms of Service at some point, so you can target almost anyone by looking hard enough.&lt;p&gt;And Twitter is likely to look harder at reports from the FBI than your average user, therefore the FBI has more influence over who they can silence. Maybe they’re abusing it, maybe they’re not, either way it feels improper at best.</text><parent_chain><item><author>angelbreakfree</author><text>The wildest part of the Twitter files is the unhinged framing that they are presented under.&lt;p&gt;1. Anyone who has been in a tech company knows that there is internal lingo that refers to features we devs make. But it&amp;#x27;s presented as being an &amp;quot;Orwellian language&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;2. Based on the emails he posts, the agencies give links to review based on tips they receive or their own intel and twitter then decides if it violates ToS or not (and they sometimes did not act or simply temporarily suspended). But it&amp;#x27;s presented as a &amp;quot;deep state&amp;quot;-like collusion where the agencies control if twitter act on them or not.&lt;p&gt;3. The people in the company discuss internal matters and are sometimes critical of potential decisions. But they are presented mostly stripped of context and the focus is on anonymized employees snarky comments to make it seem like decisions were arbitrary, partisan, and without any regard to logic or context.&lt;p&gt;I could go for hours listing these.&lt;p&gt;Most quote tweets are people thinking this confirms a suspected malicious intent from twitter and that they intentionally dramatically shifted the outcomes while colluding with one side.&lt;p&gt;If anything, this confirms that Twitter acted (outside of a couple isolated occurences) in a way tamer way than I ever imagined them acting while handling the issues at hand.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: Formatting</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Twitter Files, Part Six</title><url>https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128</url></story>