This is a bigger story than it seems in that it describes how our culture has become “post Constitutional.”
A Facebook employee surveilled platform users to provide anonymized comments to the FBI, which then used the comments to secure warrants that enabled Facebook to divulge personal identifiable data and account details. We are perhaps fortunate that the project turned out to be a waste of time, according to the FBI, but the compromise of civil rights — particularly the 1st Amendment — remains unsettling.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
How is this anonymized reporting of violent rhetoric and threats to the proper authorities a violation of the First Amendment? After all, domestic terrorism is a proven threat. How is it not entirely analogous to a citizen providing a tip about, say, possible illegal use of a warehouse?
The other day on my Quora feed there was an anonymous post saying that “President Biden does not know that he has a date with my rifle on September 23.” Was it wrong of other posters to immediately provide a link to the Secret Service for follow-up?
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “How is this anonymized reporting of violent rhetoric and threats to the proper authorities a violation of the First Amendment?”
I called it a compromise of civil liberties. Normally, we take our free speech rights for granted because we know that speech alone is insufficient to establish probable cause to investigate a crime. In this case Facebook and the FBI conspired to violate the probable cause rule.
LikeLike
There are black kids in prison whose only evidence of a crime was rapping about a crime.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Somehow, I knew you would be first to defend the indefensible.
You don’t see the problem with facebook providing “probable cause” to the FBI so it could get a subpoena based on that information?
LikeLike
You have spent 6 years doing the same thing. So I suppose that makes you the expert on defending the indefensible.
I know the story has taken a turn, but do you recall the tip to LE in Richmond that may (or may not) have prevented an attack during the 4th of July? We all pretty much cheered the responsible citizen reporting something overheard in a diner.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am still waiting for an answer – how is this any different than any citizen sharing information with law enforcement? They are giving the FBI a lead. They are not even providing names. If the postings are crimes – such as conspiracy or threats in violation of law – then the FBI can use its own resources to follow up as appropriate.
Here is a tip for all the shitheads out there – if you can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime. If you think threats of violence and conspiracy to commit crimes is just exercising your First Amendment rights, then you are wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, for a start, it is a violation of Facebook’s own privacy policy, which is, in effect, a contract.
But Facebook employees eavesdropping on users is equivalent to wiretapping to get probable cause to wiretap.
LikeLike
“Well, for a start, it is a violation of Facebook’s own privacy policy, which is, in effect, a contract.”
So, if you think passing on overt threats of violence to law enforcement is a violation of the company’s privacy policy then take your threats to some other platform. Simple. A lot of people find GAB a dandy place to express themselves.
Perhaps an instructive analogy would be an old-time telephone operator over-hearing gangsters planning a heist as she manages their connection. What is the offense if she passes on what she has heard and the gangsters are the put under surveillance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are we looking for a FB-client privilege akin to attorney-client privilege?
An attorney is ethically, if not always legally, bound to reveal plans by his client to commit a crime.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It has nothing to do with attorneys.
When you checked that box accepting their privacy policies, that was a contract between you and Meta.
That contract allows Facebook to share your data with law enforcement IN RESPONSE TO a subpoena or search warrant. It does not allow them to share your opinions in order the generate law enforcement demands.
https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/?section_id=10-HowDoWeRespond
LikeLike
Reference to attorneys was just an example of when privileges have limitations.
I still have an issue with the idea that FB, or any platform, cannot police their sites. And if they find something that may be threatening, in their opinion, they should not report it.
If the contract is open ended or too restrictive or otherwise not to your liking, then sue or move to another site.
Part of the problem with the mass shooters is that rants and ravings go unchallenged or reported. Both sides agree on that to a degree.
Now with Trump, Graham and probably others in the MAGA movement threatening “problem like we have never seen” or violence in the streets should Trump be indicted, the pressure on social media becomes even stronger.
The successes of FB and Twitter are a double edged sword. The right has numerous sites, including Truth Social ironically, that also monitor regardless of what they advertise. How they deal with it is another story.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, opinion without conspiracy toward an overt act is not criminal.
Keep in mind that there have been people who lost their jobs because they dispute the danger of climate change and Nuremberg style trials have been suggested for oil company executives who made efforts to sway public opinion.
Criminalization of thought is a far greater threat than anything an individual might do.
LikeLike
“Criminalization of thought is a far greater threat than anything an individual might do.”
Thoughts? No problem. Ads would be if they incite. Is a newspaper obligated to accept every ad or opinion submitted for publication?
Considering it’s sordid and bloody history, would spreading the word that Jews kill Christian babies to make matzohs be a posting that FB should defend? There is little debate, so for the cult minded, it is fact no matter how much rebuttal by solid references and academic rigor.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your theory that a private company’s privacy policy protects criminal activity on social media is – what – wishful thinking? But here is an idea, the next time you face criminal investigation for conspiring to overthrow the government, sue them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Conservative opinion, including suspicion of election fraud, is not criminal activity.
If Facebook learned someone was planning a bank robbery or rebellion, then yes, reporting it to law enforcement would override the privacy guarantees
But opinion absent conspiracy to act unlawfully is not illegal and in reporting opinion the FBI exposes its users to scrutiny without probable cause, and would be a violation of the contract they asked you to accept and grounds for a massive class action suit.
Per Federal law, companies that collect data are required to inform you of their privacy policy and those policies are binding.
LikeLike
“those policies are binding.”
Uh, no privacy policy protects criminal behavior.
The idea that threats of violence or communications in the advancement of criminal conspiracies are expressions of “conservative opinion” is (a) a dog that will not hunt, and (b) very revealing of just how debased “conservatives” have become.
Also, you continue to ignore that FB is providing anonymized data. If that data contains ONLY opinion then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it would result in a search warrant or any other action by law enforcement.
What you also ignore is the role that social media played in motivating and organizing the attempted overthrow of our government on January 6th. That fact demands a response and this sort of cooperation was proportionate to the threat. Social media tolerance of violent rhetoric and criminal conspiracy is a far greater danger to our Constitutional order than any infringement on free speech you see in such behavior being investigated. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, opinion is not criminal, as much as you might wish it were.
Writing “Mike Pence should stop the count” is constitutionally incorrect, but not criminal.
Writing “Mike Pence should be kidnapped and forced to stop the count” might be part of a criminal conspiracy and should be looked into.
Opinion alone is not conspiracy. Advocating an unlawful act might be criminal if there is a reasonable expectation it might lead to anovert act.
LikeLike
“Again, opinion is not criminal, as much as you might wish it were.”
You must be working overtime to twist the simple things I said into something you can play your victim card on.
I did not say opinions were criminal. I said crimes were criminal. Here, try real hard to parse and understand this sentence . . . “If that data contains ONLY opinion then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it would result in a search warrant or any other action by law enforcement.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Facebook ain’t the government either. The 1st doesn’t stop Facebook. Come to think of it, nothing does.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I eagerly look forward to Mr Garland’s announcement of his investigation and coming prosecutions of this act of domestic terrorism.
Attack on Tomi Lahren appearance
LikeLike
I have little patience for student protests, hecklers’ veto, of speakers. I always admired the decorum and respect given by Cambridge students in a controversial debate on race by William Buckley and James Baldwin, 1965.
I didn’t see where any punishments were meted out for the violent threats. News at 11 I suppose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of terrorist threats:
““I think if it happened, I think you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before. I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it.”
Hewitt asked Trump what he meant by “problems.”
“I think they’d have big problems. Big problems. I just don’t think they’d stand for it. They will not sit still and stand for this ultimate of hoaxes,” Trump said.”
Interview with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-warns-problems-weve-never-145023687.html
Nice country you got here, it would be a shame if something happened to it…Mafia 101.
Lindsey Graham threatened and/or predicted violence about a week ago if Trump were indicted.
I guess the call for his gangs to standby has been reissued.
LikeLiked by 3 people
https://theweek.com/political-satire/1016780/the-gangster
LikeLike
Interesting that the resident pinkos wasted no time excusing the anti-American actions of FB and the FBLie.
LikeLike
Pinkos?
Hey the 1950s called. They want their dipshit slanders back.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The only “Reds” left are the Republicans. I submit that RINO’S should be the new pinkos among the rabid right. We have had political ads showing gun toting candidates hunting RINO’S as unpatriotic political effluent. Kind of like the hunt for Reds in history.
Insufficiently loyal to MAGA? You are a pinko. 😵💫
LikeLiked by 3 people