On 4/16/22, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

...

"Want to see the whole world lose their shit?"

!

As they predicted, you crapped your pants.

look at 'his' cool LEO surveillance starshits.

Only a complete bourgeois wine-drunk ansoc tool like yourself would not realize what that many patch antennas in space are also doing up there. Obviously scanning the oceans to detect RF anomalies caused by profitably mineable seafloor manganese nodules.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 02:15:27 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

...

look at 'his' cool LEO surveillance starshits.

Only a complete bourgeois wine-drunk ansoc

here again the cop shows that he's a braindead thing, pretending that people who are not on the far-right must be 'socialists'. Then again, the cop doesn't even know what socialism is, because if he did, he'd realize that a trumpofascist bot like him is at the top of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST ranking. You know, there's no US without 'public roads', 'public schools' and 'public' everything. And yep, trumpo-thiel-musko fascists like 'grancrap', and socialists, are both the same side of the same coin. Just like the 'ex' socialist boss, good old mussolini. In fine, 'grancrap' is even more stupid than james donald, and that seems like an ALMOST impossible feat.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 06:25:38 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

https://www.infowars.com/posts/elon-musks-declaration-of-war-against-the-glo...

frankly I think being as stupid and evil as to vomit that sort of propaganda is enough reason to get something like 'grancrap' shot in the back. I mean, this piece of shit list can't sink any lower, but spamming that sort of infinitely idiotic lies from pentagon agent jones is too much, EVEN FOR THIS LIST. who is the mastermind behind the 'grancrap' bot? FUCKING ALEX JONES...

Reality : 1) musko is the most corrupt non-human turd on the planet. It is the 'richest' non-human turd on the planet and hence the Supreme Emperor of Govcorp. 2) the idea that the Supreme Emperor of the global oligarchy is against 'globalism' is something that only braindead things like bell and grancrap can pretend to believe. 3) it would be trivial for musko to use a couple of MILLIONS (not 50,000) to fund a p2p network. Instead the turd is simply babbling about exchanging some NSA shares for other NSA shares.

On 4/17/22, punk wrote:

[not much]

You know twitter and everything else is already doing that spy stuff, but your support for your beloved Leftists won't let you equally criticize your Lefts current Regime of Censorship, else they'd get their ideologies more busted in public were twitter free-er, thus your drivel is faux and sus.

utopia

No they don't call for all that 1984 shit and wouldn't. So you are a liar about people, as usual. Now why don't you tell us all what your utopia looks like. Tell us all the books and links you like. Anything besides being an asshole worthy of being filtered and thrown out of peoples places on that reason alone.

On 4/17/22, punk wrote:

[noise]

Come on you coward, stop with your stupid lies and assholery, answer us... Now why don't you tell us all what your utopia looks like. Tell us all the books and links you like. Tell us your solutions, and creations.

satellites, GPS, fucktarphone

Nothing wrong with those so long as they have nothing to do with any government, don't run by fuckers trying to power over humanity, can be freely competed against, routed around, disavowed without penalty, etc. Obviously GovCorp still intent on murdering you for deploying "unlicensed" crypto crowd funded free market versions of those. So remove that big unnecessary legacy obstruction, only build cool things that respect humanity. You liar know that. You're just being asshole online, you know everyone would throw you out for that in real life.

On 4/17/22, punk wrote:

[nothing, as usual]

Quit being an asshole to people. You're better than that. Tell us what your utopia looks like. Tell us the books and links you like. Tell us your solutions and creations.

grancrap spammed:

https://www.infowars.com/

>ping infowars.com >seq=0 ttl=50 time=25.1 ms 25ms? lolwut? Turns out that alex jones is right here in argentina?? >PING infowars.com (104.16.250.6): 56 data bytes 104.16.250.6...? Oh wait IP Details For: 104.16.250.6 ASN: 13335 ISP: CloudFlare Inc. Wow. I'm really glad that anti globalist grancrap sucks anti globalist alex jones cock. In turn anti globalist alex jones uses anti globalist shitflare inc. It's good to see that these people are really consistent and principled.

On 4/17/22, punk wrote:

...

ping infowars.com seq=0 ttl=50 time=25.1 ms 25ms? lolwut? Turns out that alex jones is right here in argentina?? PING infowars.com (104.16.250.6): 56 data bytes

Turn off that garbage ARPANET VPN that your ARPANET using hypocrite self pays for every month, and it will look better like this one... ping -q -c 10 infowars.com PING infowars.com (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes avg = 0.095 ms, lost = 0 You're right, they censored this too... https://banned.video/ As well as the website for one of his newest projects.

On 4/18/22, punk wrote:

...

ARPANET VPN that your ARPANET using hypocrite self pays

oh yes, I even pay for your technonazi monopoly. Just like I pay for MY roads.

Juan, the self appointed best example Anarchist for all mankind, admits to supporting and paying directly into the coffers of the "technonazi monopoly", and into his beloved Government "Nazis" for "his roads" that his Govt will obviously shoot him for attempting to claim. There is not any collective, rhetorical, voluntary, social or business or individual, or any other way of honestly using "my" to describe that situation, not until you get rid of that problem. And since you refuse to describe your utopia and suggested reading material and means of getting there, no one will see, follow, or help you with anything that might get closer. Apparently your utopia consists of being asshole. That is something no one wants. Either fuck off with that, or become more invitable. Till then enjoy another stint in noise folder.

https://nitter.it/elonmusk/status/1518677066325053441 the non human technonazi turd musko declared : "I...want to make twatter better by...defeating the spam bots and authenticating all humans". and now, the musko subturd grancrap will explain what does it mean for twatter to 'authenticate all humans' - I bet musko will make use of his pentagon brain chip mandatory for twatter login eh?

On 4/25/22, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

Pretty soon, I'll be done with Twitter. I mean, if I wanted what Twitter was about to become, I'd have just gotten a Parler account and been done with it...

"The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all -- Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 26, 2022"

Chief Legal Enabler and Apologist for Censorship at Twitter Joins Biggest Cry Puddle Ever... Twitter's Top Lawyer Breaks Down In Tears During Musk Takeover Meeting https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/26/twitters-top-lawyer-reassures-staff... https://twitter.com/seancpdx/status/1519054764687962115 Twitter's top lawyer, Vijaya Gadde, reportedly broke down in tears during a virtual meeting with the company's policy and legal teams to discuss the ramifications of Elon Musk's purchase of the social media platform. According to Politico, "Gadde cried during the meeting as she expressed concerns about how the company could change," and "acknowledged that there are significant uncertainties about what the company will look like under Musk’s leadership." Having been with Twitter since 2011, Gadde was the key executive in charge of 'trust and safety, legal and public policy functions' - described by Politico as the company's "moral authority." Gadde holds one of the most controversial positions at Twitter: Her teams decide how to moderate content. That’s made her a target of right-wing criticism, particularly when Twitter blocked the distribution of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, in 2020. She faced a renewed wave of criticism after multiple reports confirmed she was behind the decision to ban Trump from Twitter. -Politico In other words, Gadde is likely the exec who signed off on ZeroHedge's February 2020 ban for speculating that Covid-19 may have emerged from a Wuhan Lab, and President Trump's January 2021 ban in connection with the capitol riot. She has shepherded Twitter through some of its most contentious political battles, including the decisions to remove all political advertising and to boot former President Donald Trump from the platform in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on Capitol Hill — a position that has earned her devoted fans within Twitter, as well as a large contingent of right-wing critics. But as news of Musk’s official takeover broke, policy and legal employees fretted at the meeting about what his leadership could mean for Twitter’s carefully crafted online speech rules, including its policies against hate speech, misinformation and even political advertising. -Politico She played a 'leading role' in the negotiation between Twitter and Musk, according to the report. "I think everyone at Twitter, regardless of how they feel about the news, is feeling reflective and emotional," said a Twitter employee. "We’ve gone through a lot in the past two years and I think it’s generally instigated a lot of reflection. I think this was more of an acknowledgment of the uncertainty everyone is feeling right now." As a reminder, Gadde is crying because her new boss is a 'free speech absolutist,' while she wants to silence divergent opinions from her own. she seemed so tough then:https://t.co/3HXyJkeGnY — 01 (@seancpdx) April 26, 2022 "I’m often inspired by the vigorous debates on controversial issues that occur on Twitter, but I’ve also been seriously troubled by the plight of some of our users who are completely overwhelmed by those who are trying to silence healthy discourse in the name of free expression," Gadde wrote in 2015. "At times, this takes the form of hateful speech in tweets directed at women or minority groups; at others, it takes the form of threats aimed to intimidate those who take a stand on issues." What a crying shame. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/twitters-gadde-is-final-... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/technology/facebook-twitter-republicans-b... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/twitter-donald-trump-jack-dors... https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/28/twitter-vijaya-gadde-free-... https://nypost.com/2021/01/18/twitter-exec-says-company-taking-crackdown-on-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/16/twitter-executiv...

Soros the most corrupt criminal LeftProgLibDemSoc of all... It appears someone decided he needed to be punished for daring to preserve free speech (oh the horror!) as TSLA shares tumbled over 11% today, raising questions from many on who was behind this move... As Trey Henninger (@TreyHenninger) detailed, "If $TSLA stock hits $570, Elon Musk will be margin called on his Twitter purchase loan. If that occurs, he'll have two business days to either pay the entire $12.5 billion margin loan, post $3.57 billion USD in CASH, or sell his $TSLAQ collateral shares. So, Soros has to short TSLA to 570 to kill the deal." Cryptos announce they've got Musk's back with DOGE and much more BTC where that came from.

ACLU and Amnesty... always the frauds of actual liberty The American Civil *Liberty* Union has now proudly come out against free speech as being too dangerous. It's the moment where absolutely nobody, on either side anymore, can deny that the money has completely overridden and even now literally *reversed* the message. @Reuters Human rights groups including the ACLU and Amnesty International raised concerns about hate speech on Twitter and the power that Elon Musk, a self-described 'free speech absolutist,' would have after his acquisition reut.rs/3rPCkCh

FCC rightly declares Leftists games frivolous... FCC Commissioner Calls Demand For Feds To Block Elon Musk Twitter Sale "Frivolous" https://summit.news/2022/04/28/fcc-commissioner-calls-demand-for-feds-to-blo... https://summit.news/2022/04/28/dhs-disinformation-unit-headed-by-woman-who-s... FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr called a demand by the leftist lobby group Open Market Institute for the feds to block Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter “frivolous,” while pouring scorn on the idea it should be done to protect free speech. The Open Markets Institute, a liberal think tank, claims that the FCC, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission all have the power to block the takeover under the Communications Act of 1934 and even the Telegraph Act of 1860. They are upset with the sale because it would apparently give “direct control over one of the world’s most important platforms for public communications and debate” to one person and would represent a monopolistic merger between Twitter and Musk’s Starlink. Liberal groups are noticeably less concerned about legacy media and social media outlets being owned by left-wing billionaires and pro-regime moguls who agree with their views. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr shot down the idea that the Federal Communications Commission should block the sale, calling the demand “particularly frivolous” and noting that the agency has zero authority to block it. The FCC has zero authority to block Musk’s purchase of Twitter. And it is particularly frivolous to ask the agency to do so in the name of protecting free speech and open debate. pic.twitter.com/bOB4LpEvlB — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) April 27, 2022 “The FCC has no authority to block Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and to suggest otherwise is absurd,” Carr’s statement reads. “I would welcome the full FCC making it clear that we will not entertain these types of frivolous arguments.” Carr also asserted that leftists were setting up a false strawman, and that the primary concern should be restoring Twitter as a public town square for freedom of expression. “They say that Twitter must stick with its current approach to moderation or unleash a flood of terrorist speech & illegal content,” he said. “This is a false choice that ignores the issue: suppression of core political speech.” During an interview with Fox Business, Carr said he was “hopeful that Elon Musk is going to bend Twitter’s content moderation towards a greater embrace of free speech.” The pro-censorship crowd is running a straw man argument. They say that @Twitter must stick with its current approach to moderation or unleash a flood of terrorist speech & illegal content. This is a false choice that ignores the issue: suppression of core political speech. pic.twitter.com/kjwspFCEXI — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) April 26, 2022 “There was a pivot point in this country that I think came around 2016 when people started to reach the view, particularly among the hard left, that the free exchange of ideas is incompatible with the outcomes that they want to see at the ballot box,” said Carr. Experts have also said that the FTC is unlikely to intervene in the sale of Twitter to Elon Musk. So I guess leftists are back to screaming and hyperventilating about it all on Twitter. As we highlighted earlier, the Biden White House responded by launching a new DHS ‘disinformation unit’. The unit will be headed by a woman who promoted the fake news that the Hunter Biden laptop story was ‘Russian disinformation’.

Tearing Down The Silicon Valley Wall Authored by Victor Davis Hanson, Elon Musk has finally managed to buy Twitter. And the moment he did, the enraged Left flipped out. Abruptly leftists began trashing their favorite electronic communications platform as the domain of the nation's elite, professional classes. Had they just discovered that they had been racists and privileged users all this time? And what happened to the Left's former worship of Musk as the man who revolutionized the clean, green automobile industry with his Tesla electric car company? Or Musk the space revolutionary and hip star trekker, who with his own money helped ensure the United States remains preeminent in space exploration? Or Musk, the patriot who is providing free next-generation internet service to the underdog Ukrainians fighting Russians for their lives? No matter. The Left reviles Musk because he has announced that Twitter will be the one social-media platform whose business is not to censor or massage free speech in an otherwise monopolist, intolerant, and hard-Left Silicon Valley. Who knows, Musk might even allow former president Donald Trump to communicate on Twitter - in the fashion that the terrorist Taliban, Iranian theocrats, and violent Antifa protesters all take for granted in their daily access to Twitter. But how did the once free-speech, anti-trust, let-it-all-hang out Left become a Victorian busybody, a censorious Soviet, and an old-fashioned robber-baron monopoly? When it discovered that few Americans wanted left-wing, socialist politics it turned elsewhere. It found power instead through control of American institutions, from academia and Wall Street to traditional and social media. When Musk merely talked about buying Twitter, the Left shrieked that an outlier multibillionaire owning a media - and especially a social media - venue was unfair. The buyout was supposedly "dangerous" and "a threat to democracy." But the more the Left screamed, the less people listened. After all, left-wing Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook has roughly 15 times more market capitalization than Twitter. It has an audience of 2 billion users - over seven times larger than Twitter's 271 million. Zuckerberg's monopoly on global social media and his enormous wealth were stealthily put in service to the Democratic Party in the 2020 election. He reportedly infused nearly $420 million of his media money into warping the vote in key precincts, by augmenting and absorbing the work of state registrars to empower likely left-wing voters. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest man in the world, owns the influential Washington Post. It has moved markedly to the activist Left under his patronage. Multibillionaire Lisa Jobs, widow of the late Apple founder Steve Jobs, owns The Atlantic. It has become an increasingly hard-Left political magazine. So in Orwellian fashion, apparently most media-owning, left-wing billionaires are good? But one social media-owning, non-left-wing billionaire is bad? How exactly might a Musk-owned Twitter alter an election? By emulating the former directors of Twitter and the rest of Silicon Valley social media who canceled not just conservatives, but any new communication they felt harmful to the 2020 Biden campaign?

From the outset, it was clear that Hunter Biden's lost laptop incriminated his dad, Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Biden was referenced by his own quid pro quo, grifting son variously as "the Big Guy" and "Mr. Ten Percent" - a full partner in peddling Beltway influence to rich foreign actors. Yet in lockstep, social media banned most coverage of the pre-election laptop story. It instead spread its standby false narrative of "Russian disinformation." We now know the laptop was always authentic. The crude efforts to suppress mention of it were classic politicized news suppression. Still, the Left may well have some reason to be terrified of Elon Musk. Should he liberate Twitter from left-wing scolds and groupthinkers, would other renegade new companies and old standbys follow his lead? Is Musk's $46-billion acquisition the internet equivalent of Germans in November 1989 with sledgehammers smashing down the Berlin Wall? Does Musk sense that the looming November midterm elections may result in one of the rare landslide verdicts in American history? Does he assume the public prefers a muckraker who demands free speech rather than corporate insider cronies censoring expression they don't find useful? Polls show that the American people have had their fill of 14 months of self-inflicted, ideology-driven disasters. And why not, given the nonexistent border, spiking crime, inflation, unaffordable gasoline, and neo-Confederate racial fixations? Are the recent Netflix implosion, the CNN+ disaster, the Disney debacle, the Virginia statewide and San Francisco school board elections, the polls showing massive defections of Latinos from the Left, and the grass-roots pushback against government-imposed mask wearing, and explicit transgender education in the k-3 grades--also symptoms of a reckoning on the horizon? The country is ready for a revolution. And Musk believes he can lead it with his Silicon-Valley sledgehammer. So, as the Left says, "Bring it on."

Democrat Left screeches most when exposed to the winning sunshine of FreeSpeech... Who's Afraid Of Elon Musk? https://www.theepochtimes.com/whos-afraid-of-elon-musk_4431407.html Not long ago, Elon Musk was regarded as a liberal superhero with a cape because of his support for green energy and electric cars. But now that he’s the new owner of Twitter with his estimated $40 billion to $50 billion acquisition, the left is as angry as hornets. Hundreds of employees are threatening to quit and many thousands say they are dropping their Twitter accounts. But why exactly? Here is what Mr. Musk said upon his successful Twitter takeover: “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. … Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.” Does that sound threatening to you? Who could object to more openness and free-wheeling debate on social platforms? The answer is the slice of America that has been captured by a radical agenda that refuses to tolerate anyone with contrary ideas or opinions. What’s especially disheartening is that some of the most vicious attacks against Musk’s mission of inclusion for Twitter come from the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International. They even criticize him for being a “free speech absolutist.” Once upon a time in a far-off galaxy, these groups were vigilant guardians of free speech absolutism. Now, they are terrified that someone somewhere at sometime might engage in speech that offends them. Do they not understand that no one has a Constitutional right not to be offended by what someone else says or writes. I’m offended by half the things I hear and see on MSNBC and CNN. But I’d fight to defend their right to say what they do. The First Amendment is precisely FIRST in the Bill of Rights to protect every person’s right to express their opinion—even when it might be controversial or even wrong. How else are we going to have honest and thought-provoking debates ever again in America with this new muzzle policy? Some on the left worry that Donald Trump will soon be back on Twitter spouting off three or four times a day. If you don’t want to see that, delete his tweets from your platform. I have a right to talk; you have a right to not listen. I wish Mr. Musk the best of luck with his ambition to create an open and honest social media platform that advances civilized and informed conversation/debate. It’s frightening that the progressives on the left are so afraid of that. They claim that their goal is to shut down “hate speech.” Just two weeks ago an Army veteran who put herself through college with her own hard work said on LinkedIn that rather than having a taxpayer bailout of student loan debt, everyone should feel honor-bound to pay their own student loans—as she did. This was labeled “hate speech” and was taken down. Perhaps what is happening here is that the left doesn’t want to engage in any debate because they know that they can’t win the argument if the other side is allowed to speak.

Musk brilliantly purchased not just Twitter, but also evidence of Criminal Conspiracy to Election Fraud... Is Twitter "Burning The Evidence" By Unshackling Conservative Accounts? https://summit.news/2022/04/28/is-twitter-burning-the-evidence-by-unshacklin... Conservative Twitter users have noticed a massive uptick in followers and engagement following Elon Musk’s Twitter buy, while leftists on the platform are experiencing the inverse, prompting some to wonder if the company is undoing evidence that it rigged the reach of people it deemed to be undesirable. [66][IMG] The trend is so extreme that it prompted Twitter to address it, claiming that it is all organic owing to new accounts being created and existing accounts being deactivated. “We’ve been looking into recent fluctuations in follower counts. While we continue to take action on accounts that violate our spam policy which can affect follower counts, these fluctuations appear to largely have been a result of an increase in new account creation and deactivation,” the [67]company said in a statement. New from me: On the day Elon Musk announced his Twitter takeover, 200,000 Katy Perry followers deactivated. Marjorie Taylor Greene gained 90,000 followers. Twitter confirmed to [68]@NBCNews: It wasn’t bots. Apolitical users fled. Right-wing users joined.[69]https://t.co/gxBWpxq1uG — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) [70]April 27, 2022 Not everyone is buying Twitter’s explanation, however. While I’m awesome and totally deserving of 87,000 new followers a day it seems that someone took the shackles off my account. Wonder if they’re burning the evidence before new mgmt comes in? [71]pic.twitter.com/9Mso48qyNP — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) [72]April 26, 2022 Remember when Twitter, one of the biggest social media companies in the world, spent years shadow banning conservatives and gaslit everyone by pretending they didn’t? Crazy world back then, a few days ago — Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) [73]April 27, 2022 Noticing an increase in followers and engagement after losing huge chunks (or static follower count for weeks on end) for the past few years. Also seeing tweets from people I whose accounts I never see and am not having to refollow other conservatives repeatedly. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) [74]April 26, 2022 +/- Twitter followers since the Elon Twitter announcement: [75]@aoc - 27,641 followers[76]@maddow -18,648 followers[77]@StephenAtHome -21,460 followers[78]@mattgaetz +24,929 followers[79]@DineshDSouza +41,945 followers[80]@RepMTG +41,181 followers — Barry Rubin (@barubin) [81]April 26, 2022 Is anyone else losing followers too? I'm seeing people across Twitter report they have lost thousands today. I am down 5,000. Though much of that could be because I'm an idiot with way too many followers. Idk — David Hogg (@davidhogg111) [82]April 25, 2022 Weird. I just lost more than 8,000 followers in the last couple of hours. Was it something I said? [83]https://t.co/TS3vwDephc — Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) [84]April 25, 2022 Twitter is deleting the suppression algos before musk can find them in the code. You know... The suppression algos that Twitter told Congress they didn't have and didn't use... — Shaeroden, a simple BTC psychopath (@Shaeroden) [85]April 27, 2022 Human Events Daily host Jack Posobiec noted Wednesday, “They’re deboosting liberal accounts right now. Anna Navaro had a post up that said that she’s losing followers, Meanwhile, myself, Cernovich, LibsofTikTok… Everybody on our side got a massive boost out of nowhere.” “You know what it is, they’re pulling the breaks out, they’re trying to cover up all of their tracks, because they know what they’ve been doing. James O’Keefe [86]proved this with the shadow banning,” Posobiec continued, adding “He proved it. James O’Keefe found the algorithms within Silicon Valley, they do this stuff.” “Elon… He didn’t just purchase a company, he purchased evidence. He purchased evidence in criminal cases. That’s what he’s got here, and that’s what you’re seeing. He called it himself, an antibody-like response to his action,” Posobiec further asserted. Watch: [87]IFrame Fox News host Sean Hannity also covered the development Wednesday, suggesting that Twitter is attempting to “cover their tracks” before Musk’s takeover is complete. “Conservatives on the platform—all of a sudden out of nowhere—enjoyed a massive bump in followers and interactions,” Hannity said, explaining “For example, in just two days, Donald Trump Jr.—wow, magically—he got 200,000 new followers. That is roughly a 2,000 percent increase daily. Wow. It’s almost as if Twitter employees lifted a broad anti-conservative, anti-Trump shadow ban—which we all knew was taking place anyway—in an effort to cover their tracks before the new boss takes over.” Watch the latest video at [88]foxnews.com Elon Musk is, of course, completely aware of the evidence pointing to shadow banning: shadow ban council reviewing tweet … [89]pic.twitter.com/cawjtwc7CW — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) [90]April 23, 2022 If you want the context for this based meme— enjoy [91]@Timcast and [92]@joerogan shredding Twitter to their faces over left-wing bias [93]pic.twitter.com/O8nwR5FQCj — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) [94]April 27, 2022 Meanwhile… Twitter DMs should have end to end encryption like Signal, so no one can spy on or hack your messages — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) [95]April 28, 2022 For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) [96]April 27, 2022 Attacks are coming thick and fast, primarily from the left, which is no surprise, however I should be clear that the right will probably be a little unhappy too. My goal is to maximize area under the curve of total human happiness, which means the ~80% of people in the middle. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) [97]April 27, 2022 A social media platform’s policies are good if the most extreme 10% on left and right are equally unhappy — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) [98]April 19, 2022 What are talking about? I’m just saying Twitter needs to be politically neutral. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) [99]April 27, 2022

Elon Musk: "Democratic Party Has Been Hijacked By Extremists" https://summit.news/2022/04/29/elon-musk-democratic-party-has-been-hijacked-... https://summit.news/2022/04/28/dhs-disinformation-unit-headed-by-woman-who-s... Prospective new Twitter owner Elon Musk says part of the reason for free speech being in peril is that the Democratic Party “has been hijacked by extremists.” The billionaire has continued to respond to the fallout from his $44 billion dollar purchase of the company via the social media network. On Thursday, Musk tweeted a diagram showing how the Overton Window has been dragged so far left, that people who not so long ago considered themselves liberals are now being lumped in with conservatives as “bigots.” Critics responded by claiming that voting records show Republicans have moved further right. It's true that on aggregate, the right has moved more to the extreme than the left in Washington. But the small group on the far left has become very *culturally* powerful & out of fear, the rest of the left has often allowed them to speak (and make policies) for the whole left. — Tim Urban (@waitbutwhy) April 29, 2022 However, as Tim Urban explained, a fringe and noisy extremist minority on the left “has become very *culturally* powerful & out of fear, the rest of the left has often allowed them to speak (and make policies) for the whole left.” “So even though the left hasn’t moved that far left (as is shown by voting results), the left is in a sense being held hostage by their extreme wing, making a lot of people who enthusiastically voted for Obama feel politically homeless today,” he added. Musk responded to the discussion by asserting, “I strongly supported Obama for President, but today’s Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists.” I strongly supported Obama for President, but today’s Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 29, 2022 The Tesla founder has previously described the woke cult as “one of the biggest threats to modern civilization.” He has also labeled Joe Biden a “damp sock puppet,” asserting that the president “is treating the American public like fools.” As we highlighted yesterday, the regime is so petrified of Musk turning Twitter into a true free speech platform, they have set up a special ‘disinformation unit’ under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security. The unit will be run by Nina Jankowicz, a woman who previously promoted the false disinformation that the Hunter Biden laptop story was part of a fake Russian propaganda campaign.

Anonymous sources, aka manufactured lies, and liberals calling "hearings" in Free Speech which will surely be unbiased like Jan6 ones were, and like the Ministry of Truth the Left just propped up before elections to spread more disinfo and prosecute actual truth, lol... Wall Street Journal Claims "Shadow Crew" Of Billionaires Urged Elon Musk To Buy Twitter https://www.theepochtimes.com/wall-street-journal-claims-shadow-crew-of-bill... Elon Musk responded on May 1 to a report from The Wall Street Journal, based on anonymous sources, that stated the world’s richest man had been persuaded to buy Twitter by a “shadow crew.” Marc Andreessen, general partner of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, shared a screenshot of the story on Twitter, prompting a response from Musk. “My Shadow Crew is sickkk! Also, who are they again?” Musk wrote on Twitter. “Sell Shadow Crew merch to buy Twitter?” Musk later asked in the same thread. My Shadrow Crew is sickkk! Also, who are they again? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 2, 2022 Musk has been highly critical of Twitter’s content moderation policies for months. He has taken to the social media platform to lambast the company’s performance, from censorship claims to shadow bans. At the end of March 2022, Musk polled his followers: “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” Most respondents replied, “No.” The Wall Street Journal report claimed that many people had nudged the Tesla Motors CEO to get involved in the struggling tech firm. The newspaper referred to this group as a “shadow crew” that included Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, billionaire investor Peter Thiel, entrepreneur David Sacks, and early Tesla investor and venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson. Musk’s brother, Kimbal Musk, also advocated for Musk to purchase a stake in the microblogging website, the report claims. Musk declined to be interviewed for the story, and The Wall Street Journal admitted early in its report that “it isn’t clear whether he took any of their advice to heart or merely followed his own gut,” referring to Musk and the alleged “shadow crew.” In March 2022, according to the article, Musk contacted Seth Dillon, the CEO of conservative satirical news outlet The Babylon Bee. Musk had inquired to determine if the publication had been suspended from Twitter following a tweet that referred to the U.S. assistant secretary for health, a transgender woman, as “Man of the Year.” Musk had reportedly quipped to Dillon that he might need to purchase Twitter. Elon Musk, founder and chief engineer of SpaceX, speaks at the 2020 Satellite Conference and Exhibition in Washington on March 9, 2020. (Win McNamee/Getty Images) Musk had ostensibly kept his decision close to the chest up until the day before his intentions were revealed. “Over dinner in a private dining room at a local restaurant, Mr. Musk didn’t show much interest in talking about Twitter, one attendee said. Instead, he asked those at the table to share their theories about the meaning of life,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “The next day, Mr. Musk disclosed that he was seeking to take over Twitter.” There is a discussion in the public town square of what Musk means by free speech. Musk restated his views on free speech in an April 26 tweet. “By ‘free speech’, [sic] I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people,” Musk wrote. The Response to Free Speech on Twitter The reaction to Musk acquiring Twitter has been mixed, with both sides either cheering or jeering. In the aftermath of Musk’s Twitter takeover, the company identified fluctuations in follower counts that included mass deactivations, reactivations, and new account creations. On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers have congratulated Musk. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) labeled it as “the most important development for free speech in decades.” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) requested that Musk urge the San Francisco-based company to probe into internal efforts to suspend users and downrank stories pertaining to Hunter Biden’s laptop. “The left doesn’t want you to speak. If you don’t agree with them, you’re not allowed to talk,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “That all changes today with Elon Musk owning Twitter.” Some Democrats are mulling over hearings on Musk’s plans for Twitter, citing the website’s role in public discourse. While there is no official announcement on any hearings, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, revealed to BNN Bloomberg that “we’re thinking about it.” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce Committee, said a hearing with Musk was crucial. “It’s a technology which is central to democracy and our economy and it is important for the representatives of the American people to hear what the new owners intend on using that technology to accomplish,” he told BNN Bloomberg. “We have to understand the censorship or lack thereof, content moderation or not, that is going to be the policy for the new owner.” “In terms of what the values are that this company is going to be creating for the new Elon Musk Twitter world, I think that’s actually a necessary role for Congress to play,” Markey added. In response to a series of tweets about the ideological shift in U.S. politics, Musk acknowledged his support for former President Barack Obama. “I strongly supported Obama for President, but today’s Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists,” he wrote. Musk has also complained about the far left and far right, urging “less hate and more love.” A plurality of Americans agrees that Musk’s Twitter takeover “will lead to greater free speech on the platform.” According to a new Ipsos poll (pdf), 39 percent of overall Twitter users believe Musk will improve the platform. Twenty-eight percent of nonusers say he will enhance the website. Among heavy users, 52 percent think Musk’s involvement will improve the quality of dialogue, while 29 percent believe it will get worse. Seventy-three percent of all survey participants support removing posts that are considered false information. But there is a divergence on deleting political posts: 47 percent support taking down tweets that champion political action, and 40 percent are against the practice. “Compared with our survey results in early April, views toward the role of social media platforms in removing certain types of content remain unchanged,” the polling firm wrote. Elon Musk’s agreement with Twitter has not been finalized and could take several months to close. Both sides could still abandon the deal, paying a $1 billion termination fee.

"All's Well That's Orwell" - Musk Tosses Tactical Nukes At 'Ministry Of Truth' And Trust-Fund Journo https://www.nbcnews.com/news/note-readers-rcna26934 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1521180863567962114 Panicked CNN guest wonders how we're going to control channels, communications, and the country. There's kicking the hornet's nest, then there's unleashing a tactical nuke... After Elon Musk's early-Monday massacre of MSNBC's "Republicans are Nazis" narrative, the richest man in the world batted away a David Brock-esque bot who had a 'gotcha' queued up that included quotes from Nina Jankowicz - the head of the Biden administration's new 'ministry of truth.' "All's well that's Orwell," Musk replied. All’s well that’s Orwell — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 2, 2022 Musk was initially responding to a thread by Glenn Greenwald calling out journalist Molly Jong-Fast for being a raging hypocrite. Rich white woman @MollyJongFast - who won the birth lottery by being born to rich famous white parents who raised her in Manhattan, sent her to private schools, and thus herself bought an Upper East Side co-op for $5 million in 2007 at the age of 29 - rants about "rich white men" https://t.co/gydaiG4T2o — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022 🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/56Rr6dWxLL — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 2, 2022 Are you not entertained? * * * Elon Musk slammed NBC News over their "Republicans are Nazis" narrative, adding that NBC is was the "Same org that covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story, had Harvey Weinstein story early & killed it & built Matt Lauer his rape office." The diss came after the network's Mehdi Hassan said that the "neo-Nazi faction" of the GOP would regret championing a "petulant & not-so-bright billionaire," referring to Musk. NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazis … — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 2, 2022 NBC News is also the rag who let a no-name journalist team up with a partisan UK think tank to smear ZeroHedge with a lie-filled hit piece that was stealth-edited after publication. After the network was called out for attacking a rival news organization, said journalist went to work for Qatari-owned Al Jazeera. Meanwhile, the network issued a note on Monday indicating that one of their journalists had committed 11 instances of plagiarism over the last year. No word on the fate of the jouno, or who it is. No wonder networks are panicking over who controls the flow of information. As I was saying … pic.twitter.com/tsGz6fCWuW — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 2, 2022

Ever wonder who in part is behind all the censorship and mind control and constant oppression of freedom in the world... look no further than Soros Clinton Obama Pelosi Biden Schwab and the like... as they all go apeshit postal over someone proposing to allow even somewhat free-er speech... those in the world screeching most against those who support free speech, are those who seek to ban it forever... they're exposing themselves in their fake news media, and history shall remember their names as rubbish fit for the bin. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1521950798745194496 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10780583/George-Soros-Clinton-Obama... https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/tech/twitter-letter-content-policies/index.ht...

Musk: Twitter Trump Ban Was 'Foolish In The Extreme' -- Would Reverse Elon Musk says that Twitter's ban of former President Donald Trump was 'foolish in the extreme,' and that upon his successful purchase of the social media giant, he would reverse the decision. He also said that he would make Twitter's algorithm open source, and that his goal is to "balance the anger" between the extremes on both sides of the aisle. That said, Musk noted that Trump previously said he wouldn't return to Twitter, as he's got his own platform now - Truth Social. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO made the comments while talking to Peter Campbell at FT Live's "Future of the Car conference." When it comes to transparency, Musk said he would "literally put the Twitter algorithm on Github, adding "Twitter needs to be much more even handed. It currently has a left bias... it's based in San Francisco ... from their perspective it seems moderate." He says his goal isn't to earn praise from either side, but to "balance the anger" between the far left and the far right," and that "In order to be better at that it needs to get rid of the bots, the scams." As far as the actual deal itself, Musk said: "There's still a lot of things that need to get done before this concludes. Still some outstanding questions that need to be resolved," but that "objectively it is a largely done deal" that could be done in 2-3 months in a best case scenario.

Make Twitter Great Again https://americanmind.org/salvo/make-twitter-great-again/ The prognosis for free speech in America promises marked improvement. Elon Musk is soon expected to take over Twitter Inc., following the company’s acceptance of his $45 billion offer. Musk has pledged to promote free speech, which he described as “the bedrock of a functioning democracy.” I for one am cautiously optimistic that Elon can Make Twitter Great Again. I’m optimistic because I believe Musk is a capable leader and entrepreneur who will stand by his principles. But I’m cautious because of the ferocity of the opposition from powerful opponents of free speech. Musk’s agenda, which is simply free speech on Twitter, threatens the institutions in the United States which are both beneficiaries of, and responsible for, coordinated online censorship. The primary beneficiaries of online censorship are other Big Tech companies like Facebook and Google. Wielding monopolistic-level market share and using clandestine algorithms, these corporations enjoy the self-appointed roles of gatekeeper in the Information Age. Google can capriciously change which news outlets to amplify, which political candidates to boost, and which businesses to promote. As a result, opinions change, votes shift, reputations are ruined, and businesses can either boom or burn. But Big Tech censorship only works if separate platforms adopt identical policies, which is exactly how the cartel operates. Look how they each handled the Hunter Biden laptop story, COVID, and Kyle Rittenhouse in the same way. If Facebook had blocked all posts saying vaccinated people can spread COVID, but Twitter had allowed them, then Facebook’s censorship would be exposed as arbitrary and wrong. That would impair the company’s credibility, drive users away, and hurt Facebook’s bottom line. Ideally, that scenario would represent the “free market of ideas” in action. But Big Tech has rigged the information market. They’ve created a syndicate by informally coordinating to suppress certain information and ideas from spreading anywhere. If one company defects then the syndicate collapses. Facebook and Google are threatened by a free Twitter for the same reason that the mainstream media is threatened by a user-based platform like Substack, and the reason the media was so hostile to tech companies before censorship really started. That’s why Apple and Google are already threatening to pull Twitter from their app stores. Other members of the information cartel include non-government organizations (NGOs)—advocacy groups, think tanks, and major charitable foundations. NGOs, terrified that Musk is a “free speech absolutist” who will permit “hate speech” to dominate the platform, are mobilizing against him. This is no surprise, as these groups, like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others, are funded by the likes of George Soros and have a track record of undermining American sovereignty and values. These organizations oppose Musk for the same reason they have opposed efforts to stop online censorship. They actively cheer censorship, and want America to adopt European-style “hate speech” laws, where you can be fined thousands of dollars or even sent to prison for saying or posting online things deemed “hateful.” The European Union, which, in its own words, “accepts NGO involvement in policy- and decision-making as not only a necessity, but as a requirement,” is frightened of what Musk might do with Twitter. They are even arguing that an American company shouldn’t be allowed to have free speech because of the EU’s hate speech laws. The Democrat Party is also sounding alarms about the potential threat of Musk’s buyout of Twitter. Former President Barack Obama, the Biden administration, and U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, and Jeff Merkley have all expressed profound concern, going so far as to label the development “dangerous for our democracy.” These admonitions come as no surprise either. After all, this is the same party which wants Big Tech to censor more; which enjoys a codependent relationship with these companies to root out “disinformation” online; and whose base is increasingly supportive of the government banning lawful speech. Should Musk make Twitter’s algorithms open source—as he’s said he’ll do—Twitter’s partisan policies will be exposed. Democrats will have to fess up to the fact they owe their power in large measure to this censorship regime. Finally, mainstream media is categorically opposed to Musk. Outlets from CNN to NBC to the Washington Post to the New York Times have come out swinging, with pronouncements that the changeup at Twitter HQ will “probably suck for women” and that only “straight white men” will enjoy free speech. What’s clear is that the media is against anyone or anything which presents a threat to the beliefs of the information cartel. The media deified Anthony Fauci—even when he was wrong—and others in the medical establishment while they actively suppressed anyone who dared to question prevailing narratives on the virus. For two-plus years, the media amplified the official narrative that masking was/is effective (it wasn’t); that vaccines would prevent the spread of the virus (they haven’t); and that there was no way the virus came from a lab (it likely did). Mainstream corporate media went out of its way to mock, punish, and silence any voices of even mild dissent. A Twitter where free speech thrives threatens media companies that rely on widespread censorship to hide their blatant partisanship and chronic distortion of the truth. Musk’s Twitter takeover represents the single greatest threat to the information cartel to date. Some of the main players in this cartel—NGOs, Democrat politicians, and media corporations—face the prospect of narrative collapse. Elon Musk should know that, insofar his plans for Twitter include restoring free speech to the platform, he will be attacked at each step by the element of society that stands to benefit from censorship and the status quo. I hope he is ready, because the American people are certainly ready for a restoration of free speech online.

Our messages are too verbose and numerous for humans to read. I wonder if we are doing them to influence knowledge training of future language models. Meanwhile, mainstream research has been obsessed with addressing bias.

Soros and the Left... manipulators of 1984... Musk Blasts Soros 'Dark Money Groups' Threatening Twitter Advertisers https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10780583/George-Soros-Clinton-Obama... https://accountabletech.org/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-Twitter-Advertisers... https://www.politico.com/magazine/playbookpowerlist/2017/david-brock/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/media-matters-for-america/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-countering-digital-hate... Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter has the world's elites in panic mode - with the Biden administration launching a "Disinformation Governance Board" days after his announcement... April 25, 2022 - Twitter accepts .@elonmusk's buyout bid as Musk vows to restore free speech to the platform. April 27, 2022 - DHS announces the 'Disinformation Governance Board' to fight 'misinformation' (a la George Orwell's "Ministry of Truth") — Dumisani Washington (@DumisaniTemsgen) April 28, 2022 ...followed by the United States, the EU, and 32 non-EU countries announcing a "Declaration for the Future of the Internet" that includes language to require web services to remove illegal content and prevent 'harm' to users - which is code for mean tweets, among other things. Another globalist, Bill Gates, is talking greasy after Musk compared the world's former richest man to the pregnant man emoji. in case u need to lose a boner fast pic.twitter.com/fcHiaXKCJi — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 23, 2022 Musk's purchase also prompted a constellation of 26 Soros-linked NGOs to sign a letter expressing concern about the plan - writing that "Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized." The authors that under Musk's management, "Twitter risks becoming a cesspool of misinformation, with your brand attached, polluting our information ecosystem in a time where trust in institutions and news media is already at an all-time low," adding "Your ad dollars can either fund Musk's vanity project or hold him to account. We call on you to demand Musk uphold these basic standards of community trust and safety, and to pull your advertising spending from Twitter if they are not." Those advertising on Twitter would risk their company associating "with a platform amplifying hate, extremism, health misinformation, and conspiracy theorists," according to the letter. A quick look at the signatories: Musk responded to the campaign against him by asking "Who funds these organizations that want to control your access to information? Let’s investigate …" adding "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Sunlight is the best disinfectant — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 3, 2022 The Daily Mail has dug into the signatories to do just that, giving a brief summary of several key players. Presented below: ACCOUNTABLE TECH - NICOLE GILL, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Accountable Tech is a Washington DC-based group led by Nicole Gill, a political campaigner and founder of the 2017 Tax March, and Jesse Lehrich, a former foreign policy spokesman for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the nephew of David Axelrod, former senior adviser to Barack Obama. 'Social media giants are eroding our consensus reality and pushing democracy to the brink,' they state on their website. 'Accountable Tech is fighting back.' Founded in May 2020, the group is a 501(c)(4), which means it does not have to disclose its donor list, and it does not say on the website who funds it. MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA - DAVID BROCK, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN Media Matters for America was begun in May 2004 by David Brock - a former conservative journalist who turned liberal, and in 2017 was described by Politico as the 'Democrats' attack dog'. 'The Clinton enforcer, who raised tens of millions of dollars and created a far-reaching web of outside groups to push her presidential candidacy, is now training his sights on Trump,' they wrote at the time. 'Brock is rallying Democratic megadonors behind his cause and while he can be controversial at times, few bet against his efforts. His tentacles are far-reaching, including his media monitoring nonprofit Media Matters and the opposition research super PAC American Bridge.' Media Matters for America says it is 'dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.' According to Influence Watch, the group was founded with about $2 million in donations from prominent liberal donors, such as Susie Tompkins Buell, the 78-year-old co-founder of clothing brands Esprit and The North Face; Leo Hindery, 74, a private equity investor specializing in media; and James Hormel, who died in August aged 88. Hormel was heir to a meatpacking fortune, and the first openly gay man to represent the United States as an ambassador - to Luxembourg, from 1997. He also co-founded in 1981 the Human Rights Campaign - the nation's preeminent gay rights group. Media Matters is funded by a coalition of donors, including the National Education Association - America's largest union, representing teachers and other school staff - and several Jewish groups, such as the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston and Community Foundation of the United Jewish Federation of San Diego. UltraViolet is the newest of the trio, founded in 2012. 'UltraViolet is a powerful and rapidly growing community of people mobilized to fight sexism and create a more inclusive world that accurately represents all women, from politics and government to media and pop culture,' they state on their website. 'We founded UltraViolet on the principle that with a combination of organizing, technology, creative campaigning, and people power, we can win. Ultraviolet leads creative, breakthrough campaigns that have won victories from politics to culture.' The group is also backed by several unions - among them the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and the American Federation of Teachers. Musk is famously anti-union, and has been excluded from White House electric vehicle manufacturing events due to the fact that Tesla's workforce is not unionized. UltraViolet is backed by numerous family foundations, including that founded by Warren Buffet's son Peter, NoVo Foundation. NoVo works to help marginalized and oppressed groups in society. It is also supported by one of the many Pritzker family's foundations, Libra. The Chicago-based billionaires are members of one of America's richest families who made their money largely through the Hyatt hotel chain. Nicholas Pritzker, 76, and his wife Susan founded the Libra Foundation in 2002, and the organization now 'supports frontline organizations building a world where communities of color thrive.' FAIR VOTE UK - KYLE TAYLOR, FOUNDER Not all of the 26 groups that signed the letter are U.S. based. Fair Vote UK, a British group that works to 'tackle the issue of data misuse, voter manipulation and lack of transparency in elections', is among the signatories. A small-scale group, they declare all donations over £500 ($624), and only confirm five such donations on their site. CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE - IMRAN AHMED, FOUNDER AND CEO Another British-based signatory was the Center for Countering Digital Hate, led by a former advisor to senior figures in the Labour Party, Imran Ahmed. The group has expanded to have an office in Washington DC, but their work is largely British. 'The Center is best known for working with Rachel Riley to remove controversial far-right commentator Katie Hopkins from Twitter and conspiracy theorist David Icke from Facebook and Youtube,' according to Influence Watch.

Bill Gates, the Debunked COVID Tech Darling, Claims Musk Buyout Could Make Twitter "Worse" Bill Gates might still be sore from Elon Musk's Twitter meme-ing (one of which mocked the Microsoft founder in one memorable, if digitally altered, image) because he shared some fighting words Thursday while speaking during a Wall Street Journal conference on Wednesday. Speaking at the WSJ's CEO Summit Wednesday, Gates told the audience that, from his vantage point, it's unclear how Musk will change Twitter if and when he takes ownership. Gates also mentioned the possibility that a Musk-owned Twitter could play a greater role in spreading disinformation. Still, Gates couldn't help but offer a few back-handed compliments to Musk (who recently leaked a series of texts with the billionaire showing him mocking Gates over his short position in Tesla). And while Gates said he "kind of doubt[s]" that Musk would achieve the same level of success with Twitter, "we should never underestimate Elon". Notably, Gates addressed Musk's "insults" (which CNBC amusingly refused to reprint), saying they don't bother him. He also questioned Musk's intentions behind his pro-free speech stance. "How does he feel about something [on Twitter] that says 'vaccines kill people' or that 'Bill Gates is tracking people?'" Gates asked. "What are his goals for what it ends up being? Does that match this idea of less extreme falsehoods spreading so quickly [and] weird conspiracy theories? Does he share that goal or not?" Gates said. Expounding on the subject of vaccine misinformation, Gates claimed that it would be difficult for Twitter to do an effective job of excising misinformation (keep in mind: Gates is talking about misinformation that mostly has a direct impact on him) with the leadership having espoused such a radical stance. "When you don’t have the trusted leaders speaking out about vaccines, it’s pretty hard for the platform to work against that," he admitted. "So I think we have a leadership problem and we have a platform problem." Keep in mind: Musk recently succeeded Gates as the world's richest man.

Twitter lied to its investors, just as it lied about censorship and influencing elections... Twitter Misses Revenues, Admits "Over-Stating" Millions Of Users Having disappointed on the top line ($1.20 billion vs $1.23 billion expected), seen advertising revenue below expectations, apparently slashed capex, and somewhat expectedly cut all previously provided outlooks and goals; Twitter's earnings' revelations offer a glimpse into why the Board flip-flopped so fast and grabbed Musk's 'apartheid-unleashing' offer so quickly. However, buried deep in the filings was another little surprise for the billionaire who just bought the company. Since the start of 2019, Twitter has been over-estimating the number of users... mDAU Recast In March of 2019, we launched a feature that allowed people to link multiple separate accounts together in order to conveniently switch between accounts. An error was made at that time, such that actions taken via the primary account resulted in all linked accounts being counted as mDAU. This resulted in an overstatement of mDAU from Q1’19 through Q4’21. The table below provides updated values for mDAU from Q4’20 to Q4’21 alongside historical reported values for those same time periods. We are including one decimal place for both the absolute values and growth rates to give more detail around the magnitude of the changes. Note that recast data is not available prior to Q4’20 due to data retention policies, but our estimates suggest the prior period adjustments are not likely to be greater than those in Q4’20. The adjustments are all one-way (lower) and are not de minimus... 1.9 million fewer users globally in Q4 2021 than they initially disclosed. Is someone covering-their-ass ahead of Musk's deep-dive? And what other little surprises lurk below the surface of this leftist sanctuary? The question many are asking now is - is this 'admission' material enough to warrant a price-adjustment for Musk?

"Twitter, You Failed" - Bill Maher Blasts Censorship, Cites Hunter Biden Email Story https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144 Born-again realist and HBO show host Bill Maher said Twitter "failed" by setting itself up "as the judge of what can go out there" and censoring media outlets for even mentioning Hunter Biden's emails and or COVID-19 origins. Maher has transitioned from a liberal groupthink mouthpiece to an independent thinker. On Friday's broadcast of HBO's "Real Time," starring himself, he told former Democratic Senator Doug Jones of Alabama and MSNBC's Ali Velshi about the failures of Twitter and how the social media platform "needs a new sheriff." "The argument to me is like ... has Twitter failed in setting themselves up in the past as the judge of what can go out there? "And I would say yes, you have. You failed when you threw The New York Post off of Twitter for talking about Hunter Biden's emails and it turned out that was a real story. "You failed. When you said we couldn't read whether COVID had come from a lab. You failed. "Did you read about this Babylon Bee? ... They got flagged for posting a funny video this is funny to them, okay. 'Sensitive content' Twitter said, in the video, they were making fun of Twitter for being too sensitive. ... And the fact that they [Twitter] flagged this for being insensitive shows their complete lack of self-awareness about what their own problem is -- and if that's where the line is -- you have failed Twiter. You do need a new sheriff." Blue-check-marks listening to Maher's show last night probably had panic attacks and or AOC-style meltdowns. Maher recently noted: "It's not me who changed — it's the left, who is now made up of a small contingent who've gone mental." Maher's reference to a "new sheriff" is Elon Musk, who just struck a deal to purchase Twitter. Even Musk, who once was considered on the left side of the spectrum, tweeted how his political attitudes have shifted over the last decade. pic.twitter.com/Q9OjlJhi7f — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 28, 2022 Musk tweeted Friday, "the far left hates everyone, themselves included!" adding, "But I'm no fan of the far-right either. Let's have less hate and more love." But I’m no fan of the far right either. Let’s have less hate and more love. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 29, 2022 Twitter has become an echo chamber and safe space for liberal elites that censor anyone with opposing views. Musk has expressed "no confidence" in Twitter's current management and could ax their chief censoring officer and chief executive officer. Meanwhile, the Biden administration realizes Musk's move to purchase Twitter could disintegrate their ability with big-tech to censor opposing views. So in response, the administration created a dystopic ministry of truth to battle 'disinformation.'

Twitter's Top Lawyer Breaks Down In Tears During Musk Takeover Meeting

This tyrant gets paid $17M/y to censor and program you and criminally meddle and steal elections... fire them all... Twitter's $17 Million Per Year Censorship Czar Could Get Axe Under Musk https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/twitters-chief-censor-making-17m-per-year-coul... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519377424437243904 https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/gop-fury-at-big-tech-after-nyt-admits-hunter-b... https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/hunter-biden-paid-off-tax-bill-in-2021-but-inv... Twitter's censorship czar Victoria Gadde - who broke down in tears last week during a conference call to discuss Elon Musk's purchase of the company - stands to lose her job which paid $17 million last year, as Musk is reportedly planning to cut jobs and executive pay as part of the takeover. Musk expressed "no confidence" in Twitter's current management following the announcement of his plans to buy the company. That said, the 48-year-old Gadde - who was behind decisions such as Zero Hedge's February 2020 ban for peculating that Covid-19 may have emerged from a Wuhan Lab, and former President Trump's ongoing ban, has a reported $12.5 million severance package, according to the NY Post. Musk shared a flowchart last week based on a 2019 appearance by Gadde on "The Joe Rogan Experience" where journalist Tim Pool absolutely wrecked her over anti-conservative bias. pic.twitter.com/1CE7rjBrNH — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022 Musk also called Twitter's decision to block the Hunter Biden laptop story - another 'buck stops with Gadde' decision - "obviously incredibly inappropriate." The piece was banned by major social media sites in the weeks before the election, with Twitter justifying accusations of censorship by labeling the story “content obtained through hacking that contains private information.” Many mainstream outlets also tried to discredit the Post’s article, before later reporting on its veracity long after President Joe Biden was elected. -NY Post Fortunately for Gadde any any other Twitter employees who gets the axe, they can simply start their own Twitter.

"I Am Indeed Out For Blood": Musk Says 2016 Hillary Tweet 'Absolutely' Disinformation, Asks Parag To Weigh In Elon Musk has waded into the Sussmann trial - tweeting on Friday that it's "absolutely correct" that a 2016 tweet from Hillary Clinton was "misleading disinformation." A week before the 2016 election, Clinton notably tweeted "Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank," to which user @veespike asked Musk: "@elonmusk I have reported this tweet as misleading disinformation to the powers that be at @twitter. I would be interested to know if, when you receive control over the company, anything was done with this at any level. Pls advise soonest." "You are absolutely correct," Musk replied, adding "That tweet is a Clinton campaign hoax for which their campaign lawyer is undergoing a criminal trial." Musk then asked Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and top Twitter attorney Vijaya Gadde to weigh in. @elonmusk I have reported this tweet as misleading disinformation to the powers that be at @twitter . I would be interested to know if, when you receive control over the company, anything was done with this at any level. Pls advise soonest. — VeeSPIKE (@veespike) May 20, 2022 .@paraga and @vijaya, what say you? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2022 Musk then got into an argument with a pro-Hillary account, "Tesla Facts" (@truth_tesla), which suggested Elon was lying. ?? Sussmann himself admitted billing Clinton Campaign to pay for him to present Russia hoax to FBI! This is not even questioned by the defense. Btw, I donated to & voted for Hillary, so am doubly pissed off about those funds being used for lying.https://t.co/PtFgYzpXQN — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2022 The richest man in the world replied to several other people in the thread. He's gone all-in folks. I only heard about it last month and was blown away — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2022 !! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2022 I am indeed out for blood — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2022 * * * Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook dropped a bombshell in court on Friday - testifying that Hillary Clinton approved the dissemination of allegations that then-candidate Donald Trump had a covert communications channel with a Russian bank, despite campaign officials not being "totally confident" in the rumor, according to Fox News. Mook, who was called to the stand by the defense team for former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, was asked under cross-examination about the campaign's understanding of the allegations against Trump, and whether the campaign planned to release it to the media. He told prosecutor Andrew DeFillippis that he was first briefed by campaign general counsel Marc Elias, who was a partner with Perkins Coie at the time, adding that he was told the data had come from "people that had expertise in this sort of matter." Mook said the campaign was not totally confident in the legitimacy of the data, but had hoped to give the information to a reporter who could further "run it down" to determine if it was "accurate" or "substantive." He also said he discussed whether to give the information to a reporter with senior campaign officials, including campaign chairman John Podesta, senior policy advisor, now White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and communications director Jennifer Palmieri. -Fox News "I discussed it with Hillary as well," said Mook, who added "I don’t remember the substance of the conversation, but notionally, the discussion was, hey, we have this and we want to share it with a reporter." When asked how Clinton responded, Mook said: "She agreed to that." "A reporter could vet the information and then decide to print it," he added. And then of course, Hillary did this: Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Of note, after previously denying the prosecutions request to include the tweet into evidence, he approved it on Friday. Sussman has been charged with lying to the FBI when he told General Counsel James Baker in September 2016 - less than two months before the US election - that he wasn't doing work "for any client" when he presented the Alfa Bank "purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communicates channel" between the Trump organization and the Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank. Special Counsel John Durham alleges that Sussman was in fact working for the Clinton Campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe. He has pleaded not guilty.

Left Globalist 1984 cabal doxed again... 12 Groups Behind Protest Of Musk’s Twitter Takeover Have Ties With Gates Foundation, Soros https://www.theepochtimes.com/12-groups-behind-protest-of-musks-twitter-take... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517702987359133696 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1521950798745194496 https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musk-says-hell-lift-trumps-twitter-ban-af... https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musk-says-hes-voting-republican-in-upcomi... https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/05/23/exclusive-bill-gates-poured-millio... A dozen liberal groups that pressured Twitter advertisers to boycott the platform in response to Elon Musk’s plans to acquire it received money from entities backed by Bill Gates and George Soros, an analysis of public filings shows. Bill Gates discusses his new book 'How To Prevent The Next Pandemic' onstage at 92Y in New York on May 03, 2022. (Michael Loccisano/Getty Images) In early May, a group of 26 organizations penned a public letter claiming that the Tesla CEO’s takeover of Twitter would “be a direct threat to public safety” and turn the platform into “a cesspool of misinformation.” The letter called for Twitter’s top advertisers to “hold [Musk] to account” by committing to “non-negotiable” standards for doing business with the site, one of which is to not restore the accounts of political and public figures banned for “egregious violations of Twitter Rules.” The letter contained the logos of Accountable Tech, Media Matters for America, and UltraViolet Action. An analysis of the public filings and records shows that at least 11 of the letter’s signatories or their affiliated groups have taken money from organizations funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. One of the three groups leading the letter has received over $1 million from billionaire financer George Soros’s grant-making network Open Society Foundations, while the two others were founded in part by former staffers for Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Eight signatories also collected roughly $10.25 million in federal grants and loans between 2020 and 2021, public records show. The New Venture Fund, the recipient of more than $500 million in grants from the Gates Foundation since 2012, in 2020 gave $180,000 in total to two signees, Media Matters for America and Center for Media Justice. Another $11.2 million of the New Venture Fund’s 2020 grant money went to North Fund, a shadowy progressive nonprofit based in Washington that funnels money to a number of other activist groups, including Accountable Tech, which published the letter. Accountable Tech’s website shows that two members on its team—its co-founder and digital director—worked for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Founded in 2004, Media Matters for America describes itself as a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” A key function of the organization is to provide tools for monitoring what it considers to be “conservative misinformation,” which it defines to be “news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.” The Center for Media Justice, which in 2019 was rebranded to MediaJustice, aims to promote “racial, economic, and gender justice in a digital age,” its website states. Elon Musk attends The 2022 Met Gala Celebrating “In America: An Anthology of Fashion” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York on May 2, 2022. (Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue) Tides Foundation, a Gates Foundation grantee since at least 2013, has handed over $2.34 million to eight of the signatories or their affiliates over a three year-period since 2019. Among the recipients is Indivisible Project and its nonprofit charitable arm Indivisible Civics that work to “defeat the Trump agenda,” of which the signatory Indivisible Northern Nevada is a local chapter. The other seven signatories that received money from Tides Foundation in the past three years are: women’s advocacy group UltraViolet Action; environmentalist groups Union of Concerned Scientists and Friends of the Earth; pro-abortion association NARAL Pro-Choice America; Black Lives Matter South Bend, a local chapter of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation; GLAAD, which monitors media portrayal of LGBTQ groups; and Media Matters Action Network, a partner project of Media Matters for America. UltraViolet Action’s board chair and board member Karen Finney was the Democratic National Committee’s first African American spokeswoman and had served as the senior spokesperson for Hilary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, according to the group’s website. Another board chair, Arisha Hatch, was an organizer for then-candidate Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. Access Now, which focuses on internet accessibility around the world, in 2021 received funds totalling $1.35 million from the Open Society Foundations that Soros founded and chairs, along with grants from Wikimedia Foundation, Microsoft, governments in Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and the Netherlands. Beginning in 2017, the Open Society Foundation has also awarded three grants with a combined value of 1.625 million to Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group that also signed on to the letter. The Microsoft founder last month admitted to having taken a $500 million short position on Tesla shares, according to a leaked text message string between Gates and Musk said that the latter said was authentic. Tweets by Elon Musk are shown on a cell phone in Chicago, Ill, on April 25, 2022. (Scott Olson/Getty Images) Musk had reacted to the boycott letter by calling for an investigation of the signatories’ funders. “Who funds these organizations that want to control your access to information? Let’s investigate …” he wrote on Twitter on May 3, adding: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” He later made note of a report that some signatories received funding from Soros and European governments. “Interesting. I wonder if those funding these organizations are fully aware of what the organizations are doing,” he wrote. Twitter in recent years has drawn criticism for censoring and suspending conservative users. Among its list of banned public figures are former President Donald Trump, Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, COVID-19 vaccine critic Dr. Robert Malone, and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Musk has called Twitter’s ban of Trump’s account in early 2021 “flat-out stupid.” He said he would reverse the move if he becomes the platform’s new owner. At a recent Miami tech conference, Musk also said he would be voting Republican after having “voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.” He described the $44 billion deal as “not some right-wing takeover,” but instead a “moderate take over and an attempt to ensure that people of all political beliefs feel welcome on a digital town square and they can express their beliefs without fear of being banned or shadowbanned.” The Gates Foundation connections were first reported by Breitbart. The Epoch Times has reached out to all the named organizations.

Biden the Raging Child is intent on destruction. Biden Sarcastically Wishes Elon Musk "Lots Of Luck" On His "Trip To The Moon" The beef between President Biden and Tesla CEO Elon Musk looks like it's as strong as ever. It started last week when Elon Musk made negative remarks about the economy and noted that Tesla was going to have to be making layoffs. Musk told executives the electric carmaker needed to cut staff by 10% because he has a "super bad feeling" about where the economy was headed. An email, titled "pause all hiring worldwide," was sent to executives on Thursday and was the latest sign of mounting macroeconomic headwinds as lower-than-expected US new car sales in May could be a harbinger of a recession. Tesla, which has EV factories worldwide, including ones in the US, Berlin, and China, employs about 100k staff, so reducing 10% of jobs could equate to 10k people. When speaking about Ford last week, President Biden made an unfavorable comparison regarding Tesla and, when asked further about Musk comments about the economy, answered that he wished Elon Musk "lots of luck" on his "trip to the moon". Recall, back in May, we noted when Musk delivered a scathing criticism of Biden and the President's handling of inflation. Musk told a virtual conference ;last month that he believes the government has printed too much money in recent years. “I mean, the obvious reason for inflation is that the government printed a zillion amount of more money than it had, obviously,” Musk said, likely referring to COVID-19 relief stimulus packages worth trillions of dollars that were passed in recent years. If governments could merely “issue massive amounts of money and deficits didn’t matter, then, well, why don’t we just make the deficit 100 times bigger,” Musk asked. “The answer is, you can’t because it will basically turn the dollar into something that is worthless.” During the same conference, Musk said: “The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter" and "The path to power is the path to the teleprompter.” “The Trump administration, leaving Trump aside, there were a lot of people in the administration who were effective at getting things done,” he remarked.

lawl, what is the insane turd grancrap babbling about? Elono musko is going to TAKE OVER TWATTER !!!

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/twitters-former-security-head-alleges-... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1562105413977493504 Give a little whistle. "So spam prevalence *was* shared with the board, but the board chose not disclose that to the public …" Twitter gets leaked on by 2600 whistleblower. Agents try to discredit their frequency down below audible, and to deny and spin away their own already proven corrupt Censorship Regime off on the Russians etc who were the "'real' ones using the 'holes' to distort elections," when everyone already knows that Jack Dorsey, the top Execs and Board, employees, and their political owners the US Democrats, Soros Gates etc, are the 'real' ones responsible for all that, and that twitter has buttered up regulatory filings, and intentionally allowed countless... Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, Bots, ... Something like that. Whenever someone starts talking about 'fair competition' or indeed, about 'fairness' in general, it is time to keep a sharp eye on your wallet, for it is about to be picked. -- Murray N Rothbard "The world is run by narratives. If you see a headline or opinion parroted by many different media companies you're more likely to believe it. If you see 50k likes of some headline or opinion you'll be more likely to believe it. In this particular case, Twitter is a government run narrative promoter. The real users are the decoys. The point is to shape the narrative using bots and sway public opinion. What if you found out 80% of the headlines you read on Twitter were false yet being promoted by the bot network? Is that going to be tolerated by the public?" "if you go on there and say some far left thing that one percent of people in real life agree with, suddenly you’ll have thousands of followers and likes." "it was impossible to protect the production environment. All engineers had access. There was no logging of who went into the environment or what they did..."

Mudge hacked $7M out of Twitter's coffers, lol... Twitter Whistleblower Scored $7M Settlement Days Before Dropping Bombshell Allegations https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-agreed-to-pay-whistleblower-7-million-i... Twitter agreed to pay their former head of security, Peiter Zatko, $7 million in June in exchange for signing an NDA to stop him from speaking publicly about "extreme, egregious deficiencies" over a wide swath of issues - including privacy, platform integrity and content moderation. Days later he dropped his bombshell allegations in the form of a Congressional whistleblower complaint - which is one of the few venues that trumps an NDA, according to the Wall Street Journal. Twitter’s confidential June settlement was related to Mr. Zatko’s lost compensation and followed monthslong mediation over tens of millions of dollars in potential pay, the people said. Such compensation agreements aren’t unusual when an executive departs a company prematurely and leaves behind potential stock options and other money. As part of the settlement, Mr. Zatko agreed to a nondisclosure agreement that forbids him from speaking publicly about his time at Twitter or disparaging the company, the people said. Congressional hearings and governmental whistleblower complaints are two of the few venues in which he is permitted to speak openly, they said, and such exemptions are typical in compensation settlements. -WSJ And now, Zatko's allegations will be part of Elon Musk's countersuit against the company - which was launched after he filed to back out of a $44 billion deal to purchase the company amid allegations that a significant percentage of Twitter accounts are actually bots - and for which Twitter has sued Musk. On Wednesday a judge ruled that Musk can amend his countersuit against Twitter to include Zatko's allegations. A five-day nonjury trial is scheduled for Oct. 17 in Delaware Chancery Court. On Tuesday, the former hacker known as "Mudge" will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss his allegations of security failures at the social media giant. Twitter, meanwhile, says Zatko's allegations have no merit, and that he was fired "for ineffective leadership and poor performance." The company added that his complaint is "riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies and lacks important context." Zatko reportedly demanded roughly five times the $7 million he received, according to 'people familiar with the matter.' Days later, he sent his whistleblower complaint to the SEC, the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. It was promptly leaked to several media outlets, including the Washington Post and CNN. John Tye, founder of Whistleblower Aid, an organization that helped file the whistleblower claims, previously told The Wall Street Journal that Mr. Zatko first approached the nonprofit in early March. Mr. Tye also said Mr. Zatko has never met or spoken with Mr. Musk and that Mr. Musk’s team hasn’t been in contact with the nonprofit about Mr. Zatko’s complaint. -WSJ "Mr. Zatko could have stayed silent about what he saw at Twitter to protect his career and family," said one of his lawyers, Alexis Ronickher. "Instead, he came forward with his whistleblower disclosures to ensure that the government has the information it needs to protect Twitter’s users, investors, and the country."

Pundits Legals and Technos are hoping Twitter will run forensics on the former employees deleted slack space, old backups, etc, that leaks and admittals re censorship will happen... House Republican Asks Elon Musk for Records on Twitter Censorship of Hunter Biden Laptop Story https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-republican-asks-elon-musk-for-records-on... https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-10-2... A Republican congressman is urging Elon Musk, Twitter’s new owner, to hand over all records related to the social media company’s suppression of a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the weeks leading to the 2020 presidential election. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, said in a letter that he expects Twitter’s new leadership to cooperate with the investigation into “the Biden family’s pattern of influence peddling to enrich themselves and President Biden’s involvement in these schemes.” “As part of this investigation, Committee Republicans are reviewing the role Big Tech—including Twitter—played in supporting the Biden campaign in 2020 by suppressing certain stories implicating the Bidens,” Comer wrote in an Oct. 28 letter (pdf) to Musk. A previous attempt to obtain relevant information from Twitter was unsuccessful, according to Comer, as former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal never responded to the congressional request that the company “preserve all documents and communications” regarding the decision to limit the reach of a New York Post article about emails retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Those emails, according to the Post, showed a direct link then-presidential candidate Joe Biden had with his son’s dubious business dealings in China and Ukraine. Shortly after the story’s publication, Twitter not only prohibited users from sharing it, but also suspended the Post’s account for two weeks. Users who tried to share the story’s link were greeted with a message saying, “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.” Those who tried to open the link in existing posts were also warned that it was “potentially spammy and unsafe.” Epoch Times Photo Twitter flagged the New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop as potentially spammy and unsafe. (Twitter screenshot) Meanwhile, Facebook also algorithmically censored the laptop story after getting a general warning against “Russian disinformation” from the FBI. New Leadership Called to Correct Mistake Musk has expressed sympathy with the Post, saying in April that “suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate.” In a more recent post, the billionaire said the reason he acquired Twitter is that “it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence.” Musk can honor his pledge to freedom of speech and information by correcting the “error made by the company’s former leadership,” Comer wrote. Specifically, the congressman asked Musk to hand over “all documents and communications to, from, between and among Twitter and Twitter employees related to the October 2020 New York Post articles on Hunter Biden’s laptop” by Nov. 11. He also asked for all of the records between Twitter and the FBI or any other U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agency regarding that matter. Comer also asked Musk to provide “all documents and communications regarding the decision to censor or suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter’s platform.” “We believe open communication and access to information is a fundamental principle for any free people, and the American people deserve to know the reason Twitter suppressed or censored the Biden laptop story shortly before the 2020 election.”

Elon Retweets Twitter Safety Jew Who is Banning N-Word Sayer Accounts Andrew Anglin The Daily Stormer October 30, 2022 http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/elon-r... That disgusting house nigger LeBron James was whining that people were saying nigger on Twitter. I dont know Elon Musk and, tbh, I could care less who owns twitter. But I will say that if this is true, I hope he and his people take this very seriously because this is scary AF. So many damn unfit people saying hate speech is free speech. https://twitter.com/phil_lewis_/status/1586368991580237827 — LeBron James (@KingJames) October 29, 2022 What insecurity? Imagine being a famous multimillionaire celebrity and going around with hurt feelings because people said a mean word. What even is that? Just a thought: maybe it wouldn’t hurt his feelings so bad if he didn’t look like a prehistoric ape? Maybe he should get some plastic surgery for his confidence? What he should do regardless is get up out of my business. It says in the Constitution I have a right to nigger, and I will nigger as I darn well please without this nigger getting in my darn business. Apparently, there is still some Jew working at Twitter’s “Trust and Safety” (I assumed this department was abolished), and Elon retweeted him saying that everyone who was saying nigger got banned. Nearly all of these accounts are inauthentic. We’ve taken action to ban the users involved in this trolling campaign — and are going to continue working to address this in the days to come to make Twitter safe and welcoming for everyone. https://t.co/1hUnb1WYPZ — Yoel Roth (@yoyoel) October 30, 2022 https://t.co/ZdI2nTqlqw — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 30, 2022 This is a disaster. In the last 48 hours, we’ve gone from “wow, we’re going to have free speech back!” to “oh, this doesn’t look good, he’s talking about a council” to now “he’s officially announcing there won’t be any free speech and he’s celebrating Jews banning people.” This is disgusting and evil. It was pure evil for Elon to claim he was bringing back freedom of speech and then go full Jew. I said that people shouldn’t go just spam the n-word on Twitter, but someone was going to do it regardless, and it doesn’t even matter. Who cares about that? Some whinny ball-chucker? Tell him to man up and stop acting like a little pussy faggot going around whining about people hurting his feelings. Is there anything gayer than a big gay nigger whining about his feelings? How do these blacks claim to be macho and then start talking about “oh boy, they sure did done hurted my feelings when they typed them mean words on dat internet, oh boy, my big black ass is cryin’ nah, y’all whites best bring me some tissues, I’m a big boy and these tears have a lot of snot because I’m so sad about these mean words.” Seriously. I have so many blacks that read this website and think it’s funny when I use mean words. How would someone care? Why would they care? Can you imagine caring that blacks are saying “cracker” or “honkey” or that Moslems are calling you their various slurs? I will say I get angry when Hasan Piker calls me slurs, but only because he’s a pussy faggot who sits on Twitch and demands everyone who insults him be banned. I would like to confront him is all. Anyway, yeah – looks like the “free Twitter” thing was a bust. There is no way to defend Elon coming out and saying he’s banning “trolls” for saying the n-word. It’s over before it even began. I have no idea why he pissed off the entire left just to piss off the right as well, but there you have it. Show’s over. philip lewis @Phil_Lewis_ https://news.yahoo.com/n-word-twitter-jumped-almost-122043804.html Elon Musk's Twitter takeover sparked a surge in the use of the N-word on the social media platform. A social media research group told The Washington Post the use of the slur increased by nearly 500%. Use of N-word on Twitter jumped by almost 500% after Elon Musk's takeover as trolls test limits on... Accounts using racist language sent more tweets following the takeover and called on others to do so as well, The Washington Post reported. Oct 29, 2022 · 2:46 PM UTC

Vaginal Empire Threatens Musk Over Free Speech Andrew Anglin The Daily Stormer November 3, 2022 http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/vagina... Cunts are united against freedom of speech. These are vaginal values. It’s fair enough to talk about the fact that these people in the government are all criminals and want to ensure that their crimes are not exposed – but why is it literally all women? Jonathan Turley: We have been discussing how Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton called on foreign companies to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. The EU has responded aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech or face crippling fines and even potential criminal enforcement. After years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) declared Musk’s pledge to restore free speech values on social media as threatening Democracy itself. She has promised that “there are going to be rules” to block such changes. She is not alone. Former President Obama has declared “regulation has to be part of the answer” to disinformation. This is from six months ago. It’s with that horrible Jew. For her part, Hillary Clinton is looking to Europe to fill the vacuum and called upon her European counterparts to pass a massive censorship law to “bolster global democracy before it’s too late.” New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike. EU censors have assured Democratic leaders that they will not allow free speech to break out on Twitter regardless of the wishes of its owner and customers. One of the most anti-free speech figures in the West, EU’s Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has been raising the alarm that Twitter users might be able to read uncensored material or hear unauthorized views. That’s supposedly a man. I’m not sure it’s not an f-to-m tranny. Breton himself threatened that Twitter must “fly by [the European Union’s] rules” in censoring views deemed misleading or harmful by EU bureaucrats. Breton has been moving publicly to warn Musk not to try to reintroduce protections that go beyond the tolerance of the EU for free speech. Musk is planning to meet with the EU censors and has conceded that he may not be able resist such mandatory censorship rules. If the Europeans are such babies that they need protection by the government from ideas that their government thinks are “dangerous,” they should do it themselves. The hope of leaders like Clinton is the anti-free speech measure recently passed by EU countries, the Digital Services Act. The DSA contains mandatory “disinformation” rules for censoring “harmful” thoughts or views. Breton has made no secret that he views free speech as a danger coming from the United States that needs to be walled off from the Internet. He previously declared that, with the DSA, the EU is now able to prevent the Internet from again becoming a place for largely unregulated free speech, which he referred to as the “Wild West” period of the Internet. It is a telling reference because the EU views free speech itself as an existential danger. They reject the notion of free speech as its own protection where good speech can overcome bad speech. That is viewed as the “Wild West.” It’s nauseating. If this is what Musk is facing, and he doesn’t think he can overcome it, he needs to just come out there and say it, instead of acting like it’s his own plan to do censorship. Free speech is popular. This is his ongoing poll: These arguments do not make sense to normal people. What Liz Warren is saying comes across as gibberish. She is saying “rules of the road.” What? We all remember 2017 when you could just say the n-word on Twitter and YouTube and nothing happened. No one was harmed by freedom of speech. Elon is currently harassing people about how they are going to have to pay people $8. Your feedback is appreciated, now pay $8 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 $8 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 pic.twitter.com/kGncG7Hs3M — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 pic.twitter.com/BYOBGBHOUA — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 🤔 pic.twitter.com/XuJdfMTTi1 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 That’s fine and I think it’s good to harass AOC and force her to pay $8, but we need to have the actual freedoms. I will pay $8. Everyone will pay $8. No one cares about this. People just want to speak. That is the issue here. This $8 thing is becoming a distraction. He’s complaining about me attacking him. Being attacked by both right & left simultaneously is a good sign — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 This “centrism” argument does not make sense and is not valid. I just want freedom of speech. That’s all. That’s not really left or right, and more importantly, it was the deal. That is what we were promised. Now, we have no Donald Trump, we have no n-word, we have no Alex Jones or Nick Fuentes – all we have is that Jew Yolo mocking us. If the left is attacking because they are literally just greedy and don’t want to pay $8, that doesn’t really mean anything important. If it’s literally impossible for Elon to implement speech, he should say that, and then the people can address their anger towards the people preventing it.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1594500655724609536 Best ad ever ;)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595250835096621057 "#StayWoke" Found in closet at Twitter HQ fr 🤣🤣 77,861 90,893 18,073 635,777 23,173,807 Them numbers, Lol. Musk announced about to drop Libtards innermost secrets and Democrats deepest political corruptions for all the world to see, stay tuned...

Greenwald Drags MSM Journos For 'Hive-Mind' Hackery Over Taibbi-Twitter Bombshell Glenn Greenwald sums it up perfectly in an epic Twitter thread: First, click on this link. Just click it. You'll see how these liberal media employees operate as a hive mind, an in-group pack, reciting the same phrases on cue. They have no novel thoughts. They're Democratic Party activists who unite as pack animals:https://t.co/S0U2SB69fJ — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 3, 2022 Go look and you'll see the whole mindless liberal pack making this point: "LOL, Elon claimed there was government involvement when Taibbi admitted in tweet 22 there's none." Now, look at Taibbi's tweet: he's saying there's no evidence of *foreign government* involvement, not US: pic.twitter.com/ApcN6VviOb — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 3, 2022 In fact, the tweet they're pointing to - to claim @ElonMusk lied by saying Dem officials were involved - says the opposite. That's the whole point! Twitter lied when saying they censored this story because the docs were hacked by Russia. They know there was no evidence of this! pic.twitter.com/8SYteOFi8R — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 3, 2022 Third, we have the personal attacks on Taibbi - from all the people who could not match his journalistic accomplishments if they had 100 lives to try. Again, the more big stories you break, the more these frauds - who just repeat what CIA and Google tell them to say - hate you. pic.twitter.com/1IofZNOEnv — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 3, 2022 Never forget the person they chose to start this lie: the single worst and most dishonest US Security State propagandist in corporate media, @NatashaBertrand, who got promoted and promoted and promoted again the more she lied. Lying is how one advances in liberal corporate media. pic.twitter.com/H7qWtJeD74 — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 3, 2022 Click on any of the above tweets to read the rest. On Friday night, veteran journalist Matt Taibbi released the first installment of "The Twitter Files" - evidence of Twitter's interference in the 2020 US election provided by new owner Elon Musk. The release details what ZeroHedge readers have known for a long time - that Twitter has been a deeply partisan, narrative-shaping arm of the Democratic party. 8. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.” pic.twitter.com/mnv0YZI4af — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 2, 2022 Fox News' Tucker Carlson summed it up perfectly as 'The biggest first amendment violation in modern history.' Just read this and, as expected, Twitter’s far-left apparatchiks simply concocted the whole “maybe Hunter’s laptop came via a hack” excuse. Their M.O. was clearly: censor first, backfill an excuse later, pray Biden gets elected and then, hopefully, get away with the whole scheme. https://t.co/Z56KNfkYt2 — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 3, 2022 In response to the bombshell evidence, presented by a veteran journalist engaged in journalism, pundits on the left pounced on Taibbi in comments that will bring shame on their houses for generations. "Imagine throwing it all away to do PR work for the richest person in the world," tweeted NBC reporter Ben Collins, adding that it as "Humiliating shit." Imagine throwing it all away to do PR work for the richest person in the world. Humiliating shit. — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) December 2, 2022 Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali, who's never broken a major story, called Taibbi's journalism a "sad, disgraceful downfall," adding "Should be a cautionary tale for everyone. Selling your soul for the richest white nationalist on Earth." Matt Taibbi...what sad, disgraceful downfall. I swear, kids, he did good work back in the day. Should be a cautionary tale for everyone. Selling your soul for the richest white nationalist on Earth. Well, he'll eat well for the rest of his life I guess. But is it worth it? — Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) December 2, 2022 Once a liar, always a liar, right? Is this you, you gaslighting liar? https://t.co/2t2V8QgaGk pic.twitter.com/aZTBfKgjFw — Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) December 3, 2022 The Bulwark's Tim Miller tweeted: "Matt Taibbi is very upset that the Biden campaign asked a platform to take down some revenge porn targeting the candidates son." Matt Taibbi is very upset that the Biden campaign asked a platform to take down some revenge porn targeting the candidates son. I’m sure matt would be totes cool with people tweeting out his adult kids dick bc they didn’t like him and would not ask his buddy Elon to help. https://t.co/MyfmBe1c91 — Tim Miller (@Timodc) December 3, 2022 CNN's Elle Reeve tweeted: "It’s true: in 2014, I taught Matt Taibbi keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste," adding "If I had not done that, maybe all this could have been averted. I am deeply sorry." It's true: in 2014, I taught Matt Taibbi keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste. If I had not done that, maybe all this could have been averted. I am deeply sorry. — Elle Reeve (@elspethreeve) December 3, 2022 And how would these people feel if it was a Don Jr. laptop full of incriminating evidence? Meanwhile, some responses to the hackery and Twitter's election interference: The sad part of what journalism has become is that we were all raised on movies about what journalism should be and the heroes of those movies who sought the truth and fought through lies and danger to get it and bring it to the people, they are the villains of modern journalism https://t.co/aawW8dM6kZ — PoliMath (@politicalmath) December 3, 2022 Government collusion with a corporation to silence citizens’ first amendment rights. Another conspiracy theory confirmed. #twitterfiles pic.twitter.com/wKUzVmHXlY — Douglas Karr (@douglaskarr) December 3, 2022 Meanwhile, mainstream outlets have been spinning the release as a 'rehash' of things we already knew. Here is how CNN is covering the biggest story of the year and the total collapse of their credibility -- the Hunter laptop reveal by Twitter. "Hey, how about that virus, eh?" pic.twitter.com/yTvvU17WI7 — Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) December 3, 2022 it's a little crazy that someone had to pay $44BN for the public to gain access to this information — zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 3, 2022 And while Elon Musk insists former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has a 'pure heart,' he is ultimately responsible for what happened under his watch (and direction?). No one deserves more blame for this fiasco than @jack Dorsey. It was his company — but for some reason he allowed his aggresssively partisan San Fran staff to take the reins in the crucial weeks before Election Day, then played dumb every time they abused the opportunity. https://t.co/4AsqhvMu0k — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 3, 2022 The last word goes to Andy Swan: So... ya... it was rigged — Andy Swan (@AndySwan) December 3, 2022

https://www.theepochtimes.com/censors-set-their-sights-on-musks-twitter-take... Censors Set Their Sights On Musk's Twitter Takeover Not long after Elon Musk acquired Twitter with his promise of ending its censorship regime, a reporter from Reuters covering a White House press conference asked Karine Jean-Pierre, President Joe Biden’s press secretary, whether Twitter might become a “vector of misinformation.” Jean-Pierre’s response at the Nov. 28 press conference was: “This is something that we’re certainly keeping an eye on. Look, we have always been very clear that when it comes to social media platforms, it is their responsibility to make sure that when it comes to misinformation, when it comes to the hate that we’re seeing, that they take action, that they continue to take action. … We’re all monitoring what’s currently occurring.” That sounded pretty chilling. The idea that the government could be “monitoring” any part of any media for “misinformation” and “hate” speech—both of which are protected by the First Amendment unless they stray into defamation or incitement to imminent crime—ought to raise the hackles of anyone who cares about the Bill of Rights. And why, in particular, should social-media platforms have any legal obligation to “take action” against speech that might offend some people but is neither criminal nor libelous? But in fact, that is exactly what the nation’s two wokest states, New York and California, have already decided that social media platforms, a category that can include everything from Facebook to chatrooms and traditional journalism blogs with comments, must henceforth do. The New York law came first, in June, and it went into effect on Dec. 3. Realizing that free speech enjoys constitutional protection, New York’s legislators decided to outlaw only what they cagily called “hateful conduct.” But “hateful conduct,” as defined in the New York law, means “the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” Vilify? Humiliate? That sounds pretty much like … constitutionally protected speech. Disturbing as it may be to listen to a rant against Jews, for example, the Al Sharpton of the 1990s and the Kanye West of 2022 weren’t saying anything that could be prosecuted. But the New York law requires social media networks to post “clear and concise policy readily available and accessible on their website and application that includes how such social media network will respond and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.” That forces everyone with a blog to pay lawyers to draft a policy statement acceptable to New York regulators and then spend hours trying to “respond,” for example, to a woman who says she feels “humiliated” that the blogger has described her as overweight. ​The California law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September and set to go into effect on Jan. 1, at least has the virtue of exempting service providers with gross revenues of less than $100 million per year. It’s targeted at Bay Area tech giants such as Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and Twitter. But its reporting requirements are even more onerous. Every company that falls under the statute’s purview must submit a twice-a-year report to the California attorney general detailing its moderation policies, not simply for “hate speech” but for such categories as “racism,” “extremism,” “radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” “harassment,” and “foreign political influence.” The company must list every instance that it flagged such content and how it handled it. State Rep. Jesse Gabriel, who introduced the bill that Newsom signed, said the new reporting requirements are designed to deal with “conspiracy theories and other dangerous content” allegedly widespread on social media. ​Neither the New York nor the California law explicitly censors disapproved forms of speech or requires social media platforms to do so. But their vague and subjective language (“vilify,” “extremism”) coupled with their threats of sanctions for noncompliance (a $15,000-a-day fine in California, a $1,000-a-day fine plus a possible attorney general’s investigation in New York) are powerful inducements for social media companies to play Big Brother. And in New York, for example, Attorney General Letitia James, responding to the mass shooting in March at a Buffalo supermarket that was briefly livestreamed, has called for even tougher restrictions on internet content, such as criminal and civil penalties for transmitting images that might inspire others to commit violent acts. ​ ​On Dec. 1, Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and founder of the legal-news blog Volokh Conspiracy, together with two social media platforms, Rumble and Locals, filed a lawsuit challenging the New York content-moderation law on First Amendment grounds. “New York politicians are slapping a speech-police badge on my chest because I run a blog,” Volokh said. As for California, University of Santa Clara law professor Eric Goldman writes: “By prioritizing certain content categories, the bill tells social media platforms that they must make special publication decisions in those categories to please the regulators and enforcers who are watching them. The resulting distortions to the platforms’ editorial decision-making constitutes censorship.” ​And as we’ve learned from the Biden-administration press secretary, California and New York aren’t the only government entities whose “regulators and enforcers” are “watching” social media with an eye to cracking down. Musk’s takeover of Twitter and his relaxation of the site’s content-moderation policies that routinely muffled conservatives have outraged political progressives. A Nov. 23 report from the liberal Brookings Institution asserted that “hate speech” on Twitter, including derogatory references to Jews and blacks, had increased as much as 500 percent since Musk assumed control of the platform on Oct. 27. The report noted that the bulk of this invective came from about 300 troll accounts, but that didn’t stop Brookings from declaring, “When acquisitions of social media platforms occur, there should be an obligation of the new owner(s) to ensure that hate speech is moderated.” That was a broad hint to Congress and the Biden administration. Expect federal regulators to try to force some heavy-handed censorship of Twitter, Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights.

Twitter was full of Democrat apologists for abuse Musk Disbands Twitter 'Trust & Safety' Council After Inaction On Child Porn https://about.twitter.com/en/our-priorities/healthy-conversations/trust-and-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-disbands-trust-and-safety-council-amid... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601275244710621184 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601313922501353472 https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1601713869902446594 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1602468007006990337 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1601304851329081344 Twitter has dissolved its Trust and Safety council after new owner Elon Musk criticized the group over a longstanding lack of action to rid the platform of child sexual abuse material. "As Twitter moves into a new phase, we are reevaluating how best to bring external insights into our product and policy development work. As part of this process, we have decided that the Trust and Safety Council is not the best structure to do this," read an email to the council's members. "Our work to make Twitter a safe, informative place will be moving faster and more aggressively than ever before and we will continue to welcome your ideas going forward about how to achieve this goal," the email continues. "We will also continue to explore opportunities to provide focused and timely input into our work, whether through bilateral or small group meetings." The council, which was made up of around 100 stakeholders - including independent civil, human rights, and other organizations, was notified of the change shortly before it was set to meet on Monday night, the Associated Press reported. The Council's webpage is now blank. As The Epoch Times notes, the Trust and Safety Council has been criticized by Musk for not taking action to remove child sexual abuse material from Twitter. The council was established in 2016 to address problems such as hate speech, child exploitation, suicide, self-harm, and other issues on the platform. After three members of the council resigned in protest over allegations of increased hate speech on the platform on Dec. 8, Musk declared on Dec. 10 that it was “a crime that they refused to take action on child exploitation for years!” Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey replied to Musk, saying: “This is false.” “No, it is not,” Musk replied, adding: “When Ella Irwin, who now runs Trust & Safety, joined Twitter earlier this year, almost no one was working on child safety.” Musk noted that, unlike Twitter’s former management, he “made it top priority immediately.” No, it is not. When Ella Irwin, who now runs Trust & Safety, joined Twitter earlier this year, almost no one was working on child safety. She raised this with Ned & Parag, but they rejected her staffing request. I made it top priority immediately.@ellagirwin — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2022 On Dec. 10, Twitter Safety announced that it had suspended 57 percent more “bad actor” accounts in November with child sexual exploitation material (CSE), which was significantly more than any other month year-to-date. “We’ve been improving our detection and enforcement methods and expanding our partnerships with organizations that help prevent the trafficking of CSE material,” the company said. Twitter’s former head of trust and safety. https://t.co/7dI1a0Wxpe — Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) December 13, 2022 Maybe nobody had more power to censor & ban conservatives on Twitter than @yoyoel who colluded with FBI & interfered in elections. Meanwhile his “trust & safety” team ignored child porn on Twitter while he sympathized with teachers having sex with students. He’s a menace. — Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) December 10, 2022 Eliza Blue, a sex trafficking survivor, who has advocated for the removal of CSE material from Twitter, has noted an improvement in the way Twitter addresses the problem under Musk. “There was basically no child safety team when he started. He made building the team his top priority. Then he built the team,” she said. Twitters full email to “Trust and Safety” Council Members pic.twitter.com/7G0mJCLU7t — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) December 13, 2022 How did this slip through? What did Yoel et all do internally for accountability? Who was fired?https://t.co/EwRW1gSTtU — Cernovich (@Cernovich) December 9, 2022 Hate Speech Twitter has reported that hate speech is trending downward on the platform, while external critics have said it is increasing. Inaugural members Anne Collier and Eirliani Rahman, as well as Lesley Podesta, resigned from Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council council in protest on Dec. 8, citing a rise in hate speech. Three of us resigned from Twitter’s Trust & Safety Council today: @eirliani @podesta_lesley and me. Here’s why https://t.co/h05TblfGIO pic.twitter.com/iqcHvhbgms — annecollier (@annecollier) December 8, 2022 The White House has also expressed concern about hate speech on the platform. However, Twitter reported on Dec. 11 that data shows “a consistent downward trend in true hateful language impressions.” “Counting the number of Tweets that contain a specific slur is not an accurate way to measure hateful speech. Context matters, and not all occurrences of slur words are used in a hateful way. Slur words may be used in counterspeech, reclaimed phrases, and song lyrics, for example,” the company said. The platform noted that 10 accounts were responsible for a spike in hate speech. Twitter said it won’t amplify any tweets containing slurs or hate speech, nor will it serve ads next to them. “We track all uses of slurs, not just the ones that are used in a hateful manner. However, the raw data alone doesn’t tell the full story,” the company said. This is the former head of Twitter Trust and Safety who made the decision to ban President Trump. Yoel Roth made a career out of telling all of us we are “hateful” & shouldn’t have a voice while he openly fantasizes on Twitter about murdering children. Sick stuff @elonmusk. https://t.co/HQTUOluIhN — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) December 11, 2022

A Tale Of Two Narratives: Twitter Edition Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog, https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2022/12/a-tale-of-two-narratives-twitter-e... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-bren... https://www.bigiftrue.org/2019/12/13/fact-check-john-brennan-lie-under-oath-... We’ve done quite a few episodes of commenter TAE Summary’s “Tales of Two Narratives” through time. Let’s add this one, why don’t we. Reading through -especially- Twitter, the past 24 hours or so, it struck me how fitting this is. We’re talking narratives that are so many light years apart, never the twain shall meet. Interested in time travel? This is for you. On the one hand, lots of people react to the following tweet by Elon Musk, by claiming Fauci saved millions of lives. On the other hand, just as many people (or so it seems) claim Fauci killed millions of people. It’s hard to get a bigger, and more consequential, chasm, than that. And apparently this Musk tweet got the most likes in Twitter history. What does that tell us? This chasm is not just on Twitter, this is the entire country plus anywhere else on the planet where people follow this. Despite the enormous 24/7 pressure to accept “The Science”, get a shot and a mask, and shut up. Of all people, John Brennan tried. The ex-CIA director who was caught lying to the Senate in 2014, and in 2017 to the House Intelligence Committee (Steele Dossier) about Russian interference during the 2016 election, still appears to think he has some form of moral high ground. Which is remarkable in and of itself. But at least Brennan has “class”. Elon Musk’s reaction has been loud and clear (note: this tweet is not a direct reaction to Brennan): Elon Musk has promised us a “full” record of the decision making process behind the censoring and banning by Twitter’s former staff, of renowned doctors like Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Pierre Kory, Robert Marik, Richard Urso, and many more. Many of these distinguished scientists have seen their careers and livelihoods hampered, even destroyed by Fauci -and Twitter- over the past -almost- 3 years. And, of course, anyone else who dared question “The Science”. This was (is?!) a highly concerted effort. How many people died who could have been saved with ivermectin? Or just Vitamin D3, for that matter? HCQ? So many lives were lost to FDA, Fauci et al banning anything but Pfizer. Many more will perish because they now have mRNA in their bodies, and will never be able to get rid of it anymore. The “full record” will be a spectacle. Even if some things still remain hidden. Elon Musk may not be a saint, I very much hope he’s not, saints scare me, but I’d take him over Tony Fauci any day of the week. Here’s TAE Summary: The Mainstream Narrative As a worldwide ‘public square,’ Twitter should be heavily regulated for misinformation and spamming by hostile interests. Twitter bears a responsibility to take action against disinformation and hate. Content moderation on platforms like Twitter is absolutely necessary to safeguard our democracy. As a private company Twitter is under no legal obligation to protect free speech and everything Twitter has done is within the law. Twitter and other social media platforms were instrumental in combating disinformation about Covid 19, climate change, election integrity and the war in Ukraine. Elon Musk is an arrogant, toxic person. He doesn’t really care about free speech. His goals in purchasing Twitter are political. His takeover of Twitter is the most terrifying development in recent history. His purchase of Twitter will destroy it by driving away advertisers and providing a platform for Neo-Nazis and other hate-speechers. Under Musk, Twitter is a scammer’s paradise. Elon Musk decimated the staff of Twitter (breaking Federal labor laws) while restoring accounts that spread disinformation. Control of Twitter involves national security risks and Musk’s takeover should be investigated by the US Government. The so-called “Twitter Files” are a feast for conspiracy theorists and have re-enlivened the influence of entities like QAnon. Journalists like Matt Taibbi writing about the Twitter Files are selling their souls to do PR work for the richest man in the world. The Twitter Files entries are sloppy, anecdotal and devoid of context. They are a nothing event about nothing event. The hysteria surrounding the Twitter Files is being used by Republicans for political gain. The Hunter Biden laptop story was difficult and the truth was not known early and so caution was justified. There is no evidence in the Twitter Files that the government was involved in the suppression of the Hunter Biden Laptop story. There is nothing on Hunter Biden’s laptop that actually implicates Joe Biden. James Baker took the careful approach and urged Twitter to weigh both sides of the Hunter Biden Laptop story before proceeding. Hate speech has dramatically increased since Must took over Twitter and these hateful tweets will lead to violence against the already marginalized. Right wing accounts such as those of Donald Trump, Project Veritas and the Babylon Bee should continue to be banned. The Counter Narrative Twitter management was openly against free speech and used techniques such as “Visibility Filtering” to limit the reach of some posts. Twitter had secret blacklist files to limit the distribution of certain tweets specifically targeting right wing users. Twitter and other social media platforms have been instrumental in distributing disinformation and hiding the truth about Covid 19, climate change, election integrity and the war in Ukraine. Twitter censorship was used by the Democrats for political gain Elon Musk is a hero. He bought Twitter to restore free speech. Twitter, pre-Musk, was a major accomplice and enabler in selling-out America’s future. Twitter was bloated with excess and left wing employees. The Twitter Files show that the DNC and FBI were directly involved in suppressing free speech and prove that the 2020 elections were not free and fair. Twitter was clearly involved in election interference. The government interactions with Twitter were similar to Nazi propaganda methods. Twitter employees and their government contacts should be made to answer for their actions before congress. So-called journalists criticizing Matt Taibbi for his work on the Twitter Files are embarrassing in their uniformity and mindless support of a corrupt system. The files on Hunter Biden’s laptop prove that Joe Biden used his office to make money and Twitter’s suppression of the laptop story was done to help get Joe Biden elected. It is a bigger scandal than Watergate. James Baker was involved in RussiaGate at the FBI and the Hunter Biden Laptop suppression at Twitter. Baker deleted some of the content that should have been in the Twitter Files. The claims that hate speech has increased on Twitter since Musk’s takeover are utterly false. Hate speech is not tolerated on Twitter. Twitter largely ignored child trafficking issues until Musk took over. Lifting the ban on Donald Trump, Project Veritas and the Babylon Bee on Twitter are victories for free speech. Red pill or blue pill?

Elon Musk Accused Of Being A "Dangerous" Right Wing QAnon "Terrorist" After Tweeting Rabbit Emoji https://summit.news/2022/12/14/elon-musk-accused-of-being-a-dangerous-right-... Elon Musk is ‘dragging Twitter down a dangerous rabbit hole’ according to Bloomberg, and leftist bedwetters are adamant that his tweet of a Rabbit is proof that he is a right wing QAnon conspiracy theorist. Follow 🐰 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 13, 2022 Musk tweeted out the bunny emoji preceded by the word ‘follow’, immediately triggering his detractors into labelling him a domestic terrorist: Elon Musk is now explicitly encouraging his 120 million followers to start following QAnon. Put differently, Elon Musk is encouraging his 120 million followers to join a domestic terrorism movement. pic.twitter.com/W7O9nLuivh — Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) December 13, 2022 This 👇 is how that 👆 works. https://t.co/uSWPhiwrzh — Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) December 13, 2022 The minute I saw @elonmusk tweet a rabbit emoji last night, Q himself appeared to me and told me to "trust the plan." I then joined my local QAnon militia and we're currently on our way to Tesla's headquarters to watch JFK rise from the dead. https://t.co/QJoAQbBFN1 — Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 13, 2022 Lmaooo — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 13, 2022 This tutorial video explains the backstory https://t.co/sopNJjfyBl — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 13, 2022 Bunny emojis are hate speech!! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 13, 2022 Exactly as predicted: Nearly each day that goes by sees Elon Musk amplifying more paranoid ideas to dangerous effect https://t.co/AUnndDt9IO — Bloomberg Opinion (@opinion) December 14, 2022 The piece asserts that “Musk is on track to go “full Pizza Gate,” the QAnon fabrication about world leaders running a child sex trafficking ring. We seem to be watching him drag himself and Twitter down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole.” It continues, “On Tuesday, Musk posted a tweet that confirmed his own trajectory: “Follow [the white rabbit],” a phrase associated with QAnon conspiracy followers. The tweet was reposted on several of QAnon’s most popular forums, and appeared to galvanize members of those networks.” And there’s more. QAnon followers are reading into Elon Musk's white rabbit tweet https://t.co/JcexY2xfog pic.twitter.com/3khAQDWQ3h — Newsweek (@Newsweek) December 13, 2022 Elon Musk's latest Twitter rants include an explicit encouragement to his 121 million followers to look into QAnon. "Follow 🐰" he tweeted Monday. Here's what that really means:https://t.co/JRewH8BsxE — VICE News (@VICENews) December 13, 2022 From his reprehensible attempt to pizzagate Yoel Roth, to his attacks on Anthony Fauci, to his *false* claims about waging war on (actual) pedophiles and child sexual abuse material on Twitter, Elon Musk is basically tweeting the QAnon playbook.https://t.co/qHJd0YbDU6 — Caroline Orr Bueno, Ph.D (@RVAwonk) December 14, 2022 They were already reeling from this vitriolic hate speech: In case you didn’t realize yet, this is now an app for QAnon run by a fascist. pic.twitter.com/ccVKx2l3b1 — MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) December 11, 2022 Amid the revelations of how pre-Musk Twitter censored conservatives and those they disagreed with politically, the new CEO has promised that details of how Twitter suppressed COVID information is “coming bigtime.” Oh it is coming bigtime … — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 11, 2022

Musk Tweets Video Of "Crazy Stalker" Who Climbed On Hood Of Car His Son Was In https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603235998263123969 https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-elon-musk-releases-footage-of-black-m... https://duckduckgo.com/?q="CJ82G38" White Male Antifa type age approx 22-32 driving White Hyundai Loma Linda CA plate CJ82G38 It's unclear how Elon Musk connected @elonjet to the stalking attack on his family, but the billionaire wasted no time in suspending Twitter accounts posting 'doxxed real-time location info' on Wednesday. Musk elaborated more on the "crazy stalker" that followed a car carrying his two-year-old son X Æ A-Xii, known as X. He said the person "blocked the car from moving & climbed onto hood." A video posted by Musk, presumably filmed by his driver (Musk said earlier he wasn't in the car at the time of the incident), showed a person dressed in all black, wearing a mask sitting in a white Hyundai. Anyone recognize this person or car? pic.twitter.com/2U0Eyx7iwl — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 15, 2022 Someone asked the billionaire if "this is the guy that jumped in the hood?" Musk replied: "Yeah." Yeah — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 15, 2022 Musk explained the rationale for suspending accounts that track locations: "it is a physical safety violation" ... and said he would take legal action against @elonjet's operator Jack Sweeney. Could this be the guy? Is this the guy @elonmusk? pic.twitter.com/sD6Eg0iSq6 — TaraBull (@TaraBull808) December 15, 2022 We finally know why the @ElonJet Twitter account was suspended. Musk tweeted: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood." Musk then said, "legal action is being taken against Sweeney [the kid who runs @ElonJet] & organizations who supported harm to my family." Musk also said, "any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info," adding "posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn't a safety problem, so is ok." Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood. Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 15, 2022 The college kid who created the @ElonJet Twitter account before Elon Musk bought the social media platform has had the account "suspended." Last Friday, Jack Sweeney pointed out @ElonJet was "search banned," though he mentioned the account had been "search banned for months before Elon's takeover. " It’s true ElonJet is search banned. But I’m not sure who to blame, it’s been search banned for months now way before Elon’a takeover. https://t.co/kYpSdFS6Tw — Jack Sweeney (@JxckSweeney) December 9, 2022 But now it appears the account that shared publicly-available information about Musk's private jet locations and had over half a million followers has been "suspended." On Wednesday morning, Twitter users are chatting away about the suspension. Here's what some had to say: Elon Musk’s position on free speech pic.twitter.com/zvxTLf4Jhz — Daniel Uhlfelder (@DWUhlfelderLaw) December 14, 2022 Hey folks (@RonFilipkowski @DWUhlfelderLaw ), not only has Elon suspended @ElonJet, he's now prevented Flight Aware from publicly tracking his airplane. I guess it's good to be rich. This should be publicly available information. I'm sure someone can figure out how. pic.twitter.com/VQ2xCmBHra — globetrotter (@globe55trotter) December 14, 2022 Nearly a year ago, we told readers about Sweeney and how Musk requested the college kid to take down the account because of security risks. At the time, Sweeney told Musk the price to take down @ElonJet would be a "Model 3." Musk rejected the offer and told the kid: "I don't love the idea of being shot by a nutcase." As we've told readers, tracking the private jets of CEOs is nothing new in the hedge fund industry. There are services that some traders pay upwards of $100k to retrieve flight data of the movements of deal-makers. We also said Sweeney would have better luck selling his technology to a hedge fund or even Quandl, a flight-tracking company, rather than letting it stay on Twitter. Now the account has been nuked.

Edward Snowden @Snowden 6h I take payment in Bitcoin. Elon Musk @elonmusk 7h Replying to @WholeMarsBlog The question is not finding a CEO, the question is finding a CEO who can keep Twitter alive 1,872 4,551 549 45,510 Edward Snowden retweeted Ms. Pinky Stanseski 🏳️‍⚧️🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈🇵🇸She/her @undergradwoman 6h Replying to @Snowden @paulg @balajis Good news: I just checked and Paul is no longer banned! 24 27 7 216 Edward Snowden retweeted Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi 7h Notes from the Twitter Files: Twitter and the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) Twitter didn't just take moderation requests from government, it made rapid attitude adjustments. More below: open.substack.com/pub/taibbi… Notes from the Twitter Files: Twitter and the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) In a curious exchange, the government expresses annoyance with Twitter for reporting little "recent" foreign activity taibbi.substack.com 95 1,348 30 4,171 Edward Snowden retweeted Elon Musk @elonmusk 7h Going forward, there will be a vote for major policy changes. My apologies. Won’t happen again. 16,545 14,250 4,608 253,376 Edward Snowden retweeted Elon Musk @elonmusk 7h Replying to @elonmusk @TheQuartering @levie Policy will be adjusted to suspending accounts only when that account’s *primary* purpose is promotion of competitors, which essentially falls under the no spam rule 953 1,523 991 14,576 Edward Snowden @Snowden 7h 🤔 Elon Musk @elonmusk Jun 6 The acid test for any two competing socioeconomic systems is which side needs to build a wall to keep people from escaping? That’s the bad one! 224 585 32 5,740 Edward Snowden retweeted Alex Kehr @alexkehr 8h Replying to @elonmusk @TrungTPhan @stillgray Why did you just suspend Paul Graham? He said he no longer believes in Twitter and was instantly suspended. Doesn’t seem like this is a safe place to speak freely anymore. 155 210 30 1,405 Edward Snowden @Snowden 8h Twitter seemingly banned @paulg for this tweet. A major account that was obviously not "solely created to promote other social media platforms." And he didn't even post the link! As @balajis said, this is a bad policy and should be reversed. 495 1,071 177 7,648 Edward Snowden retweeted Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald Dec 17 Excerpts from last night’s show on how the very same government officials and media corporations who built and cheered Big Tech’s censorship regime suddenly objected because, for once, the targets were their friends and allies rather than their enemies:👇👇 System Update @SystemUpdate_ Dec 17 Rep. Jane Harman spent much of her time in Congress steadfastly defending the ever-expanding US security state. Then, her own NSA-tapped conversations were released to the public—and her position on civil liberties flipped overnight. Show this thread 82 585 19 2,301 Edward Snowden retweeted Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi Dec 17 - What "law enforcement" objective is served by asking for Billy Baldwin's location information? - Why is the FBI/DHS in the business of analyzing and flagging social media content at all? When were these programs created and who approved them? 849 5,703 244 31,243 Show this thread Edward Snowden retweeted Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley 12h The growing panic is evident. This hold-the-line warning is meant to stop a cascading failure in the once insurmountable wall of social-media censorship. If Facebook were to restore free-speech protections, the control over social media could evaporate...jonathanturley.org/2022/12/1… Censor or Else: Democratic Members Warn Facebook Not to “Backslide” on Censorship With the restoration of free speech protections on Twitter, panic has grown on the left that its control over social media could come to an end. Now, some of the greatest advocates of censorship in… jonathanturley.org 287 2,095 111 6,484 Show this thread Edward Snowden retweeted jack @jack 11h Replying to @TwitterSupport Why? 4,419 6,249 4,497 54,308 Edward Snowden @Snowden 11h ayfkm This tweet is unavailable 343 595 50 4,929 Edward Snowden @Snowden Dec 17 Adults are at times farther from comprehending the world than children. Children have yet to educated, but remain open to learning, while adults have often been 𝘮𝘪𝘴-educated, and so jealously guard the granite of their preconception from being cracked by a contrary truth. 1,394 7,467 428 42,778 Edward Snowden retweeted Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi Dec 17 This FBI response is disingenuous on multiple fronts. None of this expains flagging the silly jokes of ordinary Americans with low follower counts. Also, they are clearly not doing this in service of investigating crime. This is about domestic intelligence and opinion control. Jon Nicosia @NewsPolitics Dec 16 The FBI replies to @mtaibbi "The FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities. Private sector entities independently make decisions about” Show this thread 1,614 8,540 318 35,020 Edward Snowden retweeted Lee Fang @lhfang Dec 16 The FBI pulled hundreds of agents off financial crime to War on Terror stuff in the 00's, resulting in missed signs of the financial crisis, incentives to invent terror plots. Now tons get assigned to social media so they inundate Twitter w/ takedown requests for joke accounts. 285 2,715 88 11,186 Edward Snowden retweeted Lee Fang @lhfang Dec 16 Here’s the FBI just a month ago asking Twitter for *location* information on a bunch of Twitter users, including the conservative news site @RSBNetwork. The FBI asks Twitter to “voluntarily provide” info and helpfully suggests these users violated Terms of Service. Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi Dec 16 Replying to @mtaibbi 18.In an internal email from November 5, 2022, the FBI’s National Election Command Post, which compiles and sends on complaints, sent the SF field office a long list of accounts that “may warrant additional action”: Show this thread 535 4,929 290 12,047 Edward Snowden retweeted Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi Dec 16 4. Between January 2020 and November 2022, there were over 150 emails between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth. 684 10,426 623 48,711 Show this thread Edward Snowden retweeted Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi Dec 16 8. Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content. 290 8,022 341 40,357 Show this thread Edward Snowden retweeted Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi Dec 16 “HELLO TWITTER CONTACTS”: The master-canine quality of the FBI’s relationship to Twitter comes through in this November 2022 email, in which “FBI San Francisco is notifying you” it wants action on four accounts: 924 9,197 888 38,840 Show this thread Load more

Contents 1 BLP caution 2 Intentionally-misleading edit 3 Yoel Roth and BLP 3.1 "Baseless" and can CNN be considered an RS… at least on Twitter-related news? 4 Just the News and WP:FOXNEWS 5 Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022 6 News18 - basic factual errors, doesn't appear to be a reliable source. 7 Reordering article content to comply with WP:NPOV 8 Ah shit, here we go again 9 Censorship Initiated By DHS, DNI, FBI 9.1 Executive Roth In Twitter’s Slack Channel 10 Mainstream media response 11 FBI's 80 Agents and Twitter 12 Forbes Breaking News Citations 13 Refactoring the first paragraphs/general restructuring BLP caution Remember that Matt Taibbi's tweets are a self-published source, and that when discussing his personal interpretations of the contents of the material (as well as his choices of what to post, what to screenshot, and what not to disclose), we must be careful to avoid making claims about other identifiable third parties based upon those tweets and documents. To do so would be a clear violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Specifically, making claims about who Yoel Roth did or did not meet with, and what they may or may not have discussed, is right out until we've got reliable secondary sources exploring the matter. The internal documents screenshotted are, at best, ambiguous about what occurred. We are not a breaking news source and we can afford to wait for mainstream reliable sources to appropriately report on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, and emphasis on "reliable secondary sources exploring the matter," not WP:FOXNEWS which is serving as his stenographer. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is important and needs to be said. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think anything in an encyclopedic voice should be sourced to tweets (aside from uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF cases where i.e. someone is saying what their birthday is, which is definitely not the case here). jp×g 22:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've removed the content sourced to tweets. Citing (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it needs to be totally removed --after all, this is a story breaking exclusively from Twitter -- just that it needs to be cited with attribution. For example, we can say "Joe Sixpack claimed in his Tweet that the Dems were in disarray", or whatever: we just cannot say "The Dems were in disarray<ref>https://twitter.com/JoeSixpack/12345678901234567890</ref>". jp×g 03:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Joe Sixpack's tweet of a slack message not reliable enough for WP:BLP, and there's no need to break unverified news/interpretation as we're WP:NOTNEWS. Better to wait for reliable sourcing. Citing (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @JPxG: Please demonstrate where in WP:BLP and WP:V I can find your claimed exception to our reliable sourcing policies and guidelines for "a story breaking exclusively from Twitter". Twitter posts are the literal definition of a self-published source and undergo no fact-checking or vetting process prior to publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] User:JPxG, you couldn't be further from policy on that. Please read my explanation of the policies involved. As Citing wrote: "Wait for reliable sourcing." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @NorthBySouthBaranof: @Valjean: Can you link a diff about what specific edits to the article you are talking about? I am saying that there exist circumstances under which article content can be cited to self-published sources (like Twitter); we do not have a stone tablet from God saying "thou shalt not cite tweets". jp×g 04:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There is absolutely a stone tablet from God Jimbo which says "thou shalt not cite tweets" when that content is about a living person. WP:BLPSPS is unequivocal: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." I created this section because tweets were being used as a source for claims and statements about Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter's Trust and Safety program. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Claims about Yoel Roth, or claims about what Matt said about Yoel Roth? jp×g 05:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Bro, that's a distinction without a difference. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is false. Claims about what someone said can be true regardless of whether the statements are true or false: do you think that this article exists because we have reliable sources claiming clairvoyance is real? jp×g 05:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It is absolutely not false when it comes to material related to living persons. We are explicitly prohibited from republishing a random dipshit's accusations about someone made on Twitter, or Tumblr, or Facebook, or Medium, or any other self-published source. What part of Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person is difficult for you to understand? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Let me phrase it another way. Let's say we had a biographical article on you. If I wrote on Medium that "jpXg is a pedophile," should we include that in your biography? "In a Medium post, NorthBySouthBaranof said that jpXg is a pedophile." Would you find that problematic? You should, because it's flagrantly defamatory and unsupported by any reliable source, and thus has absolutely no business being in your biography. Any random dipshit can self-publish anything they want on the Internet, including falsehoods, distortions, lies, libel, misrepresentations, and the like. Such self-published material is not fact-checked or reviewed by anyone, and we have no way of knowing whether or not it's just completely-fabricated bullshit. The job of a Wikipedia editor is explicitly to filter out such nonsense, and publish in our articles only what can be verified in reliable sources, per the Verifiability policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If you accused me of being a pedophile in a Twitter thread that was notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it, this would obviously be a notable addition to an encyclopedia article about that Twitter thread. If the accusation were high-profile enough, it could even be a notable addition to other articles: here is a quote from Elon Musk. "Vernon Unsworth, a British recreational caver who had been exploring the cave for the previous six years and played a key advisory role in the operation, criticized the submarine on CNN as amounting to nothing more than a public relations effort with no chance of success, maintaining that Musk "had no conception of what the cave passage was like" and "can stick his submarine where it hurts". Musk asserted on Twitter that the device would have worked and referred to Unsworth as a "pedo guy".[273] He deleted the tweets,[273] and apologized,[274] and he deleted his responses to critical tweets from Cher Scarlett, a software engineer, which had caused his followers to harass her.[275] In an email to BuzzFeed News, Musk later called Unsworth a "child rapist" and said that he had married a child.[276][277]" I don't know how to explain the difference between a person making a claim and the claim being true, as this is a basic property of language. I am also unclear on the current topic of disagreement: I am referring only to things that you and I have said in this discussion, not to the personal character of Matt Taibbi or Yoel Roth (I am not personally acquainted with either). Regarding your edit summary (""You really, really, really don't understand how Wikipedia works, do you?""), I do not wish to respond. jp×g 06:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "If you accused me of being a pedophile in a Twitter thread that was notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it, this would obviously be a notable addition to an encyclopedia article about that Twitter thread" - only if there were reliable secondary sources discussing that specific accusation. If reliable sources ignored my batshit-crazy, baseless claims about you, then so would Wikipedia. You will note that the section you quoted includes an array of citations to reliable secondary sources. Those sources are the difference between something we can include, and something we cannot include. The point here is that we cannot include something if the only source is a person's Tweets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that's how it works... If today is really your first day learning that now you know and hopefully won't violate BLP in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Like I said, I am not entirely sure what specific diff or claim is being talked about. Perhaps someone could link it to me? jp×g 21:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] JPxG, you touch on the crux of the matter: an accusation "in a Twitter thread that was notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it,..." How do editors know the tweet is "notable enough"? The mere existence of an article here does not bestow notability or due weight on every random tweet on that subject. Only the subject of the article has such notability, and that notability was proven by the abundant use of independent secondary RSes. We know a tweet is notable enough for use here when independent RSes quote it. Then, and only then, do we have an opening to maybe quote the tweet. So what we're telling you, AGAIN, is to wait until secondary RSes tell us what weight to give such a quote. Without them, we don't even know if it has enough weight/notability to justify using it here. You've been here long enough to know this stuff. What is going on? How could you not know this? Do we now have to examine all your article edits to see if you've been violating policy all along? I hope not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Feel free to go through my contributions if you like. I am saying that, in general, it is acceptable (per WP:ABOUTSELF) to cite Matt from Twitter's tweets on the topic of "what Matt from Twitter tweeted", in an article about "what Matt from Twitter tweeted". So far, it sounds like you are claiming that there should be references or direct quotes of any tweets from him whatsoever in the entire article, which does not seem reasonable to me. I suppose there are cases in which this might not be true, which is why I have asked someone to provide a specific diff to indicate what they are talking about. jp×g 07:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Intentionally-misleading edit I must report that this edit appears to be intentionally misleading. The edit was inserted into the "Part 1" section of the article, with a partial quote "[...] the Slack entries in Part 3 contain multiple, clear displays of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence [...]". The clear intent is to imply that this quote applies to material in Part 1. However, what, exactly, was removed from the quote? A look at the actual post reveals the context. The true, complete quote is "After not seeing it in the first batch, the Slack entries in “Part 3” contain multiple, clear displays of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence". This entirely and completely changes the meaning of the quote - because it clearly and explicitly demonstrates that Taibbi saw no evidence of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence in regards to the Hunter Biden laptop affair. In fact, it refutes the entire point of the edit. There is no reason to remove that part of the quote unless the intent was to mislead editors and readers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia NorthBySouthBaranof :) About the 3rd publication by journalist Taibbi. If you’re not familiar with the Twitter’s official Slack channel he is referring to. Which is titled "us2020_xfn_enforcement". Related extract at https://archive.md/0VBnD#selection-1831.0-1932.0 This Twitter's channel is not to be confused with other non-Twitter channels. I agree with you that it would not be appropriate to use non-Twitter channels, which are not authorized by Twitter for publication. In comparison, the Twitter’s channel Taibbi is refering to is appropriate for using as a source. As the message in this Twitter's channel are both approved for publication by both Dorsey and Musk, and ultimately own by Mush as present lawful owner of Twitter. Both you and all are welcome to join the discussion about this shared Twitter’s official internal Slack channel, which is titled "us2020_xfn_enforcement". If this is of interest to you below at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files#Executive_Roth_In_Twitter%E... As for your claim that my contribution seems "intentionally-misleading". This Wikipedia document might be of interest to you about "Assume good faith" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith I’m looking forward to your future Wikipedia contributions :) Francewhoa (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] They (namely, some of the editors proactively contributing to the page) won't allow you to make the edit, citing Fox News as an unreliable source in [[WP::RS]] . I would rather see more (again, assuming good faith) contributors join the discussions here. As I've mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files#Government_involvement section, it seems to me that the possibility of having an accurate recount of what's being told via the tweets (since Twitter is the original source from which the page should be built around) is being crippled, given that the same editors aren't allowing to even quote the very journalists covering the Twitter Files. 37.163.249.30 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yep, this is why Wikipedia is such a joke 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:BC4C:6A27:2C19:2325 (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "As for your claim that my contribution" - No, the edit in question was made by the IP user 37.163.249.30, not by you. Unless you are acknowledging that the IP is you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yoel Roth and BLP Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks. This has no place whatsoever in Wikipedia, and anyone who intends to use this article as a platform to spread these smears should be warned that the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy contains zero tolerance for such behavior. Editors who persist in adding such material should expect a topic ban, at the least, if not an outright block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And sanctioned for an edit war, on top of that. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The accusation was made due to a thesis submission. Whether the accusation is accurate or not is irrelevant as to the reason it was made. 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] So you claim - you clearly don't have consensus for your proposed addition. Your phrasing creates the insinuation that there is some valid reason for the accusation, even though - as the source you yourself added states - there is not. Moreover, this is not a biography of Yoel Roth, and it is undue weight to discuss, in detail, false accusations made against him. It is enough for us to clearly and plainly state, as the sources do, that there are no grounds for the claim. The burden is on you to justify your proposed addition of the phrasing about his thesis, and to gain a clear consensus for its addition. Until such a consensus exists, it stays out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Would it still be an invalid addition of it's made clear that the accusation is caused by Musk misrepresenting Roth's dissertation, as the articles make it clear that the accusation has no weight? SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And I note that you clearly do not understand the importance of this policy, or the importance of treating Yoel Roth with respect and humanity - because you are the reason this thread was created. You removed the well-sourced description of the claims as "baseless" and inserted two tweets as sources for a clearly-defamatory edit, all in flagrant violation of policy and human decency. This was not an accident, and you appear to have an ax to grind against Yoel Roth. This is not the place for you to spread baseless, defamatory conspiracy theories about a living person, and if you do it again, I will formally request that you be prohibited from editing any articles related to Yoel Roth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The Baseless adjective was readded and the source was added to provide context behind the accusation. Again the source and the edit no longer make claims other than it is baseless and was made due to a thesis 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:BLP is one of the strictest policies on Wikipedia. WP:ONUS, a subsection of verifiability policy is another. Combined they say if a controversial edit, especially about a living person, is challenged, it is on you to gain consensus for the addition of the edit. Repeatedly adding it and insisting you are right is not an acceptable path. Slywriter (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Would the whole exchange simply be best left off of the Article so that there is no mention of it being linked to yoel then if no context for the wrongful accusation can be given without compromise 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Without context it would make it seem like Elon made the accusation out of thin air which would violate his BLP 31.24.0.162 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Absolute nonsense. Please stop wasting everybody's time. Citing (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] When one clicks “Edit”, they are met with a reminder at top that reads "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources." Yet, no one here on this thread has once used the term “RS” or “reliable source.” It doesn’t matter if some editors think Yoel Roth is icky-poo or walks on water; the only question is how are the RS’s currently saying about Yoel Roth. Are the RSs that quote Roth simultaneously questioning or impugning his veracity? To NorthBySouthBaranof: You started off this thread with "Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks." What RS states that? Greg L (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] From the CNN citation: "Roth has since been the subject of criticism and threats following the release of the Twitter Files. However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online." Citing (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I understand… at least I think I do. This talk page pertains to proper encyclopedic treatment of the The Twitter Files. The only proper issue at hand is how to give an encyclopedic treatment to what the RSs are saying about Twitter-file releases and what sources they quote. If the RSs provide relevant explanatory material regarding the motives and intent of a whistleblower or informant that is intended to either call into question or buttress the individual’s credibility, then that would be relevant to a proper encyclopedic treatment. It seems quite clear that when judging the creditability of a whistleblower at a high-tech company based in San Francisco in 2022, it is irrelevant that Musk "appeared to endorse a tweet" that accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia; it would be different if this were the 1950s and it was a Dept. of Defense official. Quoting a random morning tweet from an annoyed CEO that “appears” to suggest something that amounts to nothing more than scuttlebutt and gossip would indeed run afoul with Undo Weight. The challenge with giving a developing topic a proper encyclopedic treatment is to try to imagine how the article would—or should—read a month or two from now when viewed through the lens of a historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, so editors—on this article in particular—need to be patient and look towards the best RSs and take care to not cherry-pick the most salacious breaking news. If Musk had tweeted something along the lines of “Roth had been disciplined on multiple occasions in the past for fabricating things and making false accusations against others,” and this this would obviously impeached Roth’s creditability... and the RSs would undoubtedly be writing things along those lines. And we would then follow the RSs’ slant on the credibility of a source. Greg L (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] By the way, I chased down Musk’s tweet regarding Yoel Roth and what he purportedly wrote in his Ph.D. thesis. (https:) //twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601660414743687169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601660414743687169%7Ctwgr%5Eefcafb0df3b88ef815c48ddaa83583c248ceace3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.opindia.com%2F2022%2F12%2Ftwitter-yoel-ruth-old-tweets%2F IMPORTANT CAVEAT ABOUT THE USE OF A TWITTER LINK: Though we don’t want Twitter links being used on Wikipedia, it’s necessary and appropriate in this case in order to be able to reliably subject the tweet to scrutiny and critical commentary in the context of discussing “what is an RS?” Musk wrote, "Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis" and that looks reasonably accurate. Were I Musk, I might have added “more safely” so it read …“being able to more safely access adult”... That’s the nature of tweets; they give the author ample opportunity for real-time foot-in-mouth-itis. Thus, when CNN wrote …"baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia"… (emphasis on “baselessly”) isn’t a fair characterization of Musk’s tweet. Specifically, Roth wrote in his Ph.D. thesis precisely as follows: "Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can’t readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture." So Roth’s point was obvious: Since queer under-18 youth are already on Grindr, which bills itself (in all-caps) as “THE WORLD’S LARGEST SOCIAL NETWORKING APP FOR GAY , BI, TRANS, AND QUEER PEOPLE,” efforts should be made to more safely accommodate them on the platform. The point of this, I think, is we need to be very careful when citing CNN and Fox, or similar online news sources with a reputation for a pro-liberal or pro-conservative slant, whenever they assert that something has been “debunked” or “is baseless.” Our own list of RSs declares both Fox and CNN to be RSs but both come with important caveats. Further digging is in order if an RS isn’t indisputably reliable. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I hope you find this original research amusing. It doesn't do anything for the rest of us and this is not a forum on which to discuss the topic. On the wikipedia point you raised we do not consider Fox to be a RS for "politics and science" which this falls under. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It has nothing to do with my being amused. What I wrote above ought to do “something for the rest of us,” because our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN. And it’s clear that CNN's writing that Musk had "baselessly accused Roth" was itself baseless. None of that changes the fact that what Musk wrote about has no place in the article. But when a quote from CNN is used, we better fact check it. The Twitter Files needs to cite especially reliable sources; not marginal ones. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Our list of RSs does not appear to do that, much the opposite in fact: "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And yet, CNN was obviously incorrect on this score. Musk’s tweet wasn’t baseless. Roth was discussing sub-18-year-old trans youth being able to hook up on an adult dating site. I know that is an inconvenient truth, but it is true nonetheless. We need to be more careful when quoting CNN. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No... What happened here was you made a baseless claim. That claim was then fact checked. Surely you see the irony in that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What you wrote doesn’t hold any water. Greg L (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Your claim that "our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN" was baseless and false, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What I wrote was "our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN", and it does. That it “doesn't affect reliability” is obviously highly questionable in light of the fact that Musk’s tweet contained Roth’s own words on sub-18-year-old trans youth being able to hook up on a gay dating site, so CNN obviously lied when characterizing Musk’s tweet as “baseless.” What part of the connection between “sub-18-year-old youth safely hooking up on an adult gay website” and “pedophilia” escapes you?? You may go ahead and cite CNN all you please. Other editors would be wise to do some fact checking of their own before assuming what Fox, CNN, or Newsmax write is true. Greg L (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There is no explicit connection between “sub-18-year-old youth safely hooking up on an adult gay website” and “pedophilia” without more context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There we go. Your weaselness is most appreciated. Please spend some time reflecting on what you just wrote. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You understand that when two sub-18-year-old youth hook up with each other the crime of pedophilia does not occur? Also note that 18 is not the age of consent in all jurisdictions, where I grew up a 16 year old can consent to anyone older than them and I've been places where a 20 year old can't consent to a 21 year old. There is no more an explicit connection to pedophilia than there is to cyberfraud, sextortion, murder, or any of the other myriad of crimes that take place on social media. You also understand that you can use the app without engaging in sexual activities, right? You seem to be substituting "hookup" for "queer youth culture" which is not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] (ec)BLP policies apply to all of Wikipedia including talk pages and as much as I personally dislike Roth - the leap from what he wrote to what it's being interpreted is a bridge too far. Minor is not interchangeable with prepubescent youth. In fact we have articles on Ephebophilia and Hebephilia which would be more likely the group(s) being referenced in the thesis, particularly the former. Slywriter (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ages of consent in the United States summarizes the situation in the US and the Federal law that would obligate Grindr to block under-18 users, regardless of consent laws in their state. Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Dear Counselors: Both of you are using your keen, scalpel-like legal acumen to dissect the definition of “pedophilia” too finely, almost in a manner of “Well… Roth might have meant this.” Even discussing this crap here makes me feel like Child Protective Services will soon be knocking on my door. Moreover, such fine distinctions don’t matter and I don’t care about what defines “pedophilia” in this jurisdiction or that, and at what age difference (between a 20-old and a 17-year-old, for instance) make it “OK or not.” We’re conjecturing about what was for sure going through Roth’s mind when he wrote his Ph.D thesis without reading the whole miserable thing. However, the clip of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis that Musk had in his tweet would have been amply clear to Koko the Gorilla as to what Roth was driving at (accommodating under-18 queer youth on adult gay dating sites). My whole point is that CNN’s writing a flat-out black & white declaration that "Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia" (emphasis on baselessly) was patently misrepresenting Musk; his post was obviously not “baseless”; it was at the very least a reasonably arguable point. CNN editorialized with a shady black & white declarative opinion about “baseless” and our subsequent use of that statement here as a purported matter of fact, was possibly done to A) impeach the credibility of Musk, but that lead to… B) sweeping up Roth with an egregious BLP violation. Good editors would be well advised to doublecheck what Fox, Newsmax, and CNN write in regard to The Twitter Files. In light of this misrepresentation by CNN, the assumption that CNN is an RS is on shaky ground—at least when it comes to things related to The Twitter Files. And all this reinforces what I wrote of above: The challenge with giving a developing topic a proper encyclopedic treatment is to try to imagine how the article would—or should—read a month or two from now when viewed through the lens of a historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, so editors—on this article in particular—need to be patient and look towards the best RSs and take care to not cherry-pick the most salacious breaking news. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Koko the Gorilla would most likely point out that the argument is circular because if under-18s were accommodated they would no longer be *adult* dating sites. Koko the Gorilla would also probably ask how you get from there to being sympathetic to pedophilia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Words have meaning. Defining things according to your feelings is exactly not the purpose of wikipedia.And your Child service comment should be stricken as a veiled personal attack. We have three articles, which strongly supports that the term was misused by what is accepted by scholars. Slywriter (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Quoting you: "comment should be stricken as a veiled personal attack". Oh, lighten up and please desist with what appears to me to be yet another tedious exercise in this new-age fad of virtue signaling by pretending that those with the thinnest most sensitive skin and are quick to take offense somehow have the most outstanding morals of all time and that somehow justifies “striking” comments here on a discussion page. How about a Wikipedia-style versions of shadow bans, banning editors from platforms, and establishing a Ministry of Disinformation that works with Twitter and Facebook to decide what topics the rest of the world may be permitted to see? Better? Mucho better? ’Twas no “veiled personal attack”; me thinks thou doth protest too much. Now… getting off of the subject of what truths you think should be allowed to be aired and onto Musk’s tweet and the media’s reporting of it. That tweet contained Roth’s own words (a Ph.D. thesis promoting the idea that LGBTQ+ hookup sites should accommodate under-18 trans youth on LGBTQ+ hookup sites). Roth’s thesis was adequately clear; clear enough that Roth felt he had to go on the run after offending people in San Francisco of all places. Right or wrong, that’s the cause, that was the effect, and that was the theater on the stage that the media covered to create their stories and sell their click-bait. Reality. Now… The actual issue being discussed here, right now, is the credibility of CNN, which had the entirety of Musk’s tweet right in front of them. CNN couldn’t possibly have *oopsy-accidentally* overlooked the screen grab imbedded right in the middle of Musk’s tweet when they wrote "Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia" (emphasis on “baselessly” here). No matter how one characterizes what CNN did when they wrote “baselessly,” it was somewhere between “mischaracterization” and “bald-faced lie.” The discussion of the veracity of an RS is topical and germane here and demands to be addressed head on. CslNN’s reliability is obviously not so reliable when it comes to news on The Twitter Files Greg L (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And how do you get from there to "sympathetic to pedophilia"? That claim does appear to be baseless as reported by CNN, if you truly disagree WP:RSN is the venue at which you can attempt to get our standing consensus that CNN is generally reliable changed. Based on the given quote they are no more sympathetic to pedophilia than they are to cyberbullying or sextortion (equally silly propositions). Where is the basis here? What is being overlooked? Because it sure as schnitzel isn't in the quote that's been provided. Note that the second source calls the claim "homophobic and baseless" which I assume you also disagree with? The Independent, another WP:RS, uses "groundlessly"[1] Are you saying that groundlessly and baselessly do not have the same meaning in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well, it ought to be said, because it's true, and I feel like I am going to get the stink-eye from even commenting on a subject like this. Case in point: Yoel Roth commented on a subject like this, and now he is being sent pictures of bullets by a bunch of yahoos (who certainly didn't bother reading the full document to see what his actual opinion was). jp×g 10:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @JPxG: Some of us edit real crime and human rights articles... You want uncomfortable see Uyghur Genocide. This is tame... Billionaire makes a baseless claim of pedophilia sympathy (not even pedophilia... This is the same billionaire who gave us Pedo Guy), oh wow such a big deal... So uncomfortable... Definitely just like editing Operation Harvest Festival. This isn't a hard BLP decision, we are required to maintain impartiality and those who can't do that for whatever reason can not participate in editing those articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I have no idea what you are talking about. What opinions do you think I hold regarding this article? jp×g 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Apparently not what I thought you were saying in context, carry on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment - We really need to get more citations and stick to what they say rather than all the analysis that falls into original research. We also need to provide (more) context, if we are going to say what Musk did or say. --Malerooster (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Baseless" and can CNN be considered an RS… at least on Twitter-related news? I think that the major dispute here is over the specific word "baseless", which everyone seems to have a different definition of. @Greg L: thinks that it means "made without any basis whatsoever". @Horse Eye's Back: thinks it means "made without a reasonable basis". I don't know how you two managed to have such a long discussion without realizing this, might I suggest that it could prove more productive to argue about that rather than unrelated remarks about politics? jp×g 00:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't actually. Both Free L and I think that it means "made without any basis whatsoever". Aka baseless or groundless (an alternative phrase used by WP:RS [2]). The Independent reports that "The suggestion was based on a highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet, which offer no evidence of support for the sexualisation of children." Note that this is the same highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet as Greg L makes in their OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Based on what? jp×g 00:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] [3][4]. Note that Greg L is arguing that the claim is true and that its truth is so patently obvious that even Koko the Gorilla would know it. Greg L genuinely believes that the thesis in question supported pedophilia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Roth’s Ph.D. thesis was advocating “pedophilia”; not any more after digging deeper into what everyone actually wrote. We’ve been hoodwinked by sly clever yellow journalism by CNN (This is a good one; keep reading.) I’m sorry, but digging down to the true facts takes work and ofttimes results in lengthy documentation, but bear with me because the below is critically important to understanding whether or not CNN can remotely be considered as an RS: I think Roth was arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis. And so too do a whole bunch of people who live in SanFrancisco—arguably the most liberal city in the solar system when it comes to sexual liberty. People in that city were so upset with Roth for writing that, he felt threatened and had to go into hiding. This is an issue of whether CNN can be trusted as a reliable source when it comes to Musk and Twitter. So, first off, let’s be perfectly clear here about what the facts are and whether CNN can be trusted to do the thinking for everyone and fairly characterize the news. We need to look at who wrote what and look at those writings in their entirety. Musk’s tweet had an imbedded image of a document and quoted the following, attributing it as having come from Roth’s Ph.D. thesis, which is a fact that doesn’t appear to be in dispute: "sexuality; but it's worth considering how, if at all, the current generation of popular sites of gay networked sociability might fit into an overall queer social landscape that increasingly includes individuals under the age of 18. Even with the service's extensive content management, Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up-oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can't readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture. Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves of legal responsibility or, worse, trying to drive out teenagers entirely, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr - including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults." In his Ph.D. thesis, Roth argued in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services. I’m sure Roth was well intentioned when he wrote his Ph.D. thesis. But as a real-world practical matter, it’s wholly impossible to keep under-age children from being preyed upon if they’re on on adult hook-up websites; we aren’t required to dispense with common sense. Sexually motivated predators will find scores of ways to prey on children. But Roth wrote it and it is what it is: a not-surprisingly controversial position that would be an anathema for conservatives, and even so for a number of people in in San Francisco. So Musk tweeted about the thesis and quoted the above portion of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis in a tweet with this comment (read it carefully): "Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis:" That was the totality of Musk’s tweet. As pithy as it is, it hits the nail squarely on the head with regard to what Roth wrote. What word didn’t you see in that tweet from Musk? He didn’t use the word “pedophilia”. So where’d that allegation come from?? Here’s how CNN reported on that tweet: "However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online." In a single sentence, CNN egregiously and purposely engaged in yellow journalism by putting the “pedophilia” word in Musk’s mouth and then declared that what Musk didn’t write was baseless. CNN took a cue straight out of William Randolph Hearst’s Yellow Journalism/Fake News playbook. CNN even managed to throw in terms like “took a dark turn,” “a common trope,” and “conspiracy theorists” to further seed doubts about the veracity of Musk. All CNN left out were terms like “debunked long ago” and “claimed without providing evidence.” All to sell click-bait. CNN faked this one. CNN’s playbook in this case was clearly A) to sensationalize, and B) to tar & feather and smear conservatives voices. CNN seems to have taken inspiration from a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who said “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” CNN apparently thinks few readers will actually go and check the facts behind what CNN writes about, and if a few do check and study the question of “who exactly said what?”, it won’t matter. When it comes to Twitter- and Musk-related content, the reliability of CNN on Twitter-related news is now highly suspect and editors would be well advised to use caution and dig deeper before quoting them. They’ve been caught red handed fabricating yellow journalism to sell click-bait. Greg L (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What about The Independent? They're reporting the exact same thing as CNN, did they fake this one too? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] 90 Minutes of applauses! 86.115.234.250 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Okay, so, maybe we would benefit from an actual list of what claims are in dispute here. Please feel free to edit this (and fill in the blanks) if I have misrepresented your views: I'm attempting to fill this in based on what everyone has said so far. Claim Greg Horse JPxG Sly North Esowt The sky is blue. Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Elon Musk is Bigfoot. Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Yoel Roth is known to be a child predator. Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Yoel Roth wrote a PhD dissertation. Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark In this dissertation, he mentioned the stuff that Greg quoted above. Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Elon Musk tweeted a screenshot of part of this thesis, with the text "Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis". Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark This was a reasonable, good-faith summary of the screenshot snippet of Roth's thesis. Green checkmark Red X symbol Blue question mark Blue question mark CNN said "Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online". Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark CNN said that Musk accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophila. Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Musk accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophila. Red X symbol Green checkmark Blue question mark Red X symbol Red X symbol Musk implied that Roth was sympathetic to pedophilia. Red X symbol Green checkmark Green checkmark Red X symbol Green checkmark Musk made this implication based on some fact, observation, idea or notion about the world, on the Internet, in Musk's head, or somewhere in the universe. Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark Red X symbol Green checkmark The basis for this implication is not very solid. Green checkmark Red X symbol Green checkmark Having this incident in the article runs afoul with a serious WP:BLP concern regarding Roth (something raised at the top of this thread by NorthBySouthBaranof). Background: Roth fled his San Francisco home fearing for his life after Musk revealed his Ph.D. thesis, so this is a serious issue. Green checkmark Green checkmark Green checkmark We should mention the insinuation in the article. Red X symbol Blue question mark Red X symbol If we do mention the insinuation, it should be noted that there's no good justification for it. Green checkmark Green checkmark We should say the specific word "baselessly" in the article. Red X symbol Green checkmark Blue question mark Blue question mark Red X symbol The screenshot Musk posted demonstrated that Roth was sympathetic to pedophilia. Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Red X symbol Is this correct? jp×g 07:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] To clarify a little further on what I'm saying -- the ambiguity of the word "baseless" is kind of a problem here, as it can be interpreted either as "a factual a priori statement that there was no reasoning offered for a claim whatsoever" or as "an a posteriori evaluation that an argument lacked merit". Normally, I would say that it should be avoided, but I am not really able to come up with a suitable replacement, so it seems like it might be the least bad choice. jp×g 07:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It’s getting close to reflecting my views. We’re having edit conflicts so it’s hard to change things at the moment. Also I suspect more adjusting to the questions is inevitable. Nonetheless, that was both fun and productive; thanks for that. I had to change one of the questions to “This was a reasonable, good-faith summary of the screenshot snippet of Roth's thesis” because I don't know what’s in the entire thesis. As regards the question of “We should mention this in the article,” I wrote “no” but it really depends. If we were to quote that CNN deceptive and inflammatory bit, I think we need to include what Musk actually wrote for context. It would also be helpful to directly point out that the word “pedophilia” wasn’t in Musk’s tweet. In the final analysis, that whole CNN bit isn’t remotely a proper bit from an RS; it’s an inaccurate, biased and inflammatory opinion piece. More importantly, it has BLP issues and doesn’t help shed light on The Twitter Files other than “CNN thinks Musk is a giant poopie head.” By the way, Musk just got through suspending the author of that inaccurate and biased doozy, Donie O'Sullivan, at CNN. I don’t think those two are going to be exchanging Christmas gifts this year. Greg L (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] He just suspended a lot of journalists! So much for his claims of free speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] We have The Independent reporting the exact same thing (even using the directly equivalent term groundless), CNN is a nice talking point but you long ago began to ignore reality by focusing on it exclusively and continuing to pretend like it is the only source that supports this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Digging up evidence demonstrating that CNN, at least articles written by Donie O'Sullivan, is biased, inaccurate, isn’t an RS, and engages in yellow journalism by putting words in the mouths of those they want to slander takes time. The rest of your argument is specious garbage and doesn’t deserve a response. If you ever have a semi-cogent actual question for me that you actually want a response to, Horse, precede your message with a “Mr. L” salutation. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Mr. L, is The Independent a reliable source and have they accurately reported on the topic in question here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Pleas provide several linked citations you believe are particularly illuminating when pondering that question. Greg L (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "On Saturday, Musk used his giant public megaphone to groundlessly imply that Roth – an openly gay Jewish man who was already the target of an ongoing right-wing hate campaign – was a danger to children or an enabler of child abuse." "The suggestion was based on a highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet, which offer no evidence of support for the sexualisation of children." "This, again, is misleading. Roth's actual argument was that since LGBT+ under-18s already use Grindr and other big social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, these services should consider whether they can safely cater to that audience – while noting that in Grinder's case this may be impossible."[5] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Is this a narrow disagreement over "baseless" or that we should be using CNNs wordingm? On baseless, I'm indifferent as it's not inaccurate. Musk certainly could clarify his position and has chosen not to. If it's about using CNN, the only line that should absolutely not be used is that Musk accused of pedophilia as Musk never said that and I don't see how Roth's comments could be characterized that way except that Right and Left Wing twitter accounts threw the word around without evidence for days before CNN published. Slywriter (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I find no problem with CNN's phrasing here. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Given that Yoel Roth had to flee his home several days ago because he fears for his life, I added an RFC/poll question addressing the issue of whether adding this “pedo” kerfuffle is a BLP violation, as NorthBySouthBaranof first posted and Esowteric appeared to have seconded. That this concern was overlooked until I just added it had me quite surprised and reminded me of the dinner table meeting with Julian Assange (link to The Guardian), where "journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table". @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @Esowteric: Please comment via “nay” or “yea” fill-in-the-blanks in the above RFC table. I’ve taken the liberty of filling in your positions in light of the sentiments you expressed when beginning the earlier thread titled “Yoel Roth and BLP”. In order that you can have the latest information and content, please read my 04:05, 16 December 2022 post, which precipitated this RFC table; search for this text sting to find it: "No. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Roth’s Ph.D. thesis was advocating" My point all along was how CNN, or possibly CNN articles written by Donie O'Sullivan, should be considered as reliable sources. But the above RFC table appears to be seriously considering this incident for inclusion in the article, so it’s time to stop pretending we’re all a junior-cadet Barry Sussman (the Washington Post editor who directly oversaw the Watergate investigation by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and who died only months ago) and get real. We’re all just “waitresses practicing politics” on this issue if we’re seriously contemplating this for inclusion in the article. I challenge every editor who weighed in on the above RFC to go on the record and fill in the blanks on the BLP question; let’s see who is able to ‘get real’ and be a responsible wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There is no RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It’s a table to clarify issues and get wikipedians to converge on a consensus; it serves the the function of an RfC. There is no “voting” on Wikipedia; editorial content is decided by WP:Consensus, and that is accomplished via many different methods, including the above table that JPxG added here so everyone can exchange thought. And, no, Soibangla, we’re not closing anything out at this juncture; I just got through pinging NorthBySouthBaranof and Esowteric and they haven’t had a chance to weigh in on this. What’s the rush? This thread and the above table/poll/RfC stays up. By gosh, you sure are a quick one when it comes to advocating that inconvenient discussions be struck and deleted and archived and made to disappear. You’re just another wikipedian here so please stop behaving like you’ve promoted yourself to an admin or bureaucrat. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I know you haven't edited very much in the last few years but we formalized WP:RFCs a long time ago. There is not one here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I just kind of made this up on the spot (I'm not aware of the table-of-takes being used anywhere else on Wikipedia). I don't think it should carry any formal weight -- my thinking was just that it would allow us to better understand what each other's opinions actually were (rather than trying to infer it indirectly from posts). jp×g 23:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Nor should there be, in my view. I move this matter should be closed and the existing content retained. soibangla (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don’t care what we call it, guys; that’s academic. JPxG “made it up on the spot” and it was a clever and useful way to drive consensus. We can call it whatever you guys want: a “comment & positions table for converging on consensus". If we include all the registered editors who weighed in on this thread plus the I.P. editors, nearly a dozen editors contributed to this thread and not nearly enough time has transpired to allow invited editors (specifically NorthBySouthBaranof and Esowteric, who had strong feelings about this) an opportunity to weigh in. And not enough time has been given for those who weren’t specifically invited to add themselves. If you want to make this go away, stop weighing in here and let it expire and time-out. As long as we’re here actively discussing this, it’s an active thread. Greg L (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Taking a step back from the details, like Trump, Musk uses dog whistles, or at least many of his and Trump's supporters are on the look-out for "cryptic messages" (Most recently, for example, Trump promised an MAJOR ANNOUCEMENT! ("America needs a Superhero!"), and even when it was revealed that he was only issuing a set of digital trading cards, the message received by some was nevertheless along the lines of "Trump is playing his Trump card, and the White House (see pic!) is lit up in green, so we have a green light!", though some were rather dismayed. "But ... but ... we were given the green light and the cages at Gitmo were all prepared!"). There are many out there in the real world who still believe that Pizzagate is real, and is still being covered up, in spite of it having been thoroughly debunked. Musk probably knew damn well that when he posted about Roth, very many in the right-wing would link this to paedophilia and raise a great hullabaloo, yet like Trump he made sure there was sufficient "plausible deniability" to distance him from any actions, such as the threats and endangerment that Roth would face, and is facing. Alas, however, all we can do is go along with what reliable sources have reported. I do feel that "baseless" is too strong a word to use, given that the thesis and other tweets by Roth were a little too risky for many, especially on the right. However, the text should not leave the rational reader with the impression that Roth is in any way linked to paedophilia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] My feeling (without having read Roth's thesis) is that he is being naively pragmatic, rather than malignant. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Where does Musk use the word pedophilia? Where is there even a hint of him saying Roth was referring to prepubescent children? There is none. You can not replace facts with how you feel right wing took his comment. Any attempt to use the word based on how Right Wing (and Left Wing) Twitter accounts took it is WP:SYNTH and a BLP violation against Roth and Musk as no where is there any evidence that's what either was discussing. Slywriter (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, @Slywriter:. Musk didn’t use the word “pedophilia.” CNN effectively (and falsely) brought up the word pedophilia with this article that reads as follows: "Roth has since been the subject of criticism and threats following the release of the Twitter Files. However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online." "A person familiar with Roth’s situation told CNN threats made against the former Twitter employee escalated exponentially after Musk engaged in the pedophilia conspiracy theory." Musk’s post ("Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis") was factual insofar as how it characterized Roth’s Ph.D. thesis. And then after falsely hanging the “pedophilia”-sensationalized albatross around Musk’s neck, CNN took it to the next level of sensationalism by declaring it to be an (apparently debunkable) “pedophilia conspiracy theory”. CNN has been caught red handed engaging in an egregious case of pure William Randolph Hearst-style yellow journalism, where they fabricate and then sensationalize a story to peddle click bait. I think that when it comes to citing RSs on Twitter-related news, we need to look towards sources that are more reliable than CNN. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] CNN is far from the only source describing Musk's post in that manner. Washington Post - "Elon Musk’s tweets misrepresented Roth’s academic writing about sexual activity and children". washington Post - "In follow-up tweets Saturday, he misrepresented a section of a graduate dissertation from recently departed safety chief Yoel Roth." San Francisco Chronicle - "Roth, the now-departed head of trust and safety, received increased threats after Musk promoted a baseless accusation". Bloomberg - "Elon Musk posted tweets including an excerpt of Yoel Roth’s doctoral dissertation Saturday that suggested the former Twitter executive is an advocate for child sexualization — a baseless trope that leaves Roth susceptible to online abuse." If you would like to add more of those sources, we can certainly do that. What we're not going to do is whitewash what Elon Musk said, or in any way imply that there was any rational reason for Musk to say it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, at the end of the day we have to reflect how the secondary sources interpreted it, and they overwhelmingly interpreted it as an accusation of pedophilia, advocating the sexualization of children, or words to that effect. We can tweak our wording slightly to summarize the various different ways it has been covered, but I don't think it's appropriate to try and omit it simply because editors disagree with the sources' conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I second what Aquillion wrote. Why the hell are we still discussing this? Roth went into hiding for fear of his life after Musk published a portion of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis because it was too sexually left-field for the denizens of San Francisco. Mentioning it in this article would be a galactic WP:BLP violation given the circumstances. I’ll answer my rhetorical question as to why we’re still discussing this: We’re still discussing the issue of how “Musk seemed to suggest that Roth wants to sexualize Mormon youth and expose them to pedophilia, which was all debunked long ago” is because all this drama is just a multi-layer facade over the real, central issue. Roth had been working behind the scenes to censor the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and squelched and silenced any voice that brought up the subject in a manner contrary to Dems. And by “Dems,” I mean Twitter personnel too because, after all, Twitter is headquartered in San Francisco and filled to the rafters with young idealistic tech workers with rampant self esteem. Roth himself (now that he’s out of a job) admitted that those actions were sort of an *oopsy*. The only voices allowed on Twitter discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story were people like Adam Schiff, who were declaring that the story was fabricated Russia propaganda and it had been “debunked long ago.” Schiff had to know the truth. Now that Musk fired Roth and demonized him with that tweet (that was obviously Musk’s intent), and now that Musk is revealing the truth regarding how the Hunter Biden laptop story was censored by Twitter, it’s an embarrassment for Democrats. And now the Dems don’t like Musk. I get that. But that’s just tough for them and they can take a bite of that Waaaaah-burger. You can’t keep a conspiracy of even three people secret indefinitely unless two of them are dead. It utterly baffling that the Dems could possibly think they could forever conceal this and that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth wouldn’t eventually come out. The other, second layer of the multi-layer facade is Wikipedia is written by wikipedians and they’re human. And now that America is so God-damned polarized, there are conservative wikipedians right here, on this very talk page, battling with liberal wikipedians, all of whom are beating around the bush making abstruse arguments, pretending to don their virtual powdered wigs and quote constitutional law, and quoting this & that, all in a vain effort to seem smart-smart, reasonable, and unbiased. Horse feathers. No one is pulling the wool over anyone else’s eyes. Before an RS reports on what Musk “seemed to suggest,” they best report what both Roth and Musk "actually wrote” so readers can make an informed decision. And when the RSs don’t, an encyclopedia shouldn’t be running about quoting news sites that make the most sensational claims. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper or gossip column. An enclopedia faithfully and accurately provides the full and true facts so readers can properly understand the issue. [*sound of audience gasp*] To do otherwise and let partisan gamesmanship undermine a properly formed consensus on these talk pages erodes Wikipedia’s articles and turns us into the National Inquirer. Greg L (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what you expect to gain from posting several paragraphs of your argumentative personal opinions on this matter on the talk page; all you're succeeding in doing is indicating, clearly, that you have an axe to grind here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've looked but I don't see any source, reliable or otherwise, make the same argument the editor has, nor do I see the editor has provided any such source. The editor's argument is little more than CNN sucks, and so does Schiff and all the rest of you libs while sidestepping the three other RS you provided which reported much the same as CNN. We've indulged this editor's extravagant bloviation plenty long enough so it wouldn't be "censorship" to hat it and move on. There has not been one admin visible on this page for over a week; is everyone too timid to appear they are "silencing conservative voices" by enforcing WP:NOTFORUM? soibangla (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] BLP applies to the talk page just as much as it does to the article... Nobody is going to take a BLP argument seriously when it is followed in the same comment by flagrant BLP violations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Just the News and WP:FOXNEWS Albertinon, by my read Just the News is characterizing Taibbi's words. Fox News is generally unreliable for politics articles, especially a high profile and highly contentious topic. We need to adhere as closely as we can to what the presenters actually said, and both these sources are dubious in that regard. I think I was being generous by only tagging them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files&curid=72416457&diff=1127470365&oldid=1127469263 soibangla (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hi, I'm not sure if you wrote this after I reverted or not. To expand on the point I explained in the summary; I am looking to quote the introduction by the author who launched the release since it is extremely important for basic context, but Wikipedia policy is against original research and based on that policy we are not supposed to quote directly "that he tweeted", rather a source that says "that he tweeted". Ultimately, we only need a source, even a questionable one, that copy pasted his tweet or even screenshoted it. I used these sources as they are not deprecated, which should be sufficient as I quoted the unreliable source policy. The fact that I haven't yet come across a reliable source showing these particular tweets is not that strange, as each release is incremented and a media article picks the ones they want to quote, also they're intent on the content, not on the intent, whereas for a encyclopedic article it's paramount for context. Hope that explains it, and I'm open to discussion obviously. Albertinon (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am aware there's a lot of opinions in the articles, but I'm not citing that. Albertinon (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Albertinon Well I'm not sure I follow all that, but I wish we could avoid those sources, particularly in this article. soibangla (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's just the tweet as it is, is all I'm saying. I agree they're best avoided but the policies are clear as to what extent the are regarded as questionable. From my pov do change source if you come across one. Albertinon (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Please comment here before removing the new sources. thanks. Albertinon (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I propose archiving this talk topic as the matter has been resolved. Albertinon (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] A reminder... As noted above, Fox and JTN are not to be used for this type of subject. (JTN was started by John Solomon (political commentator), so we're dealing with a very biased political agenda website like Newsmax, The Daily Caller, or Breitbart. They are simply a very poor source.) Tweets are not RS. They are self-published primary sources. (To make things even worse, in this case, the whole project is fraught with selection bias created by the involvement of very politically biased people like Musk and the three people he has selected to present the project. They have no interest in telling the whole story or being fair.) Tweets cannot be used "alone" as a source, only as presented/quoted by a RS, and then using the RS as the reference. Only secondary RS can be used as they indicate which of the used tweets have due weight for mention. (We are not documenting every tweet they use. Independent RS make the choice for us.) To avoid OR and SYNTH violations, the RS should also be discussing the tweets in the context of the Twitter Files. There are probably more considerations (like BLP), but that's all for now. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate your explanation. I have changed the sources. Albertinon (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. Keep up the good work. 👏 Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022 This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. "The decision to take action on the content came in the midst of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and generated an outcry from then-President Trump and conservatives who saw it as politically motivated.[41]" Suggested edit. "The decision to take action on the content was justified by Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It generated an outcry from then-President Trump and conservatives who saw it as politically motivated.[41]" "(I)n the midst" makes it sound like it was done in real time in 2016. Clearly inaccurate and prima facie ridiculous. How did was an action in 2020 made in the midst of a 2016 event? The literature clear reflects decisions "justified by".... Not "in the midst of". Edit "in the midst" to "as a response to" Rev Lovejoy (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Been since changed to "in the wake of", which I think works. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] News18 - basic factual errors, doesn't appear to be a reliable source. I object to the use of this article by "News18" - there are basic factual errors in the story which render it inappropriate for use. Specifically, the article contains this line: "Earlier, Musk had revealed ‘Twitter Files’ and ‘Twitter Files 2.0’, highlighting how Twitter took orders from the US President’s office to suppress the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop that was published in the New York Times" - a direct quote from the story, literally all of which is factually false. There is no evidence contained in the files that "Twitter took orders from the US President's office to suppress the story about Hunter Biden's laptop" (Taibbi explicitly said he found no evidence to support that claim) and the story was not published in the NYT, but rather in the New York Post. These basic factual errors indicate that this particular article - if not the entire source - fail to meet reliable sourcing guidelines (at least as to this topic) and should not be used here. The article clearly was not fact-checked or edited appropriately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it contains an incorrect name of the paper in which the story was printed. That being said, CNN-News18 is, in general, a reliable Indian news organization that is well-established—and CNN itself is generally responsible for the foreign reporting produced by the outlet. But you are right in that it's somewhat surprising that they'd screw up the name of the paper. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's not merely an incorrect name - did you ignore everything else I said before that? The article makes an outright false claim about the contents of the files. This is a significant factual error and/or misrepresentation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Additionally, the following statement found in the article: "In conclusion, Taibbi tweeted that Twitter did not receive any moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans in general" is also false - a misrepresentation/stretching of the truth. What Taibbi actually says is: "Examining the entire election enforcement Slack, we didn’t see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally. We looked. They may exist: we were told they do. However, they were absent here." There are key, major differences of fact here - notably that Taibbi's tweet states the opposite of what the article says - he, in fact, says that he was told that Twitter did receive moderation requests from the Trump campaign, Trump White House, or Republicans generally. What he says is that he didn't see any of those requests. So it would be fair to state that Taibbi says he was told that such requests existed but that he found no evidence of them in the files he reviewed, but he explicitly did not come to a conclusion that no such requests existed. These constitute two separate and significant factual errors and/or misrepresentations of what Taibbi has reported. I submit that the article cannot be said to be a reliable and truthful accounting of the Twitter Files. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Another instance of News18 in our article says "When it comes to the coverup of the Hunter Biden story, the evidence is stacked against President Joe Biden, his family, and the Democrats." News18 appears to be among those who believe Biden was POTUS in Oct 2020. It's really bad.soibangla (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'd agree that both of these are significant factual errors that should keep us from relying on the source for this particular article. Slywriter (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Considering their misrepresentation of the content of this article's topic, I'd agree that CNN-News18 is not a reliable source for this particular topic. Their analysis is pretty embellished to boot as well. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yikesaroo! This website doesn't look so great. They seem to be from India, so maybe they are more reliable about things happening over there. Or maybe they are reliable for things over here, and they just assigned this article to a dweeb... and then had it edited by a dweeb... at any rate, it seems fundamentally unusable here for reasons mentioned above. jp×g 10:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yeesh, I'm surprised that I had no idea how terrible this article was when I was using it to expand the paragraph for Part Three. It's gonna be difficult to find antother source, I believe, due to most of the sites reporting on Part Three being conservative sites that are considered marginally or generally unreliable. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reordering article content to comply with WP:NPOV I posit we need to reorder much of this article's content in order to comply with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. This affects almost every paragraph (!) that this article contains. For an example, we can start right at the Lead section; "The first installment, presented by Taibbi on December 2, 2022, showed elements of the deliberation process Twitter took regarding content moderation related to a New York Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy in October 2020, as well as some other content. Taibbi tweeted that federal law enforcement gave Twitter a "general" warning about foreign hacks and leaks but that the Twitter files showed "no evidence ... of any government involvement in the laptop story." Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story." 1. "Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story." This sentence is here to counter the conclusions made by the authors or by Elon Musk. This should be in a seperate Lead paragraph that would deal with criticism/ criticism on Musk's reactions. 2. "Taibbi tweeted that federal law enforcement gave Twitter a "general" warning about foreign hacks and leaks but that the Twitter files showed 'no evidence ... of any government involvement in the laptop story.'" This is also here to counter Musk's claims, because if this comment is here to detail the content of the tweets, it would be cherrypicking which is not allowed, so we would have to detail in short all the points of the tweets that are detailed at length in the relevant subsection in Twitter files#Content. And so on the entire article from top to bottom: the paragraphs are built in a way that counters the content either without, before, or during stating the actual content of Twitter Files. Albertinon (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] NPOV means we accurately, and without using our editorial bias, document how RS tell the story. We do not write hagiographies here or tell the story "only" from the POV of Musk, et al. That means that Musk's story is presented with the "counter" balance provided by RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Take this RS https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/12/03/smr-musk-taibbi-twitter-f... . It "tells the story" in a clear way by first and foremost stating the facts as they are, the facts which are important in presenting the Twitter Files content to the world: by quoting them as they are. I feel @Valjean that we and many other editors have a mutual interest in ensuring the content is of the standard expected of Wikipedia by the world. Albertinon (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Which is why we need this content, but it needs reordering. I.e. What is Twitter files= content of tweets, What are the counter arguments= counter arguments. The example above demonstrates that the criticism is interwined with the content, in a paragraph that is dedicated to citing the Twitter Files releases content. Albertinon (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] We're supposed to entwine criticism with content, separating them out would be weird and stilted (not to mention a NPOV violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] according to that logic we can merge all reactions into the content as well. Albertinon (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree, Albertinon. If the source of a story was written by Donie O’Sullivan from CNN, there would be a basis to suspect that the editorialization accompanying the facts was biased. And if that were the case, then balancing a statement in the article with the point of view of supplementary reliable sources would be wise. The media has now admitted to a mea culpa over having for years believed statements by high government officials and politicians that the Hunter Laptop story was a Russian-fabricated hoax. They now admit that there exists a faithful, uncorrupted, bit-by-bit image copy of the original Hunter hard drive and it contains real, non-fabricated emails. So be patient; the next Congress will be holding many hearings—with witnesses under oath—intent on getting to the bottom of exactly who was responsible for what insofar as concealing wrongdoing and squelching the ability of conservative voices to be heard on privately owned venues used as public forums. This article will inexorably reflect the truth; it’ll just take some time as the story is increasingly uncovered. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ah shit, here we go again https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128 jp×g 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia talk-pages are not a forum. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yeah. I saw that. I think this clearly shows that organs of the federal government had a Disinformation Governance Board active behind the scenes well before they tried to make it official. Then, when they tried to officially create the Disinformation Governance Board, the initiative flew like a lead balloon. It will be interesting to see what the best RSs say about this after they’ve had time to digest it. I suggest we sit back and watch the RSs for a week and seek the most thoughtful takes on the matter. As “Publius” (the pseudoynm used whenever James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wanted to anonymously collaborate as they penned The Federalist Papers) wrote, a successful republic demands checks and balances where the institutions of government are in a tug of war, and where the personal interests of the wicked and flawed men comprising those institutions (I’m closely paraphrasing the words of Publius) are well aligned with their respective institutions. Plato and Aristotle both taught that good government and a lasting republic (a state in which the ultimate power is held by the people who act through their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch) was achievable so long as the citizenry had a good paideia (pie-DAY-uh, a good education and formation of character). In only six years (only four if Pelosi gets the voting age reduced to 16) students who are currently in sixth grade will be voting; they are in need of a solid paideia. Greg L (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] That is largely accurate as far as Aristotle's use of politeia (republic) but Plato never defines it that way. What relevance is this to the Twitter Files? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Not any; it is an insertion of @Greg L's philosophy of governance into this discussion, much like "So be patient; the next Congress will be holding many hearings—with witnesses under oath—intent on getting to the bottom of exactly who was responsible for what insofar as concealing wrongdoing and squelching the ability of conservative voices to be heard on privately owned venues used as public forums. This article will inexorably reflect the truth; it’ll just take some time as the story is increasingly uncovered" from above. Heavy Water (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Oh, lighten up, fellows. My comment hits squarely on the 6th-release of The Twitter Files, advises patience and being watchful for quality RSs before giving it a treatment in article-space, and discusses the broad subject of having a government that works for the people and isn’t working behind the scenes to undermine a little ol’ thing called the 1st Amendment; quite topical. There is plenty of tangential discussion and personal opinion being shared here, and it seems others here aren’t the least-bit timid about it. For instance, the following quote comprises quite a bit of personal opinion but you don’t see me getting my nickers in a knot over it: "You understand that when two sub-18-year-old youth hook up with each other the crime of pedophilia does not occur? Also note that 18 is not the age of consent in all jurisdictions, where I grew up a 16 year old can consent to anyone older than them and I've been places where a 20 year old can't consent to a 21 year old. There is no more an explicit connection to pedophilia than there is to cyberfraud, sextortion, murder, or any of the other myriad of crimes that take place on social media. You also understand that you can use the app without engaging in sexual activities, right? You seem to be substituting "hookup" for "queer youth culture" which is not the same thing." Greg L (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. @TrangaBellam: This section was not created as a forum post, it was specifically a note of (and link to) the latest release of the posts which are the subject of this article. Of course, I can't take responsibility for whatever the hell everyone else is talking about. More to the point: do we have any sources for this release yet? jp×g 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] well, it didn't begin as a personal blog post, anyway soibangla (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Censorship Initiated By DHS, DNI, FBI Executive Roth In Twitter’s Slack Channel I suggest adding a paragraph about the communications from Twitter executive Yoel Roth. Who claimed that a censorship was initialled by three government agencies. Namely, DHS, DNI, FBI. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable & reliable sources Politico, CBS, Fox. Those Twitter's Slack messages in their Channel "us2020_xfn_enforcement", were both approved for publication by both Dorsey and Musk as present lawful owner of Twitter. In this third publication, Taibbi wrote that a shared Twitter’s official internal Slack channel, which is titled "us2020_xfn_enforcement", Twitter Executive Yoel Roth claimed that at the request of three government agencies. Namely, the FBI, DHS, and the DNI. In this channel, Roth wrote that he met with those agencies to apparently discuss the censoring of the controversial Hunter Biden laptop story from both user's tweets and direct messages.[1][2][3] Still in this Twitter’s Slack channel, a later message from Roth reads, "Here, the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets". In turn, Roth used the Facebook financed PolitiFact, to justify, as Twitter executive, his final go-ahead with the censorship process. Which, again, according to him, was initiated by the FBI government agency.[4][5][6] Sources Francewhoa (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Starting from the bottom where does "Facebook financed" come from? Not seeing that in the WP:RS, is that WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] On PolitiFact's wikipedia page, it lists Facebook as one of the companies that funds PolitiFact. From what I can tell, none of the sources specify that it was funded by Facebook; moreover, Facebook is not the only company/group that funds it. I think Francewhoa is adding that on his own to imply financially-motivated bias on PolitiFact's part, which would go against WP:OR. I would also like to add that the mention of PolitiFact is only in the Fox News sources, which per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, although there is no consensus on its reliability, it's generally considered biased and opinionated when it comes to political issues. The mention of the DHS, DNI, FBI meeting with Roth is, however, backed up by the Politico source. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, Fox is not a WP:RS in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I disagree. Fox is a RS in this context, because it reports on political issues differently than the networks, which generally echo Democratic Party politics, while Fox is more populist. In order to have a balanced perspective in the article, using Fox is actually necessary. 152.130.15.6 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] it is especially not reliable in this context soibangla (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "it reports on political issues differently than other networks" is not exactly justification for using the Fox News source. Sites like Breitbart or The Daily Wire also report differently than other networks, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should cite it as discussion of fact. If we were using the source to attribute conservative-leaning opinions on the Files, perhaps it could be used. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] FoxNews is not a RS for reporting on facts backed by primary sources in their article? I know the general convention but this is a bit extreme as FoxNews is not deprecated. On the other hand, the polifact/FB nonsense seems to be OR and not suitable. Slywriter (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps in this context the mention of Roth citing PolitiFact to justify taking down a tweet wouldn't count as an exceptional claim, especially since posts of the Twitter thread are shown as well. But, I would still advise not to base the majority of the contribution on the Fox News article. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wow, you're just making shit up now. Do I need to propose a topic ban? No reliable source is reporting that any agency asked Roth to "censor" anything related to Hunter Biden's laptop. From the Politico source you cite: "Friday’s release showed Twitter executives grappling with how to handle the New York Post’s story. It included no evidence that government officials asked the platform to censor it." And describing Politifact as "Facebook-financed" by pulling from some other completely random story is the definition of prohibited original synthesis, besides being completely irrelevant. And the part you're attaching at the bottom, "the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets", refers to an entirely-different matter completely unrelated to the Hunter Biden laptop story - it refers to tweets that may have violated Twitter's election manipulation policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Have you withdrawn this claim by now? The entire seventh thread is about FBI trying to get Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. Can the article be fixed to point toward the truth? MikeR613 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] We'll need to wait a while after the "breaking news" articles are published and more reputable sources and analyses of the files arise. The Files cater to the political right, so sources such as Fox News will report on immediately. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well, we currently have things in the article that may be from reputable sources, but are known to be wrong. That is something that we should want to fix as soon as possible, unless we want the article to contain lies. MikeR613 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's not a lie to state that Taibbi reported at the time of the first release of Files found no evidence of government intervention from agencies such as the FBI; again, the new information will be added when reputable sources arise. I assure you no one at Wikipedia wants the article to be deliberately untrue, despite Musk accusing the site of "non-trivial left-wing bias". SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The quote was always an ambiguous cherry-picked piece of a larger quote (that gave a context of foreign governments). I don't know if WaPo was misunderstanding it or not, but there is no reason for Wikipedia to be hiding the context in the lead and then repeating the ambiguous interpretation in the story itself - especially now that we have further information. Presumably that is not what Taibbi meant and never was. MikeR613 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] MikeR613, you write: "Well, we currently have things in the article that may be from reputable sources, but are known to be wrong. That is something that we should want to fix as soon as possible, unless we want the article to contain lies." That is entirely possible, but how do you know this? If it's from your own reading of the selected tweats currently discussed by Musk's team, then that's OR and we cannot use your conclusions. The tweets, Musk, Taibbi, et al are extremely biased primary sources we cannot use "alone". We can only use them after they have been cited by independent secondary sources. When that happens, and those sources provide evidence that something we have written is wrong or outdated, we will update the content. That's how it works here. We have no interest in getting it wrong or hiding anything. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Please provide reliable sources to back up what you are saying. We can all read the tweets and come to our own conclusions, but our personal conclusions are meaningless. Slywriter (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Mainstream media response As detailed here, most of the mainstream media in the US has been downplaying or ignoring the FBI and other government participation in the Twitter censorship while focusing on the recent feud between Musk and journalists linking to the flight-tracking website. Probably should add this to the section on media reaction. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] it hasn't even been 24 hours. unlike Fox, MSM is not Taibbi's stenographer soibangla (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Seconded with soiblanga; we should wait for the thread to digest and sources other than Fox or the sea of niche conservative sites that seem to copy off each other's articles to arise. Moreover, commentary about the MSM not reporting as much on the files already exists under the "Reactions" section, SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] FBI's 80 Agents and Twitter I have tried to add a section on the 6th installment of the Twitter Files about the team of 80 FBI agents working with Twitter. The section was deleted on sourcing. My source is TK News by Matt Taibbi the substack article where the Twitter Thread is reproduced. Here is what I added: The sixth installment was released on Twitter on December 16, 2022.The thread was reproduced on TK News with Matt Taibbi on December 17, 2022. This thread reported on the team of 80 FBI agents assigned to work with Twitter employees on cancellations of accounts. 1. Footnote: Taibbi, Matt. December 17, 2022. Twitter Files: The "Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary" Thread TK News by Matt Taibbi What can be done to include this information? Kmccook (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2022‎ (UTC)[reply] Just do as we always do...only use independent secondary RSes. Taibbi's Substack is only usable for info about himself and his POV in his own bio. Only other sources can establish the content has due weight for mention here. I have no doubt it does, so use the RSes that document this event, its content, and their views on it. Please sign your post. Did it for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] But the sources Wikipedia accepts are all singing the same tune, so it seems to me that going to the actual thread at Taibbi's TK News would provide the information. These rules box in anything but approved reporting from sources that are unhappy with the Twitter files. I know the rules you cite. I don't want to use an unapproved source, but the approved sources have a chorus they are singing in and won't accept discordance with the script they all follow. sorry I did not sign. Here you go.Kmccook (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, the answer is it's sucks and deal with it. The community has deemed most mainstream media reliable and most far right/left media unreliable. Contrarian sources may arise in due time that don't parrot, but Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadline. We can wait for the situation to develop. Slywriter (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes sir. Order received.Kmccook (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The acceptability of a source has nothing to do with its political POV or bias (unless its bias is so extreme it causes violations of normal journalistic practice leading to unfactual and false reporting). Good sources follow normal journalistic practices like editorial oversight and fact-checking. The stability of a source is also a factor. There are many other factors (see WP:RS). If you want to use sources that other editors do not accept, you are welcome to appeal to WP:RSN and get wider community input. Then the judgment on the source might end up listed at WP:RSP (which is not a complete list). Other than a particular source, the issue of using WP:Primary and WP:Self-published sources has nothing to do with political POV. It is the way we prevent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. You have noted that acceptable sources "are all singing the same tune." Well, in controversial situations, one side is usually more factual than the other, and one would expect that good sources would point that out, IOW they take the side of the side of those speaking the truth. Most normal people and sources do that. If they don't, we do not consider them RS. So it's a good thing that RS are all singing the same tune in such situations. We do not present both sides as if they are equally reliable or factual. They CANNOT be. That would be a false balance/bothsiderism, both of which violate good journalism and ethics. We do not allow that here. When someone makes a false statement, we do not allow it to stand alone and deceive readers. (If you find such a situation, correct it.) We know it's false because RS say so, so we include words like false/untrue/baseless AND the RS which describes the false statement in that way. That's why Wikipedia content is controversial and factual. The offended side will always complain, so when liars (and those who believe the lies) complain, we must be doing something right. Face-wink.svg -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I have read the files and think everyone should who is interested in this topic. That is why I cited the files rather than a secondary source. As you make clear, the Wikipedia rules forbid this. There shouldn't be a side. I was linking to the printed-out thread at TK News by Matt Taibbi Notes on FBI/Twitter Story: Link to Text Version of Twitter Files Thread Kmccook (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Kmccook (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Some may recall a decade ago when Fox News became The Benghazi Channel, featuring a ceaseless parade of Republican members of Congress and pundits for two years of wall-to-wall coverage of the greatest scandal of our time, while patting themselves on the back for being the only outlet covering it while the MSM was ignoring it to cover up for Obama and HRC, but five Republican-controlled House committees investigated and found no scandal, but because Fox News told viewers it was the greatest scandal of our time, a sixth Select Benghazi Committee was demanded and it found...nothing. Which is what the MSM knew from the start, so that's why they ignored it after the initial independent commission report came out. And Kevin McCarthy admitted the Select Committee was created to drive down HRC's poll ratings going into the 2016 campaign.[6] This is instructive as to why we need to be very careful with our sourcing here. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Kmccook, I agree that interested people should read the actual files, and that's why we do provide links to them in the infobox. The External links section is a place we often do this, as long as the primary source does not violate WP:ELNO. You boldly declare that you "cited the files rather than a secondary source" even though you know "Wikipedia rules forbid this." Don't deliberately violate our policies and guidelines. That's tendentious editing. Don't even "not like" those policies. Bring your thinking into line with them and like them. You are right that "There shouldn't be a side" when it comes to Wikipedia. We don't take sides when there is a disagreement between various RS, but we do take the side of RS when they disagree with unreliable sources. That is firmly based on policy. We are a reality-based and factually-based mainstream encyclopedia. We are not Conservapedia or some type of Fringeopedia. This is where editors who listen to unreliable sources get into trouble. RS have more due weight, so a properly-written article will clearly show that what RS say is more believeable than those sources that/who are unreliable, and that will be evident from the words of RS themselves, not from any OR input from editors. (That really upsets partisan visitors/editors. They don't like it when we document that RS say "false" or "without basis.") Sources, not editors, are taking sides. We just stay neutral and let RS speak more loudly, per due weight. We do not try to create a false balance, as that would be an NPOV violation. ("Neutral" does not mean both sides are presented as equal.) This means we do document the disagreement between the primary source people/tweets and the reliable sources that point out the logical flaws and evidentiary lacks for some of the charges made by Musk, his group, and their allied right-wing political actors. I have written an essay about how to neutrally present what biased sources say: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Kmccook, here are are some policy considerations: As noted above, Fox and JTN are not to be used for this type of subject. (JTN was started by John Solomon (political commentator), so we're dealing with a very biased political agenda website like Newsmax, The Daily Caller, or Breitbart. They are simply a very poor source.) Tweets are not RS. They are self-published primary sources. (To make things even worse, in this case, the whole project is fraught with selection bias created by the involvement of very politically biased people like Musk and the three people he has selected to present the project. They have no interest in telling the whole story or being fair.) Only secondary RS can be used as they indicate which of the used tweets have due weight for mention. (We are not documenting every tweet they use. Independent RS make the choice for us.) Tweets are self-published primary sources that cannot be used "alone" as a source, only as presented/quoted by a RS, and then using the RS as the reference. Taibbi's Substack is a self-published primary source, so it is only usable for info about himself and his POV in his own bio. (That's based on BLP and PRIMARY.) Only other sources can establish the content has due weight for mention here. Use RSes that document the event, its content, and their views on it. To avoid OR and SYNTH violations, the RS should also be discussing the tweets in the context of the Twitter Files. There are probably more considerations (like BLP), but that's all for now. Carry on. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The issue of how to apply Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines to independently published media like Substacks is certainly a thorny one, and one that I expect is only going to become more important as the months and years progress. However, I don't think we are quite prepared to rip up WP:RS, at least not here and now over this specific thing. Perhaps (and, I think, almost certainly) the day will come when we have no choice, and then we will have to reconsider a lot of things we thought we knew. But until then, I think we have to make do with what we have (and it is worth mentioning that what we have isn't that bad in the larger scheme of things). jp×g 04:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Our policies are pretty good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Forbes Breaking News Citations There are at the moment 9 citations to breaking news articles by Forbes. I do not believe any of them follow wikipedia guidelines on using breaking news as a source. Amthisguy (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Refactoring the first paragraphs/general restructuring The first paragraphs of the article aren't good. They're just citing what happened day-by-day. The top should consist of information about the subject on the broader, higher level, such as it is in the more reader-comfortable articles that would inform on this sort of thing. The three-paragraph dump of chronological information is easy to get lost in and we have better methods and formatting standards (including various tables) on Wikipedia than how this article is laid out. Mehrpw (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contents 1 Draft:Yoel Roth, former Head of Trust and Safety 2 NY Post & Fox as sources 3 Legal scholars 4 Reverting and gnashing of teeth 5 Undermining a key narrative? 6 Reception summary 7 In-text attribution of Forbes quotes 8 "Scandal" categories 9 "Independent journalists" 10 No Governmet Interference? 11 Intentionally misleading claim 12 Bias left wing slant. Just like premusk twitter 13 "Deplatformed" is factually inaccurate 14 Government involvement (2) 15 Independent Sentinel not a reliable source 16 Censorship Initiated By DHS, DNI, FBI 17 Rolling Stone as a "trusted source" 18 Separate sections for separate releases? 19 Executive Roth In Twitter’s Slack Channel 20 Taibbi's Unsupported Claim 21 Nice work, everyone 22 Rewriting Part two 23 Government involvement Draft:Yoel Roth, former Head of Trust and Safety I think Yoel Roth, the former Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter may be notable enough for an article. Any help improving the draft and finding sourcing would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] That article was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoel Roth (before the Twitter Files release). If you think there are enough new reliable sources about Roth, then you could consider requesting undeletion of the article. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] NY Post & Fox as sources It is my opinion that for this story these sources should be used a viable sourcing. These sources represent the political affiliation of the party affected and the NY Post is one of the only sources to properly report on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. For some reason the NY Post has been deemed non-credible, not sure if this is more democratic gaslighting of the public by discrediting sources with stories they don't like or not, the notes say their credibility is mostly in question regarding local political issues, which this story is not. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There's consensus that Fox News is generally reliable outside of politics, and that reliability varies for political topics (see WP:FOXNEWS), while there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable after 1976 (see WP:NYPOST). Either way, both of them are usable, depending on the context (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INTEXT, WP:ABOUTSELF). MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "There's consensus" - could you please source where this consensus you're referring to comes from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.203.87 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:RSP is a place where you can find links to the discussions that have determined what sources are reliable. Andre🚐 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.203.87 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Legal scholars I'm not familiar enough with Jonathan Turley to know how reliable his opinion piece is on this matter, but the relevant paragraph in it is: The implications of these documents becomes more serious once the Biden campaign became the Biden administration. These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship. As I have previously written, the administration cannot censor critics and cannot use agents for that purpose under the First Amendment. It's much less certain than the text that was present in this article before. Though to be honest the rest Turley's article (and even this excerpt) reads as disingenuous so I'm not sure how much weight it should be given in the first place. Citing (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I became acquainted, somewhat, with Jonathan Turley when he was called to testify in one of Trump's impeachments. Funny how he's so concerned about the Biden administration being in contact with Twitter, but not the Trump administration, which Taibbi says was happening. This is a good explainer. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reverting and gnashing of teeth @Soibangla: [1]... Previous: ""Taibbi noted that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" that he did not disclose. Weiss later wrote that the only condition they agreed to was that the material would be first published on Twitter."" Postvious: ""In order to be given access to the materials, Taibbi and Weiss agreed to the condition that their reporting would be first published on Twitter." As far as I can tell, the postvious version is true, because it says the same thing as the previous version; if it isn't, then the previous version is false as well, and should be removed. It seems inappropriate to make dark insinuations like "he agreed to certain conditions that he did not disclose", when the sole condition was both innocuous (i.e. that the stuff be posted on Twitter first, nothing about the content of the reporting) and disclosed a couple of days later. What other version of this text would be acceptable? jp×g 00:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] WaPo also seemed to imply this was the condition, even before Weiss revealed it.[2] (and I agree with their interpretation of that Substack post) DFlhb (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Note how he mentions Twitter exclusivity in one paragraph but "certain conditions" in another. Kinda odd. [3] soibangla (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If we're going to get into our subjective interpretations, I think it's clear that the entire Substack post is about Twitter exclusivity. DFlhb (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Weiss later wrote that the only condition they agreed to" Who are "they?" Weiss and Musk? soibangla (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You know darned well what he meant by “they." So why did you put scare-quotes around “they?” What’s your point? Be direct; out with it. Is the CEO of Twitter not good and credible enough for you? Are you implying that what Musk releases should be viewed with great skepticism? Are we to read your mind after you wasted hundreds of man-hours of the Wikipedia community’s time dealing with your nomination for deletion of this entire article? Try being straight up and clear as glass as to what it is you want with this article now that you have to suffer with its existence, Soibangla. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's not he, it's she, Weiss, and it is not clear who they are. Was she speaking about herself and Musk, or was she also speaking about Taibbi? Maybe try to follow along better than continuing to take swipes at me. I'm not suffering with the existence of this article, I sought to delete the first version of it that was a politically-slanted mess. As I said in the AFD, "maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one." I'm having great fun with this one.soibangla (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] “[P]olitically-slanted mess.” Methinks thou doth protest too much. Greg L (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It was not an "investigation" in the sense we use that term here, nor was it evident it was a "political scandal," among other problems. I wouldn't have done the AFD simply because it was about Twitter Files. Funny how no one mentions I said "maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one." Do you concede you missed the whole issue in my previous edit? soibangla (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Undermining a key narrative? The article currently states "Taibbi's reporting undermined a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories." One problem here is that 'undermine' and 'narrative' here are non-NPOV WP:CONTENTIOUS labels (they imply falseness and dishonest intent), but the bigger problem is that it implies Musk is the source of this notion, while it actually originally caught on back in August when Zuckerberg claimed FBI gave that warning to Facebook. Refuting that it happened on Twitter (which this still does not do completely, though it does make a convincing case) does not mean it didn't happen on other social media. 82.197.199.203 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The source, CNN, used "undercut," I changed it to "undermined." I don't see a problem with narrative [4] The Taibbi posts undercut a top claim by Musk and Republicans, who have accused the FBI of leaning on social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories. soibangla (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reception summary There-being: I see you reverted my edit here ([5]), where I was trying to reflect reception by different sources more accurately. Would you mind elaborating more on your objections? I think the previous state is pretty lacking, so I would like to improve and expand on it. MarioGom (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There-being: Given the discussion below (#In-text attribution of Forbes quotes), I assume that your objections were not related to my characterization of public reception per se, but about the information about Government's (lack of) involvement? MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] did you see the recent tweets about the FBI and other govt agencies requesting tweets be removed? your lack of neutrality is honestly sickening, I truly hope that you take some time to reevaluate your life and why you edit/contribute in the first place. 76.95.193.186 (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] In-text attribution of Forbes quotes There-being: with respect your revert [6], the following text contains direct quotes from Forbes ("The files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories"), and as such, using in-text attribution makes sense (see WP:INTEXT). MarioGom (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] In addition to this, the "no government involvement" quote is taken out of context both by Forbes, and subsequently in it's use here. The full text of the Matt Taibbi post the quote stems from is: "22. Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem..." Clearly he is talking about no "foreign government" was involved in hacking this material and that this "was the problem" for Twitter because it created a challenge for them with respect to the proper way to justify the potential take-down of the information. The only "conspiracy theory" this statement contradicts was the lie that the contents of the laptop was a result of a foreign government hack. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Um, no. If your reading comprehension skills are this lacking, you have no business editing an encyclopedia. This is not an arguable point. The twitter files showed NO government involvement. Don’t you think if they had evidence of government involvement they might have showed it, instead of showing basically nothing? This has already been rejected by several editors. Please stop bringing it up. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to continue to assume your comments are being made in good faith. I suggest you re-read the entire twitter files posts themselves so that you can get a good feel for what Matt was actually saying in context. But besides that point, the files do indeed show 'government involvement' in the censoring of information on the platform. Of course, they do not show 'government involvement in the laptop story' as Matt Taibbii indicates. We already know that the laptop story is real and was not created or hacked by any government though. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I didn't mean to argue about the merit of the quote, but about using in-text attribution. So my proposal is changing this: "The files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories" To this: "According to Forbes, the files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories" Just like I did here. MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] My apologies! I didn't mean to high-jack your conversation. I like your suggestion because it makes it clearer that this whole sentence is just "someone's take" on the situation... allowing that interpretation of facts is still up to the reader. I would further suggest moving your proposed updated version of the quote to the 'reactions' section. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] the reference already indicates that the source is Forbes. This edit is pointless.2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The text is a direct quote, which should be attributed in-text. Otherwise, it's confusing to the reader. There are double quotes precisely because it's not in Wikipedia voice. MarioGom (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:INTEXT. This is a direct quote (and a statement of opinion) by Forbes. Furthermore, and in that vein, it is also more appropriately located in the 'reaction' section IMHO. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:NOTFORUM If Taibbi admitted it in his own words, it might be better to just include his whole quote here? The problem is not the parts -already- in quotes... the problem is the entire sentence is actually a quote lifted from Forbes and placed in a Wikipedia article as if the conclusion that the Taibbi quote "contradicted several conspiracy theories" is actually a conclusion made by an editor based on the Taibbi quotes. It needs to be more clear that this entire sentence is lifted verbatim from Frobes and represents their opinion. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Anyway, the whole quote is included in the Twitter Files Investigation § Content section: "Taibbi tweeted, "there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story."" Which I don't dispute and don't plan to remove. My previous edits (see also the thread above) are about the paragraphs related to public and media reception. MarioGom (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Your original media reaction edit was a good one. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] One more point though: That is not the "whole quote". The whole quote is what I posted above. It makes it very clear what he is talking about. Taking the quote out of context in order to make it sound like something different than what was said is a logical fallacy and a form of misquoting. I see no reason to not include the full Tweet if we truly believe the quote is important enough to include here. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Go spread your conspiracy theories on Twitter. Wikipedia is not the forum for spreading baseless conspiracy theories. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, including on behalf of others The same people that are calling the Twitter Files alt-right conspiracy theories are the ones that are also telling you the Twitter Files prove the government had no involvement in censoring the laptop. You can only be dishonest so many times before people should stop taking you seriously. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The in-text attribution has been added back (by another user) for a while and it has not been disputed. Given that this whole thread got derailed by off-topic forum discussion, an uninvolved editor or admin might want to close the whole thread. MarioGom (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Scandal" categories Is this really a "scandal"? Are those categories justified? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] is there a "sham scandal" category? soibangla (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I imagine that a Category:Manufactured scandals would run afoul of core policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Cambridge Dictionary defines "scandal" as "(an action or event that causes) a public feeling of shock and strong moral disapproval." I think it could be argued that this bar was reached for some people. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but when it's a conspiracy theory that has some people "feeling shock and strong moral disapproval", it's not a scandal. See Jade Helm 15 (in case you've forgotten that manufactured outrage), for example. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm not ready to dismiss everyone who is "feeling shock and strong moral disapproval" over this as simply being overcome by "manufactured outrage". Personally, I think that the government (or even just candidates for office) asking for things to be removed from big tech platforms and having that platform capitulate is shocking and worthy of moral disapproval. What was Trump asking them to remove? He's the POTUS at that time. That's a scandal in my book. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] All we know of that the Biden campaign asked to have taken down, based on the selective release by Elon and Taibbi, were Hunter's dick pics. We don't know what the Trump White House asked to have taken down because Elon/Taibbi didn't share it. Unless shown otherwise, I'd assume other tweets that violated TOS. (I should be more clear that Elon and Taibbi are attempting to manufacture outrage and I'm sure that those who are feeling outraged on the ground just haven't read the entire story.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm still not ready to wholesale discredit a group of people's opinions just because of some vague notion I may have that anyone who would think a certain thought would obviously be under some sort of manipulation. It would be just as easy for these folks to say the opposite side is "manufacturing complacency". The point here is to ask if this is a "scandal". I believe it hits that bar.216.164.226.167 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What we personally believe isn't relevant. Where are sources referring to this as a "scandal"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If "what editors believe" is irrelevant to you when it comes to categorization, then I would suggest not asking the question in the first place next time. What do you think is the problem with leaving this in the scandals category? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Like I just indicated, lack of sourcing. I should have been clear about that earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Categorization does not require sourcing. There is also no source saying this is "Political terminology of the United States", but it remains in that category. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Categories must reflect reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. Citing (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If we know the Biden campaign asked to have this taken down, why isn't this under the category Biden Administration Controversies? Comments about removal of that category include that the event occurred in October 2020 (during the election) which was while Joe Biden was in office, however in a similar vein the Trump Administration Controversies include "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎" which would have been during the election while Obama was in office during the 2016 election. This is related to the 2020 election and has lead to some pretty contentious debate that may qualify as a controversy, but no a scandal. CaptainNedaESB (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The Biden campaign is not the Biden administration. Joe Biden was not "in office" in October 2020. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is rightly not categorized as a Trump administration anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] [7] soibangla (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Rabble-rousing from indef-blocked sockpuppeteer I have re-categorized this article following the guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. If it becomes characterized as a scandal by reliable sources we can re-add them. For now, this seems to be mostly an event in the Musk-Twitter saga. Citing (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree with this take. The argumentative takes about scandal definitions are pointless. It does not seem to be commonly referred to as a scandal in most reliable sources. If this changes, we can review it again. MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agreed, thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Independent journalists" The lede now states that the two presenters are "independent journalists". Do we know how they were selected and approached, or did they volunteer their services, and their relationships with Elon Musk? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No. Unless it is something discussed by reliable sources, it's pretty much irrelevant. MarioGom (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is relevant: Taibbi noted that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" that he did not disclose. It is also relevant that as indies they have no editors who review their work prior to publication to determine whether, say, they have cherrypicked information they have had exclusive access to and no one else can see inside the black box to scrutinize it. In Weiss's report, she shows examples for Charlie Kirk and Dan Bongino, so does that mean there were no similar cases for liberal users? An editor would ask about that before publication, but no one else has the access she does to question it. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Do reliable sources convey that? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "independent journalist Matt Taibbi"[8] "Feeding on resentment against mainstream media, new media players have established a power base via Substack newsletters, podcasts and other independent channels. These writers — including Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Glenn Greenwald...[9] Basically, they're bloggers with better tech. They're free to say whatever they want without filter. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I can see that with the notion of independence, we want to do opposite things for the same reason. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I thought perhaps it was relevant because "independent" gives the impression – rightly or wrongly – of an investigation carried out by some sort of "independent arbiters". That may or may not be the case, and we have no way of knowing, short of RSs. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Because Twitter is in complete control of what is being released, Taibbi and Weiss are not in positions to do anything more than what Twitter wants. It's a nice pubic relations campaign on Twitter's part. Taibbi is an independent journalist, but this role he's taken on is pr. --Hipal (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Independent journalist" is a long-established term for journalists who don't work for a newsroom. And "Twitter is in complete control" and "role he's taken on is pr" are both false, and not alleged by any reliable source. The only condition was apparently that the reporting be published on Twitter, and reliable sources have not disputed that. DFlhb (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Twitter is in complete control of what is being released" is false? soibangla (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reliable sources say that the files were given as a "dump" to these two independent journalists to do their own investigation; none claim that Musk told them what to say. DFlhb (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] who controlled the dump? No concern about Garbage in, garbage out? soibangla (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] That is a separate question from editorial independence (and a completely irrelevant one from the standpoint of discussing improvements to the article). DFlhb (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] it is entirely relevant from the standpoint of discussing improvements to the article: who are these journalists and how did they get their source materials? were they spoonfed? soibangla (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What's not relevant is speculation that has no basis in any reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] it's not speculation they are freelancers with no editorial controls; it's not speculation they were provided a dump of unknown contents soibangla (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You're speculating once again and are trying to impose a negative perception on a process that you don't necessarily know or aware of. "Freelance" journalists was a good definition. I would keep it and see a clear neutral POV in it's use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.155.143 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm not speculating, I just called them freelancers. I have less confidence in unscrutinized blackbox "citizen journalism" than does Musk, and here we have fully transparent crowd-sourced scrutiny, which totally rocks. soibangla (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Do you realize that it's just your opinion? If not, Houston we have a problem. WP's crowd-sourced scrutiny, like any relevant model you could examine has its PROs and CONs. Besides this is not a news site. Freelancers won't have editorial scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that story that's covered by a freelancer is flawed or fake. Independence can be claimed in most cases. Second, having an editorial line means that you mostly have to obey anything that the top requires you, often for political affiliation or convenience. Most famous newspapers don't have the kind of transparency they boast and while they claim impeccable journalistic process, often have been found to be deontologically and ethically lacking. Again, freelancing or editorial controls and any range of variations in between - both have PROs and CONs. Please don't go claiming to know what's best or not acting like you're an expert. Use common sense and don't impose your opinions everywhere. Thank you. No Governmet Interference? 1. The FBI takes possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2019. 2. In 2020 Twitter executives have weekly meetings with the FBI. 3. The FBI warns Twitter executives that there there could possibly be a hack and leak operation involving Hunter Biden in October. 4. In October Twitter suspends the NY Post’s account and censors a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop for violating Twitter policy even though the article clearly reports how the laptop was obtained. (Not hacked or leaked). 5. In depositions to the Federal Elections Commission Twitter executives admit they labeled the story based on the information given to them by the FBI during their weekly meetings. 6. Taibbi claims there’s no evidence -that he’s seen - of any government involvement. Conclusion: How do the first 5 examples not prove that the government was involved? The only claim is Matt Taibbi’s claim that he hasn’t seen any evidence they were involved. (which isn’t even being reported on correctly and is incorrectly worded in this article). The FBI knew that if the story were to come out they had created the idea that it was hacked or leaked information within the Twitter executives knowing Twitter’s policy on such material. -The story was reported. -Twitter censored. -Government Interference. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Intentionally misleading claim “Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story.” Taibbi doesn’t mention Democrats suppressing the story at all. I understand this probably won’t be removed because of Wikipedia’s liberal bias that compells them to defend Democrats honor, but at least remove the word “also”. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I forgot to add that I wanted to cite the source of my accusation that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but I couldn’t find any liberal echo chambers that Wikipedia considers a “reliable source” to quote the co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger. Funny how that works. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Bias left wing slant. Just like premusk twitter Bias left wing slant. Adds opinions and comments that clearly show a dismissal of severity. Needs balance. For instance the fbi did tell social media to expect russian disinformation. This is not mentioned. It is also not mentioned that twitter have been proven now to shadow ban some right wing accounts; no proof for left win accounts has yet to be shown. Only opinions that avoid these realities and promote left defences are used in the article. There is no balance. Just like premusk twitter 82.31.48.231 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's Wikipedia. No surprise if it's contains leftist agenda. Don't donate your money to WMF, y'all! Donate to Internet Archive! 114.125.92.86 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] both those things are in the article soibangla (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Again right wing IPs complaining about the article they imagine they are reading, not the article that we have published. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Deplatformed" is factually inaccurate Donald Trump still had access to post on the official "POTUS" and "WhiteHouse" Twitter accounts, neither of which were ever suspended. What was suspended was his personal Twitter account. It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that Trump was "deplatformed" from Twitter. Also, he was the president, he can call an actual press conference anytime, so it's kind of hilarious to argue that not being able to incessantly post on a personal social media account is "deplatforming." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Twitter is a platform. According to the leak, he was deplatformed together with a multitude of other "non-conforming" users. Let's not meddle in fanatism, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.64.124 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No, it is not inaccurate. We use the language of the sources. The source used in that paragraph at the time referred to it as deplatforming. The DJT twitter account was shut down; that source, and the actual investigative journalism done by Weiss et al on that topic, referred to it as deplatforming. Now, personally, I despise the man Trump; loathed his presidency. Did not vote for him either election. But all this tribalism on Twitter where the two tribes have come in to this article to do battle on whatever their perceived positions are—often without reference to what the actual Twitter Files journalism tweet articles were about—or want to make it about what Democans or Republicrats say or have said or prefer, is just maddening. Wish we could simply write a good article explicating the actual content of the Twitter Files: investigative journalism on content moderation; shadow banning, deplatforming, or whatever else the journalism ends up uncovering. N2e (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Government involvement (2) The bombshell release last night documents FBI involvement with Twitter executives. So, the line in the lede that there was "no government involvement" is false and needs to be removed. Also, it has already been documented that the government of California was involved in suppressing certain opinions on Twitter [10]. Please correct the intro. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No. Matt Taibbi is accurately quoted as saying he saw no evidence of government involvement with Twitter's decision to restrict distribution of information and misinformation about Hunter Biden's laptop. That you don't like this quote is irrelevant. A video clip of a conservative commentator expressing her opinion is not a useful source for anything except that commentator's attributed opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Here's the full quote "Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story." So, it's obvious he was referring to foreign governments and this needs to be corrected in the article. (Personal attack removed) 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] (Personal attack removed) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Let's be clear, the full quote is the one provided by talk Assuming bona fide here: although the interpretation might currently be ambiguous and not obvious at all. Since the release of the Twitter Files is ongoing, I would advise caution reading on this line of writing at this time. Things might become clearer with the release of new installments. Just my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.4.116 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The key words here are "any government" (so, Russia, China, Burkina Faso or...the US) and "laptop story." Weiss didn't talk about the laptop story. I understand how many people are panting and drooling for a reveal that Comey, Hillary and Joe ordered the laptop story suppressed and they're all going to Gitmo and Trump will be reinstated, and they're really upset Taibbi hasn't said that, and they're trying really hard to find some way to connect dots, but that's not where we are and naturally we'll keep our eyes open for any BOMBSHELL developments the moment Gateway Pundit runs them. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] In the latest release, Taibbi clearly details government involvement [11] [12], quote, "As the election approached, senior executives – perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed" and "After J6, internal Slacks show Twitter executives getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies" So, clearly, Taibbi is saying that there was government involvement in the censorship and election interference efforts on the platform. The intro needs to be changed. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] That's quoted from an entirely different thread about an entirely different topic - Twitter's decision-making process around how to deal with Donald Trump making false claims of election fraud and inciting a coup using his personal Twitter account. That tweet has nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter's decisions on the Hunter Biden laptop files. Furthermore, "perhaps under pressure from federal agencies" is, at best, a speculative expression of Taibbi's personal opinion. It is noteworthy that the tweet you linked contains no screenshots or evidence whatsoever to support Taibbi's assertion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you're right. I've read lots of sly writers who are effective in maneuvering readers into conflating two distinct topics as though they are the same. Taibbi is a sly writer. Not to suggest that's what he's doing here, of course. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This demonstrates why we don't use or trust any reporting on American politics from Fox News, even on a talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Independent Sentinel not a reliable source I have reverted an edit that used Independent Sentinel as its sole source. A quick review of the site does not give me the impression that it constitutes a reliable source for factual claims per Wikipedia's guidelines. Its staff are non-professional and the content is highly-partisan and clickbaity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Censorship Initiated By DHS, DNI, FBI Rolling Stone as a "trusted source" Rolling stone has done nothing but pump out deflective, non-news, opinion pieces about the Twitter files while FOX news (NOT a left-wing establishment) is NOT allowed to be used as a source????? Whereas Fox reporting is actually descriptive and details what's actually mentioned in the tweets.... The whole entire world is watching Wikipedia make a fool of themselves. Watching all this go down. Whoever these "30,000+ edits" people are seriously need to get back to the drawing board for the sake of spreading actual knowledge. Not this careful selection of information from left-wing news sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.206.82 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I will note WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS as a link for anybody on the page using it with respect to political controversies. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Separate sections for separate releases? Currently, the article's table of contents looks like this: 1 Background 2 Publication 3 Content 3.1 Part one (by Matt Taibbi) 3.2 Part two (by Bari Weiss) 3.3 Part three (by Matt Taibbi) 3.4 Planned releases on other topics 4 Reactions 4.1 Politicians 4.2 Legal scholars 4.3 Former Twitter employees 4.4 Journalists 5 References This seems like a somewhat haphazard way to arrange the content. My reasoning for this is that, per discussion above, this causes a lot of avoidable confusion. For example, there is uncertainty about whether things should be included in "part one" or "part three" or both. This seems kind of unnecessary to me: what Matt Taibbi said about Twitter's internal communications four days ago and what he said about Twitter's internal communications yesterday are clearly part of the same process of reporting. I think the reason the article's set up like this is because it made sense when there was only one part, and it made sense when there were only two parts. However, it is turning into a trainwreck; if there are four parts, or five parts, it's going to become even worse. I think there should either be one section combining an overview of all the reports, or at most, one section for each reporter (i.e. a Taibbi section, a Weiss section, etc). jp×g 23:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree. The article is poorly structured and doesn't cover the subject well. It encourages people to add poorly-sourced content and excessive and irrelevant details. It would make more sense to have Background (perhaps focused on Twitter's content moderation and Musk's acquisition rather than whatever it is now), Content (a summary of all the parts without excessive detail), and maybe something like "Reactions" or "Impact". Citing (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] A single section on all reports is unworkable with the amount we'll likely be dealing with. It should likely be ordered around topics: relations with FBI, censorship of Post story, decision to suspend Trump, etc. DFlhb (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Executive Roth In Twitter’s Slack Channel I suggest adding a paragraph about the message about Twitter executive Yoel Roth. Who claimed that a censorship was initialled by three government agencies. Namely DHS, DNI, FBI. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable & reliable source. In this third publication, Taibbi wrote that a shared Twitter’s official internal Slack channel, which is titled "us2020_xfn_enforcement", Twitter Executive Yoel Roth claimed that at the request of three government agencies. Namely, the FBI, DHS, and the DNI. In this channel, Roth wrote that he met with those agencies to apparently discuss the censoring of the controversial Hunter Biden laptop story from both user's tweets and direct messages.[1] Still in this Twitter’s Slack channel, a later message from Roth reads, "Here, the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets". In turn, Roth used the Facebook financed PolitiFact, to justify, as Twitter executive, his final go-ahead with the censorship process. Which, again, according to him, was initiated by the FBI government agency.[1] Sources Francewhoa (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Fox News is not considered a quality source for politics per your link (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News) and Substack is self-published. Citing (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've removed it because there are also WP:BLP concerns raised at Talk:Twitter_Files#BLP_caution.Citing (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Taibbi's Unsupported Claim The article notes Taibbi did not provide internal documents to confirm his claim that employees had more contact with Republicans than Democrats. All he provided was public records showing massive skew towards Democrats in political donations. While this is a true point about Taibbi's reporting, it's almost like proving a negative. One would not expect there to be an internal document logging how many contacts employees had with various political parties, and thus one would expect no such document exists for Taibbi to share. It's like when Saddam Hussein truthfully claimed Iraq didn't have WMDs but then shedding doubt on his claim by noting he didn't provide documents that don't exist to document nukes that didn't exist, because why would Hussein's government write a document about that? The only way Taibbi could support the claim would be for him to manually count every time he found contact by a political party or politician, and then publish every example he found, which seems beyond the scope of his reporting and someone could still claim that Taibbi might have withheld some communications to skew the numbers. Thus while the article's claim about Taibbi is literally true, it is misleading since it implies there'd be an easy document for Taibbi to publish. I recommend changing it to say that he did not provide specific data on the number of contacts per party that he manually counted nor provided information on what records he was looking at to do the count. 98.21.241.94 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No worries, IP contributor; the truth eventually comes out given sufficient time; it always does. For instance, there is a fourth release, according to Newsmax: Twitter Execs Sought Rules to Ban Trump Alone, Files Say, which cites the ShellenbergerMD (a blue-checkmark author on the primary source, Twitter.. Jack Gournell at Newsman wrote as follows: “ Roth [Yoel Roth, Twitter’s Global Head of Trust and Safety] tweeted in 2017 that there were "ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE." And this past April he told a colleague that "his goal 'is to drive change in the world,' which is why he decided not to become an academic." ” This is a developing story on the fourth Twitter Files release. Greg L (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You might notice that your links show up in red. That's because Newsmax is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wow. Good to know! The link isn’t red for me. But it’s good to know what Newsmax isn’t considered as an RS on Wikipedia. Why? Because while looking at the list of RSs, I see that The Washington Post is considered to be an RS. Interesting. Greg L (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:NEWSMAX: "Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda." You may review the RfC here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I saw that. I saw this too:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Washington_Post: "Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website." Greg L (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] NorthBySouthBaranof, I found some sources that don't run afoul of WP:RS or the Perennial sources warning. Regarding Part4: The Hill to corroborate that Twitter employees took actions against tweets or users without any policy as backing (also, Twitter employee's concern "about the risk of deamplifying counterspeech" in response to Yoel Roth's instruction to blacklist content just prior to the 2020 election). For Part 1: WSJ, Twitter Censorship files: "Rep. Ro Khanna, the California progressive Democrat, warned Twitter in 2020 about the free-speech implications and political backlash of censoring the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop."--FeralOink (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Nice work, everyone Lady Justice at Castallania, Malta.jpeg I don’t want to come across as pretentious or sanctimonious. Nonetheless, as long-time wikipedian, I don’t think it is inappropriate to offer kudos to the collective effort of the wikipedians engaged in give & take on this new article. First off, this article garnered 14,000 page views yesterday. While some of those views are the result of many wikipedians actively working on the article, the growth rate in viewership is rapid and linear and is significantly greater than other articles like “Dog,” “Airplane,” “Senate,” and “Moon.” Also, the wikipedian community is now under a microscope by the outside world (outside of the wikipedian community), in part because this article was nominated for deletion and that made national news. What I now read above and see in the article is the results of a collective give & take that has so-far resulted in a decent article. The wikipedian community has been adhering to important principles like how to look towards “reliable sources”. And the community has, in my opinion, been doing a good job of of collectively not straying very far from the Five Pillars of its core principles where the second item on the list is “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.” Many in the outside world don’t understand how Wikipedia works. Many assume Wikipedia somehow works like a top-down bureaucracy like that found in the business world in a capitalistic economy, or a governmental office. Few appreciate that while Wikipedia’s basic rules of operation—its foundation, so to speak—was established by Jimbo, pretty much everything that Wikipedia became thereafter has been the product of pure, grass-roots, collective efforts and self-organization of its wikipedians, who self-govern, elect leaders and arbitrators, govern their own affairs, and debate and discuss until a Wikipedia-style Consensus®™© has been established. Consensus on Wikipedia is equivalent to the Scales of Lady Justice. It is on the talk pages of each Wikipedia article that thought is exchanged, ideas are vigorously debated, and where the community tries to adhere to a philosophy of… “ The best response to bad speech is better speech. ” I wonder how many wikipedians active here on this page appreciate the extent to which they are also educating the outside world as to how Wikipedia’s content is decided upon, expanded, and improved. Outsiders need only take a look at our talk pages to find out. Greg L (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is one of the most cringe-inducing posts I have ever seen on this website- indeed, on any website. Has this poster confused this encyclopedia for some 4chan like-internet forum or his private club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.197.133.171 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sorry. I didn’t intend for an attaboy to be triggering. But it’s interesting. Suddenly a logged-in editor disappears and an I.P. (174.197.133.171; it’s right there in the edit history for everyone to see) springs up and responds, and that I.P. address traces to Ashburn, Virginia, part of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well, I like this post, and am perplexed at the fact that (two?) people have committed to an edit war over removing it. It is hard for me to understand how this could be considered offensive by anyone. What is going on with that? jp×g 04:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, JPxG. It's not two people. Soibangla obviously logged out after he didn’t get his way with the deletion of this discussion thread, and, thusly triggered, immediately came back to tendentiously edit as an I.P. (diff) on precisely the same two issues with precisely the same objections and writing style. I was hoping he’d logout and immediately come back as an I.P. Looking at his contributions history, with his pronounced focus on political-related articles, it was obvious he was a WP:SPA (single-purpose account). I had suspected early on that Soibangla hailed from a bedroom community outside Washington, D.C. And, guess what? He does; I.P. 174.197.133.171 traces to Ashburn, Virginia,. Greg L (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] So I go out for a beer and return to see this new drama. I encourage anyone with check user privileges to verify that I have never posted from anywhere near the East coast of the United States soibangla (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Greg L: the IP was blocked by Tamzin as a sock of Tritler. If you think soibangla is Tritler, or that Tamzin got the block wrong by attributing it to the wrong master, you're free to open an WP:SPI, but I think the talk page should probably remain for discussing the state of the article rather than performing extended litigation as to whether or not that IP is soibangla. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Very well. Only a Bureaucrat can check on an I.P. address. But what is uncontrovertibly true is that while logged in as Soibangla he/she deleted my posts at least twice this evening (here and here). And he/she has done it to others here on this talk page; just deletes them. That has to end. I think Soibangla is sufficiently on notice. The proper response to bad speech is better speech. Soibangla can just learn to take that principle to heart. Greg L (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Also, for what it's worth, the IP geolocates to NYC. The /10 Verizon Business chunk does geolocate to the Verizon node in Ashburn, VA, which makes sense given that it's Verizon. But, if you look at the IP specifically, it geolocates to NYC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hmmm. Thanks for looking into that further. One or more ticked-off and frustrated humans logged out in the heat of the moment and immediately came back as an I.P. to tendentiously be disruptive in a manner that is flagrantly against the rules. At least one logged-in editor, Soibangla, is on record as having engaged in it this evening. Greg L (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Certainly you've been here long enough to know that, regardless of whether your edit was intended to be nice, it was clearly not compliant with NOTFORUM. Clearly. That's all I got on this here. soibangla (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "And he/she has done it to others here on this talk page; just deletes them." Got diffs? soibangla (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Freedom of Speech" - NARA - 513536.jpg Oops. That was another one you did on me; you did it so much further up, I didn’t see the connection. Just who do you think you are, deleting others’ posts on talk pages after you’ve been triggered upon seeing thought expressed here you are displeased with? If you have a problem, go find a Wikipedia-compliant way for redress. And that includes hiding threads behind the apron strings WP:NOTFORUM collapse-curtains (I thought I might pre-empt you since others are trying that stuff here). You’re just gonna have to leave all that business to admins, who in nearly all cases, will just weigh in with some words of wisdom to quell the excitement and let the thread get archived along with the other wikidrama around here. Greg L (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hello, JPxG. I like this post too. It is a pleasant and appropriate entry for a Wikipedia talk page given the coordinated efforts of so many editors during a brief time interval, about a contentious topic. I see no conflict with NOTFORUM, but rather, an expression of gratitude and good will. Thank you, Greg L! The image is a nice addition.--FeralOink (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, FeralOink. I hoped the bit about “The proper response to bad speech is better speech” might provoke thought regarding the larger issues underlying what The Twitter Files is about. The Norman Rockwell painting, “Freedom of Speech,” at right, came to mind. I think we need to be a paradigm of what this painting conveys to show the rest of the world how tough topics on Wikipedia are dealt with. It’s sort of a yin and yang thing, where the very principle that Twitter seems to have lost sight of is the same one we use here to discuss how best to write about what happened at Twitter. Greg L (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Rewriting Part two Please keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia; not a news-blog or op-ed. There is no need of a blow-by-blow account, and SYNTH is prohibited by policy. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Government involvement There is an error in the lede. Taibbi did not say that there was no evidence of government involvement in the censorship on Twitter. What he said was that there was no evidence of foreign government involvement. Also, it isn't only conservatives alleging that US government officials, including the FBI, may have been involved. Please change the factual inaccuracies in the intro. 152.130.15.2 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] He didn't say "foreign government". His direct quote was "there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] He said "there's no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story" in a way that clearly means U.S. federal government 168.8.125.20 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You all are selectively quoting Taibbi. The full quote is "Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story." So it's obvious he was referring to foreign governments. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "This sentence doesn't say what I want it to say, so I'm going to just declare that it's obvious that the sentence says something it doesn't say." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Taibbi just clarified on his Substack, after the release of Part 3, that (quote) "[...] the Slack entries in Part 3 contain multiple, clear displays of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence [...]", allegedly involving Twitter and FBI/DHS/DNI coordination in the events described in the leaked Twitter Files. [1] If one of the main reporters running the story admits to a very relevant fact, why would you simply erase it? You can't simply delete a direct statement on the involvement by the man himself who's reporting on the story, citing that "Substack is not a reliable entry". It's *his Substack and he's clarifying on the posted tweets. You simply deleted the edit 30 seconds after it was posted (obviously without even reading it) You could argue to move or edit it, but if the only reason provided is a trivializing "Substack is not a source", I will definitely reinstate it. The meaning is unambiguous. Substack is not a reliable source, period, end of sentence. It is Taibbi's self-published platform which undergoes no editing or fact-checking processes. If you don't understand this, you need to read the Reliable Sources policy before editing further. This policy is not negotiable. Moreover, you're taking a post explicitly about "Part 3" of the "Twitter Files" and attempting to apply it backwards to something discussed in "Part 1" of the "Twitter Files." Nowhere in that post does Taibbi say that there was government involvement in Twitter's decision to temporarily block the Hunter Biden laptop story. To the contrary, he explicitly says that he did not see any such communications in Part 1. "After not seeing it in the first batch". Your attempt to conflate the two issues is original synthesis and not acceptable either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] So if Taibbi tomorrow retracted the whole story only on Substack, you would deny using it as a source? I would and I think your intellectual honesty here is shaking here. the Reliable Sources policy is a reference and not mandatory, especially when the main sources come from Twitter/Substack - this is a clear straw-man argument. Secondly, you didn't read - I didn't touch the part about the Biden laptop story. Taibbi wrote that FBI/DHS/DNI coordinated regarding the facts being described in the latest (and therefore) preceding installments of the Twitter Files - so far. Again, if you read you would know. In this case, the clarification comes from the horse's mouth and it does look like you just don't want it there - please read carefully WP:NPOV. I do agree on the formal critique though...regarding the wrong section, but that would just need thought and careful re-writing (and I was actually working on it before you deleted everything 30 seconds after publishing the edit - again taking the time to reflect is important here with so many daily users watching). I'm not negotiating either on the former point - it comes from the source and the man himself, clarifies several previously ambiguous and discussed topics, and has to be quoted as him writing such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.249.30 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "So if Taibbi tomorrow retracted the whole story only on Substack" it would certainly be reported by reliable sources we could use. soibangla (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] But what if it wasn't? You trying to be a Crystal Ball? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What would be the problem with including the full quote from Twitter here? Pulling the quote out of context is deliberately misleading. No "source" is needed to directly quote someone from Twitter. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] That would violate our policy against original research (OR) and be a misuse of a primary source. It is a bit complicated to understand, but there are still ways we can document what is found in a primary source, even in an unreliable source. Our purpose is to document the "sum of all human knowledge," including fringe nonsense and stuff that might otherwise violate WP:BLP that is found in primary sources. We do it by waiting until secondary RS do it. Then we quote those RS. If secondary sources don't mention something, then that content doesn't have enough WP:Due weight to justify mention here. Primary sources can only be used for uncontroversial and simple statements of fact, not BLP stuff. (Also WP:ABOUTSELF in the author's own bio.) IOW, not Twitter, Taibbi, or Musk. All those things can and (often) should be added using secondary RS that show us the due weight to give that content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Link to "The Twitter Files, Part 3"". December 10, 2022.

The Twitter Files Part 1, December 2, 2022 Part 2, December 8, 2022 Part 3, December 9, 2022 Part 4, December 10, 2022 Part 5, December 12, 2022 Part 6, December 16, 2022 Part 6.5, December 18, 2022 Part 7, December 19, 2022 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1601720455005511680 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602364197194432515 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1604613292491538432 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856

THE TWITTER FILES: How FBI Primed Execs With "Russian Disinformation" Disinformation Ahead Of Hunter Biden Bombshell In the latest episode of 'THE TWITTER FILES,' journalist Michael Shellenberger reveals "How the FBI & intelligence community discredited factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both after and *before* The New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14, 2020." In Twitter Files #7, we present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published. — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 Continued... The story begins in December 2019 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Paul (J.P.) Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden had left with him On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issues a subpoena for, and takes, Hunter Biden's laptop. https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukra... By Aug 2020, Mac Isaac still had not heard back from the FBI, even though he had discovered evidence of criminal activity. And so he emails Rudy Giuliani, who was under FBI surveillance at the time. In early Oct, Giuliani gives it to @nypost Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad Shortly before 7 pm ET on October 13, Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, emails JP Mac Isaac. Hunter and Mesires had just learned from the New York Post that its story about the laptop would be published the next day. 7. At 9:22 pm ET (6:22 PT), FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter. 8. The next day, October 14, 2020, The New York Post runs its explosive story revealing the business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. Every single fact in it was accurate. 9. And yet, within hours, Twitter and other social media companies censor the NY Post article, preventing it from spreading and, more importantly, undermining its credibility in the minds of many Americans. Why is that? What, exactly, happened? 10. On Dec 2, @mtaibbi described the debate inside Twitter over its decision to censor a wholly accurate article. Since then, we have discovered new info that points to an organized effort by the intel community to influence Twitter & other platforms 12. And yet, during all of 2020, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies repeatedly primed Yoel Roth to dismiss reports of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a Russian “hack and leak” operation. This is from a sworn declaration by Roth given in December 2020.https://t.co/IvTjyYw9iR pic.twitter.com/5iq2ATB3bW — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 14. Were the FBI warnings of a Russian hack-and-leak operation relating to Hunter Biden based on *any* new intel? No, they weren't “Through our investigations, we did not see any similar competing intrusions to what had happened in 2016,” admitted FBI agent Elvis Chan in Nov. pic.twitter.com/tFPMqbydbA — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 15. Indeed, Twitter executives *repeatedly* reported very little Russian activity. E.g., on Sept 24, 2020, Twitter told FBI it had removed 345 “largely inactive” accounts “linked to previous coordinated Russian hacking attempts.” They “had little reach & low follower accounts." 17. After FBI asks about a WaPo story on alleged foreign influence in a pro-Trump tweet, Twitter's Roth says, "The article makes a lot of insinuations... but we saw no evidence that that was the case here (and in fact, a lot of strong evidence pointing in the other direction).” pic.twitter.com/jJjnczZnA5 — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 19. Pressure had been growing: “We have seen a sustained (If uncoordinated) effort by the IC [intelligence community] to push us to share more info & change our API policies. They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff).” pic.twitter.com/HWeaYdvNqo — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 20. Time and again, FBI asks Twitter for evidence of foreign influence & Twitter responds that they aren’t finding anything worth reporting. “[W]e haven’t yet identified activity that we’d typically refer to you (or even flag as interesting in the foreign influence context).” pic.twitter.com/ghGNz4ZzXB — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 22. Then, in July 2020, the FBI’s Elvis Chan arranges for temporary Top Secret security clearances for Twitter executives so that the FBI can share information about threats to the upcoming elections. pic.twitter.com/YXCR2Guxz5 — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 24. Recently, Yoel Roth told @karaswisher that he had been primed to think about the Russian hacking group APT28 before news of the Hunter Biden laptop came out. When it did, Roth said, "It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells." pic.twitter.com/RKoR4NtH1s — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 26. Who is Jim Baker? He's former general counsel of the FBI (2014-18) & one of the most powerful men in the U.S. intel community. Baker has moved in and out of government for 30 years, serving stints at CNN, Bridgewater (a $140 billion asset management firm) and Brookings pic.twitter.com/FggRI2zITX — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 28. Baker wasn't the only senior FBI exec. involved in the Trump investigation to go to Twitter. Dawn Burton, the former dep. chief of staff to FBI head James Comey, who initiated the investigation of Trump, joined Twitter in 2019 as director of strategy. — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 30. Efforts continued to influence Twitter's Yoel Roth. In Sept 2020, Roth participated in an Aspen Institute “tabletop exercise” on a potential "Hack-and-Dump" operation relating to Hunter Biden The goal was to shape how the media covered it — and how social media carried it pic.twitter.com/lQSorONUSh — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 31. The organizer was Vivian Schiller, the fmr CEO of NPR, fmr head of news at Twitter; fmr Gen. mgr of NY Times; fmr Chief Digital Officer of NBC News Attendees included Meta/FB's head of security policy and the top nat. sec. reporters for @nytimes @wapo and others pic.twitter.com/3yO5ZIc2Jy — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 33. Then, on Sept 15, 2020 the FBI’s Laura Dehmlow, who heads up the Foreign Influence Task Force, and Elvis Chan, request to give a classified briefing for Jim Baker, without any other Twitter staff, such as Yoel Roth, present. pic.twitter.com/1uhJ39OYSS — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 35. In response to Roth, Baker repeatedly insists that the Hunter Biden materials were either faked, hacked, or both, and a violation of Twitter policy. Baker does so over email, and in a Google doc, on October 14 and 15. pic.twitter.com/MpQTUj6Esl — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 37. As for the FBI, it likely would have taken a few *hours* for it to confirm that the laptop had belonged to Hunter Biden. Indeed, it only took a few days for journalist @peterschweizer to prove it. pic.twitter.com/eD8uk9lefn — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 39. At 3:38 pm that same day, October 14, Baker arranges a phone conversation with Matthew J. Perry in the Office of the General Counsel of the FBI pic.twitter.com/26ub4A4uKd — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 41. There is evidence that FBI agents have warned elected officials of foreign influence with the primary goal of leaking the information to the news media. This is a political dirty trick used to create the perception of impropriety. — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 43. “The unnecessary FBI briefing provided the Democrats and liberal media the vehicle to spread their false narrative that our work advanced Russian disinformation.” pic.twitter.com/TuUCLNL3Qk — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 45. In the end, the FBI's influence campaign aimed at executives at news media, Twitter, & other social media companies worked: they censored & discredited the Hunter Biden laptop story. By Dec. 2020, Baker and his colleagues even sent a note of thanks to the FBI for its work. pic.twitter.com/ZEASt2aXXm — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 47. And the pressure from the FBI on social media platforms continues In Aug 2022, Twitter execs prepared for a meeting with the FBI, whose goal was “to convince us to produce on more FBI EDRs" EDRs are an “emergency disclosure request,” a warrantless search. pic.twitter.com/sENBIi6zPg — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 Anyone who reads the Twitter Files, regardless of their political orientation, should share those concerns. /END — Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022 And some thoughts from the peanut gallery: Sure looks like Yoel Roth lied when he told Kara Swisher that he was against censoring the Hunter story. He was initially skeptical but then endorsed the idea a couple hours later. https://t.co/0Q45VDNpDr — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) December 19, 2022 Thankfully the @FBI didn’t let a lack of evidence stop them from spreading their “Russian disinformation” disinformation anyway. https://t.co/Ro6nM404Ww — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 19, 2022 Matter of fact, why did Yoel Roth crack down on the relatively few Russian bots but do nothing about the millions more Ukrainian bots? Did Yoel Roth & the Gov run a psyop on the American people? To gain approval and $$$ from us? Thread:https://t.co/S5n8b6DXhP — Sam Parker 🇺🇲 (@SamParkerSenate) December 19, 2022

THW TWITTER FILES: Twitter Assisted Pentagon's "Psychological Influence Ops" https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-accounts/ https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1605299758431875072 https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1605293337288015873 https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1605304933242343426 https://public-assets.graphika.com/reports/graphika_stanford_internet_observ... These Twitter Files drops are getting further and further down the dystopian rabbit-hole. Today's drop, brought to you by The Intercept's Lee Fang, provides insight into Twitter's efforts to aid the Pentagon's 'online psychological influence ops.' Illustration via The Intercept One of the nation's best investigative journalists -- who published documents in late October proving Homeland Security is heavily involved in Big Tech's censorship regime -- is now helping to report the Twitter Files. Hard to think of many journalists more credible to do this: https://t.co/a7G3n1jRVy — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 20, 2022 Take it away, Lee: 2. Twitter has claimed for years that they make concerted efforts to detect & thwart gov-backed platform manipulation. Here is Twitter testifying to Congress about its pledge to rapidly identify and shut down all state-backed covert information operations & deceptive propaganda. pic.twitter.com/2H2Sf49Xff — Lee Fang (@lhfang) December 20, 2022 Continued; 3. But behind the scenes, Twitter gave approval & special protection to the U.S. military’s online psychological influence ops. Despite knowledge that Pentagon propaganda accounts used covert identities, Twitter did not suspend many for around 2 years or more. Some remain active. 4. In 2017, a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) official sent Twitter a list of 52 Arab language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages.” The official asked for priority service for six accounts, verification for one & “whitelist” abilities for the others. 5. The same day CENTCOM sent the list, Twitter officials used a tool to grant a special “whitelist” tag that essentially provides verification status to the accounts w/o the blue check, meaning they are exempt from spam/abuse flags, more visible/likely to trend on hashtags. 6. The CENTCOM accounts on the list tweeted frequently about U.S. military priorities in the Middle East, including promoting anti-Iran messages, promotion of the Saudi Arabia-U.S. backed war in Yemen, and “accurate” U.S. drone strikes that claimed to only hit terrorists. 7. CENTCOM then shifted strategies & deleted disclosures of ties to the Twitter accounts. The bios of the accounts changed to seemingly organic profiles. One bio read: “Euphrates pulse.” Another used an apparent deep fake profile pic & claimed to be a source of Iraqi opinion. 8. One Twitter official who spoke to me said he feels deceived by the covert shift. Still, many emails from throughout 2020 show that high-level Twitter executives were well aware of DoD’s vast network of fake accounts & covert propaganda and did not suspend the accounts. 9. For example, Twitter lawyer Jim Baker mused in a July 2020 email, about an upcoming DoD meeting, that the Pentagon used "poor tradecraft" in setting up its network, and were seeking strategies for not exposing the accounts that are “linked to each other or to DoD or the USG.” 10. Stacia Cardille, another Twitter attorney, replied that the Pentagon wanted a SCIF & may want to retroactively classify its social media activities “to obfuscate their activity in this space, and that this may represent an overclassification to avoid embarrassment.” 11. In several other 2020 emails, high-level Twitter executives/lawyers discussed the covert network and even recirculated the 2017 list from CENTCOM and shared another list of 157 undisclosed Pentagon accounts, again mostly focused on Middle East military issues. 12. In a May 2020 email, Twitter’s Lisa Roman emailed the DoD w/two lists. One list was accounts “previously provided to us” & another list Twitter detected. The accounts tweeted in Russian & Arabic on US military issues in Syria/ISIS & many also did not disclose Pentagon ties. 13. Many of these secretive U.S. military propaganda accounts, despite detection by Twitter as late as 2020 (but potentially earlier) continued tweeting through this year, some not suspended until May 2022 or later, according to records I reviewed. 14. In August 2022, a Stanford Internet Observatory report exposed a U.S. military covert propaganda network on Facebook, Telegram, Twitter & other apps using fake news portals and deep fake images and memes against U.S. foreign adversaries. 15. The U.S. propaganda network relentlessly pushed narratives against Russia, China, and other foreign countries. They accused Iran of "threatening Iraq’s water security and flooding the country with crystal meth," and of harvesting the organs of Afghan refugees. 16. The Stanford report did not identify all of the accounts in the network but one they did name was the exact same Twitter account CENTCOM asked for whitelist privileges in its 2017 email. I verified via Twitter’s internal tools. The account used an AI-created deep fake image. 17. In subsequent reporting, Twitter was cast as an unbiased hero for removing “a network of fake user accounts promoting pro-Western policy positions.” Media covering the story described Twitter as evenly applying its policies & proactive in suspending the DoD network. 18. The reality is much more murky. Twitter actively assisted CENTCOM’s network going back to 2017 and as late as 2020 knew these accounts were covert/designed to deceive to manipulate the discourse, a violation of Twitter’s policies & promises. They waited years to suspend. 19. Twitter’s comms team was closely in touch with reporters, working to minimize Twitter’s role. When the WashPost reported on the scandal, Twitter officials congratulated each other because the story didn’t mention any Twitter employees & focused largely on the Pentagon. 20. The conduct with the U.S. military’s covert network stands in stark contrast with how Twitter has boasted about rapidly identifying and taking down covert accounts tied to state-backed influence operations, including Thailand, Russia, Venezuela, and others since 2016. 21. Here is my reported piece w/more detail. I was given access to Twitter for a few days. I signed/agreed to nothing, Twitter had no input into anything I did or wrote. The searches were carried out by a Twitter attorney, so what I saw could be limited. https://t.co/AgcFy71fE3 — Lee Fang (@lhfang) December 20, 2022 * * * And some reactions: Twitter shadowbans me and half the @FDRLST staff for the crime of having accurately reported out the Russian collusion hoax, but has no problem whitelisting and amplifying the U.S. government's illegal propaganda and psy-op efforts against the American people. Unreal. https://t.co/B996TQ2SmL — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 20, 2022 Media can't report on this story because then they have to report on themselves as accomplices with the IC on disinformation plays and censorship. https://t.co/gzuLbRQiaJ — Cris Touchdown Balding 大老板 (@BaldingsWorld) December 20, 2022

https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1eaKbrwgbNdKX

https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musk-announces-new-twitter-policy-to-foll... Elon Musk Announces New Twitter Policy to Follow and Question Science Twitter CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet Wednesday he is enacting a new Twitter Policy related to post on the platform about science. “New Twitter policy is to follow the science, which necessarily includes reasoned questioning of the science,” Musk wrote. No further details of the plan had been released, but The Epoch Times reached out to Twitter for comment. In a follow-up tweet below his original policy announcement, Musk said “Anyone who says that questioning them is questioning science itself cannot be regarded as a scientist.” Musk has released a trove of information since taking over the company regarding Twitter’s suppression of certain information related to COVID-19. Musk said Twitter employees had a private group on Slack that was a “fan club” of White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, The Epoch Times reported. The employees “had an internal Slack channel unironically called ‘Fauci Fan Club,’” Musk wrote. Epoch Times Photo (Sergei Elagin/Shutterstock) Musk’s post noted that the Fauci Fan Club was set up despite outstanding “glaring issues” regarding Fauci, including the question of whether the White House adviser was untruthful when he denied that U.S. federal money was used to fund risky “gain-of-function” research at a Chinese lab at the center of speculation about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alleged Twitter Suppression of Scientific Debate Musk revealed in the Twitter Files—a collection of internal emails and communications made public by Musk—the company suppressed early treatment options for COVID-19, and vaccine safety concerns, Dr. Peter McCullough said in an interview on Newsmakers by NTD and The Epoch Times on Dec. 14. “Twitter had become an incredibly biased and censored platform, where the public knew they weren’t getting a fair, balanced set of information on a whole variety of developments—including the early treatment of SARS-COV2 infection and a balanced view of safety and efficacy of the vaccines,” McCullough said. McCullough said he believed he was censored and finally suspended for sharing scientific “abstracts and manuscripts,” which he believed didn’t fit the accepted political view. McCullough said he wasn’t the only doctor targeted by the company’s censorship. Musk lifted the suspensions of McCullough and mRNA vaccine technology contributor Dr. Robert Malone—suspended from Twitter in 2021 after criticizing the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines—after completing his Twitter purchase. McCullough said when sites like Twitter posted COVID-19 warnings or labels a post “misinformation,” it amounted to government censorship and control. “Facebook, Instagram, and the other platforms. … Anytime a message is posted, and it says, ‘See the COVID information center,’ or it labels it ‘COVID misinformation,’ that actually indicates that there’s government interference. There’s government censorship going on,” McCullough asserted. Musk’s latest policy announcement about questioning science while also following it mirrors what McCullough said about advertisements on Twitter regarding vaccine efficacy and safety. “So, when Americans were seeing advertisements that said ‘safe and effective,’ of course, immediately, we were jumping and making the case based on the peer-reviewed literature that that’s not correct.” Elon’s Push for Transparency Since taking over Twitter, Musk has made transparency a top priority, including revealing prior Twitter policies. As part of his transparency push, he released secret emails and discussions about shadow-banning or removing accounts that didn’t toe the party line. As part of its reporting, The Epoch Times sought comment from the DOJ and FBI on the Twitter Files revelations and their involvement with social media companies. The FBI National Press Office stated, “The FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities. “It is not based on the content of any particular message or narrative. Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them.”

https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867 David Zweig @davidzweig 1. THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES: HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE – By censoring info that was true but inconvenient to U.S. govt. policy – By discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed – By suppressing ordinary users, including some sharing the CDC’s *own data* @elonmusk Much more to The Twitter Files: Covid Editon than this introductory thread. Follow-up piece to come next week, featuring leading doctors & researchers from Harvard, Stanford & other institutions. (Many of whom were, of course, actively suppressed on Twitter)

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/notes-on-a-friday-night 1984 ... important topic in the past year, were the revelations from the Twitter Files, exposed by the social medial company's new owner, Elon Musk, who paid $44 billion so that the world can finally see first hand just how little free speech there really is in the so-called land of the free and the home of the First Amendment, and how countless three-lettered, deep-state alphabet agencies - and the military-industrial complex - will do anything and everything to control both the official discourse and the unofficial narrative to keep their preferred puppets in the White House, and keep those they disapprove of - censored and/or locked up, both literally and metaphorically... or simply designate them "conspiracy theorists." None other than Matt Taibbi wrote the best summary of what the Twitter Files revealed, namely America's stealthy conversion into a crypto-fascist state where some unelected government bureaucrat tells corporations what to do: This last week saw the FBI describe Lee Fang, Michael Shellenberger and me as “conspiracy theorists” whose “sole aim” is to discredit the agency. That statement will look ironic soon, as we spent much of this week learning about other agencies and organizations that can now also be discredited thanks to these files. A group of us spent the last weeks reading thousands of documents. For me a lot of that time was spent learning how Twitter functioned, specifically its relationships with government. How weird is modern-day America? Not long ago, CIA veterans tell me, the information above the “tearline” of a U.S. government intelligence cable would include the station of origin and any other CIA offices copied on the report. I spent much of today looking at exactly similar documents, seemingly written by the same people, except the “offices” copied at the top of their reports weren’t other agency stations, but Twitter’s Silicon Valley colleagues: Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, LinkedIn, even Wikipedia. It turns out these are the new principal intelligence outposts of the American empire. A subplot is these companies seem not to have had much choice in being made key parts of a global surveillance and information control apparatus, although evidence suggests their Quislingian executives were mostly all thrilled to be absorbed. Details on those “Other Government Agencies” soon, probably tomorrow. One happy-ish thought at month’s end: Sometime in the last decade, many people — I was one — began to feel robbed of their sense of normalcy by something we couldn’t define. Increasingly glued to our phones, we saw that the version of the world that was spat out at us from them seemed distorted. The public’s reactions to various news events seemed off-kilter, being either way too intense, not intense enough, or simply unbelievable. You’d read that seemingly everyone in the world was in agreement that a certain thing was true, except it seemed ridiculous to you, which put you in an awkward place with friends, family, others. Should you say something? Are you the crazy one? I can’t have been the only person to have struggled psychologically during this time. This is why these Twitter files have been such a balm. This is the reality they stole from us! It’s repulsive, horrifying, and dystopian, a gruesome history of a world run by anti-people, but I’ll take it any day over the vile and insulting facsimile of truth they’ve been selling. Personally, once I saw that these lurid files could be used as a road map back to something like reality — I wasn’t sure until this week — I relaxed for the first time in probably seven or eight years.

The Twitter Files Part Title Presenter Date 1 The Twitter Files Matt Taibbi December 2, 2022 1A Twitter Files Supplemental Matt Taibbi December 6, 2022 2 Twitter's Secret Blacklists Bari Weiss December 8, 2022 3 The Removal of Donald Trump Matt Taibbi December 9, 2022 4 The Removal of Donald Trump, January 7 Michael Shellenberger December 10, 2022 5 The Removal of Trump from Twitter Bari Weiss December 12, 2022 6 Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary Matt Taibbi December 16, 2022 6A Supplemental Matt Taibbi December 18, 2022 7 The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop Michael Shellenberger December 19, 2022 8 How Twitter Quietly Aided the Pentagon's Covert Online PsyOp Campaign Lee Fang December 20, 2022 9 Twitter and "Other Government Agencies" Matt Taibbi December 24, 2022 9A Note Matt Taibbi December 24, 2022 10 How Twitter Rigged the COVID Debate David Zweig December 26, 2022 11 How Twitter Let the Intelligence Community In Matt Taibbi January 3, 2023 12 Twitter and the FBI "Belly Button" Matt Taibbi January 3, 2023 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394 # 1 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1600243405841666048 # 1a https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600 # 2 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281 # 3 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1601720455005511680 # 4 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602364197194432515 # 5 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128 # 6 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1604613292491538432 # 6.5 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856 # 7 https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1605292454261182464 # 8 https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-accounts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/24/facebook-twitter-us-inf... https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1606701397109796866 # 9 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1606749005601705985 # 9.1 https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867 # 10 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610372352872783872 # 11 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394197730725889 # 12 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394284867436547 # 12.1 Taibbi: Summaries Of All 'Twitter Files' To Date https://taibbi.substack.com/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter It’s January 4th, 2023, which means Twitter Files stories have been coming out for over a month. Because these are weedsy tales, and may be hard to follow if you haven’t from the beginning, I’ve written up capsule summaries of each of the threads by all of the Twitter Files reporters, and added links to the threads and accounts of each. At the end, in response to some readers (especially foreign ones) who’ve found some of the alphabet-soup government agency names confusing, I’ve included a brief glossary of terms to help as well. In order, the Twitter Files threads: Twitter Files Part 1: December 2, 2022, by @mtaibbi TWITTER AND THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY Recounting the internal drama at Twitter surrounding the decision to block access to a New York Post exposé on Hunter Biden in October, 2020. Key revelations: Twitter blocked the story on the basis of its “hacked materials” policy, but executives internally knew the decision was problematic. “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” is how comms official Brandon Borrman put it. Also: when a Twitter contractor polls members of Congress about the decision, they hear Democratic members want more moderation, not less, and “the First Amendment isn’t absolute.” 1a. Twitter Files Supplemental, December 6, 2022, by @mtaibbi THE “EXITING” OF TWITTER DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JIM BAKER A second round of Twitter Files releases was delayed, as new addition Bari Weiss discovers former FBI General Counsel and Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker was reviewing the first batches of Twitter Files documents, whose delivery to reporters had slowed. Twitter Files Part 2, by @BariWeiss, December 8, 2022 TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS Bari Weiss gives a long-awaited answer to the question, “Was Twitter shadow-banning people?” It did, only the company calls it “visibility filtering.” Twitter also had a separate, higher council called SIP-PES that decided cases for high-visibility, controversial accounts. Key revelations: Twitter had a huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user, including a “Search Blacklist” (for Dan Bongino), a “Trends Blacklist” for Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and a “Do Not Amplify” setting for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Weiss quotes a Twitter employee: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.” With help from @abigailshrier, @shellenbergermd, @nelliebowles, and @isaacgrafstein. Twitter Files, Part 3, by @mtaibbi, December 9, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, October 2020 - January 6th, 2021 First in a three-part series looking at how Twitter came to the decision to suspend Donald Trump. The idea behind the series is to show how all of Twitter’s “visibility filtering” tools were on display and deployed after January 6th, 2021. Key Revelations: Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth not only met regularly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Also, Twitter was aggressively applying “visibility filtering” tools to Trump well before the election. Twitter Files Part 4, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 10, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 7th, 2021 This thread by Michael Shellenberger looks at the key day after the J6 riots and before Trump would ultimately be banned from Twitter on January 8th, showing how Twitter internally reconfigured its rules to make a Trump ban fit their policies. Key revelations: at least one Twitter employee worried about a “slippery slope” in which “an online platform CEO with a global presence… can gatekeep speech for the entire world,” only to be shot down. Also, chief censor Roth argues for a ban on congressman Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh),” and Twitter changed its “public interest policy” to clear a path for Trump’s removal. Twitter Files Part 5, by @BariWeiss, December 11, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 8th, 2021 As angry as many inside Twitter were with Donald Trump after the January 6th Capitol riots, staffers struggled to suspend his account, saying things like, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.” As documented by Weiss, they found a way to pull the trigger anyway. Key revelations: there were dissenters in the company (“Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation”), but are overruled by senior executives like Vijaya Gadde and Roth, who noted many on Twitter’s staff were citing the “Banality of Evil,” and comparing those who favored sticking to a strict legalistic interpretation of Twitter’s rules — i.e. keep Trump, who had “no violation” — to “Nazis following orders.” Twitter Files Part 6, by @mtaibbi, December 16, 2022 TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY Twitter’s contact with the FBI was “constant and pervasive,” as FBI personnel, mainly in the San Francisco field office, regularly sent lists of “reports” to Twitter, often about Americans with low follower counts making joke tweets. Tweeters on both the left and the right were affected. Key revelations: A senior Twitter executive reports, “FBI was adamant no impediments to sharing” classified information exist. Twitter also agreed to “bounce” content on the recommendations of a wide array of governmental and quasi-governmental actors, from the FBI to the Homeland Security agency CISA to Stanford’s Election Integrity Project to state governments. The company one day received so many moderation requests from the FBI, an executive congratulated staffers at the end for completing the “monumental undertaking.” Twitter Files Part 7, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 19, 2022 THE FBI AND HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP The Twitter Files story increases its focus on the company’s relationship to federal law enforcement and intelligence, and shows intense communication between the FBI and Twitter just before the release of the Post’s Hunter Biden story. Key Revelations: San Francisco agent Elvis Chan “sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter,” the evening before the release of the Post story. Also, Baker in an email explains Twitter was compensated for “processing requests” by the FBI, saying “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!” The ten teleporter documents referred to in Mike Shellenberger’s FBI thread. Twitter Files Part 8, by @lhfang, December 20, 2022 HOW TWITTER QUIETLY AIDED THE PENTAGON’S COVERT ONLINE PSYOP CAMPAIGN Lee Fang takes a fascinating detour, looking at how Twitter for years approved and supported Pentagon-backed covert operations. Noting the company explicitly testified to Congress that it didn’t allow such behavior, the platform nonetheless was a clear partner in state-backed programs involving fake accounts. Key revelations: after the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) sent over a list of 52 Arab-language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages,” Twitter agreed to “whitelist” them. Ultimately the program would be outed in the Washington Post in 2022 — two years after Twitter and other platforms stopped assisting — but contrary to what came out in those reports, Twitter knew about and/or assisted in these programs for at least three years, from 2017-2020. Lee wrote a companion piece for the Intercept here: Twitter Files Part 9, by @mtaibbi, December 24th, 2022 TWITTER AND “OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES” The Christmas Eve thread (I should have waited a few days to publish!) further details how the channels of communication between the federal government and Twitter operated, and reveals that Twitter directly or indirectly received lists of flagged content from “Other Government Agencies,” i.e. the CIA. Key revelations: CIA officials attended at least one conference with Twitter in the summer of 2020, and companies like Twitter and Facebook received “OGA briefings,” at their regular “industry” meetings held in conjunction with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and the “Foreign Influence Task Force” met regularly “not just with Twitter, but with Yahoo!, Twitch, Cloudfare, LinkedIn, even Wikimedia.” Twitter Files Part 10, by @DavidZweig, December 28, 2022 HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE David Zweig drills down into how Twitter throttled down information about COVID that was true but perhaps inconvenient for public officials, “discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed.” Key Revelations: Zweig found memos from Twitter personnel who’d liaised with Biden administration officials who were “very angry” that Twitter had not deplatformed more accounts. White House officials for instance wanted attention on reporter Alex Berenson. Zweig also found “countless” instances of Twitter banning or labeling “misleading” accounts that were true or merely controversial. A Rhode Island physician named Andrew Bostom, for instance, was suspended for, among other things, referring to the results of a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines. and Twitter Files Parts 11 and 12, by @mtaibbi, January 3, 2023 HOW TWITTER LET THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN and TWITTER AND THE FBI “BELLY BUTTON” These two threads focus respectively on the second half of 2017, and a period stretching roughly from summer of 2020 through the present. The first describes how Twitter fell under pressure from Congress and the media to produce “material” showing a conspiracy of Russian accounts on their platform, and the second shows how Twitter tried to resist fulfilling moderation requests for the State Department, but ultimately agreed to let State and other agencies send requests through the FBI, which agent Chan calls “the belly button of the USG.” Revelations: at the close of 2017, Twitter makes a key internal decision. Outwardly, the company would claim independence and promise that content would only be removed at “our sole discretion.” The internal guidance says, in writing, that Twitter will remove accounts “identified by the U.S. intelligence community” as “identified by the U.S.. intelligence community as a state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.” The second thread shows how Twitter took in requests from everyone — Treasury, HHS, NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. — and also received personal requests from politicians like Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who asked to have journalist Paul Sperry suspended. GLOSSARY OF “TWITTER FILES” TERMS Government Agencies and NGOs CISA: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) CENTCOM: Central Command of the Armed Forces ODNI: Office of the Director of National Intelligence FITF: Foreign Influence Task Force, a cyber-regulatory agency comprised of members of the FBI, DHS, and ODNI “OGA”: Other Government Agency, colloquially — CIA GEC: Global Engagement Center, an analytical division of the U.S. State Department USIC: United States intelligence community HSIN: Homeland Security Information Network, a portal through which states and other official bodies can send “flagged” accounts EIP: Election Integrity Project, a cyber-laboratory based at Stanford University that sends many reports to Twitter DFR: Digital Forensic Research lab, an outlet that performs a similar function to the EIP, only is funded by the Atlantic Council IRA: Internet Research Agency, the infamous Russian “troll farm” headed by “Putin’s chef,” Yevgheny Prigozhin Twitter or Industry-specific terms PII: Can have two meanings. “Personally identifiable information” is self-explanatory, while a “Public Interest Interstitial” is a warning placed over a tweet, so that it cannot be seen. Twitter personnel even use “interstitial” as a verb, as in, “Can we interstitial that?” JIRA: Twitter’s internal ticketing system, through which complaints rise and are decided PV2: The system used at Twitter to view the profile of any user, to check easily if it has flags like “Trends Blacklist” SIP-PES Site Integrity Policy — Policy Escalation Support. SIP-PES is like Twitter’s version of a moderation Supreme Court, dealing with the most high-profile, controversial rulings SI: Site integrity. Key term that you’ll see repeately in Twitter email traffic, especially with “escalations,” i.e. tweets or content that have been reported for moderation review CHA: Coordinated Harmful Activity SRT: Strategic Response Team GET: Global Escalation Team VF: Visibility Filtering GUANO: Tool in Twitter’s internal system that keeps a chronological record of all actions taken on an account VIT: Very Important Tweeter. Really. GoV: Glorificaiton of Violence BOT: In the moderation content, an individualized heuristic attached to an account that moderates certain behavior automatically BME: Bulk Media Exploitation EP Abuse: Episodic abuse PCF: Parity, commentary and fan accounts. “PCF” sometimes appears as a reason an account has escaped an automated moderation process, under a limited exception FLC: Forced Login Challenge. Also called a “phone challenge,” it’s a way Twitter attempts to verify if an account is real or automated. “Phone challenges” are seen repeatedly in discussions about verification of suspected “Russia-linked” accounts IO: Information Operations, as in The GEC’s mandate for offensive IO to promote American interests.

From Fang's Intercept piece, below is one of the flagged tweets in question - which links to a ZeroHedge article aggregated from NakedCapitalism, and which logically posits; "if a vaccinated person and an unvaccinated person have roughly the same capacity to carry, shed and transmit the virus, particularly in its Delta form, what difference does implementing a vaccination passport actually make to

"Deeply Sinister": Big Pharma Bullied Twitter To Censor Cheap Vaccine Demands Today's Twitter Files drop contains several notable pieces of evidence. https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1615008625575202818 https://theintercept.com/2023/01/16/twitter-covid-vaccine-pharma/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/moderna-may-match-pfizers-400-price-... https://twitter.com/stephanieseneff/status/1432026270854901760 https://twitter.com/TexasLindsay_/status/1615050885888983040 First, that lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry launched a 'massive lobbying blitz to crush any effort to share patents/IP for new covid-related medicine," according to The Intercept's Lee Fang. As part of this effort, lobbying group BIO "wrote to the newly elected Biden admin, demanding the U.S. gov sanction any country attempting to violate patent rights and create generic low cost covid medicine or vaccines." Of note, Pfizer and BioNTech raked in $37 billion in revenue in 2021 alone from the COVID-19 vaccine, while Moderna made $17.7 billion the same year (and has recently announced a plan to hike the price of the Covid-19 vaccine by approximately 400%). BioNTech, which developed the Pfizer vaccine, "reached out to Twitter to request that Twitter directly censor users tweeting at them to ask for generic low cost vaccines." 5. That brings us to Twitter. The global lobbying blitz includes direct pressure on social media. BioNTech, which developed Pfizer's vaccine, reached out to Twitter to request that Twitter directly censor users tweeting at them to ask for generic low cost vaccines. pic.twitter.com/6cVIRcUDZV — Lee Fang (@lhfang) January 16, 2023 According to Fang, "Twitter's reps responded quickly to the pharma request," while "A lobbyist in Europe asked the content moderation team to monitor the accounts of Pfizer, AstraZeneca & of activist hashtags like #peoplesvaccine." Meanwhile, the "fake accounts" flagged by the pharmaceutical companies for action were real people - one of whom Fang spoke with on the phone. 8. It's not clear what actions Twitter ultimately took on this particular request. Several Twitter employees noted in subsequent messages that none of this activism constituted abuse. But the company continued monitoring tweets. — Lee Fang (@lhfang) January 16, 2023 "For more than two years, a global movement has been speaking out against pharmaceutical greed and demanding that everyone, everywhere has the tools to combat pandemics," said Maaza Seyoum, a campaigner for the People’s Vaccine Alliance. "Whatever nasty tricks companies and governments pull," she continued, "we cannot and will not be silenced." Second, 'Pfizer & Moderna's lobbying group, BIO, fully funded a special content moderation campaign designed by a contractor called Public Good Projects (PGP), which worked w/Twitter to set content moderation rules around covid "misinformation."' according to Fang. BIO funded the PGP campaign, "Stronger," to the tune of $1.275 million. Its focus? Helping Twitter 'create content moderation bots,' selecting which public health accounts would be verified, and helping to crowdsource content takedowns. Of note, the Moderna/Pfizer-funded campaign included regular emails to Twitter officals with takedown and verification requests. "Here's an example of those types of emails that went straight to Twitter's lobbyists and content moderators. Many focused on @zerohedge, which was suspended." Fang includes a screencap of an email with two excel spreadsheets containing said requests. 13. Notably, this massive push to censor and label covid misinfo never applied to drug companies. When big pharma wildly exaggerated the risks of creating low-cost generic covid vaccines, Stronger did nothing. The rules applied only to critics of industry. https://t.co/FTzQsGKM9i — Lee Fang (@lhfang) January 16, 2023 the spread of the virus?" "if a vaccinated person and an unvaccinated person have roughly the same capacity to carry, shed and transmit the virus, particularly in its Delta form, what difference does implementing a vaccination passport actually make to the spread of the virus?"https://t.co/HNiND8uInP — Stephanie Seneff (@stephanieseneff) August 29, 2021 "To try and stifle digital dissent during a pandemic, when tweets and emails are some of the only forms of protest available to those locked in their homes, is deeply sinister," said Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now. More on one of the people behind this effort, courtesy of Twitter user @TexasLindsay_ 2. The woman advocating for the censorship of inconvenient truths at the behest of her funders rife with COI’s is Savannah Knell, MPH MSSP, the Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships at The Public Good Projects (PGP). pic.twitter.com/vkdUaAt5xQ — TexasLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay_) January 16, 2023 4. Knell claims to have extensive experience in Public Health Comm. & Social Marketing. And aims to “largely focus on managing the development & execution of strategically targeted & tailored behavior change campaigns with an eye toward health equity.” pic.twitter.com/2N7yFsBGsn — TexasLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay_) January 16, 2023 "To translate the above into layman’s terms she is a narrative enforcer. She’s funded by Big Pharma and aided by Big Brother to be the ministry of truth. She aims to create social norms by means of censorship and propaganda. She wants to tell you & I—how/what to say and think." Meanwhile... *PFIZER JUMPS AS MUCH AS 6.8% TO RECORD DEFYING MARKET ROUT behold Pfizer McPfizerface pic.twitter.com/hCZwT0DAW6 — zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 26, 2021

The Left's Righteous Tyrants https://amgreatness.com/2023/02/09/righteous-tyrants/ They sure don’t make tyrants like they used to. Tyrants once rose to power the old-fashioned way: defeating the opposition on the battlefield or at the faux ballot box. Despite their atrocities, these despots at least had some swagger—perhaps a way with the ladies, a good sense of humor, strong persuasive abilities, commanding verbal skills, pride in their appearance. Not so with modern-day martinets. Our 21st-century tyrants possess nothing more than useless degrees from woke institutions and deep contempt for at least half the country, likely born out of a lifetime of social isolation. History, after all, shows that outcasts often seek revenge against their childhood tormentors later in life. Such appears to be the case with the former Twitter executives who testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. Unimpressive by every measure—looks, personality, intellect, persuasiveness, grasp of the facts—the Twitter Four should serve as a reminder of what the defenders of freedom are up against. Thankfully, our enemies, while powerful for now, have the mental, physical, and emotional appeal of overcooked spaghetti. Alex Wong/Getty Images James Baker, Vijaya Gadde, Yoel Roth, and Anika Collier Navaroli took the quasi-stand this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing to explain their roles in colluding with the government to suppress free speech during an election year, particularly related to the New York Post’s coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020. Baker, the former general counsel for the FBI when the bureau used fabricated political opposition research to defraud a secret federal court and obtain a warrant to spy on Donald Trump, was fired by Elon Musk as Twitter’s general counsel after it was discovered Baker was vetting company files made available to independent journalists. Roth, Gadde, and Navaroli were considered the “custodians of the internet,” Roth boasted in a New York Times opinion column published in November, shortly after he resigned. “The work of online sanitation is unrelenting and contentious,” Twitter’s former head of “trust and safety” lamented. Roth then outlined a series of steps the government, private companies, and Big Tech oligarchs should pursue to rein in Musk. “In the longer term,” Roth warned, “the moderating influences of advertisers, regulators and, most critically of all, app stores may be welcome for those of us hoping to avoid an escalation in the volume of dangerous speech online.” That sort of hubris was on full display this week as the Twitter Four defended their crusade to censor users on the Right, including the suspension of Trump in January 2021. In the process, these self-proclaimed warriors of truth and integrity revealed themselves to be nothing short of petulant foot-stompers unfit for employment anywhere outside of Silicon Valley or the government. Further, all four were clearly guided by their hatred for Trump and his supporters, contrary to their solemn assurances that decisions were based on unbiased considerations to protect the site from insidious content. For example, Gadde retweeted a Nicholas Kristof piece in 2016, emphasizing Kristof’s conclusion that he had “never met a national politician in the U.S. who is so ill informed, evasive, puerile and deceptive as Trump.” She, like 98 percent of people working in Silicon Valley, is a generous contributor to Democratic Party officials and candidates. She reportedly cried when she learned Musk had acquired the company. But Gadde’s attempts to hide her partisan stripes failed this week. In a nonsensical explanation only an Ivy Leaguer could love, Gadde told committee members about the inner workings of the social media giant. “Defending free expression and maintaining the health of the platform required difficult judgment calls,” claimed Gadde, who was largely responsible for the decision to ban Trump’s account after January 6, 2021. “Most applications of Twitter rules were fact-intensive, subject to internal debate, and needed to be made very quickly. We recognized that after applying those rules, we might learn that some of them did not work as we had imagined and that we would need to update them. At times, we also reversed course.” Coincidentally, just like occurrences in the traditional media, those rules and course reversals only affected one side: the Right. But when challenged to explain the imbalance, Gadde played dumb. She said she could only “make a guess” as to the application of a “search blacklist,” a tool that was frequently used by Twitter to hide the accounts of conservative influencers. Vaccine-injured Representative Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) angrily confronted Gadde about Twitter’s censorship of contrary views on COVID-19, especially vaccine efficacy. After forcing Gadde to admit she did not graduate from medical school, Mace presented tweets with CDC data on vaccine side effects that Twitter nonetheless labeled “misleading.” Gadde told Mace she was “not familiar with those particular situations,” to which Mace snarked, “Yeah, I bet you’re not.” Roth, a big talker behind the scenes and on the op-ed pages of regime-friendly newspapers, sheepishly confessed he “regret[s] the language he used” in some tweets including one that referred to the president and his administration as “actual Nazis.” He then complained that he was subjected to threats after Musk shared what Roth insisted was a “defamatory allegation that I support or condone pedophilia.” Roth said he was forced to sell his house in the aftermath. Anika Collier Navaroli perhaps best portrayed the emotional fragility and overall duncery of these social media tyrants. The “safety policy team senior expert” worked for months before January 6 to “minimize the threat of violence that we saw coming.” Part of the looming danger, Navaroli claimed, was Trump’s comment for the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by”—a remark not made on Twitter but during a presidential debate in September 2020. Navaroli, now a fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Critical Race and Digital Studies, sprang into action. “We crafted what we called a coded incitement to violence policy to address dog whistles like this,” she told the committee. Rather than follow her orders, Navaroli complained, Twitter “bent over backwards to find ways not to approve it.” She continued her pressure campaign to remove Trump until the events of January 6. “Two days later, when it looked like it was going to happen all over again, I asked management whether they wanted more blood on their hands,” Navaroli said. “Only then did they act.” Navaroli seemed to detect danger in everything Trump said. “The former president said he liked to send out his tweets like little missiles. To me, that sounded like weaponization of a platform in his own words and yet Twitter was not concerned.” She left Twitter in March 2021 after her paranoid fantasies got the best of her. Navaroli told the January 6 select committee she “could no longer be complicit in what I saw to be a company and a product that was wantonly allowing violence to occur. [The] platform was going to continue to allow people to die, and I could not be a part of that.” Just like the tyrants of old, this current crop hides its lust for power behind a cloak of fairness and the “common good.” No, they’re not cutting off food supplies or building labor camps but these modern-day tyrants seek the same ends: crush the opposition and control the masses. Just with a lot less talent.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1633830002742657027 1. TWITTER FILES: Statement to Congress THE CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247 https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://taibbi.substack.com/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter Racket News Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary For those who haven't been following, a compilation of one-paragraph summaries of all the Twitter Files threads by every reporter. With links and notes on key revelations Matt Taibbi Jan 4 It’s January 4th, 2023, which means Twitter Files stories have been coming out for over a month. Because these are weedsy tales, and may be hard to follow if you haven’t from the beginning, I’ve written up capsule summaries of each of the threads by all of the Twitter Files reporters, and added links to the threads and accounts of each. At the end, in response to some readers (especially foreign ones) who’ve found some of the alphabet-soup government agency names confusing, I’ve included a brief glossary of terms to help as well. In order, the Twitter Files threads: Twitter Files Part 1: December 2, 2022, by @mtaibbi TWITTER AND THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY Recounting the internal drama at Twitter surrounding the decision to block access to a New York Post exposé on Hunter Biden in October, 2020. Key revelations: Twitter blocked the story on the basis of its “hacked materials” policy, but executives internally knew the decision was problematic. “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” is how comms official Brandon Borrman put it. Also: when a Twitter contractor polls members of Congress about the decision, they hear Democratic members want more moderation, not less, and “the First Amendment isn’t absolute.” 1a. Twitter Files Supplemental, December 6, 2022, by @mtaibbi THE “EXITING” OF TWITTER DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JIM BAKER A second round of Twitter Files releases was delayed, as new addition Bari Weiss discovers former FBI General Counsel and Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker was reviewing the first batches of Twitter Files documents, whose delivery to reporters had slowed. Twitter Files Part 2, by @BariWeiss, December 8, 2022 TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS Bari Weiss gives a long-awaited answer to the question, “Was Twitter shadow-banning people?” It did, only the company calls it “visibility filtering.” Twitter also had a separate, higher council called SIP-PES that decided cases for high-visibility, controversial accounts. Key revelations: Twitter had a huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user, including a “Search Blacklist” (for Dan Bongino), a “Trends Blacklist” for Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and a “Do Not Amplify” setting for conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Weiss quotes a Twitter employee: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.” With help from @abigailshrier, @shellenbergermd, @nelliebowles, and @isaacgrafstein. Twitter Files, Part 3, by @mtaibbi, December 9, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, October 2020 - January 6th, 2021 First in a three-part series looking at how Twitter came to the decision to suspend Donald Trump. The idea behind the series is to show how all of Twitter’s “visibility filtering” tools were on display and deployed after January 6th, 2021. Key Revelations: Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth not only met regularly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, but with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Also, Twitter was aggressively applying “visibility filtering” tools to Trump well before the election. Twitter Files Part 4, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 10, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 7th, 2021 This thread by Michael Shellenberger looks at the key day after the J6 riots and before Trump would ultimately be banned from Twitter on January 8th, showing how Twitter internally reconfigured its rules to make a Trump ban fit their policies. Key revelations: at least one Twitter employee worried about a “slippery slope” in which “an online platform CEO with a global presence… can gatekeep speech for the entire world,” only to be shot down. Also, chief censor Roth argues for a ban on congressman Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh),” and Twitter changed its “public interest policy” to clear a path for Trump’s removal. Twitter Files Part 5, by @BariWeiss, December 11, 2022 THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP, January 8th, 2021 As angry as many inside Twitter were with Donald Trump after the January 6th Capitol riots, staffers struggled to suspend his account, saying things like, “I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement.” As documented by Weiss, they found a way to pull the trigger anyway. Key revelations: there were dissenters in the company (“Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation”), but are overruled by senior executives like Vijaya Gadde and Roth, who noted many on Twitter’s staff were citing the “Banality of Evil,” and comparing those who favored sticking to a strict legalistic interpretation of Twitter’s rules — i.e. keep Trump, who had “no violation” — to “Nazis following orders.” Twitter Files Part 6, by @mtaibbi, December 16, 2022 TWITTER, THE FBI SUBSIDIARY Twitter’s contact with the FBI was “constant and pervasive,” as FBI personnel, mainly in the San Francisco field office, regularly sent lists of “reports” to Twitter, often about Americans with low follower counts making joke tweets. Tweeters on both the left and the right were affected. Key revelations: A senior Twitter executive reports, “FBI was adamant no impediments to sharing” classified information exist. Twitter also agreed to “bounce” content on the recommendations of a wide array of governmental and quasi-governmental actors, from the FBI to the Homeland Security agency CISA to Stanford’s Election Integrity Project to state governments. The company one day received so many moderation requests from the FBI, an executive congratulated staffers at the end for completing the “monumental undertaking.” Twitter Files Part 7, by @ShellenbergerMD, December 19, 2022 THE FBI AND HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP The Twitter Files story increases its focus on the company’s relationship to federal law enforcement and intelligence, and shows intense communication between the FBI and Twitter just before the release of the Post’s Hunter Biden story. Key Revelations: San Francisco agent Elvis Chan “sends 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of Site Integrity, Yoel Roth, through Teleporter, a one-way communications channel from the FBI to Twitter,” the evening before the release of the Post story. Also, Baker in an email explains Twitter was compensated for “processing requests” by the FBI, saying “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!” The ten teleporter documents referred to in Mike Shellenberger’s FBI thread. Twitter Files Part 8, by @lhfang, December 20, 2022 HOW TWITTER QUIETLY AIDED THE PENTAGON’S COVERT ONLINE PSYOP CAMPAIGN Lee Fang takes a fascinating detour, looking at how Twitter for years approved and supported Pentagon-backed covert operations. Noting the company explicitly testified to Congress that it didn’t allow such behavior, the platform nonetheless was a clear partner in state-backed programs involving fake accounts. Key revelations: after the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) sent over a list of 52 Arab-language accounts “we use to amplify certain messages,” Twitter agreed to “whitelist” them. Ultimately the program would be outed in the Washington Post in 2022 — two years after Twitter and other platforms stopped assisting — but contrary to what came out in those reports, Twitter knew about and/or assisted in these programs for at least three years, from 2017-2020. Lee wrote a companion piece for the Intercept here: Twitter Files Part 9, by @mtaibbi, December 24th, 2022 TWITTER AND “OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES” The Christmas Eve thread (I should have waited a few days to publish!) further details how the channels of communication between the federal government and Twitter operated, and reveals that Twitter directly or indirectly received lists of flagged content from “Other Government Agencies,” i.e. the CIA. Key revelations: CIA officials attended at least one conference with Twitter in the summer of 2020, and companies like Twitter and Facebook received “OGA briefings,” at their regular “industry” meetings held in conjunction with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and the “Foreign Influence Task Force” met regularly “not just with Twitter, but with Yahoo!, Twitch, Cloudfare, LinkedIn, even Wikimedia.” Twitter Files Part 10, by @DavidZweig, December 28, 2022 HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE David Zweig drills down into how Twitter throttled down information about COVID that was true but perhaps inconvenient for public officials, “discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed.” Key Revelations: Zweig found memos from Twitter personnel who’d liaised with Biden administration officials who were “very angry” that Twitter had not deplatformed more accounts. White House officials for instance wanted attention on reporter Alex Berenson. Zweig also found “countless” instances of Twitter banning or labeling “misleading” accounts that were true or merely controversial. A Rhode Island physician named Andrew Bostom, for instance, was suspended for, among other things, referring to the results of a peer-reviewed study on mRNA vaccines. and Twitter Files Parts 11 and 12, by @mtaibbi, January 3, 2023 HOW TWITTER LET THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN and TWITTER AND THE FBI “BELLY BUTTON” These two threads focus respectively on the second half of 2017, and a period stretching roughly from summer of 2020 through the present. The first describes how Twitter fell under pressure from Congress and the media to produce “material” showing a conspiracy of Russian accounts on their platform, and the second shows how Twitter tried to resist fulfilling moderation requests for the State Department, but ultimately agreed to let State and other agencies send requests through the FBI, which agent Chan calls “the belly button of the USG.” Revelations: at the close of 2017, Twitter makes a key internal decision. Outwardly, the company would claim independence and promise that content would only be removed at “our sole discretion.” The internal guidance says, in writing, that Twitter will remove accounts “identified by the U.S. intelligence community” as “identified by the U.S.. intelligence community as a state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.” The second thread shows how Twitter took in requests from everyone — Treasury, HHS, NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. — and also received personal requests from politicians like Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who asked to have journalist Paul Sperry suspended. Twitter Files Part #13, by @AlexBerenson, January 9, 2023 HOW TWITTER COVERED UP COVID TRUTHS New addition Alex Berenson details how Twitter throttled down or erased true information about COVID-19, with the help of a former Pfizer lobbyist, Scott Gottlieb. Key Revelations: Twitter senior political liaison Todd O’Boyle feared that onetime acting FDA commission Brett Giroir’s correct observations about the effectiveness of natural immunity were “corrosive” and might “go viral,” and put a misleading label on the tweet. Gottlieb also pressured Twitter to remove Berenson himself. Twitter Files Part #14, by @mtaibbi, January 12th, 2023 THE RUSSIAGATE LIES One: The Fake Tale of Russian Bots and the #ReleaseTheMemo Hashtag Internal communications at Twitter show that Russian bots were not in fact hyping the classified memo of Republican congressman Devin Nunes in January of 2018. Key Revelations: Three key Democrats — Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal, and former House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff — cited a think tank called Hamilton 68 in denouncing a memo by Nunes as aided by “Russian influence operations.” Yet all three were told by Twitter executives there were no Russians in the picture. Said former Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth, “I just reviewed the accounts that posted the first 50 tweets with #releasethememo and… none of them show any signs of affiliation to Russia.” Twitter Files Supplemental, by @mtaibbi, January 13th, 2023 MORE ADAM SCHIFF BANS, AND “DEAMPLIFICATION.” A brief thread of 10 tweets showing that the former head of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, sent repeated requests for bans of people critical of their office. Key Revelation: Schiff and the DNC both not only asked for the takedown of an obvious satire by “Peter Douche,” but requested takedowns of accounts that were critical of the Steele dossier and outed the name of the supposed “whistleblower” in the Ukrainegate case, Eric Ciaramella. Schiff staffers said that while they “appreciate greatly” efforts by Twitter to deamplify certain accounts, they worried such effort s “could… impede the ability of law enforcement to search Twitter.” Twitter Files #15 by @mtaibbi, January 27, 2023 MOVE OVER, JAYSON BLAIR: TWITTER FILES EXPOSE NEXT GREAT MEDIA FRAUD Internal communication about Hamilton 68, a project by the Alliance for Securing Democracy purporting to track 600 account “linked” to “Russian influence activities.” Reporters used Hamilton 68 as the basis for countless news stories, from CNN’s “Russian bots are using #WalkAway to try to wound Dems in midterms” to “After Florida School Shooting, Russia’s Bot Army Pounced.” Key Revelation: Twitter’s Yoel Roth was suspicious of Hamilton 68’s methodology and reverse-engineered their list, which he quickly discovered to be bogus, full not of Russians but “legitimate right-leaning accounts” who were being implicitly called Russian assets. “Virtually any conclusion drawn from [the dashboard],” Roth wrote, “will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.” Roth urged Twitter to “call this out on the bullshit it is,” but Twitter higher-ups worried about the political consequences, choosing instead to play a “longer game.” Neither the actors involved, nor any of the media outlets who ran Hamilton-based stories intitally commented, though the ASD later replied, prompting a back-and-forth (and forth) with this site. Twitter Files #16, by @mtaibbi, February 18, 2023 COMIC INTERLUDE: A MEDIA EXPERIMENT Mainstream outlets finally cover the Twitter Files with excitement, after House testimony elicited a claim that Donald Trump complained, unsuccessfully, to Twitter about a tweet by Chrissy Teigen (who in turn complained that she didn’t “know how to go on” after her tweet about Trump being a “pussy ass bitch” was read to congress). Irritated that this became the big censorship story after releasing thousands of takedown requests from government agencies involving people all over the world, I decided to do an experiment. Key Revelations: We released a list of 354 names Maine Senate Angus King wanted taken down for reasons like “Rand Paul visit excitement,” “followed by [former Republican opponent Eric] Brakey,” and my personal favorite, “mentions immigration.” For balance we also released a letter from a Republican official at the State Department, Mark Lenzi, who tells Twitter about 14 real Americans “you may want to look into and delete.” Surely, if the main objection to the Twitter Files is that they’re “one-sided,” someone will cover a Republican doing the bad thing? But no, more crickets. With help from @Techno_Fog Twitter Files #17: by @mtaibbi, March 2, 2023 NEW KNOWLEDGE, THE GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER, AND STATE-SPONSORED BLACKLISTS A review of the activities of the Global Engagement Center, or GEC, what one source called “an incubator for the domestic disinformation complex.” Key Revelations: A GEC-funded think tank, the DFRLab, sent Twitter a list of 40,000 names of people suspected of supporting “Hindu nationalism” that somehow had scads of ordinary Americans with handles like @mad_murican and @TrumpitC on the list; GEC sent Twitter a list of 5500 “Chinese accounts” that among other things had three CNN contributors on it (“Not exactly Anderson’s besties, but CNN assets if you will,” commented Twitter’s Patrick Conlon), GEC sent another list of 499 accounts deemed Iranian disinformation, using criteria like: used Signal and Telegram to communicate and used hashtags like #IraniansDebateWithBiden. Other GEC reports deemed various actors part of foreign propaganda “ecosystems” for offenses like following more than one Chinese diplomat, retweeting an Iranian-created “FREE PALESTINE” meme, and for retweeting material that was “anti-Macron in nature.” GLOSSARY OF “TWITTER FILES” TERMS Government Agencies and NGOs CISA: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) CENTCOM: Central Command of the Armed Forces ODNI: Office of the Director of National Intelligence FITF: Foreign Influence Task Force, a cyber-regulatory agency comprised of members of the FBI, DHS, and ODNI “OGA”: Other Government Agency, colloquially — CIA GEC: Global Engagement Center, an analytical division of the U.S. State Department USIC: United States intelligence community HSIN: Homeland Security Information Network, a portal through which states and other official bodies can send “flagged” accounts EIP: Election Integrity Project, a cyber-laboratory based at Stanford University that sends many reports to Twitter DFR: Digital Forensic Research lab, an outlet that performs a similar function to the EIP, only is funded by the Atlantic Council IRA: Internet Research Agency, the infamous Russian “troll farm” headed by “Putin’s chef,” Yevgheny Prigozhin Twitter or Industry-specific terms PII: Can have two meanings. “Personally identifiable information” is self-explanatory, while a “Public Interest Interstitial” is a warning placed over a tweet, so that it cannot be seen. Twitter personnel even use “interstitial” as a verb, as in, “Can we interstitial that?” JIRA: Twitter’s internal ticketing system, through which complaints rise and are decided PV2: The system used at Twitter to view the profile of any user, to check easily if it has flags like “Trends Blacklist” SIP-PES Site Integrity Policy — Policy Escalation Support. SIP-PES is like Twitter’s version of a moderation Supreme Court, dealing with the most high-profile, controversial rulings SI: Site integrity. Key term that you’ll see repeately in Twitter email traffic, especially with “escalations,” i.e. tweets or content that have been reported for moderation review CHA: Coordinated Harmful Activity SRT: Strategic Response Team GET: Global Escalation Team VF: Visibility Filtering GUANO: Tool in Twitter’s internal system that keeps a chronological record of all actions taken on an account VIT: Very Important Tweeter. Really. GoV: Glorificaiton of Violence BOT: In the moderation content, an individualized heuristic attached to an account that moderates certain behavior automatically BME: Bulk Media Exploitation EP Abuse: Episodic abuse PCF: Parity, commentary and fan accounts. “PCF” sometimes appears as a reason an account has escaped an automated moderation process, under a limited exception FLC: Forced Login Challenge. Also called a “phone challenge,” it’s a way Twitter attempts to verify if an account is real or automated. “Phone challenges” are seen repeatedly in discussions about verification of suspected “Russia-linked” accounts IO: Information Operations, as in The GEC’s mandate for offensive IO to promote American interests. This page will be kept open and updated as needed. If you have questions about terms, please send them to taibbi@substack.com 179 Comments https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter/comments https://substack.com/profile/263053-matt-taibbi https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/ae4b506e-77b8-466... https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1600243405841666048 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600 https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD https://twitter.com/NellieBowles https://twitter.com/IsaacGrafstein https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281 https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1601720455005511680 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602364197194432515 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128 https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1604871630613753856 https://bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com/publ... https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1605292454261182464 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/08/24/facebook-twitter-us-inf... https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-accounts/ https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1606701397109796866 https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610372352872783872 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394197730725889 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1610394284867436547 https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1612526697038897167 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613589031773769739 https://twitter.com/hashtag/ReleaseTheMemo https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932017716195329 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1619029772977455105 https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/17/opinions/russian-bots-2018-midterm-elections-... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/technology/russian-bots-school-shooting.h... https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/fact-sheet-hamilton-68-dashboard-2017-20... https://www.racket.news/p/responding-to-hamilton-68 https://www.racket.news/p/hamilton-68-brief-addendum https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1627098945359867904 https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chrissy-teigen-infamous-trump-takedown-t... https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1631338650901389322 https://substack.com/profile/84250567-william-yonan https://williamyonan.substack.com/ https://substack.com/profile/6220415-sandra-goodwin

https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247 https://www.racket.news/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter https://taibbi.substack.com/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter

From CensorBans to Guns and Crypto, the Democrats are nothing more than a criminal gang of street thugs that need to be arrested for their multitude of high crimes against all Americans...

https://twitter.com/UngaTheGreat/status/1640878449207246848 Joe Rogan: Privacy Violations & AI Limitations "It's a real problem that I don't think most people are even available or aware of. It's a giant issue that we experienced right now with this whole digital world." https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1640570299342094338 Dr Naomi Wolf @naomirwolf Do the Democrats (for whom I am embarrassed to say I voted) have no shortage of ways with which they are trying to intimidate journalists and suspend 1A rights? Shameful. New York Post @nypost IRS visited Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi’s home same day as congressional testimony trib.al/bfbagmc https://twitter.com/DschlopesIsBack/status/1640815198645678086 Gain of Fauci @DschlopesIsBack Event 201 - November 4th, 2019: Segment on counteracting disinformation. This helped pave the way for all of the unjust, tyrannical Covid censorship that we watched sweep across social media... including Twitter under the old regime. Much of this has been exposed by Matt… Microsoft Bing's Chat-GPT believes that Hunter Biden's work for CEFC China Energy undermined US alliances, boosted China's economic and military power, and endangered US national security. 10% for the big guy?

More Soros Gates Omidyar BBC PBS NPR Democrat and Fake News Media Criminal Election Fraudsters Exposed recently... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1646146089517568003 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1646146920505589764 https://www.isdglobal.org/partnerships-and-funders/ Perfect illustration of how scumbag reporters lie: This BBC hack claimed he's seen more hate on Twitter. When asked, he can't name a single example because he hasn't look. Then claims @ISDglobal -- funded by US, EU and neoliberal billionaires - said it After getting caught red-handed repeatedly lying, this BBC reporter finally pretends he has no view, is just repeating the claims of @ISDglobal that maligns Twitter as being more hateful. Look who funds ISD Global: It's so clear how this scam works: The US, EU, Big Tech and the same small handful of neoliberal billionaires (Gates, Omidyar, Soros) fund "disinformation experts" to smear any sites they can't control, or won't censor on command, as being vectors of hate and disinformation. Elon Musk @elonmusk Replying to @ggreenwald This is super messed up!

World Economic Forum Taskforce Chair Linda Yaccarino Is Twitter's New CEO Any freespeech on twitter just got ended, courtesy WEF's plans for Globalist 1984 Nightmare. Cpunks still haven't deployed any untrackable censorship resistant p2p privacy comms, social, or monetary systems... they're all apparently still believing the Tor and Bitcoin psyops. So sad.

Musk's David Faber Interview: "I'll Say What I Want And If The Consequence Is Losing Money, So Be It" Tesla CEO and Twitter owner Elon Musk sat down for an hour-long candid, sprawling interview with CNBC's David Faber on Tuesday following Tesla’s 2023 annual shareholder meeting in Austin, Texas. Among many other things, Musk reflected on: Accusations from the left over his tweets which have been criticized as lending credence to conspiracies about George Soros and a recent mass shooting event in Allen, Texas, insisting “I’ll say what I want, and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." Elon Musk on Tuesday said that if his inflammatory tweets scare away advertisers from Twitter, he will accept that. “I’ll say what I want, and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." https://t.co/0Pi3Yl8Jo2 pic.twitter.com/rpZ3Ff8Dw0 — CNBC (@CNBC) May 16, 2023 Clearly this displeased Musk's critics, who can't comprehend how someone who is hopes to receive major ad dollars (and thus be beholden to the largest US corporations via advertising channel) can speak his mind. In fact, according to Bethany McLean, "Elon Musk sounds like a spoiled child when he talks about free speech," adding that "If you run a business that depends on advertisers you might have to think about it a little bit differently and Musk seems utterly unwilling to make that distinction." Translation: if you run a business that depends on advertisers, you can't say anything your advertisers disagree with. Which of course is another way of being subject to the censorship of the establishment, and why traditional media is always silent when certain interests - be it of generous advertisers like Pfizer, or the Deep State, or the Bidens, or the Clintons, etc - are in question. "Elon Musk sounds like a spoiled child when he talks about free speech," says @bethanymac12. "If you run a business that depends on advertisers you might have to think about it a little bit differently and Musk seems utterly unwilling to make that distinction." pic.twitter.com/TfHyCYYblC — Last Call (@LastCallCNBC) May 17, 2023 Musk defended what Faber said was the spreading of "conspiracy theories" by countering that pointing out that so many of these "conspiracy theories have turned out to be true", and pointed to the Hunter Biden laptop suppression story, which was an example of "election interference." Elon Musk talks about the Hunter Biden Laptop story “that’s election interference” pic.twitter.com/99UVBxf1oy — ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) May 16, 2023 Naturally, the question of Musk calling George Soros Magnito came up. An incongruous Faber asks where that tweet came from, to which Musk replies "that is my opinion." Faber then pressed: "why share it" if it could lead to less revenue/sales, and do your tweets "hurt the company"; Musk responds with a quote from the Princess Bride: "offer me money; offer me power. I don't care." The sad fact is that all of Musk's peers in the media world, who aren't independently wealthy and who do care about money (and power) will gladly be PR agents for their advertising sponsors, pretending to be independent media outlets. Elon Musk on Tuesday said that if his inflammatory tweets scare away advertisers from Twitter, he will accept that. “I’ll say what I want, and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." https://t.co/0Pi3Yl8Jo2 pic.twitter.com/tQUOc4GChO — CNBC (@CNBC) May 17, 2023 How he has managed a takeover of Twitter so far and what lies ahead. Among other things, he said Twitter’s Community Notes feature has cost Twitter $40 million in business when two big clients reduced spending after their ads received community notes accusing them of false advertising. He also claimed that when the acquisition closed, Twitter had negative $3 billion in annual cash flow and $1 billion in the bank. “The analogy I was using was like being teleported into a plane that’s in a nosedive headed to the ground with the engines on fire and the controls don’t work….” Elon Musk on his acquisition of Twitter: "The analogy I was using was it was like being teleported into a plane that's in a nosedive, headed to the ground with the engines on fire and the controls don't work. That's what it felt like." https://t.co/HDj69iAFmA pic.twitter.com/xsp33uwWnj — CNBC (@CNBC) May 16, 2023 Musk said he voted for Biden but hinted he wasn’t happy with his choice, saying “I wish we could have just a normal human being as president.” Elon Musk is asked if he regrets voting for Joe Biden “Man.. I wish we could just have a normal human being as President” pic.twitter.com/JzWaLYn4Wr — ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) May 16, 2023 Asked if he believes the 2020 election was stolen, Musk said no, but countered that there certainly has been election fraud. 🚨BREAKING: Elon Musk Does NOT Believe 2020 Election Was Stolen In an interview with David Faber, Elon Musk, made a significant statement by expressing his belief that the 2020 election was not stolen. This statement goes against the claims made by some who allege fraud in the… pic.twitter.com/SwN4uen115 — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 16, 2023 Musk even slammed the obvious CIA front Bellingcat. Discussing the recent Texas shooting, Musk said the shooter was "incorrectly described to be a white supremacist. The company that found this is Belingcat. Do you know what Belingcat is? A company that does Psyops." Elon Musk on Tuesday said that if his inflammatory tweets scare away advertisers from Twitter, he will accept that. “I’ll say what I want, and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." https://t.co/0Pi3Yl8Jo2 pic.twitter.com/tQUOc4GChO — CNBC (@CNBC) May 17, 2023 Going back to twitter, and the historic layoffs there, Musk said that "Desperate times call for desperate measures," referring to the more than 6,000 job cuts. Remarkably, despite widespread calls that the end of Twitter is nigh as there is no way the company can survive with 80% of its workers fired, so far Twitter is leaner and faster than before, a testament to the epic employee bloat in Silicon Valley over the past decade. "Desperate times call for desperate measures," Elon Musk said Tuesday on the layoffs that shed more than 6,000 jobs at Twitter. Musk added that he thinks Twitter now needs to hire more people and possibly "rehire some of the people that were let go." https://t.co/1lqWEJF3CZ pic.twitter.com/LUp2oOcPzI — CNBC (@CNBC) May 17, 2023 His involvement in the early days of ChatGPT-developer OpenAI, saying that it exists only because he wanted a non-commercial alternative to Google’s growing dominance in AI. He expressed disappointment that the company has abandoned its non-profit roots. And he said he is no longer friends with Google co-founder Larry Page. “The final straw was Larry calling me a ‘species-ist’ for being pro-human consciousness instead of machine consciousness.”. Elon Musk claimed on Tuesday that he is "the reason OpenAI exists," citing his past investment in the entity, and that Microsoft exerts control over the AI company, an assertion strongly denied by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. https://t.co/yEU1gYLa2S pic.twitter.com/3RxJJKpPQb — CNBC (@CNBC) May 17, 2023 His personal views and habits when it comes to work and productivity. He said he takes only two or three days off per year, works seven days a week and gets six hours of sleep a night. He also said he believes it’s morally wrong for people in the “laptop class” to advocate for working from home when service workers, such as people who work in factories, still have to show up in person. "I would just say, you know, to sort of follow their heart in terms of what they find interesting to do or fulfilling to do," Elon Musk said on Tuesday when asked what career advice he has for his children. "And try to be as useful as possible to the rest of society." pic.twitter.com/i0c1SG6wCh — CNBC Make It (@CNBCMakeIt) May 16, 2023 Tesla’s ability to weather rocky economic cycles. Musk said that the next 12 months will be difficult for Tesla from a macroeconomic perspective because of increased interest rates pinching consumer budgets. But he also said Tesla could take advantage of Tesla’s “real-time information on demand” for its cars to adjust pricing effectively. Faber asked what would happen to the global economy if China makes a move to control Taiwan. “The Chinese economy and the rest of the global economy are like conjoined twins. It would be like trying to separate conjoined twins. That’s the severity of the situation. And it’s actually worse for a lot of other companies than it is for Tesla. I mean, I’m not sure where you’re going to get an iPhone, for example.” Last but not least, there was a discussion of the Fed, which Musk believes is going to be too slow to lower interest rates when the economy slows, and that will hurt consumer demand. “You can think of raising the Fed rate as somewhat of a brake pedal on the economy, frankly,” Musk said. “It makes a lot of things more expensive. So if the car payment or your home mortgage is absorbing more of your monthly budget then you have less money to buy other things.” "You can think of raising the Fed rate as somewhat of a break pedal on the economy, frankly," Elon Musk said Tuesday. "It makes a lot of things more expensive." https://t.co/yqYYRr6a8U pic.twitter.com/X4cjtOhQGF — CNBC (@CNBC) May 17, 2023

The depth and breadth of 1984 is unprecedented... Everything "* Security"... means 1984. Twitter Files: Meet Academic Disinfo Queen Claire Wardle https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/twitter-files-brown-universit... Authored by Paul Thacker via The DisInformation Chronicle https://www.leefang.com/p/biden-justice-dept-intervened-to https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/guide-understanding-hoax-ce... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcQlhX3WRtk https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/video/alex-stamos-social-med... https://vivo.brown.edu/display/cwardle The Washington Post defended campus researchers collaborating with federal agencies to censor Americans in an awkward, bumbling article last week, alleging that congressional staff demanding university documents were “harassing academics” who studied falsehoods spread by Trump. In reality, Congress is investigating campus employees who have little in common with traditional university scholars teaching Proust or studying the atmospheric chemistry of distant planets. Just last year, one Stanford University researcher disclosed that he and other academics at Stanford and the University of Washington worked with an agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “to fill the gap of the things the government could not do themselves,” admitting that academics served as a cutout for federal censoring of Americans. The DHS agency campus researchers collaborated with is called the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA. In a recent investigation, Tablet magazine noted that in 2021 CISA began determining which ideas Americans were allowed to discuss and debate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Documents I discovered at Twitter’s headquarters further tie these censorship efforts to another researcher—Brown University’s Claire Wardle. The Washington Post defended campus researchers collaborating with federal agencies to censor Americans in an awkward, bumbling article last week, alleging that congressional staff demanding university documents were “harassing academics” who studied falsehoods spread by Trump. In reality, Congress is investigating campus employees who have little in common with traditional university scholars teaching Proust or studying the atmospheric chemistry of distant planets. In a recent investigation, Tablet magazine noted that in 2021 CISA began determining which ideas Americans were allowed to discuss and debate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Documents I discovered at Twitter’s headquarters further tie these censorship efforts to another researcher—Brown University’s Claire Wardle. A peek behind the paywall; As reported by the Washington Post, congressional staff are now investigating University of Washington professor Kate Starbird, who runs a government-funded think tank on disinformation. But the Post failed to report that Starbird serves on CISA’s advisory committee. A new document disclosed by reporter Lee Fang finds that when reporters sent a freedom of information act (FOIA) request to understand Starbird’s work with CISA, a federal attorney intervened to delay release of this information and review CISA documents that might become public. With so little of this context reported by the Post, it’s not surprising that their misleading article kicked off a twitterstorm of Democratic party complaints. “Another day, another pointless witch-hunt,” tweeted David Brock, who the New York Times once labeled as the propaganda artist behind “Hillary Clinton’s outrage machine.” Meanwhile, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse drew awkward comparisons between Congress investigating CISA allied campus researchers to the fossil fuel industry’s climate denial operation. The chair of CISA’s advisory committee is Tom Fanning, the CEO of the energy firm Southern Company. In a 2015 speech, Senator Whitehouse called out Southern Company and other energy firms for orchestrating climate denial by funding campus research. Nonetheless, campus researchers’ ties to federal agencies that have been censoring Americans can be easily found with a bit of curiosity and few minutes spent on Google. “The Election Integrity Partnership started with our team at Stanford sending a group of interns to go work with the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency at DHS, to work on election security,” said Stanford’s Alex Stamos in a talk last year. Because the government did not have legal authority to engage in certain activities, Stamos explained, he and others “worked to fill the gap of the things the government could not do themselves.” In an August 2020 Commonwealth Club talk with New York Times reporter Sheera Frenkel, Stamos explained that the Election Integrity Partnership’s goal was to not just study social media disinformation, but to censor that disinformation, in real time during the 2020 election. Our goal is to operationalize our work, so we can have mitigating impacts in the middle of the election season, during election day, and then—I think critically this year—for the handful of days after the election. And then we will still do our academic research. We’ll still be able to publish our findings. But hopefully when we do so, we can say we were able to find and to mitigate the impact, before it ever happened. Besides holding a position at Stanford, Stamos also runs the Krebs Stamos Group, a private consulting firm he founded with Chris Krebs, the first director of CISA. 4. Like University of Washington professor Kate Starbird, Stamos serves on the advisory committee of the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA--a DHS agency pic.twitter.com/LCTxDWZRSa — Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) June 14, 2023 Central figure But the central figure in recent movements by universities to partner with government censors is Claire Wardle. In 2015, Wardle collaborated with multiple organizations to start First Draft as a means to study and address trust and truth in the media... 7. Guess who came calling? I tripped over this document marked “for official use only” that finds Wardle had also been chosen to brief CISA’s advisory committee. CISA says they will get back to explain how often Wardle briefed them. pic.twitter.com/7hICzzI1bD — Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) June 14, 2023 Subscribers to The DisInformation Chronicle can read the rest here...

The Deep State Democrat operation to dethrone Musk and his free-er speech platform is in full swing now... https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63977 https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63976 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1704547991682527731 https://www.wsj.com/tech/justice-department-probe-scrutinizes-elon-musk-perk... Elon Musk Says "Strange Almost No Legacy Media Coverage" On Worsening Southern Border Crisis "Deep State Jews ganging up on Musk" DOJ, SEC Investigating Elon Musk Over 'Perks' Paid At Tesla Going Back Years Update: "These look like mafia tactics," exclaimed Rep. Massie, rebuking AG Garland this morning. Musk agreed... No other way to describe it. Meanwhile, many actual crimes, some of great significance, go not merely unpunished, but not even investigated. Something is rotten. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 20, 2023 As InformationLiberation.com's Chris Menahan detailed earlier, The pressure campaign to get Elon Musk to censor more on Twitter/X is not only coming from Jonathan Greenblatt at the ADL and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel but also Attorney General Merrick Garland at the DOJ and Gary Gensler at the SEC.

From The Wall Street Journal, “Justice Department Probe Scrutinizes Elon Musk Perks at Tesla Going Back Years”:

Federal prosecutors are scrutinizing personal benefits Tesla may have provided Elon Musk since 2017 - longer than previously known - as part of a criminal investigation examining issues including a proposed house for the chief executive. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York also has sought information about transactions between Tesla and other entities connected to the billionaire, people familiar with the investigation said. Prosecutors have referenced the involvement of a grand jury. The new information indicates that federal prosecutors have a broader interest in the actions of Musk and Tesla than was previously known and that they are pursuing potential criminal charges. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the Justice Department is investigating Tesla’s use of company resources on a secret project that was described internally as a house for Musk. The house effort was known within the carmaker as “Project 42,” and plans called for an expansive glass building to be constructed near Tesla’s Austin-area factory and headquarters. The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened a separate civil investigation into the project, the Journal has reported. If Elon Musk was acting as their slave and doing the regime’s bidding on Twitter none of these probes would even be happening. In fact, Garland et al. would go out of their way to cover up any crimes he committed.

Two Antithetical Billionaires https://amgreatness.com/2022/12/14/two-antithetical-billionaires/ Before the midterm November elections, Sam Bankman-Fried was a left-wing billionaire heartthrob. He properly grew up on the Stanford campus, where his parents were well-known left-wing activist law professors. He went to a tony prep school and on to MIT. Bankman-Fried mocked society’s bourgeois capitalist conventions by dressing and looking like a slob in cut-offs and T-shirts. Indeed, he bested the nose-ring, Charles Manson-esque appearance of former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. He outdid the all-black, Steve Jobs copy-cat get-up of another fallen leftist icon, the now-convicted felon Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos infamy. The Left canonized Bankman-Fried for the hundreds of millions of dollars he created out of thin air and channeled to left-wing congressional and state candidates, Joe Biden, and a host of “progressive” causes under the cool slogan “effective altruism.” For decades hence—or so Bankman-Fried promised—his cryptocurrency company FTX would churn out billions. Its politically correct gifting won exemptions from the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Democratic-controlled congressional oversight committees. The loud-talking, left-wing slob promised billions of dollars more in gifts to come. He was knighted as the successor to the kindred financial market manipulator and progressive “philanthropist” George Soros. SBF may have been a sloppy, immature fool, but he was no dummy. He had learned early on that loud leftist talk, big promises of philanthropy, and huge cash infusions to the media and leftist candidates—all under the veneer of “effective altruism”— ensured de facto immunity for his Ponzi schemes from both bad press and government investigation. Then, suddenly, the midterms were over. Powerful financial interests were screaming their millions had vanished at the hands of SBF. The Republicans took the House. They promised embarrassing hearings, with Bankman-Fried the loose-talking star villain. And so—presto!—he was finally indicted by the Biden Department of Justice. Bankman-Fried, in desperation one last time, had turned to his old props of raggedy dress, nerd talk, and contrived naivete. His schtick no longer worked. Too many leftists were embarrassed that they got too much money from him. Too many exposed “regulators” had known what this wannabe Madoff character was up to before the midterms. The now albatross Bankman-Fried was loud and everywhere, then suddenly not—and won’t be again. In contrast, consider how the Left now despises Elon Musk as much as it once worshiped Sam Bankman-Fried. Musk once mixed vaguely liberal politics with a David-versus-Goliath self-confidence, as he took on Big Auto and Big Space—and won. Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images But then he turned to Twitter and Big Tech. Or, rather, Musk realized Silicon Valley was no longer the irreverent embryo of boy geniuses he remembers from his youth, which outsmarted and preempted the global technology establishment. Instead, it had become a dreary, constipated place of hard-core, uncompromising leftists in need of a shake-up. Tech moguls used their billions, their monopolies, and their exemptions from oversight to warp the way Americans searched the Internet, communicated with each other, voted, and accessed the news—all in service to left-wing causes. Musk’s mortal sin was not just buying the money-losing Twitter and reinventing it as a free-speech platform. It was not even exposing the company’s rot of a lazy, overstaffed, woke, and pampered workforce and its giddiness in censoring free expression and wounding the public careers of any who challenged the status quo. Musk’s crime was far worse. First, was the sin of betrayal. A month ago, all those Teslas on the streets of Palo Alto, Austin, and Cambridge were virtue-signaling proof of green moral superiority. Then suddenly, these still wonderful cars are seen as fuel for the prince of darkness. Musk, of all people, now the progressive apostate, would dare to end Twitter as a left-wing bulwark. And he promised to flip this time-tried Pravda to host anyone to say what he pleased. Second, Musk doesn’t much care that the Left hates him. No doubt he regrets the billions he paid for the overpriced, money-losing company. No doubt he frets that Tesla may lose sales once yuppies and greens trade in their Tesla amulets as if they were now some godforsaken gas-guzzling SUVs. But otherwise, Musk has the resources, the youth, genius, and the energy to do to social media what he did to the space and automobile industries: revolutionize it, open it up to keener competition, and to reject stifling orthodoxy. How sad that the Left despises a man who built real things against the odds and took risks to champion free speech. And how predictable it worshiped a leftist fraud who bilked a million investors and ruined the lives of thousands. The hatred of the accomplished Musk and the worship of the hollow man Bankman-Fried are sad commentaries on how liberalism has descended into progressivism and ultimately into Stalinism.

Micah Lee (Tor Minion) along with the rest of Leftists and Dems Race to Expose Themselves as Middlemen in Deep State SocDem mission to Erase Musk... "There's A New Sheriff In Town": Twitter Nukes Liberal Pundits From Platform Twitter on Thursday evening began purging reporters from major media outlets, just one day after new owner Elon Musk changed the platform's "anti-doxxing" policy in response to a "crazy stalker" who climbed on the hood of a car carrying his two-year-old son. Those kicked off the platform include: Keith Olbermann of MSNBC Ryan Mac of the NY Times Anthony Webster of Bellingcat Donnie O'Sullivan of CNN Micah F. Lee of The Intercept Matt Binder of Mashable Drew Harwell of the Washington Post Aaron Rupar of his mom's basement There's a new sheriff in town pic.twitter.com/NNfyFnOPmJ — Election Wizard 🇺🇸 (@ElectionWiz) December 16, 2022 Also booted was the official account for Twitter competitor Mastadon, which earlier in the day posted a link to track Musk's private jet. This was The Washington Post's @drewharwell's post before he was suspended from Twitter, outlining how Twitter suspended the account of its competitor Mastodon earlier today. pic.twitter.com/Vc8QuwHXZE — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) December 16, 2022 It was unclear what prompted the suspensions, though it appears they are related to doxxing - current or in the past. "Same doxxing rules apply to “journalists” as to everyone else," Musk said on Thursday evening, adding "Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not." Same doxxing rules apply to “journalists” as to everyone else — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 16, 2022 "They posted my exact real-time location, basically assassination coordinates, in (obvious) direct violation of Twitter terms of service," Musk said in a subsequent tweet. Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 16, 2022 Aaron Rupar said in a statement to CNN's Oliver Darcy: "I never posted anything Elon Jet related or that could violate the policy about disclosing locations. Unless the policy is that you criticize Elon and you get banned." Except... UPDATE: Rupar posted screenshots of the location of Elon Musk's private plane — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) December 16, 2022 Interestingly, the Washington Post's resident trust-fund snitch Taylor Lorenz deleted her 'entire archive and took her account private,' according to The Federalist's Sean Davis. Who tipped off @TaylorLorenz that she was about to get busted for doxxing? Within the last hour she nuked her entire archive and took her account private. pic.twitter.com/fLuNoocwVS — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 16, 2022 Corporate media has framed this as Twitter suspending journalists "who have been covering Elon Musk and the company." A spokesperson for the NY Times said that the suspensions were 'questionable and unfortunate,' and said that no explanation was provided. "We hope that all of the journalists’ accounts are reinstated and that Twitter provides a satisfying explanation for this action," said Charlie Stadtlander, communications director for the Times. Some aren't taking the news well... I don’t know what happened here but if @elonmusk doesn’t fix this within the hour with an explanation by morning, I’ll be on Capitol Hill tomorrow demanding that he be hauled in front of Congress. pic.twitter.com/8oTmLkbdzZ — Jason Kint (@jason_kint) December 16, 2022 Oh Jason... What happened to: -- Private companies have the right to disassociate themselves from anyone they want. -- Have you ever heard of "Terms of Service?" -- If you don't like how Twitter does content moderation, start your own social media site. Remember all those arguments? https://t.co/j0P2os8ZF4 — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 16, 2022 As expected, the reactions have been flying! It’s funny seeing the Libs panic over their friends getting suspended. They’re finally getting a taste of what Conservatives have lived through for years. https://t.co/WYmOBKbL1N — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 16, 2022 Me looking at libs saying that account suspension rules are vague and aren’t applied evenly pic.twitter.com/g61lqoeVhE — Richard Harambe (@Doc_Chimpanzee) December 16, 2022 Suddenly the fake media cares about twitter suspensions. — John Ocasio-Rodham Nolte (@NolteNC) December 16, 2022 December 15th is the new January 6th — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) December 16, 2022 Maybe he wants real news reporting on the site, and not political propaganda. I know it's a hard concept for some of you "journalists" to grasp. https://t.co/zOrSSsjnWU — Momo Shitco (@MomoShitco) December 16, 2022