Censorship: Twitter Takeover Totally Panics Political Regime of LeftLibDemSocMediaTechPol
“They would rather self-immolate than give up their censorship programs. This shows you how deeply committed they are to Orwellian control of the narratives and global discourse. Scary,” "Want to see the whole world lose their shit? Get Peter Thiel to partner with Elon and raise the bid for Twitter" The corrupt US Left is in total freakout mode, and they don't have enough to fend off those intent on finally cancelling their fraud, lol. Regardless of outcome it is distributed uncensorable systems that must now be created and prevail over all such legacy systems. Twitter Facebook Google and Fake News Media... "fuck them all in their fucking faces". This is old school takeover, for even more fun just wait till the freedom loving cryptoanarchist $TeraCap starts to swing its massive dick around. It's working. Musk Speaking To Co-Investors As Twitter Board Adopts "Poison Pill" To Thwart Hostile Takeover In an attempt to move along his hostile takeover following Twitter's adoption of a poison pill takeover defense (see below), the NY Post reports that Elon Musk is speaking to potential co-investors who could partner with him on a bid for the social network, and cites sources according to whom a new plan that includes partners could be announced within days. One possibility is teaming with private-equity firm Silver Lake Partners, which was planning to co-invest with him in 2018 when he was considering taking Tesla private, and whose Co-CEO Egon Durban is already a Twitter board member and led Musk’s deal team during the 2018 failed effort to take Tesla private, sources said. Silver Lake declined to comment. Whether Musk would present Twitter with an entirely new offer — perhaps raising his current bid — or whether new partners would simply go in on a purchase with him isn’t clear. A Musk spokesperson declined to comment. As we predicted earlier (see below), one way to circumvent Twitter's Poison Pill is for Musk "to be joined by one or more like-minded, anti-censorship investors such as Peter Thiel who either build up stakes through the poison pill 15% limit in the process making a management and board replacement by proxy vote the simple outcome." And indeed, the Post writes now that the "pill may not stop other entities or people from acquiring their own shares of up to 15% of the company. Those owners could partner with Musk to force a sale, make changes in the executive ranks or push for other overhauls of the company." “This is not over,” a source close to the situation told the Post. It sure isn't because separately, Bloomberg, Reuters and the Post all report that besides Musk’s offer, Twitter has been fielding takeover interest from other parties, including technology-focused private equity firm Thoma Bravo, which is considering making a rival offer. The New York Post reported Thoma Bravo’s interest on Thursday. Additionally, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh writes that “Musk could decide to partner with Oracle, whose co-founder Larry Ellison sits on Tesla’s board and has expressed interest in acquiring social media company TikTok’s U.S. assets, and a private equity consortium that includes Thoma Bravo to thwart Twitter’s poison pill, while raising the bid 10-15% to about $50 billion.” * * * As was widely expected and reported in the aftermath of Elon Musk going hostile on Friday morning, on Saturday morning Twitter adopted a measure that will shield it from hostile acquisition bids in a desperate step to prevent billionaire Elon Musk’s offer to take the company private and make it a bastion of free speech. The board set up a shareholder rights plan, also known as a "poison pill" which as we clarified yesterday for the benefit of the company's overly dramatic, overly literal and overly snowflake employees, is not literal... Uhm, someone should probably advise employees "poison pill" is not literal... — zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 14, 2022 ... and which is exercisable if a party - read Elon Musk - acquires 15% of the stock without prior approval, lasting for one year (if the pill had expired the day after the midterms it may have been a bit too obvious). The plan seeks to ensure that anyone taking control of Twitter through open market accumulation pays all shareholders an appropriate control premium, according to a statement Friday. For a company that has struggled greatly with value creation - on Friday TWTR stock closed at $45.08, or 18 cents higher than where it closed on its first day as a public company, or $44.90 - a poison pill defense strategy allows existing shareholders the right to purchase additional shares at a discount, effectively diluting the ownership interest of the hostile party. Poison pills are common among companies under fire from activist investors or in hostile takeover situations. Under Twitter’s plan, each right will entitle its holder to purchase, at the then-current exercise price, additional shares of common stock having a then-current market value of twice the exercise price of the right. Twitter enacted the plan to buy time, Bloomberg reported citing a person familiar with the matter, although it wasn't clear time for what: at $54.20, Musk's offer represents a premium to the historical TWTR price since IPO on 92% of the time. And since the Twitter board, whose constituents are listed below... ... is about to get bombarded with a barrage of lawsuits claiming it violated its fiduciary duty, the board also said it wants to be able to analyze and negotiate any deal, and may still accept it (spoiler alert: it won't). Twitter’s board met Thursday to review Musk’s proposal - which according to the world's richest man was his “best and final” offer and who had already accrued a stake of more than 9% in Twitter since earlier this year - to determine if it was in the best interest of the company and all of its shareholders. Included in Musk’s securities filing disclosing the bid Thursday morning was a script of text he sent to the company. In it he said, “it’s a high price and your shareholders will love it.” Hilariously, one prominent - and former - investor said the offer was too low and the market reaction appeared to agree. Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said the deal doesn’t “come close to the intrinsic value” of the popular social media platform. Which is, well, hilarious since as we showed yesterday, it appears the Prince no longer has direct ownership of even one share of Twitter stock. Speaking later Thursday at a TED conference, Musk said he wasn’t sure he “will actually be able to acquire it.” He added that his intent was to also retain “as many shareholders as is allowed by the law,” rather than keeping sole ownership of the company himself. After initially surging, Twitter shares dropped 1.7% in New York on Thursday, reflecting the market’s view that the deal is likely to be rejected or to fall through. Musk first disclosed his Twitter stake on April 4, making him the largest individual investor. At the TED conference, he indicated that he has a Plan B if Twitter’s board rejects his offer. He declined to elaborate. But in his filing earlier in the day, he said he would rethink his investment if the bid failed. “If the deal doesn’t work, given that I don’t have confidence in management nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder,” said Musk. * * * Previewing the poison pilll defense, on Thursday, Cameron Winklevoss, founder of the Gemini cryptocurrency exchange, tweeted (of course) that “Twitter is considering a poison pill to thwart @elonmusk’s offer." In response, Musk said that a “poison pill” move would be a "breach" of the board's fiduciary duty and could expose Twitter’s board to “titanic” legal liability. If the current Twitter board takes actions contrary to shareholder interests, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty. The liability they would thereby assume would be titanic in scale. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 14, 2022 Winklevoss alleged in his tweet that, by adopting the poison pill tactic, Twitter was demonstrating its commitment to preserving the status quo even if it has a negative impact on existing shareholders. “They would rather self-immolate than give up their censorship programs. This shows you how deeply committed they are to Orwellian control of the narratives and global discourse. Scary,” he wrote. Twitter has repeatedly suppressed and "shadowbanned" conservative viewpoints, allegations the company has repeatedly denied. Adam Candeub, a law professor at Michigan State University, said that Twitter’s board could face legal consequences if they turn down an offer that’s financially lucrative to shareholders. “Twitter’s owned by shareholders, and the directors have to act in a way that’s in their best interests, not in the way that allows them to keep control of the corporation,” Candeub told The Epoch Times. “If they turn down a very favorable price, there will be dereliction of their legal duty, and there could be lots of legal consequences.” * * * Now that his original plan has been thwarted, Musk has said that he has a "Plan B" in stock for the company although he did not disclose what it is. As Mark Cuban pointed out yesterday... Want to see the whole world lose their shit ? Get Peter Thiel to partner with Elon and raise the bid for Twitter — Mark Cuban (@mcuban) April 14, 2022 ... one possible response is for Elon to be joined by one or more like-minded, anti-censorship investors such as Peter Thiel who either build up stakes through the poison pill 15% limit in the process making a management and board replacement by proxy vote the simple outcome, or they just raise the takeover price to a level that even the woke Twitter board can not reject. Or skip the whale investor approach entirely, and open up twitter to a mass investor buyout, in the form of a DAO, where "token holders will get to vote on what's trending and who gets verified." And of course a decentralized group of supporters for "the current thing" will create a DAO to buy Twitter. Token holders will get to vote on what's trending and who gets verified. Ok I'll stop now 😁 — Mark Cuban (@mcuban) April 14, 2022 Alternatively, Musk can take his appeal directly to his 82 million twitter followers (a quarter of Twitter's total 217 million global Daily Active Users) and have them all buy several shares, then pledge them for Elon during the next proxy vote. Because as much as Twitter wants to reject any buyout offer that will prevent it from imposing the censorship its liberal board and employees love so much, there is only so much it can do. In the end, however, the only question is how dedicated is Musk to control Twitter, because if he really wants it, he will get it.
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 00:07:03 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
"Want to see the whole world lose their shit? Get Peter Thiel to partner with Elon and raise the bid for Twitter"
YES! We really need the lowest form of non-human scum, thiel and musko to 'take over' the NSA, I mean twatter. Notice that thiel has been a 'private' NSA-military contractor since day zero. Yep - it seems that jewturd 'grancrap' never heard of palantir-paypal! Hehe. As to musko, he's the biggest figurehead of the military industrial complex and NASA - look at 'his' cool LEO surveillance starshits. So what we have here is a non-human, right-wing, jewnazi turd like 'grancrap' doing two things : 1) pretending that the thiel-musko amoeba is any different from the current 'owner' of twatter. 2) being so infinitely stupid as to do 1) (well, what can we expect from a US cop after all...)
On 4/16/22, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> 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 <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/16/22, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
"Want to see the whole world lose their shit?"
!
As they predicted, you crapped your pants.
So let me repeat this again : grancrap wants palantir-thiel-NSA to 'take over' twatter-NSA. That has to be the most idiotic, useless, meaningless reshufling of NSA cards ever. Then again we are dealing here with the lowest kind of US cop. The 'grancrap' thing doesn't even know how to tie his shoes, let alone say anything meaningful.
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 02:15:27 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> 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.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/elon-musks-declaration-of-war-against-the-glo... https://babylonbee.com/news/twitter-headquarters-suffers-severe-water-damage... I haven’t seen libs meltdown this hard since we told them they couldn’t talk to five year olds about sex "Content moderation" has become a euphemism for censorship. @ggreenwald Yesterday was a flagship day in corporate media. It was the day they were forced to explicitly state what has long been clear: they not only favor censorship but desperately crave and depend on it. Even if Musk doesn't buy Twitter, never forget what yesterday revealed. https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1514995790313402373 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1514941630972899339 It's not about hate speech, either. They've baked their ideology into the hateful conduct policy so that good-faith disagreement about what's true and right constitutes hate speech—even if it's lawful, well-intentioned, and eminently reasonable. Replying to @ggreenwald Censorship of conservatives gets most attention because it's so common, but censorship of anti-establishment leftists is also frequent: any dissident can be banned. Pretending this is about bots or spam is fraudulent. This censorship is about control of political information. https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1514745371569922059 The Babylon Bee's @SethDillon gives his thoughts on @elonmusk's attempt to take over Twitter. Guys like Max Boot call for "more content moderation, not less" because they fear someone may refute them or expose them for being fiends and fools. It's that simple. They can't win in the marketplace of ideas, so they seek to shut down the marketplace. https://thinkr.org/newsletter/out-of-the-ashes-rebuilding-american-culture Twitter buyout... Global $Gigabots publicly battling for control of your mind, their battle being half the programming session itself. Twitter's Chickens Come Home To Roost https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitters-chickens-come-home-to-roost https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/who-will-fix-faceboo... Elon Musk has reportedly attempted to purchase Twitter, and I have no idea whether his influence on the company would be positive or not. I do know, however, what other media figures think Musk’s influence on Twitter will be. They think it will be bad — very bad, bad! How none of them see what a self-own this is is beyond me. After spending the last six years practically turgid with joy as other unaccountable billionaires tweaked the speech landscape in their favor, they’re suddenly howling over the mere rumor that a less censorious fat cat might get to sit in one of the big chairs. O the inhumanity! A few of the more prominent Musk critics are claiming merely to be upset at the prospect of wealthy individuals controlling speech. As more than one person has pointed out, this is a bizarre thing to be worrying about all of the sudden, since it’s been the absolute reality in America for a while. as someone who isn't a fan of Elon Musk, I still find it darkly funny that billionaire-owned media is suddenly having a moral panic about a billionaire possibly buying Twitter — David Sirota (@davidsirota) April 14, 2022 Probably the funniest effort along those lines was this passage: We need regulation… to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication. That was Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit, railing against Musk in the pages of… the Washington Post! A newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos complaining about rich people controlling “channels of communication” just might be the never-released punchline of Monty Python’s classic “Funniest Joke in the World” skit. Many detractors went the Pao route, suddenly getting religion about concentrated wealth having control over the public discourse. In a world that had not yet gone completely nuts, that is probably where the outrage campaign would have ended, since the oligarchical control issue could at least be a legitimate one, if printed in a newspaper not owned by Jeff Bezos. However, they didn’t stop there. Media figures everywhere are openly complaining that they dislike the Musk move because they’re terrified he will censor people less. Bullet-headed neoconservative fussbudget Max Boot was among the most emphatic in expressing his fear of a less-censored world: I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less. — Max Boot 🇺🇦 (@MaxBoot) April 14, 2022 In every newsroom I’ve ever been around, there’s always one sad hack who’s hated by other reporters but hangs on to a job because he whispers things to management and is good at writing pro-war editorials or fawning profiles of Ari Fleischer or Idi Amin or other such distasteful media tasks. Even that person would never have been willing to publicly say something as gross as, “For democracy to survive, it needs more censorship”! A professional journalist who opposed free speech was not long ago considered a logical impossibility, because the whole idea of a free press depended upon the absolute right to be an unpopular pain in the ass. Things are different now, of course, because the bulk of journalists no longer see themselves as outsiders who challenge official pieties, but rather as people who live inside the rope-lines and defend those pieties. I’m guessing this latest news is arousing special horror because the current version of Twitter is the professional journalist’s idea of Utopia: a place where Donald Trump doesn’t exist, everyone with unorthodox thoughts is warning-labeled (“age-restricted” content seems to be a popular recent scam), and the Current Thing is constantly hyped to the moronic max. The site used to be fun, funny, and a great tool for exchanging information. Now it feels like what the world would be if the eight most vile people in Brooklyn were put in charge of all human life, a giant, hyper-pretentious Thought-Starbucks. My blue-checked friends in media worked very hard to create this thriving intellectual paradise, so of course they’re devastated to imagine that a single rich person could even try to walk in and upend the project. Couldn’t Musk just leave Twitter in the hands of responsible, speech-protecting shareholders like Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal? Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and his company Kingdom Holding, which have held big stakes in Twitter, dismissed Elon Musk’s offer to buy the social-media platform https://t.co/0snqiLPtlu — The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 14, 2022 Interesting. Just two questions, if I may. How much of Twitter does the Kingdom own, directly & indirectly? What are the Kingdom’s views on journalistic freedom of speech? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 14, 2022 Even though it hasn’t happened yet, why wait to start comparing Musk’s Twitter takeover to the Fourth Reich? Journalism professor Jeff Jarvis of CUNY certainly thinks it isn’t too soon: Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany. — Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) April 14, 2022 The most incredible reaction in my mind came not from a journalist per se, but former labor secretary Robert Reich. His Guardian piece, “Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense,” is a marvel of pretzel-logic, an example of what can happen to a smart person who thinks he’s in Plato’s cave when he’s actually up his own backside. The opening reads: The Russian people know little about Putin’s war on Ukraine because Putin has blocked their access to the truth, substituting propaganda and lies. Years ago, pundits assumed the internet would open a new era of democracy, giving everyone access to the truth. But dictators like Putin and demagogues like Trump have demonstrated how naive that assumption was. Reich goes on to argue… well, he doesn’t actually argue, he just makes a series of statements that don’t logically follow one another, before dismounting into a remarkable conclusion: Musk says he wants to “free” the internet. But what he really aims to do is make it even less accountable than it is now… dominated by the richest and most powerful people in the world, who wouldn’t be accountable to anyone for facts, truth, science or the common good. That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare. Reich starts by talking about how Vladimir Putin is cracking down using overt censorship, progresses to talking about how making the Internet less “accountable” is bad, then ends by saying Musk is like Putin, and Trump, and every evildoer on earth, again before Musk has even done anything at all. He may be trying to say that Musk could use algorithms to silently push reality in the direction he favors, but this is the exact opposite of Vladimir Putin passing laws outlawing certain kinds of speech. Any attempt to argue that dictators are also speech libertarians is automatically ridiculous. More to the point, where has all this outrage about private control over speech been previously? I don’t remember people like Reich and Jarvis, or Parker Molloy, or Scott Dworkin, or Timothy O’Brien at Bloomberg (“Elon Musk’s Twitter Investment Could Be Bad News for Free Speech”), bemoaning the vast power over speech held by people like Sergei Brin, Larry Page, or even Jack Dorsey once upon a time. That’s because the Bluenoses in media and a handful of hand-wringers on the Hill successfully paper-trained all those other Silicon Valley heavyweights, convincing them to join on with their great speech-squelching project. It’s become increasingly clear over the last six years that these people want it both ways. They don’t want to break up the surveillance capitalism model, or come up with a transparent, consistent, legalistic, fair framework for dealing with troublesome online speech. No, they actually want tech companies to remain giant black-box monopolies with opaque moderation systems, so they can direct the speech-policing power of those companies to desired political ends. When someone like Reich says, “Billionaires like Musk have shown time and again they consider themselves above the law. And to a large extent, they are,” he’s talking about an authoritarian framework that already exists in the speech world, just with different billionaires at the helm. What’s got him cheesed off isn’t the concept of privatized civil liberties — we’re already there — but the idea that one particular billionaire might not be on board with the kinds of arbitrary corporate decisions Reich likes, like removing Trump (“necessary to protect American democracy,” he says). When I first started to cover the content-moderation phenomenon back in 2018, I was repeatedly told by colleagues that I was worrying over trivialities, that there couldn’t possibly be any negative fallout to coordinated backroom deals to de-platform the likes of Alex Jones, or to the Senate demanding Facebook, Twitter, and Google start zapping more “Russian disinformation” accounts. Even when I pointed out that it wasn’t just right-wingers and Russians vanishing, but also Palestinian activists and police brutality sites and a growing number of small independent news outlets, most of my colleagues didn’t care. Because they were so sure they’d never be targeted, the credentialed media were mostly all for the most aggressive possible conception of “content moderation.” It was beyond obvious that self-described progressives would eventually regret hounding people like Mark Zuckerberg to start getting into the editorial business, and that pushing Silicon Valley to take a bigger interest in controlling speech was flirting with disaster. Of course they would someday wake up to find these companies owned by people less sympathetic to their niche political snobbery, and be horrified, and wish they’d never urged virtually unregulated tech oligopolies to start meddling in the speech soup. Now, here we are. To all those people who are flipping out and shuddering over the possibilities (CNBC: “If he owns the whole place…? The Orange man is probably going to be back!”), remember that you didn’t mind when other unaccountable tycoons started down this road. You cheered it on, in fact, and backlash from someone with different political opinions and real money was 100% predictable. This is the system you asked for. Buy the ticket, take the ride, you goofs!
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 06:25:38 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> 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...
https://summit.news/2022/04/13/video-tucker-carlson-dubs-musks-twitter-takeo... https://thepostmillennial.com/libs-of-tik-tok-has-hope-for-the-future-of-edu... https://summit.news/2022/04/15/video-elon-musk-explains-why-he-wants-to-buy-... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718605/How-Elon-Musk-buy-Twitter-... https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1514666932074692615 https://www.youtube.com/embed/CBrFsNcskAY Tucker Carlson Outlines How Twitter Is "Where Elite Opinion Is Incubated" Tucker Carlson explained Thursday why Elon Musk’s attempted takeover of Twitter is “the single most important development for free speech in the modern history of the United States,” noting that the platform is “where elite opinion is incubated.” The host declared that Twitter “is the single most important forum for speech possibly in the world,” but that it is currently being used to foment mass group-think. “As Musk put it, Twitter’s potential is to be ‘the platform for free speech around the globe.’ Twitter will neither ‘thrive nor serve the societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company,” Carlson said. He further highlighted that “if Twitter’s board rejects Elon Musk’s offer, they will need to explain why to their shareholders. They turned down a deal that would make the shareholders much richer.” “So, by doing this, Elon Musk is putting everything on the line. He knows how important Twitter is to the people who run our system and run the global system. For them, censorship and propaganda are not a feature of their rule. Their rule depends on censorship and propaganda,” Carlson urged. Carlson repeated comments he made earlier in the week that Musk’s move on Twitter is a “direct challenge” to “illegitimate regimes” trying “so hard to control information through censorship.” “If you are offering policies that really benefit nobody but yourself, you have to lie about them, and you must prevent anyone from complaining about it. So, censorship and propaganda are at the very heart of neoliberalism and Elon Musk is challenging all of that directly,” the host asserted. Carlson further noted “Is it distressing that our own democratic system isn’t working that you would need some rich guy to swoop in deus ex machina to save free speech in United States? Of course, it is. Is it sad that we’re all desperate for Elon Musk to save us? Yes, it is. But who else is going to save us? Nobody at this point.” Elsewhere on Carlson’s show he interviewed the creator of the Twitter account Libs of Tik Tok which was temporarily suspended earlier this week in the latest example of the platform using vaguely defined “hateful conduct” rules as a means of censorship. As we noted earlier, Musk explained Thursday why he was attempting to buy Twitter, noting that it “is extremely important for the future of civilization,” and “to help freedom in the world.” During the interview, Musk pointed to the likes of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp which are all majority owned and ruled by Mark Zuckerberg. Musk quipped that Meta has “a share ownership structure that will have Mark Zuckerberg the 14th still controlling those entities.” “We won’t have that at Twitter,” Musk promised. Watch: Musk also noted that he has a ‘plan B’ should Twitter refuse his offer: Q: "If in this case you are not successful, you know, the board does not accept your offer, you've said you won't go higher. Is there a plan B?" .@elonmusk: "There is." pic.twitter.com/ax2Kcb8GEi — The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) April 14, 2022 When asked what his backup plan is, Musk said he would discuss it if it came to that. It has been noted that should Twitter’s board reject Musk’s proposal of buying the company for $54.20 per share, he could still look to stockholders by seeking proxy votes or directly buying out their shares in a hostile takeover scenario. The Daily Mail reported that “Investopedia notes that shareholders often accept the tender offer when it is a ‘sufficient premium to market value or if they are unhappy with current management.”
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.
"musko said that Tesla will use its telemetry data to make sure customers are “good” drivers before allowing them to access its Full Self-Driving Beta software." lolwut? 'telemetry data'? Oh sorry, they misspelled NSA. And the car has more 'authority' than the turd who paid for it? Ah yes, that's bell's and grancrap's techonazi science utopia aanddd... "to protect your privacy, cabin camera images and video clips transmitted to Tesla servers ... are not associated with your Vehicle Identification Number." can't make that shit up. "cabin camera images and video clips transmitted to Tesla servers" https://electrek.co/2021/09/17/tesla-make-sure-good-driver-before-giving-acc...
On 4/17/22, punk <punks@tfwno.gf> 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 Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:58:13 -0400 worthless anonymous jewnazi <grancrap@JOOMAIL.com> wrote:
You know twitter and everything else is already doing that spy stuff, but your support for your beloved Leftists
I never supported any 'leftist' - and what kind of braindead turd would refer to utmost fascist scum like twatter as 'leftist' anyway. Oh wait you. Bottom line : musko and his non-human lapdogs like grancrap and bell are ANTI-PRIVACY scum, EXACTLY like twatter, while whining about twatter. See all the jim bell posts about satellites, GPS, fucktarphone aids tracking, COMMIE vaccines, and more! Oh, and one more note on twatter. Twatter is the source that provides 90% OF THE PROPAGANDA that grancrap spams. Yes, that's how stupid grancrap is.
On 4/17/22, punk <punks@tfwno.gf> 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.
Come on you coward,
who are you grancrap? Oh you are an ANONYMOUS, COWARDLY, piece of US jewnazi shit =) See grancrap, you have less value than a cero a la izquierda. So, let me know if you ever 'feel' like telling the truth about your name and your bosses musko, rothschild and...biden. Otherwise, kill yourself.
On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:07:10 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/22, punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
[nothing, as usual]
nothing but the truth. It must be painful to be as stupid as you are eh.
Quit being an asshole to people.
you get treated the way you deserve to be treated, asshole. So go ahead, play the victim some more. Whine about the holohoax! Suck musko cock, AGAIN!!
You're better than that. Tell us what your utopia looks like.
in my utopia, musko and his lapdogs are reduced to dust.
Tell us the books and links you like. Tell us your solutions and creations.
see above. And what was this 'thread' about anyway? Oh yes, it was about grancrap advertising musko-NSA and trying to deny that musko is the most corrupt NSA globalist on the planet. Alex jones level of imbecility and evil.
grancrap <grarpamp@gmail.com> spammed:
>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 <punks@tfwno.gf> 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 <punks@tfwno.gf> 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.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 01:15:43 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/18/22, punk <punks@tfwno.gf> 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",
yes, it's called taxation. It pays for your 'job'. Taxation is also known as theft. See, to prove YET AGAIN that you are the lowest kind of braindead cop, you are trying to attack me and defend musko. And there's nothing special about me - I'm no different than the thousands of millions who pay govcorp's bills. Yet the stupid cop wants to defend musko's 'innocence' while blaming his victims. Yeah only a cop can be that stupid. And let me predict the cop's next move, which actually has been endlessly repeated by another of his sockpuppets. "YOU CANT USE THE ARPANET TO CRITICIZE US TECHNONAZIS!!! ITS NOT FAIR!!!!!" Too bad for the technonazis, I can.
“They would rather self-immolate than give up their censorship programs. This shows you how deeply committed they are to Orwellian control of the narratives and global discourse."
The Greatest Danger To The Political-Corporate-Media Triumvirate Is That Musk Is Right https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3270514-twitter-faces-the-nightmare-o... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/15/twitter-suspends-libsoftiktok-for-feat... https://www.google.com/finance/quote/TWTR:NYSE https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/14/23025396/elon-musk-jack-dorsey-twitter-ho... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/13/187265/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/575692-trust-in-media-nears-record-low-ga... https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/us-ranks-last-among-46-countries-i... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/17/poll-gop-democratic-voters-... Twitter’s board of directors gathered this week to sign what sounds like a suicide pact. It unanimously voted to swallow a “poison pill” to tank the value of the social media giant’s shares rather than allow billionaire Elon Musk to buy the company. The move is one way to fend off hostile takeovers, but what is different in this case is the added source of the hostility: Twitter and many liberals are apoplectic over Musk’s call for free speech protections on the site. Company boards have a fiduciary duty to do what is best for shareholders, which usually is measured in share values. Twitter has long done the opposite. It has virtually written off many conservatives — and a large portion of its prospective market — with years of arbitrary censorship of dissenting views on everything from gender identity to global warming, election fraud and the pandemic. Most recently, Twitter suspended a group, Libs of Tik Tok, for “hateful conduct.” The conduct? Reposting what liberals have said about themselves. The company seemingly has written off free speech too. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.” Not surprisingly, selling censorship is not a big hit with most consumers, particularly from a communications or social media company. The actions of Twitter’s management have led to roller-coastering share values. While Twitter once reached a high of about $73 a share, it is currently around $45. (Musk was offering $54.20 a share, representing a 54 percent premium over the share price the day before he invested in the company.) Notably, Musk will not trigger the poison pill if he stays below 15 percent ownership of the company. He could push his present stake up to 14.9 percent and then negotiate with other shareholders to take greater control. Another problem is that Twitter long sought a private buyer under former CEO Jack Dorsey. If Musk increases his bid closer to $60, the board could face liability in putting its interests ahead of the company’s shareholders. Putting aside the magical share number, Musk is right that the company’s potential has been constrained by its woke management. For social media companies, free speech is not only ethically but economically beneficial — because the censorship model only works if you have an effective monopoly in which customers have no other choice. That is how Henry Ford could tell customers, back when he controlled car-making, that they could have any color of Model T “as long as it’s black.” Of course, the Model T’s color was not a critical part of the product. On the other hand, Twitter is a communications company selling censorship — and opposing free speech as a social media company is a little like Ford opposing cars. The public could be moving beyond Twitter’s Model T philosophy, however, with many people looking for access to an open, free forum for discussions. Censorship - or “content modification,” as used in polite company - is not value maximizing for Twitter, but it is status enhancing for executives such as Agrawal. It does not matter that consumers of his product want less censorship; the company has become captive to its executives’ agendas. Twitter is not alone in pursuing such self-defeating values. Many in the mainstream media and many on the left have become some of the loudest advocates for corporate censorship. The Washington Post’s Max Boot, for example, declared, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” MSNBC’s Katy Tur warned that reintroducing free speech values on Twitter could produce “massive, life- and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.” Columnist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich went full Orwellian in explaining why freedom is tyranny. Reich dismissed calls for free speech and warned that censorship is “necessary to protect American democracy.” He then delivered a line that would make Big Brother blush: “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.” The problem comes when you sell fear for too long and at too high a price. Recently, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) agreed with MSNBC analyst John Heilemann that Democrats have to “scare the crap out of [voters] and get them to come out.” That line is not selling any better for the media than it is for social media, however. Trust in the media is at a record low, with only 7 percent expressing great trust in what is being reported. The United States ranks last in media trust among 46 nations. Just as the public does not want social media companies to control their views, it does not want the media to shape its news. In one recent poll, “76.3% of respondents from all political affiliations said that ‘the primary focus of the mainstream media’s coverage of current events is to advance their own opinions or political agendas.'” Thus, an outbreak of free speech could have dire consequences for many in the political-corporate-media triumvirate. For them, the greatest danger is that Musk could be right and Twitter would become a more popular, more profitable company selling a free speech product. Poison pill maneuvers are often used to force a potential buyer to negotiate with the board. However, Twitter’s directors (who include Agrawal and Dorsey) have previously limited their product to advance their own political preferences. This time, federal law may force them to fulfill their fiduciary duties, even at the cost of supporting free speech. The problem for the board will occur when the “nightmare” of free speech comes in at $60 a share.
Twitter Liberation Day - April 25, 2022 Twitter Board Folds - "Unanimously Approves" Musk Taking Firm Private For $44 Billion In a glorious day for FreeSpeech and dissenters against the Coordinated Conspiracy of the LeftProgLibDemSocPol's Internet Platforms and their Fake News Medias Control Cabal for Mind Programming, Narrative Steering, Cancel Culture, Foreign and Socialist Influence, Violence Inciting, Election Fraudulating, Censorship, and worse... now at least one of the top platforms is owned by an activist of a different sort. Whatever all the sorts, diversity is a good thing. And as expected, their Conspiracy exposed itself even more today by falling into joint public butthurt, faux outrage, cry puddles, wasted BlueChecks, and debilitating lost faith... https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1518577468810084352 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok plenty more all over Twitter and news cycle. The Left is in complete freak-out mode because they understand the power of a free speech platform like Twitter. A free Twitter threatens the regime and its media surrogates alike. Sides of Pols and Internets aside, the memes erupting today are pure win, as is the win of today long since due. May FreeSpeech prevail, and distributed uncensorable encrypted systems arise to implement and ensure it forevermore.
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 15:47, grarpamp wrote:
Twitter Liberation Day - April 25, 2022
Twitter Board Folds - "Unanimously Approves" Musk Taking Firm Private For $44 Billion
In a glorious day for FreeSpeech and dissenters against the Coordinated Conspiracy of the LeftProgLibDemSocPol's Internet Platforms and their Fake News Medias Control Cabal for Mind Programming, Narrative Steering, Cancel Culture, Foreign and Socialist Influence, Violence Inciting, Election Fraudulating, Censorship, and worse...
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... -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On 4/25/22, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> 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"
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:06:34 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/25/22, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> 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"
let me know when people can join twatter without a fucktardphone-NSA-tracking-device, and without running their javashit malware.
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...
How 22 Celebrities Reacted When They Learned That Elon Musk Had Just Bought Twitter... http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/how-22-celebrities-reacted-when-the... "If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. - George Washington" He did it! Elon Musk actually bought Twitter, and I am absolutely thrilled. It is about time that one of these billionaires did something good with their money. The major social media platforms are where we all used to go to debate the issues of our day, but in recent years a wave of extreme censorship has changed everything. Now Elon Musk has liberated Twitter, and that is a victory that we should all celebrate. Without the ability to speak freely, our system of government simply cannot work. So I am very hopeful that Musk will follow through on the promises that he is now making. In the statement that was released announcing the purchase, he made some pretty bold pronouncements… “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,” said Mr. Musk. “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.” A great place to start would be to remove all shadow bans. My account has been under a shadow ban for so long that I can’t even remember what it was like to have a normal account. Needless to say, countless other Twitter users are also looking forward to brighter days ahead. Meanwhile, hordes of pro-censorship denizens are absolutely horrified by what just transpired. The following is how 22 celebrities reacted when they learned that Elon Musk had just bought Twitter… Tucker Carlson We’re back. — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 25, 2022 Ice Cube Free at last! @elonmusk take off my shadow ban homie... — Ice Cube (@icecube) April 25, 2022 CNN’s Brian Stelter CNN’s @brianstelter on Musk’s Twitter takeover: “If you get invited to something where there are no rules, where there is total freedom for everybody, do you actually want to go to that party or are you going to decide to stay home?”pic.twitter.com/uymSPHgY2w — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 25, 2022 Marc Andreessen WHO DID THIS pic.twitter.com/M7mIOr1hLm — Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) April 25, 2022 John Rich :) pic.twitter.com/zNcwsNdzem — John Rich (@johnrich) April 25, 2022 Senator Marsha Blackburn Today is an encouraging day for freedom of speech. I am hopeful that Elon Musk will help rein in Big Tech’s history of censoring users that have a different viewpoint. — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) April 25, 2022 Jimmy Failla Elon Musk is buying Twitter and everyone freaking out drives a Tesla. There’s never been a dumber time to be alive. — Jimmy Failla (@jimmyfailla) April 25, 2022 Tim Allen The little twitter bird has a new owner. Wonder how long it will take for the new shadow ban council to prevent me from saying stuff like: Hunter Biden laptop. Or even more provocative: Tesla in-car fart app? (Love it when driving my Mom.) — Tim Allen (@ofctimallen) April 25, 2022 Erick Erickson We need to thank all the progressives who bought Teslas for making this possible. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 25, 2022 Avi Yemini I’m GAINING followers for a change. Thank you, Elon Musk! — Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) April 26, 2022 New York Times Columnist Charles M. Blow Looks like I’m about to say goodbye to Twitter as well. I’ve been pulling back a bit from social media anyway. This will be just the push I need to go all the way on this app. https://t.co/QkwIsYy6zS — Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) April 25, 2022 Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene Prepare for blue check mark full scale meltdown after @elonmusk seals the deal and I should get my personal Twitter account restored. pic.twitter.com/MKBQvHCoAH — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) April 25, 2022 Jack Posobiec And here. We. Go. https://t.co/JuuedCw9Jh — Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) April 25, 2022 Journalist Michael Tracey Dark days ahead. There is only one man who should be celebrating Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter -- Vladimir Putin. My latest in the New York Times: — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) April 25, 2022 Texas Governor Greg Abbott .@elonmusk. Bring Twitter to Texas to join Tesla, SpaceX & the Boring company. — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 25, 2022 Matt Oswalt people worried Elon Musk will ruin Twitter, a website whose major accomplishments over 16 years are creating then destroying Chrissy Teigen and getting Brooklyn Nine-Nine a 6th season — Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA) April 25, 2022 Congressman Lance Gooden Elon Musk is buying Twitter. CNN+ is shutting down. Disney is being reined in. It's a bad time to be woke. — Lance Gooden (@Lancegooden) April 25, 2022 Mike Drucker If Elon Musk buys Twitter, I’m never signing in again until five minutes later when I’m bored and open the app without thinking — Mike Drucker (@MikeDrucker) April 25, 2022 Ice T It would kinda dope if Musk bought Twitter and just shut it off…. Lol — ICE T (@FINALLEVEL) April 25, 2022 Dave Portnoy Instagram next! https://t.co/ryrK8dVXYt — Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) April 25, 2022 Jack Dorsey In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness. — jack⚡️ (@jack) April 26, 2022 Elon Musk I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 25, 2022 And then there's this... The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 26, 2022
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
Twitter staff and Dem Politicians in panic and erasing evidence as new owner prepares to clean house and drain swamps, just as any new owner of any business around the world does every day... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/27/musk-twitter-attacks/ https://twitter.com/WillOremus/status/1519163522252431360 Elon Musk has now publicly agreed with and amplified criticisms from the right of two individual Twitter employees today— one accusing its top policy exec of “censorship” and the other accusing a company lawyer of facilitating fraud. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/hunter-biden-laptop-findi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/07/trump-facebook-ban-cens...
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’.
Savor The Great Musk Panic paywalled https://taibbi.substack.com/p/savor-the-great-musk-panic The New York Times earlier this week ran a guest essay by Gawker founding editor Elizabeth Spiers, fulminating about Elon Musk’s effort to purchase Twitter. She wrote: What exactly does [Musk] believe can’t be said on the platform right now? It certainly doesn’t take long to find discredited race science, arguments that women are intellectually inferior, antisemitism… It is easy to assume that the banned speech that Mr. Musk is standing up for is worse even than that. As the comedian Michael Che put it on “Saturday Night Live,” the $44 billion deal shows “how badly white guys want to use the N-word.” This is the elite argument against free speech in a nutshell: “If you favor ‘all legal speech,’ you really just want to slander, threaten, and harass. Now please let me tiptoe up to libel myself, as I tell millions of New York Times readers I ‘assume’ you’re a racist itching to use the N-word.” The hypocrisy of America’s self-appointed culture-protectors this week is breathtaking. They really seem not to realize that what they’ve been seeking for years isn’t an end to speech abuses, but a monopoly on them. They see Musk as a traitor to his class, threatening to upend what they see as a natural order that in recent years placed bluenose squads in deserved roles as vanguards and truth-arbiters. Whether or not Musk ever upends anything is a different question, but critics believe he will, and now they’re panicking, in tones of maximum sanctimony. They’re even pulling out “Who will protect the children?”-style language: My latest op-ed for the @latimes with @rashadrobinson :Under Elon Musk's Twitter takeover, who will protect users? https://t.co/uurD1vdZLW — Safiya Umoja Noble PhD (@safiyanoble) April 28, 2022 When billionaires like Elon Musk justify their motives by using “freedom,” beware. What they actually seek is freedom from accountability. — Robert Reich (@RBReich) April 24, 2022 Now that Elon Musk is buying Twitter, the question for all of us is: Will he allow a Criminal who used this platform to lie and spread disinformation to try to overthrow the US Government to return and continue his Criminal activity? And if he does, how do we combat it? — Rob Reiner (@robreiner) April 25, 2022 I spent a good part of the last four years warning that asking unaccountable billionaires to meddle more in speech would result in exactly such a table-turning episode, in which the political mainstream’s cocky censor squad would wake up one day to find the wrong tycoon in charge, at which point they would cry foul and howl suddenly about the evils of oligarchy. For failing to cheer their vision of enlightened censorship, colleagues denounced me as a reactionary pervert in the employ of (pick one) Trump/Assad/Putin. So it’s hard to do anything but chuckle at their anguish this week. According to mainstream legend, Twitter executives were forced to re-think their hands-off, “free speech wing of the free speech party” approach after watching the @RealDonaldTrump account become the world’s most-followed news network during the 2016 election campaign. In doing so, they upended the power of traditional news media figures to filter out what they deemed unacceptable political candidates. The Washington Post would later describe how anguished Twitter general counsel Vijaya Gadde and CEO Jack Dorsey realized after Trump’s election that their product had escaped its pen and needed putting down: Twitter’s largely liberal employee base faced growing criticism, and workers complained that the first question they were asked when they told someone they worked at the social media service was, what about Trump’s account? His account was even briefly deactivated once by a rogue Twitter employee in 2017. By 2018, Dorsey and Gadde, whose title is legal, policy and trust and safety lead, knew they had to rethink their approach to powerful people’s megaphones. Executives began to devise new policies and product features that would enable the company to place a specific label to cover up a tweet. The Post went on to describe a Shakespearean tragedy, in which executives like Dorsey and Gadde tried, against all logic and evidence, to cling to doomed speech principles throughout the Trump presidency. Blind to their fate as all tragic figures must be, they held on past the bitter end, leaving Trump’s account up long enough to imperil democracy itself via the insurrection (democracy was always “democracy itself” in the Trump years). January 6th in this version of the story was clearly Twitter’s fault, caused by “a mob of Trump supporters, following the president’s calls on Twitter,” as the Post put it. When the company then belatedly did the right thing and deactivated Trump’s account, the Post said it “brought to an end an era of free speech online” that Twitter “itself helped create.” That’s one version of history. I remember another. ...
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."
The First Amendment Option: An Easy Way For Musk To Restore Free Speech On Twitter https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/28/the-first-amendment-option-an-easy-way... https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1517247388716613634 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144 https://jonathanturley.org/2021/05/03/learning-to-love-content-modification-... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/17/the-lethality-of-free-speech-biden-den... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/18/twitter-ceo-admits-censoring-hunter-bi... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/29/enlightened-algorithms-democrats-call-... https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3270514-twitter-faces-the-nightmare-o... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/05/10/free-speech-inc/ https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/19/the-shadow-state-embracing-corporation... https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/obama-calls-for-tech-regulation-to-combat-di... https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/04/25/elon-musk-twitte... https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_7_1_1/ https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/25/23041754/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-me... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/02/the-case-for-internet-originalism/ Below is my column in the Hill on one way for Elon Musk to re-introduce free speech values on his newly acquired social media platform. Pro-censorship advocates like former President Barack Obama may have given Musk a roadmap for restoring free speech on Twitter. For free speech advocates, Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter could prove the most impactful event since Twitter’s founding in 2006. The question, however, is how Musk can accomplish his lofty goal of restoring free speech values to social media. He first would have to untie the Gordian knot of censorship in a company now synonymous with speech control. The answer may be simpler than most people think. Indeed, anti-free-speech figures in the country may have given Musk the very roadmap he’s looking for: the First Amendment. The purchase of Twitter alone will have immediate and transformative changes for free speech. The control over speech on social media required a unified front. Free speech is like water, it tends to find a way out. With social media, there was no way out because of the unified front of companies like Google, Apple and Facebook. Facebook is actually running commercials trying to convince people to embrace their own censorship. This message was reinforced by Democratic leaders like President Biden, who demanded that these companies expand censorship and curtail access to harmful viewpoints. Now this market has one major competitor selling a free speech product. The fear is that Musk might be proven right and that Twitter could become larger and more profitable by allowing more free speech. Facebook has not had much success in convincing customers to embrace censorship, but it may find shareholders wondering why the Facebook board (like the Twitter board) is undermining its own product as a communications company committed to limited speech. Another immediate change could be the forced exodus of a line of ardent censors from the company, with Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal (hopefully) at the head of line. Agrawal is one of the most anti-free-speech figures in Big Tech. After taking over as CEO, Agrawal quickly made clear that he wanted to steer the company beyond free speech and that the issue is not who can speak but “who can be heard.” However, once such figures are removed from Twitter, the question is how to re-establish a culture of free speech. The answer may be in the very distinction used by Democratic politicians and pundits to justify corporate censorship. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly. Corporations clearly have free speech rights. Ironically, Democrats have long opposed such rights for companies, but they embrace such rights when it comes to censorship. The Democratic Party embraced corporate governance of free speech once these companies aligned themselves with their political agenda. Starbucks and every other company have every right to pursue a woke agenda. Social media companies, however, sell communications, not coffee. They should be in the business of free speech. Democrats have continued to treat the First Amendment as synonymous with free speech, as a way to justify greater censorship. Just last week, former President Barack Obama spoke at Stanford to flog this false line. Obama started by declaring himself, against every indication to the contrary, to be “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything that he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.” He was able to do that by emphasizing that “The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter.” Well, what if it did? The Constitution does not impose the same standard on Twitter — but Musk could. He could order a new Twitter team to err on the side of free speech while utilizing First Amendment standards to maximize protections on the platform. In other words, if the government could not censor a tweet, Twitter would not do so. The key to such an approach is not to treat Twitter as akin to “government speech,” a category where the government has allowed major speech controls. Rather, tweets are very much as Musk has described them: akin to speech in “the digital town square.” If the government could not stop someone from speaking in a public forum like a town square, Twitter should not do so through private means. The value to tying private speech to First Amendment jurisprudence is that there is a steady array of cases illuminating this standard and its applications. Such a rule would admittedly allow a large array of offensive and objectionable speech — just as the First Amendment does in a public square. That is the price of free speech. This is, admittedly, not a perfect fit. Twitter needs to protect itself from civil liability in the form of trademark, copyright and other violations in the use of its platforms. Moreover, most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms. That can be done through standard moderation systems or, preferably, optional filters for users to adopt on Twitter. There are also standard rules against doxxing as well as personal threats or privacy violations. Social media companies long had these limitations before plunging headlong into the type of content-based speech regulations made infamous by Twitter. Musk can use the baseline of the First Amendment with these limited augmentations to re-create the type of relatively open forums that once characterized the internet. I have long admitted to being a type of “internet originalist” who prefers precisely the digital town square concept embraced by Musk. Adopting the First Amendment standards would create a foundation for free speech that can be tweaked to accommodate narrow, well-defined limitations. The greatest challenge is not the restoration of free speech but the retention of such a site. Notably, figures like Hillary Clinton have suddenly turned from advocating corporate censorship to calling for good old-fashioned state censorship. Last week, Clinton called on the European Union to pass the Digital Services Act (DSA), a massive censorship measure that has received preliminary approval. Coming after Musk’s bid for Twitter, Clinton and others now want to use European countries to offer the same circumvention of the First Amendment. Rather than use a corporate surrogate, they would use an alternative state surrogate to force Twitter to censor content or face stiff penalties in Europe. Musk will have to fight that battle when it comes. In the interim, he can rally the public, as he did Twitter shareholders, to the cause of free speech.
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.
While Twitter execs and staff race to erase evidence of their censorship crimes, the Internet has noticed very unusual and sudden increases in followers, reversions in ghosting, search suppression, etc. 'Libs Of TikTok' WaPo-Dox Backfires After Account Gains 500,000 New Followers In One Week https://allmylinks.com/libsoftiktok https://www.foxnews.com/tech/twitter-suspends-conservative-libs-of-tiktok-ac... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/19/libs-of-tiktok-right-wi... https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/libsoftiktok/monthly https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1519002011651477511 https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1519491199501012992 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1519717073529630723 Libs of TikTok - a Twitter account which aggregates videos posted on TikTok by deranged leftists - has gained over 500,000 new followers in the week since the Washington Post published a hit-piece against the owner of the account. As part of the smear campaign, WaPo 'journalist' Taylor Lorenz doxxed the woman who runs it - while innocent people who share the same name as the account owner were harassed for days. The account first made national headlines on April 14 after Twitter suspended it for 12 hours, citing "hateful conduct." That alone caused a jump in followers from 602,000 followers that Tuesday, to 630,000 by Saturday. 48 hours later, WaPo put out their hit piece - accusing Libs of TikTok of "spreading anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment." Lorenz notably posted information on the account owner's Real Estate license, which revealed personal information. WaPo subsequently removed the link with no explanation. And of course, Lorenz's snarky hit-piece completely backfired, as the account has gained over 500,000 new followers since it was published. via socialblade.com The jump in followers was also undoubtedly fueled in part by appearances by the account owner on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" to discuss the intimidation campaign. In short, Twitter and Taylor Lorenz have nearly doubled Libs of TikTok's reach in their attempts to smear the conservative account ahead of midterms. Of course, it should also be noted that Twitter has seemingly "unshackled" conservative accounts over the last 72 hours following the news that Elon Musk was acquiring the social media giant. To wit, Libs of TikTok saw a jump of 110,000 followers on Wednesday. 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? pic.twitter.com/9Mso48qyNP — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) April 26, 2022 Meanwhile, Journalist Tim Pool paid for a billboard in Times Square calling Lorenz and the Post out for the doxxing. Thanks to @TimCast, a billboard is up in Times Square exposing what The Washington Post did to @LibsOfTikTok. pic.twitter.com/y7MwrqGGZd — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 28, 2022 In the meantime, Libs of TikTok will continue to send videos like this into the stratosphere: People on TikTok (an app targeting youth) continue to promote puberty blockers for kids saying they are harmless. Giving a child puberty blockers is child abuse. pic.twitter.com/fo7Jmbg9KF — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 28, 2022
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 <U+1F33B> (@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
Musk brilliantly purchased not just Twitter, but also evidence of Criminal Conspiracy to Election Fraud...
Look who Twitter also had on staff and who they were doing with, just wait till more gets exposed... Musk's Mention Highlights Twitter Counsel Baker's Russiagate Past At FBI https://www.theepochtimes.com/musks-mention-highlights-twitter-counsel-baker... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519151823831060481 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/ https://www.theepochtimes.com/durham-should-have-enough-to-pursue-conspiracy... https://www.theepochtimes.com/clinton-campaign-relied-on-former-spys-web-of-... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21142278-181018-ogr-baker-interview-... Former top FBI attorney James Baker, who now serves as Twitter’s deputy general counsel, has had a spotlight thrown on him after billionaire Elon Musk, who recently negotiated a deal to buy Twitter, responded to comments about Baker’s past actions during the FBI’s Russia investigation in 2016. Former FBI General Counsel James Baker testified before the House judiciary and oversight committees on Oct. 3, 2018, and Oct. 18, 2018. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times) On April 26, a day after Musk reportedly reached an agreement with Twitter, filmmaker Mike Cernovich wrote on Twitter that Baker, during his time as FBI general counsel, “personally arranged a meeting” with cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann, who was at the time working for the Clinton campaign. “In this meeting, Sussmann presented fabricated evidence in the Alfa bank matter,” Cernovich wrote. Sussmann was charged last year by special counsel John Durham for lying to Baker during that meeting. “Sounds pretty bad,” Musk responded on Twitter to the Cernovich post. Sounds pretty bad … — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022 According to court documents, it was Sussmann who asked for the meeting, which took place in September 2016 at FBI headquarters. The two men knew each other from their time working in the Justice Department criminal division. Sussmann emailed Baker that he was going to the meeting not representing any client. But in fact, he billed the time to the presidential campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Durham alleges that this was a material lie, which means that it had a natural tendency or was capable to affect government decisions. During their meeting, Sussmann gave Baker data and reports purportedly showing secret communications between The Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa-Bank. The FBI determined that there was no such secret communication. A tech expert firm hired by Alfa-Bank concluded that the data may have been fabricated, although Durham hasn’t made that assertion. The data and reports were provided to Sussmann by Rodney Joffe, who has run several tech companies. Sussmann, Joffe, and others were in a “joint venture” to dig up dirt on Trump and help Clinton, Durham said, thus far stopping short of alleging the venture amounted to a criminal conspiracy. Baker told congressional investigators in 2018 that it was unusual for him to be personally approached by somebody in order to pass on information to the FBI. He remembered two other instances: one related to the Dennis Montgomery case of alleged illegal government spying on Americans and the other being Mother Jones reporter David Corn, who said he sent Baker a copy of the infamous Steele Dossier in November 2016. Baker said he had long known Corn, and their children used to carpool together (pdf). The dossier was prepared by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was, in turn, paid (through intermediaries) to collect dirt on Trump by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). As it turned out, much of the dossier, including its core claim of Trump–Russia collusion, was fabricated. There was nothing inappropriate about Sussmann’s passing on the Alfa-Bank information, Baker said. He said he was generally aware that Sussmann had an association with the DNC. The Sussmann trial is scheduled for mid-May. He has pleaded not guilty. Durham was tasked, around March or May 2019, with reviewing the 2016–’17 FBI investigation of alleged collusion between candidate and later President Donald Trump and Russia to sway the 2016 election. No such collusion was found. Baker told lawmakers that the FBI probe was lawfully predicated. Durham previously contested such a claim. In October 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham as special counsel. In February 2021, Durham resigned his position as a federal prosecutor and has continued the investigation in the sole capacity of special counsel.
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.
Lunatic Lib Democrats inciting racial hatred, again... MSNBC, ABC Claim Elon Musk Wants To See Abuse Of Women & Jews, And A Return To Apartheid https://summit.news/2022/04/27/msnbc-abc-claim-elon-musk-wants-to-see-abuse-... https://summit.news/2022/04/26/salty-cry-babies-throw-out-their-toys-over-mu... https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1519049208258600960 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519020176884305920 Amid the meltdown of leftists canceling themselves following Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover, the most extreme reactions came from the likes of MSNBC’s Joy Reid and ABC’s The View, where it was declared that Musk is a white supremacist who wants to see the return of segregation, as well as abuse of Jewish people and rampant misogyny against women. Perpetual race grifter Reid proclaimed that Musk “misses the old South Africa in the 80s. He wants that back,” adding “Elon Musk’s companies have a history of open racism.” She also charged that Musk’s “idea of freedom means freedom to be a jerk and to be cruel and to have no one be able to stop you.” Reid’s guest Jason Johnson then declared that Musk could make public everyone’s private Twitter messages, before she declared that free speech advocates only want to “come in and be able to punch people in the face and walk around and laugh about it and then not have anyone be able to stop them.” Reid then stated that “there was a time when people had the double hashtags around their names because they were Jewish and right-wingers were saying get in the oven any time you made any benign comment on Twitter.” She added “They attacked women. You know, the misogyny was crazy on Twitter for a while,” insinuating that Musk is all for that kind of activity. “The thing is the enjoyment they get out of being in this town square is being able to harass people, being able to attack people,” she further stated. Watch: Reid stirred up the Apartheid accusation on Twitter (ironically), and also suggested that Musk is keen on allowing “nazis” free reign on Twitter: If he really thinks he can create that same toxic, high school bully, 80s South Africa world here and somehow monetize that, he should maybe stick to sending compensatory technology to "near space" for his fellow men with more money and time on their hands than interesting ideas. — Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) April 25, 2022 Elon Musk has spent years silencing his critics. He doesn’t care about “free speech.” This Twitter crusade is about releasing the trolls, nazis & MAGAnuts from Gab and Gettr isolation because they can only be entertained by harassing normal people here. https://t.co/CqRkKE9EUO — Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) April 22, 2022 And this: https://t.co/fOEFgBFKqi — Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) April 22, 2022 Others amplified the idiotic claim: Elon musk buying Twitter is a dream come true for white nationalists. After all musk is from the former apartheid country of South Africa which the white supremacists idolize. — (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) April 25, 2022 Wonder if Elon musk will copy the apartheid rules of his home country South Africa and give us check marks based on our skin color? The whiter the check mark the more rights you have on Twitter. #AskingForAFriend — (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) April 25, 2022 Elon Musk is from South Africa, so that means he loves white nationalism. Yeah, OK. Just like every German is a Nazi. It’s completely deranged, but what else would you expect from Reid? She says this about everyone who disagrees with her on any topic. Over at ABC, The View co-host Sunny Hostin declared that Musk only cares about free speech for “straight white men” and is preparing to “take away the guardrails” and “unleash the trolls”. She then blurted out that “there have been some surveys done” and claimed that 85% of women have seen abuse on Twitter, insinuating that’s what Musk wants to see. Hostin then whined about Musk being rich and cited Mark Zuckerberg’s “takeover” of Facebook as an example of how billionaires shouldn’t have control over “modes of communication.” Watch: Again, completely factually incorrect blathering and deranged accusations, all triggered by Elon Musk saying he supports free speech, and illustrative of exactly why Musk bought Twitter, as Joe Rogan points out below. The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 26, 2022 Joe Rogan’s reaction to @ElonMusk buying Twitter pic.twitter.com/8fhRwOFx4N — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 26, 2022
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.
Twitter Leftists are still doing Democrat bidding by censoring people for simply TALKING... MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Rejoins Twitter, Suspended Again Hours Later https://www.theepochtimes.com/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-rejoins-twitter-susp... MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell announced that he rejoined Twitter Sunday after his account was banned last year, but he was quickly reported and banned from the platform. “Hello, everyone at Twitter. This is Mike Lindell,” Lindell said in a Twitter video published on Sunday. “I’m here to tell you about my new account here, @MikeJLindell. That’s the only account over here at Twitter that I’m using.” He added: “So we started this account … Please share it with everybody you know. Let everybody you know so we can get the word out over here at Twitter in case they do take it down.” Mike Lindell, CEO of MyPillow, speaks during a rally on the National Mall in Washington on Dec. 12, 2020. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times) A Twitter spokesperson told news outlets Sunday that the account was banned. The Epoch Times has contacted the firm for comment. “The account you referenced was permanently suspended for violating the Twitter Rules on ban evasion,” a Twitter spokesperson told the Daily Beast website. Lindell also confirmed to the left-wing publication that his recently created account was suspended, calling it “a shame,” adding that former Twitter CEO “Jack Dorsey should be first in line for prison!” Screenshots of the new account showed that Lindell had amassed more than 30,000 followers in a few hours after it was created Sunday. The MyPillow CEO added to Business Insider that he decided to create a new account because there were numerous fake accounts pretending to be him. “I put up the Twitter account today to let the public know that none of the fake Mike Lindell accounts on Twitter are mine,” Lindell remarked. About a week ago, Twitter and Elon Musk announced that the Telsa CEO would purchase the social media platform for $44 billion and take it private, giving Musk sole ownership. The deal has not yet been closed, and Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and other executives are still in charge of the company. Lindell’s original Twitter account was banned in January 2021 amid posts that he believed former President Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Twitter alleged that “repeated violations” of its policies led to Lindell’s suspension. Before the Twitter–Musk preliminary deal was announced last week, Musk often criticized Twitter’s content moderation policies, suggesting they are akin to censorship. The world’s richest man also said in a statement that he believes the platform should foster a pro-free speech policy with more neutral content moderation practices. As for Trump, who was also banned in January 2021, the former president told outlets last week that he does not wish to return to Twitter and instead promoted his own platform, Truth Social.
"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
Doing an astounding job of exposing themselves, long past time for world to ignore and defund politicians. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok https://twitter.com/rncresearch NYT Slammed Over Stealth-Edited, Race-Baiting Musk Smear The New York Times has come under fire for an absurd hit-piece on Elon Musk which suggests that because he "grew up in a bubble of white privilege" in South Africa, he's just fine with racist or other 'toxic' content on Twitter, which they frame as 'unchecked speech.' After the 'paper of record' began catching flack for their race-baiting smear (and perhaps after a call from Musk's legal team), they stealth-edited the article to add distance and suggest that musk may or may not have been influenced by South Africa's history (but either way he's a white guy who grew up in South Africa 'so make of that what you will'). Some editing going on this afternoon https://t.co/3kQSgPW0Y5 pic.twitter.com/SGFQLNJIO9 — Tom Gara (@tomgara) May 5, 2022 No editor’s note about changes to the body of the text. Kind of unprofessional? pic.twitter.com/pQZjhCg4Ko — Brian Gallagher (@bsgallagher) May 5, 2022 The Wall Street Journal's Elliot Kaufman slammed the Times, tweeting "It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech." It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech. https://t.co/msvk9S2gJN — Elliot Kaufman (@ElliotKaufman6) May 5, 2022 Kaufman wasn't the only one... How do they come to the conclusion that apartheid South Africa showed "the dangers of unchecked speech"? The apartheid government DEFINITELY censored the news and intimidated dissenters into silence. Yet the NYT argues that apartheid South Africa needed LESS free speech? — Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) May 5, 2022 Unacknowledged stealth edits strike yet again — nic carter (@nic__carter) May 5, 2022 The propaganda being used to attack @elonmusk because he’s buying @twitter truly is breathtaking. Look at this @nytimes headline. It’s truly Orwellian. pic.twitter.com/k0WWPKTCSl — Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 5, 2022 And once again a formerly respected mainstream outlet beclowns itself in an effort to attack an ideological opponent.
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...
https://censortrack.org/ Media Research Center
Many people have been reporting that twitter has been unblocking their accounts, some after years of being shutdown, and without receiving any new post-takeover request from the user to do so. Clearly some sort of appeasement and evidence whitewashing attempt. Given they even let Max Igan back online, among other big and popular "must be censored globally at all costs" targets (5G, anti-vaxx, conspiracies, anarchism, unschooling, etc) among the alts... https://twitter.com/MaxIgan ... they must be panicking about something very serious and incriminating.
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.
Who's Afraid Of Elon Musk? Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity, http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/may/09/who-s... Any doubt that many progressives have abandoned their commitment to free speech was erased by the hysterical reaction to Elon Musk’s effort to purchase Twitter and return the company to its roots as a free speech zone. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and “woke” neocon Max Boot fretted that Musk’s commitment to free speech threatens democracy. Those confused by how free speech threatens democracy should remember that for neoconservatives and many progressives democracy means allowing the people to choose between two largely identical supporters of the welfare-warfare state. In this version of “democracy,” those whose views are outside the welfare-warfare mainstream — such as libertarians — are marginalized. More ominous than the griping of ex-government officials and pundits was the threat of prominent Democratic politicians to haul Musk before Congress. These politicians likely want an opportunity to smear Musk and other supporters of free speech as promoters of hate and Russian (and/or Chinese) disinformation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin and other Senate Democrats, none of whom seem to have read the First Amendment, are also investigating whether it would be “appropriate” for Congress to force tech companies to “moderate” content on their platforms. President Biden is not waiting for legislation to ramp up the attack on free speech. His administration has created the Disinformation Governance Board located in the Department of Homeland Security. The board’s purpose is to coordinate government and private sector efforts to combat “disinformation,” with a focus on Russia. The focus on Russia is not surprising since “Russian disinformation” has joined racism and sexism as a go-to justification to smear and silence those whose views (and factual information) contradict the political and media establishment’s “party line.” Biden’s choice to head the Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, is a spreader of disinformation herself. In 2020, for example, Jankowicz parroted the lie that Russia created the damning materials found on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. Jankowicz’s résumé also includes stints as an advisor to the Ukraine government and a manager of National Democratic Institute programs in Russia and Belarus. Jankowicz’s background suggests she will never call any lie peddled by the US war party “disinformation.” The Disinformation Governance Board may not directly censor social media. However, by “encouraging” tech companies desperate to maintain good relations with the federal government to remove “unapproved” opinions from their platforms, it can achieve the same results. This is why anyone who values free speech, which should include everyone who cherishes liberty, should not fall for the claim that tech companies’ behavior is nothing to be concerned about since it does not involve government censorship. Sadly, some misguided conservatives have joined progressives in promoting legislation imposing new regulations on big tech. Increased regulation will only empower Nina Jankowicz and her ilk to further pressure tech companies to restrict free speech. It will also hurt consumers by reducing the ability to find affordable goods and services online. The only way to protect free speech on the internet is to make online platforms truly private through a complete separation of tech and state. The drive to censor is driven by the woke mob and authoritarian establishment’s fear that their policies could not maintain majority support if forced to compete in a free market of ideas. This shows that even enemies of liberty sense that the days of the welfare-warfare state are numbered.
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.
Dorsey and BigTech Execs trying to backtrack and spin themselves fresh names away from their own exec decisions and guilt to censor... Dorsey Agrees With Musk On Trump’s Twitter Ban https://www.theepochtimes.com/dorsey-agrees-with-musk-on-trumps-twitter-ban_... https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musk-says-hell-lift-trumps-twitter-ban-af... https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-removes-trump-from-its-platform_364966... Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey said he backs Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s plan to reinstate former President Donald Trump’s account on the platform, calling the move to ban Trump a “business decision” and a “failure.” Musk suggested on Tuesday he would overturn Trump’s suspension from Twitter if his takeover bid for the social media platform ends in success. Twitter banned Trump from the platform following the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, claiming his posts violated a glorification of violence policy. Speaking at a Future of the Car event hosted by the Financial Times on May 10, Musk addressed Trump’s Twitter ban, saying he thinks “it was a morally bad decision to be clear and foolish in the extreme.” Dorsey backed Musk’s remarks, saying in a series of posts on Twitter that the decision to permanently suspend Trump from the platform was a mistake. “I do agree. There are exceptions (CSE, illegal behaviour, spam or network manipulation, etc), but generally permanent bans are a failure of ours and don’t work, which I wrote about here after the event (and called for a resilient social media protocol),” Dorsey said in a post responding to a user who said Musk believes Dorsey agrees with him that “there shouldn’t be permanent bans on individual Twitter users.” Dorsey said in a follow-up post that banning Trump was a misguided “business decision.” “It was a business decision, it shouldn’t have been. and we should always revisit our decisions and evolve as necessary. I stated in that thread and still believe that permanent bans of individuals are directionally wrong,” Dorsey wrote in the post. Musk has offered to buy Twitter for around $43 billion, saying he wants to actualize the company’s “extraordinary potential” to become a true platform for free speech. ‘Time-Outs’ Rather Than Bans Musk has earlier expressed reluctance about permanent bans of users from Twitter, preferring instead temporary “time-outs.” “I’m not saying that I have all the answers here,” Musk said at a recent TED talk in Vancouver, Canada. “But I do think that we want to be just very reluctant to delete things, just be very cautious with permanent bans. Time-outs I think are better than permanent bans.” Musk was asked point-blank during the Future of the Car event about allowing Trump back on the social media platform. “So I guess the answer is … I would reverse the perma-ban” on Trump’s account, Musk said, cautioning that he “[doesn’t] own Twitter yet.” “Permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots, or scam, spam accounts,” Musk added. “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake … It alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice,” he said. Musk went on to argue that permanent bans undermine trust in Twitter. “If there are tweets that are wrong and bad, those should be either deleted or made invisible, and a suspension—a temporary suspension—is appropriate, but not a permanent ban.” In terms of adjusting Twitter’s moderation policies, Musk said earlier he’d want to err on the side of free speech. “If in doubt, let the speech, let it exist,” Musk said. “If it’s a gray area, I would say let the tweet exist. But obviously in a case where there’s perhaps a lot of controversy, that you would not want to necessarily promote that tweet.” “A good sign as to whether there’s free speech is, is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like,” Musk said. “And if that is the case, then we have free speech.” Trump, for his part, has welcomed the prospect of Musk taking over Twitter but the former president said he would not return to the platform and would instead stay on Truth Social.
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.
Five Steps To Save Free Speech On Twitter: A Musk Roadmap https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/05/five-steps-to-free-speech-in-social-me... According to reports, Elon Musk is now expected to take over as the temporary CEO of Twitter as soon as his financing of the purchase is finalized. It is good news because buying Twitter may prove a mere skirmish in comparison to the coming battle. Political forces in the United States and abroad are already aligning to resist his effort to restore free speech to social media. If history has shown one thing, it is that it is easier to lose rights than to regain them. Musk has a product in demand but neither governments nor many of his own employees want to be sold. If Musk is to fulfill his pledge, he will need to take five specific steps to secure free speech protections. Given the interests allied against him, Musk must move quickly if he wants to not only reintroduce but to maintain free speech on Twitter. 1. Adopt the First Amendment standard. Pundits and politicians, including President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, have justified their calls for censorship (or “content moderation” for polite company) by stressing that the First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies. That distinction allows Obama to declare himself last week to be “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He did not call himself a “free speech absolutist” because he favors censorship for views that he considers to be “lies,” “disinformation,” or “quackery.” The distinction has always been a disingenuous evasion. The First Amendment is not the sole or exclusive definition of free speech. Censorship on social media is equally, if not more, damaging for free speech. However, Musk can call this bluff. He could order Twitter to apply the First Amendment standard that applies to the government for speech in a public forum. In doing so, Musk would instantly eliminate most of the censorship currently imposed on the site. He would, however, have to stipulate that the standards for “government speech” (which allows for greater speech regulation) would not apply. Twitter will be treated as “the digital town square” that he has long embraced. 2. Restructure Twitter. Once a new standard is set, Musk must establish how it is enforced. That will require breaking down the extensive censorship bureaucracy at Twitter, starting at the top. That move is already likely as evident in the tearful remarks of Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s head of legal, policy and trust, to her staff this week. Gadde, like Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, is notorious in the free speech community for her record of censorship, including her role in banning Donald Trump as well as the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop. Taking over as CEO and immediately removing such figures will have a clear impact. However, new measures should also include publishing the algorithms and finally achieving transparency in the decision-making at Twitter over content. This should also include a full accounting of any means used in the past to control online discussions, including throttling or shadow banning. 3. Shift from site moderation to individual filters. The adoption of the First Amendment standard is not perfect. This is a private site that can be sued for a variety of postings from copyright and trademark violations to privacy violations to criminal threats. Moreover, many sites bar the use of racist or offensive terms in comments. That is necessary since all readers are exposed to the comment section. Twitter is different. It can adopt a general free speech platform model while allowing individuals to apply specific filters to block racist terms or profane language. Free speech includes the right to readers to choose what they read. The key is that the decision can be left to readers rather than imposed by the company. Just as you can walk away from speakers in the town square, you can choose what you read. You can also choose to read more broadly. Twitter can leave such decisions in the hands of the consumer. 4. Shift away from ad revenue. The next campaign is predictable. Liberals will likely target advertisers to boycott Twitter. Advocates have already shown that they can prevail on corporations to yield to such campaigns. Many are concerned that Musk could be proven right that consumers want more freedom despite campaigns by companies like Facebook to get them to embrace censorship. If Twitter grows in size and profits it will only add pressure to companies like Facebook that continue to undermine their own product through censorship. Advocates will likely seek to attack Twitter’s profits to discourage other companies from embracing free speech. Notably, Musk has already expressed a desire to have fewer ads and rely more on subscription revenue. That will not only be aesthetically more pleasing but can insulate the site from the inevitable cancel campaign. 5. Protect against Surrogate State Censors. As it became more likely that Musk could buy Twitter, there was a notable shift in the comments of pro-censorship figures. Hillary Clinton, who has long been viewed as hostile to free speech values, went to Twitter to call on the European Union to quickly pass the Digital Services Act in Europe to force censorship “before it’s too late.” That time table appears to be the Musk takeover when the public will suddenly have a free speech alternative to the once solid alliance of censorship among social media companies. Since figures like Clinton cannot count on corporate surrogates to censor, they are returning to good old-fashioned state censorship. If the DSA is passed, they hope to force Twitter to resume censoring material – a warning echoed by EU officials this week. Congress needs to act to blunt such an attack on American companies seeking to restore free speech values. At the same time, the United Kingdom is pushing its own Online Safety Act and recently Musk was summoned to Parliament to answer for his alarming suggestion of restoring free speech on social media. The British are assuring citizens to “stay calm and censor on” despite Musk’s pledge. It is threatening to take ten percent of the company’s profits if Musk does not censor users. Musk will have to create firewall or siloed systems for countries forcing censorship. These systems should post tweets with a warning that these users are being subjected to national censorship standards while protecting U.S. users from having their free speech reduced to the lower common denominator. These challenges are difficult but pale in comparison to reinventing space travel. The greatest asset that Musk brings to Twitter beyond a deep pocket and deep faith in free speech is his legendary creativity. He tends to focus on a horizon rather than the obstacles or opponents before him. Free speech remains a horizonal ideal but one that is attainable for someone with unflagging commitment and creativity. This could be the ultimate “moon shot” for Musk to bring free speech back to the Internet.
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.
NYT Slammed Over Stealth-Edited, Race-Baiting Musk Smear The New York Times has come under fire for an absurd hit-piece on Elon Musk which suggests that because he "grew up in a bubble of white privilege" in South Africa, he's just fine with racist or other 'toxic' content on Twitter, which they frame as 'unchecked speech.' After the 'paper of record' began catching flack for their race-baiting smear (and perhaps after a call from Musk's legal team), they stealth-edited the article to add distance and suggest that musk may or may not have been influenced by South Africa's history (but either way he's a white guy who grew up in South Africa 'so make of that what you will'). Some editing going on this afternoon https://t.co/3kQSgPW0Y5 pic.twitter.com/SGFQLNJIO9 — Tom Gara (@tomgara) May 5, 2022 No editor’s note about changes to the body of the text. Kind of unprofessional? pic.twitter.com/pQZjhCg4Ko — Brian Gallagher (@bsgallagher) May 5, 2022 The Wall Street Journal's Elliot Kaufman slammed the Times, tweeting "It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech." It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech. https://t.co/msvk9S2gJN — Elliot Kaufman (@ElliotKaufman6) May 5, 2022 Kaufman wasn't the only one... How do they come to the conclusion that apartheid South Africa showed "the dangers of unchecked speech"? The apartheid government DEFINITELY censored the news and intimidated dissenters into silence. Yet the NYT argues that apartheid South Africa needed LESS free speech? — Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) May 5, 2022 Unacknowledged stealth edits strike yet again — nic carter (@nic__carter) May 5, 2022 The propaganda being used to attack @elonmusk because he’s buying @twitter truly is breathtaking. Look at this @nytimes headline. It’s truly Orwellian. pic.twitter.com/k0WWPKTCSl — Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 5, 2022 And once again a formerly respected mainstream outlet beclowns itself in an effort to attack an ideological opponent.
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.
Is Twitter "Burning The Evidence" By Unshackling Conservative Accounts? https://www.projectveritas.com/investigation/twitter/ 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. 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 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 @NBCNews: It wasn’t bots. Apolitical users fled. Right-wing users joined.https://t.co/gxBWpxq1uG — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) 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? pic.twitter.com/9Mso48qyNP — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) 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) 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) April 26, 2022 +/- Twitter followers since the Elon Twitter announcement: @aoc - 27,641 followers@maddow -18,648 followers@StephenAtHome -21,460 followers@mattgaetz +24,929 followers@DineshDSouza +41,945 followers@RepMTG +41,181 followers — Barry Rubin (@barubin) 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) April 25, 2022 Weird. I just lost more than 8,000 followers in the last couple of hours. Was it something I said? https://t.co/TS3vwDephc — Mark Hamill (@MarkHamill) 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) 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 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: 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.” Elon Musk is, of course, completely aware of the evidence pointing to shadow banning: shadow ban council reviewing tweet … pic.twitter.com/cawjtwc7CW — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 23, 2022 If you want the context for this based meme— enjoy @Timcast and @joerogan shredding Twitter to their faces over left-wing bias pic.twitter.com/O8nwR5FQCj — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) 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) 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) 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) 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) April 19, 2022 What are talking about? I’m just saying Twitter needs to be politically neutral. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022
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?
https://www.projectveritas.com/investigation/twitter/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja3cPPL3lks LEAKED_RAW_AUDIO_-_Full_Twitter_All-Hands_Call_04-25-22
"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.'
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.
the left?
Abruptly leftists
leftists?
And what happened to the Left's former worship of Musk
ah so 'the left' (i.e. US jewnazi scum) are the very best friends of musko(US jewnazi scum). Shocking.
Or Musk, the patriot who is providing free next-generation internet service to the underdog Ukrainians fighting Russians for their lives?
yes, musko is a pentagon puppet.
No matter. The Left
the left?
But how did the once free-speech, anti-trust, let-it-all-hang out Left
the left? free speech? 'anti trust'?
After all, left-wing Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook
OK, so the jewnazis who are in the top 10 ranking of biggest US CAPITALIST THIEVES are 'the left' Looks like non human scum like hanson and anonymous coward grancrap are not even worth the bullet used to blow their brains up.
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.
Time Columnist Denounces Free Speech As A White Man's "Obsession" https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/01/why-does-musk-care-so-much-about-this-... https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3472471-bidens-mary-poppins-of-disinfo... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/04/china-was-right-academics-and-democrat... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/28/the-first-amendment-option-an-easy-way... It has become depressingly common to read unrelenting attacks on free speech in the Washington Post and other newspapers. The anti-free speech movement has been embraced by Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, as well as academics who now claim “China was right” on censorship. However, a Time magazine column by national correspondent Charlotte Alter was still shocking in how mainstream anti-free speech views have become. Alter denounces free speech as basically a white man’s “obsession.” What is most striking about the column is Alter’s apparent confusion over why anyone like Musk would even care about the free speech of others. She suggests that Musk is actually immoral for spending money to restore free speech rather than on social welfare or justice issues. She suggests that supporting free speech is some disgusting extravagance like buying Fabergé eggs. “Why does Musk care so much about this? Why would a guy who has pushed the boundaries of electric-vehicle manufacturing and plumbed the limits of commercial space flight care about who can say what on Twitter?” The answer, not surprisingly, is about race and privilege. Alter cites Jason Goldman, who was an early figure shaping the Twitter censorship policies before he joined the Obama administration. Goldman declared, “free speech has become an obsession of the mostly white, male members of the tech elite” who “would rather go back to the way things were.” Alter also cites professor of communication at Stanford University Fred Turner who explains that free speech is just “a dominant obsession with the most elite… [and] seems to be much more of an obsession among men.” In arguing in favor of censorship, Alter engages in a heavy use of historical revisionism, claiming that “‘free speech’ in the 21st century means something very different than it did in the 18th, when the Founders enshrined it in the Constitution. The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform. This nuance seems to be lost on some techno-wizards who see any restriction as the enemy of innovation.” It is also lost on me. Censorship has always been based on the notion that the underlying speech was false or harmful. Calling it “disinformation” does not materially change the motivation or the impact. What Alter calls a “Tech Bro obsession” was the obsession of the Framers. Alter is confusing free speech values with the rationale for the First Amendment. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly. Key free speech figures practiced what they preached in challenged friends and foes alike. After playing a critical role with our independence, Thomas Paine did nothing but irritate the Framers with his words, including John Adams, who called him a “crapulous mass.” Yet, free speech was a defining value for the framers (despite Adams’ later attacks on the right). It was viewed as the very growth plate of democracy. As Benjamin Franklin stated in a letter on July 9, 1722: “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” The same anti-free speech voices were heard back then as citizens were told to fear free speech. It viewed as a Siren’s call for tyranny. Franklin stated: “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to publick traytors.” Yet, Alter assures readers that this is just due to a lack of knowledge by Musk and a misunderstanding of why censorship is a natural and good thing: “Tech titans often have a different understanding of speech than the rest of the world because most trained as engineers, not as writers or readers, and a lack of a humanities education might make them less attuned to the social and political nuances of speech.” It appears that Alter’s humanities education in college allows her to see “nuances” that escape the rest of us, including some of us who are not “trained as engineers.” Indeed, James Madison warned us to be more on guard against such nuanced arguments: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” As Time, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other media outlets align themselves with the anti-free speech movement, it is more important than ever for citizens fight for this essential right. There is nothing nuanced in either this movement or its implications for this country.
"Twitter Does Not Believe In Free Speech": Senior Engineer On Hidden Cam Says Company Is "Commie As Fuck" https://www.projectveritas.com/news/twitter-senior-engineer-talks-elon-musk-... https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/twitter_does_not_believe_in_fre... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/ A senior Twitter engineer caught on hidden camera in another Project Veritas operation confirmed that the whole company is "commie as fuck," and "does not believe in free speech." Siru Murugesan also told the undercover journalist that Elon Musk's intended purchase of the company has caused employees to start "stress-eating" and become "worried for our jobs." "Our jobs are at stake; he's a capitalist and we weren't really operating as capitalists, more like very socialist," he said, adding "we're all like commie as fuck." As the American Thinker's Andrea Widburg notes: Murugesan is an interesting man because he concedes two important things: (1) working at Twitter has turned him into a leftist because that’s the mindset of the entire company and (2) he’s beginning to think Elon Musk is making sense when he says that free speech is important. Murugesan’s open-mindedness may flow from the fact that he’s been experiencing some cognitive dissonance. According to Murugesan, it’s unquestionable that “Twitter does not believe in free speech.” However, he hasn’t quite grasped that this hostility to free speech is about power and control. Instead, Murugesan attributes it to Twitter’s (and Facebook’s and Instagram’s) unwillingness to allow “bullying and harassment” on the site. As he understands it, free speech is all about preventing “bullying and harassment.” According to Murugesan, Twitter employees did all they could to "revolt against" Musk's takeover. "We did all we could to like revolt against it. A lot of employees were revolting against it, but at the end of the day, the board of directors have the say," he said, adding that he thought the board "… acted on their best interests ‘cause they didn't want to get sued…. they’re always looking out for themselves at the end of the day." Watch: <br /> More via American Thinker: Murugesan goes on to note that he realizes that something is wrong here: Ideologically, it does not make sense like, because we’re actually censoring the right and not the left. So, everyone on the right wing will be like, “Bro, it’s okay to say it; just gotta tolerate it.” The left will be like, “No, I’m not gonna tolerate it. I need it censored or else I’m not gonna be on the platform.” So, it does that on [to] the right. It’s true. There is bias. It is what it is today. In other words, conservatives are willing to engage in the give and take of an open society with free speech. Leftists, however, hate that and will shut it down for everyone. Another interesting insight Murugesan offers into the Twitter environment is that it’s not run in a businesslike fashion. He’s been working four hours a week for some time and is bestirring himself to work more only because a promotion will net him a big salary increase, a necessary thing because inflation is affecting him. Murugesan notes that other colleagues have absented themselves for months because they needed mental health breaks. Murugesan describes this disinterest in the bottom line as part of Twitter’s socialist, even communist, ethos. This disinterest in the bottom line may also lend credence to a theory that Sundance, at The Conservative Treehouse, has raised in the past: Twitter’s model is not set up to make a profit, leading him to believe that it’s actually being sponsored by the United States government. Again, the Project Veritas video doesn’t tell us anything we haven’t already figured out on our own. Nevertheless, it’s still enormously satisfying to have our suspicions and conclusions confirmed. And it certainly makes me hope that Elon Musk has only paused his takeover, rather than abandoning it. Twitter, and America, need more free speech; not less.
"Twitter Does Not Believe In Free Speech": Senior Engineer On Hidden Cam Says Company Is "Commie As Fuck" https://www.projectveritas.com/news/twitter-senior-engineer-talks-elon-musk-...
Federal Judge Dismisses Fraud And Defamation Lawsuit Against Elon Musk Amid Week Of Controversy https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-dismisses-fraud-and-defamation-l... A federal judge in California dismissed a securities fraud and defamation lawsuit filed by a Tesla investor against Tesla Inc., the company’s CEO Elon Musk, and a Musk supporter on May 19. Elon Musk attends the opening ceremony of the new Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide, Germany, on March 22, 2022. (Patrick Pleul/Pool via Reuters) Judge James Donato threw out the lawsuit by the investor, Aaron Greenspan, a legal document website owner, after noting that the lawsuit had no legally plausible claims. Greenspan had alleged that Omar Qazi, a Musk fan, made a series of defamatory tweets that made baseless accusations against him, and asserted that the tweets were part of a conspiracy campaign of 80,000 coordinated tweets that praised Tesla and attacked its critics. Qazi had previously called Greenspan’s allegations “absurd,” and Tesla’s attorneys have disputed Greenspan’s allegations as baseless conspiracy theories. Donato had previously dismissed the case, which was originally filed in 2020, back in June, but he gave Greenspan the opportunity to file another complaint on federal legal issues. The judge ruled that claims such as defamation made under California law would be taken up later as warranted. Donato, in his order to dismiss, found that Greenspan failed to provide facts to support his allegations, or that Qazi acted as an agent of Tesla or Musk. Musk has lately been embroiled in controversy since his planned acquisition of Twitter, regarding statements criticizing the Biden administration and a claim of sexual harassment. The Tesla CEO on Thursday denied a report by Business Insider that he sexually harassed a flight attendant on a private jet in 2016, calling her a liar. “But I have a challenge to this liar who claims their friend saw me ‘exposed’—describe just one thing, anything at all (scars, tattoos, …) that isn’t known by the public. She won’t be able to do so, because it never happened,” Musk wrote in a tweet. Musk on May 18, in the middle of his effort to buy Twitter, said he would now vote Republican instead of Democrat. “In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party. But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican. Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold …,” he posted on Twitter. Tesla was removed this week from the S&P 500 ESG Index, which an index executive claimed was due to issues including accusations of racial discrimination within the company and crashes linked to its vehicles. Musk responded by calling the issue regarding the ESG ratings a “scam,” and questioned the reason behind why the index could drop his environmentally-friendly electric car company while promoting oil and gas producers. “Exxon is rated top ten best in world for environment, social & governance (ESG) by S&P 500, while Tesla didn’t make the list! ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors,” he wrote on Twitter. Tesla shares fell almost 9 percent at the end of the week, with $66 billion in stock market losses, putting its shares at their lowest level since last August. After some analysts alerted investors about “distraction risks” for Tesla regarding the Twitter deal, Musk assured shareholders and supporters on May 19 that his car company was constantly on his mind. Some Tesla and SpaceX employees complained that they were “a little bit rattled and angry,” as technology company employees tend to be very liberal. The hashtag #BoycottTesla was trending on Twitter this week, and several people claimed that they were canceling their Tesla orders. Bill Nelson, an administrator for NASA, which is working closely with Musk’s SpaceX to fly American astronauts into space, told Reuters that Musk has a strong team of executives at the spacecraft company, and that the agency’s partnership with the tech CEO was “going without a hitch.” Meanwhile, Elon Musk met with Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro Friday to discuss potential projects with the South American nation in the Amazon rainforest. The meeting was held in Sao Paulo state and organized by Communications Minister Fábio Faria, who said that the Brazilian government is seeking a partnership with Musk to build up internet access in schools and improve health facilities in rural areas using technology developed by his SpaceX and Starlink companies, and also to preserve the rainforest. Musk has accused his critics of playing politics after declaring his opposition to “woke” progressive policies. “The attacks against me should be viewed through a political lens—this is their standard (despicable) playbook—but nothing will deter me from fighting for a good future and your right to free speech,” Elon Musk posted. The tech CEO, with his typical sense of humor, quickly added: “Finally, we get to use Elongate as scandal name. It’s kinda perfect. 🤣 https://t.co/qSNH7lsn72″
"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.
On Sat, 21 May 2022 17:17:58 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
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,"
That is not disinformation at all. It includes the word "apparently", which allows the clinton cunt, or anybody else, to correctly disregard their own claim as 'wrong' if they need to.
Btw, I donated to & voted for Hillary, so am doubly pissed off — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2022
see, that's the real info though. It shockinly turns out that the musko technonazi, non human turd is a 'lefty' 'democrat'. poor grancrap.
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.
An Israeli tech firm has estimated that up to 12% of Twitter users are ‘bots’. Moreover, Pew research says the top 10% of tweeters account for 92% of all tweets, of which 69% are Democrats and only 26% Republicans. Expect to see more from Elon Musk ‘on Twitter’.
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.
May FreeSpeech and Truth prevail over Censorship and Abusive Corrupt Monopolitical Force... "Unjustifiable" - Musk Lawyers Move To Delay "Warp Speed" Twitter Trial Three days after Twitter sued Elon Musk to force him to buy the company, the world's richest man has responded with a request to delay the "meritless" and "breakneck speed" case until next year. Twitter asked the court to expedite the proceedings, requesting a trial by mid-September, citing risks from the recent economic downturn and being held in limbo by a buyer: “to protect Twitter and its stockholders from the continuing market risk and operational harm resulting from Musk’s attempt to bully his way out of an airtight merger agreement.” Today, in a 14-page filing, WSJ reports that Musk’s lawyers called Twitter’s request an unjustifiable “bid for extreme expedition.” Musk is requesting a Feb. 13, 2023, trial at the earliest, noting Twitter's request is “an extremely rapid schedule for a case of this enormous magnitude." In Friday’s filing, Mr. Musk’s lawyers said: “The core dispute over false and spam accounts is fundamental to Twitter’s value. It is also extremely fact and expert intensive, requiring substantial time for discovery.” Mr. Musk’s lawyers argued that “it is unnecessary to resolve these weighty considerations on a breakneck schedule” and asked for a trial date on or after Feb. 13 of next year, adding that the debt financing was valid until April 25, 2023. Twitter was rushing to court after “a two-month treasure hunt of delays, technical bottlenecks, evasive answers, and, ultimately, refusals,” Mr. Musk’s lawyers said in the filing. They added that Twitter was trying to “shroud the truth” over fake accounts on the service, an issue that Mr. Musk has made central to his desire to pull out of the deal. NYTimes reports that, in the legal filing, Mr. Musk’s lawyers reiterated many of the same arguments they had made earlier this month when the billionaire said he intended to terminate the deal. Twitter did not conduct a rigorous count of fake accounts and stymied Mr. Musk’s efforts to understand how spam was tallied, the filing said. “In a May 6 meeting with Twitter executives, Musk was flabbergasted to learn just how meager Twitter’s process was,” Musk’s lawyers wrote. “Human reviewers randomly sampled 100 accounts per day (less than 0.00005% of daily users) and applied unidentified standards to somehow conclude every quarter for nearly three years that fewer than 5% of Twitter users were false or spam. That’s it. No automation, no AI, no machine learning.” Mr. Musk’s side also took issue with other elements of the Twitter suit, including the company’s assertion that the billionaire had disparaged the business he was planning to buy. “With the sense of humor of a bot, Twitter claims that Musk is damaging the company with tweets like a Chuck Norris meme and a poop emoji. Twitter ignores that Musk is its second largest shareholder with a far greater economic stake than the entire Twitter board,” the filing states. The case is Twitter v. Musk, 22-0613, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington), and we suspect, given the already boisterous rhetoric, that this is going to be a long and protected legal battle. A judge will hear arguments on Tuesday at 11am for Twitter's request for a September trial.
lawl, what is the insane turd grancrap babbling about? Elono musko is going to TAKE OVER TWATTER !!!
Given Twitter et al's alleged partnership with the Political Censorship Regime (see court cases), it would not be surprising if it was discovered that Twitter accepted compensation for contracting / permitting / allowing / ignoring the bot agents. Judge Orders Twitter To Provide Elon Musk With Executive Documents On Fake Accounts https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/judge-orders-twitter-give-elon-musk-fo... Under a recent court order, Twitter is now required to provide Elon Musk with access to documents compiled by a former executive that Musk says is a key figure in calculating the number of fake accounts that permeate the platform. The executive, former General Manager of Consumer Product Kayvon Beykpour, quickly disappeared from the halls of Twitter in April of this year when it was announced that Musk would be seeking to purchase the company. Beykpour was described in Musk's court filings as one of the executives "most intimately involved with" determining the amount of spam and bot accounts on Twitter. Though the court denied Musk access to 21 other people involved in the company, it would appear that the battle over the social media giant is just beginning. Musk has accused Twitter of misrepresenting their user numbers, which they claimed only made up around 5% of their total traffic. Musk asserted that the amount of bots was much higher, and noted that Twitter seemed to be stalling access to vital data while trying to rush litigation in a bid to force a sale before the company had to relinquish all the required information. Suspicions on Twitter's user numbers have been growing for some time. Twitter changed the way it manages and calculates such numbers in 2019 as their users began to decline. The company has suffered ongoing profit losses in recent years - In 2020 the company faced a net income loss of over $1.14 billion. In 2021 there was an income loss of $221 million. Twitter still claims it earns a profit, but this is primarily derived from stock buybacks and state and federal government subsidies. It is possible that the amount of data that Musk has received is enough to support claims that the company is built on a foundation of sand and that it has a high rate of fake accounts? If true, shares in Twitter could suffer a precipitous decline. Could the company be trying to compel Musk to finish his buyout before fake user numbers are fully exposed? Stay tuned...
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..."
Dem Lawmakers Investigating Twitter Whistleblower's Explosive Claims https://www.theepochtimes.com/lawmakers-investigating-twitter-whistleblowers... https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_federal_regulators_on_... https://energycommerce.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/pallone-opening-rem... Congressional lawmakers are probing allegations made by Twitter's former chief of security in an explosive whistleblower complaint that includes claims of deception related to data security and privacy and misleading tech entrepreneur Elon Musk about the number of bots on the platform. Peiter Zatko, the whistleblower who served as Twitter's head of security for about 14 months before being fired earlier this year, asserted in a disclosure obtained by The Epoch Times that Twitter's security and privacy systems were grossly inadequate and that the company misled regulators, investors, and Musk about fake "spam" bots on the platform. While Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal has called Zatko's claims a "false narrative," U.S. lawmakers appear determined to make up their own minds and are investigating. `Serious Concerns' Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that he is looking into Zatko's allegations. “The whistleblower’s allegations of widespread security failures at Twitter, willful misrepresentations by top executives to government agencies, and penetration of the company by foreign intelligence raise serious concerns," he said. “As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue investigating this issue and take further steps as needed to get to the bottom of these alarming allegations,” he said, adding that if the whistleblower's claims are accurate, there may be "dangerous" risks for Twitter users in terms of data privacy and security. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter (pdf) to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice expressing "significant concerns" about the whistleblower's allegations. “According to Peiter Zatko, Twitter’s former head of security, Twitter has systematically and repeatedly failed to take basic security measures to protect its user data and has misled investors, regulators, and the public about the strength of its security systems,” Markey said in a statement. Markey added that Zatko's allegations suggest that Twitter has again "flagrantly violated" its consent decree with the FTC, just months after the company agreed to pay a $150 million penalty for failing to keep Twitter users' data secure. "I strongly urge the federal government to investigate Zatko’s claims and, if necessary, take strong and swift action against Twitter to ensure Twitter user data is properly protected,” the senator wrote. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement that he was "carefully reviewing this whistleblower disclosure and assessing next steps." "These allegations are alarming and reaffirm the need to pass my comprehensive privacy legislation to protect Americans’ online data," Pallone added, referring to the American Data Privacy and Protection Act that he co-sponsored. Several other lawmakers have issued similar statements. Twitter officials didn't respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment on Zatko's claims. parag-agrawalparag-agrawal Parag Agrawal, CEO of Twitter, walks to a morning session during the Allen & Co. Sun Valley Conference in Idaho, on July 7, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) `False Narrative' Twitter spokesperson Anna Hughes was cited by The Washington Post as saying that Zatko's complaint seems to contain "inconsistencies and inaccuracies" and takes things out of context. “Mr. Zatko’s allegations and opportunistic timing appear designed to capture attention and inflict harm on Twitter, its customers and its shareholders,” she said, according to the outlet. Agrawal also pushed back on Zatko's claims, reportedly writing in a message to staff that was shared on social media by CNN's Donie O'Sullivan that the whistleblower's complaint appears to be a "false narrative that is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and presented without important context." "We will pursue all paths to defend our integrity as a company and set the record straight," Agrawal wrote. Key Takeaways from Whistleblower Complaint Zatko claims that, despite Twitter agreeing in its settlement with the FTC to put in place stronger data security protections, the situation over time actually became worse. His complaint alleges that Twitter's internal systems let far too many employees access users' personal data that they didn't need for their jobs, opening the door to potential abuse. Experts who were deeply familiar with Twitter's problems with the FTC told Zatko "unequivocally that Twitter had never been in compliance with the 2011 FTC Consent Order, and was not on track to ever achieve full compliance," the complaint reads. Zatko's disclosure also claims that Twitter had difficulty identifying—much less restricting—the presence of foreign agents on its platform, while alleging that Chinese entities gave money to Twitter, raising concerns that these entities could access sensitive information about Twitter users. The complaint also claims Twitter experienced server vulnerabilities, alleging that over 50 percent of Twitter's 500,000 data center servers had kernels or operating systems that were non-compliant and many had problems with encryption. An image of Elon Musk is seen on smartphone placed on printed Twitter logos in this picture illustration taken on April 28, 2022. (Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters) Zatko's complaint also states that Musk, who's embroiled in a legal fight with Twitter over his backing out of a deal to buy the platform for $44 billion, was right in claiming that Twitter executives have little incentive to carry out accurate measurements of the amount of fake accounts and spam bots on the platform. “Senior management had no appetite to properly measure the prevalence of bot accounts,” Zatko's complaint states. It alleges that Twitter executives were concerned that accurate bot counts would be damaging to Twitter's “image and valuation.” Zatko's disclosure also includes the allegation that the true number of spam accounts and bots on Twitter is probably "meaningfully higher" that the 5 percent of daily monetizable users that the social media firm claims. Key to Musk's backing out of the buyout agreement is his claim that Twitter's longstanding position that spam accounts and bots make up fewer than 5 percent of monetizable daily users is a fallacy. Twitter has repeatedly insisted that its 5 percent estimate is accurate. The two sides are scheduled to go to trial in October in a Delaware court, with experts saying Zatko's disclosure could give Musk's legal team more ammunition in their legal fight against Twitter.
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."
“They would rather self-immolate than give up their censorship programs. This shows you how deeply committed they are to Orwellian control of the narratives and global discourse. Scary,”
Fri Oct 28 2022 The corrupt US Left and Deep State are now in a huge crypuddle after Musk was finally able to drop his huge counterbalance MOAB in place. One of the Regime's primary election fraud and psychological programming platforms gets 0wn3d out from under them. "Bye Bye! -- Donald Trump" "Fuck them all in their fucking faces! -- John McAfee" "Fuck yes! -- Lots" Too bad Jack Dorsey weasled out the door before getting the boot in his ass for his Supreme Commander role at the top of it all. The entire Free Speech Internet celebrates a major win. Yet as in history, beware... whatever central powers do next is usually worse. And most of Twitter's employees have scurried off like roaches to infest and shore up other central garbage platforms of the Regime. News from the sink... The Firings Begin: Twitter CEO, CFO, & Top Censor Escorted Out As the bell tolls for the end of the first chapter of Twitter's life as a deep state narrative-enabling machine, the firings have begun with Musk becoming 'Chief Twit'. Just minutes after the world's richest man has reportedly closed the $44 billion deal, The NYTimes reports that, according to sources that declined to be identified, the Twitter executives who were fired include: Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief executive, Ned Segal, the chief financial officer, Sean Edgett, the general counsel, and Vijaya Gadde, the top legal and policy executive, (or censorship czar). We suspect she was first on the list given this tweet from Musk earlier in the year... pic.twitter.com/1CE7rjBrNH — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2022 As a reminder, 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. And we are not surprised at the others... In all seriousness, imagine being such an arrogant, incompetent, entitled litttle wokester that your pissy texts provoked the richest man on earth to buy your employer just so he could fire you in his first act as owner. pic.twitter.com/NjpCOB9gbM — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 28, 2022 At least one of the executives who was fired was escorted out of Twitter’s office, NYTimes reports. Please do not feel too bad for these poor, dejected executives, as Insider reports, through "change in control" provisions in employment contracts for top leadership, they will receive a certain amount of severance and an automatic acceleration of their shares, so long as Musk fires them. The provisions are disclosed in regulatory filings. Agrawal is set to receive the largest payout of $38.7 million, due largely to the entirety of his shares vesting upon his firing. Segal is set to receive a $25.4 million payout for getting fired. Gadde will leave with $12.5 million. As we detailed earlier, over 1,100 employees have left Twitter since Musk announced his intention to buy the company back in January, with almost a third going to Google or Meta. The figures come from a new analysis of LinkedIn data, with the report noting that other workers have moved to the likes of Pinterest, LinkedIn, Snap, and TikTok. We suspect, as Elon warned, it's sinking now for some... Will we see this tomorrow?
News from the bathroom sink... Musk Calls 'Lords & Peasants' Blue Check System 'Bullshit' - Will Charge $8 Per Month After new Twitter owner Elon Musk responded to a temper tantrum by leftist horror author Stephen King over a rumored $20 per month charge to keep one's coveted 'blue check' status symbol on the platform, Musk has clarified what's going to happen; it'll be $8 per month (or $96 per year, or an inverted 69). We need to pay the bills somehow! Twitter cannot rely entirely on advertisers. How about $8? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2022 In a series of Tuesday tweets, Musk said "Twitter’s current lords & peasants system for who has or doesn’t have a blue checkmark is bullshit." "Power to the people! Blue for $8/month," he added. Twitter’s current lords & peasants system for who has or doesn’t have a blue checkmark is bullshit. Power to the people! Blue for $8/month. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2022 He then tweeted that prices 'by country' would be proportionate to purchasing power, and added that subscribers will receive 'priority in replies, mentions & search," and the "ability to post long video & audio" as well as "Half as many ads." You will also get: - Priority in replies, mentions & search, which is essential to defeat spam/scam - Ability to post long video & audio - Half as many ads — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2022 This will also give Twitter a revenue stream to reward content creators — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2022 Earlier Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Twitter would be ending the ability for Twitter Blue subscribers to access ad-free articles from publishers. Twitter Blue is a roughly year-old monthly subscription that offers premium features, such as an “undo tweet” option and access to ad-free articles from hundreds of publishers, including Vox, Los Angeles Times and Insider. The move comes as the company’s new owner, Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk, makes sweeping changes from high-profile firings to product updates since closing the $44 billion deal last week. Tuesday morning, Sarah Personette, Twitter’s chief customer officer, said on Twitter that she resigned on Friday. -WSJ No word on whether verified users will have 90 days to sign up for the $8 service or lose their coveted 'blue checks.' Last week former Twitter CFO suggested people would be willing to pay $49/month, and if not, shouldn't have been verified in the first place. None of these answers are high enough. People will pay $49/mth & if they won’t they should not have been verified to begin with. Perhap a better model is to charge a base verification fee then a per follower fee above a certain scale. Both ideas create many 2nd order benefits. — Anthony Noto (@anthonynoto) October 31, 2022 * * * Fans of Star Trek: The Next Generation may recall the episode where extra-dimensional dickhead "Q" is stripped of his powers for spreading chaos throughout the universe. Well, Elon Musk just did that to Twitter's content moderation thought police with just weeks to go before midterms - cutting the number of employees who can access censorship tools from hundreds to around 15 people last week, and reducing their ability to influence discussion on the platform. According to Bloomberg, Musk and his 'war cabinet' have frozen some employee access to internal tools used for content moderation and the enforcement of other policies, neutering staff's abilities to 'alter or penalize accounts that break rules around misleading information, offensive posts and hate speech.' They also won't be able to banish highly credentialed doctors and researchers posting divergent Covid-19 narratives. All but the most 'high-impact violations set for manual review' will remain on the platform, according to people familiar with the matter. Twitter staff use dashboards, known as agent tools, to carry out actions like banning or suspending an account that is deemed to have breached policy. Detection of policy breaches can either be flagged by other Twitter users or detected automatically, but taking action on them requires human input and access to the dashboard tools. Those tools have been suspended since last week, the people said. This restriction is part of a broader plan to freeze Twitter’s software code to keep employees from pushing changes to the app during the transition to new ownership. Typically this level of access is given to a group of people numbering in the hundreds, and that was initially reduced to about 15 people last week, according to two of the people, who asked not to be named discussing internal decisions. Musk completed his $44 billion deal to take the company private on Oct. 27. -Bloomberg On Sunday,Twitter employees had limited access to the internal tools to police Brazil's presidential election. Meanwhile, the company is still using automated enforcement technology as well as third-party contractors. The restricted ability to restrict free speech has given Twitter's Trust and Safety Team the vapors - with employees worried that the company will be short-handed during the runup to the Nov. 8 midterm election. Recall the Trust and Safety Team was headed by now-fired Vijaya Gadde - who would have had a large role (perhaps even the final decision) to ban ZeroHedge in February, 2020 for suggesting that Covid-19 was the result of a lab leak (and that we 'doxxed' a Wuhan lab employee using publicly available data - aka not doxxing). Photo via Latestfinancenews Internally, employees say, Musk has raised questions about a number of the policies, and has zeroed in on a few specific rules that he wants the team to review. The first is Twitter’s general misinformation policy, which penalizes posts that include falsehoods about topics like election outcomes and Covid-19. Musk wants the policy to be more specific, according to people familiar with the matter. Musk has also asked the team to review Twitter’s hateful conduct policy, according to the people, specifically a section that says users can be penalized for “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.” -Bloomberg On Monday, Yoel Roth, Twitter's head of safety and integrity, tweeted on Monday that the company was addressing an increase in offensive posts. "Since Saturday, we’ve been focused on addressing the surge in hateful conduct on Twitter. We’ve made measurable progress, removing more than 1500 accounts and reducing impressions on this content to nearly zero," he wrote, adding "We’re primarily dealing with a focused, short-term trolling campaign."
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.”
Twitter still has not announced their new policy to accept signups via tor.onion without phone or email and payment deposit via privacy coins. Centralized Paid Twitter could require ~15-20 years to payoff buyout. Distributed encrypted p2p and crypto services come free for life with just your ISP connection which is also soon to become free P2P. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://twitter.com/yoyoel Gadde booted, meet Twitter's new Censorship Czar Non-Voluntary Brutal-Force LefSoc AOC gets spanked Now just who is a "Public Figure", I exist, in Public. Elon Musk @elonmusk Advertisers should support: 78% Freedom of speech 22% Political “correctness” 2,754,020 votes • Final results David Sacks @DavidSacks The entitled elite is not mad that they have to pay $8/month. They’re mad that anyone can pay $8/month. Erik Voorhees @ErikVoorhees Let's remember that @elonmusk charging $8 for premium Twitter experience means Twitter becomes the product again, instead of you. And if $8 is too much, you're free to remain as the product. Elon Musk Trolls AOC After Democratic Rep's Twitter Temper Tantrum There's no more fitting forum for Elon Musk to be trolling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than his newly purchased social media platform, Twitter. Yesterday, AOC took to the platform (ironic, right?) to voice her opinion about Musk's planned changes to the company's business model. Putting aside the fact that Twitter is now a private company and AOC has both zero knowledge of the laws of economics as well as zero say on how the business can and should operate, new "Chief Twit" Elon Musk decided to entertain her critiques nonetheless. The beef started Tuesday, when AOC Tweeted in response to Elon Musk's plan to charge $8 per month for Twitter Blue. "Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that “free speech” is actually a $8/mo subscription plan," she wrote. To which Musk, whose Twitter bio has now labeled him as "Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator" and his location as "Hell", dryly responded: "Your feedback is appreciated, now pay $8." Twitter will still be free for most users, but Musk is implementing changes (among massive layoffs) that will see customers charged the monthly fee in order to maintain the current benefits of Twitter Blue and keep their blue "verification" checkmarks. "One guy’s business plan for a $44 billion over-leveraged purchase is apparently to run around and individually ask people for $8. Remember that next time you question yourself or your qualifications," AOC Tweeted out yesterday in response to Musk. Musk then took a jab at AOC for selling $58 sweatshirts on her campaign website. 🤔 pic.twitter.com/XuJdfMTTi1 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 AOC responded: "Proud of this and always will be. My workers are union, make a living wage, have full healthcare, and aren’t subject to racist treatment in their workplaces. Items are made in USA." Shortly thereafter, AOC complained about her Twitter notifications "conveniently" not working: "Also my Twitter mentions/notifications conveniently aren’t working tonight, so I was informed via text that I seem to have gotten under a certain billionaire’s skin." "Just a reminder that money will never by [sic] your way out of insecurity, folks," she wrote shortly thereafter. We think this one Musk response says it best... pic.twitter.com/kGncG7Hs3M — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022
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
There’s No Reason All the Ads Can’t Just be MyPillow, Elon http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/theres... Andrew Anglin The Daily Stormer November 3, 2022 Advertisers should support: — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022 Elon Musk posted a poll to Twitter on Tuesday night asking if advertisers should support freedom of speech or political “correctness.” At the time of writing, 80% of over 1 million voters side with freedom of speech. Please note that this poll is happening under the current demographics of the site, where the majority of right-wingers have already been banned. If it was a poll of the general population, it would probably be 90/10, or even worse. Most people do not like this censorship regime. It’s a very small percentage of people, primarily Jews, people associated with the journalism profession, and people who are into vaccines. Normal people generally think that people should just be allowed to say what they think without being punished for thinking a certain way, even after a decade of propaganda about the threat of free speech. It’s possible Musk could go in a different direction than it appears, I guess. I don’t personally feel any need to give him the benefit of any doubts at this point, because the first week has been so very weird, and not inspired any confidence at all. The fact checks are pretty funny.
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.
Musk Purges Thousands - Leaks Damn The Previous Twitter https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/cltr/twitter-leaker-calls-workers-communis... A good measure of the value of an employee to a company is if their absence makes things more difficult for everyone else, or their absence is barely noticed. If an employee makes no difference and adds no value then there is no point in keeping them around. Twitter is quickly becoming a blaring example of this issue. Alleged leaks from within the company suggest that most employees under previous management barely worked and are devout “communists” with a hatred of free speech. The leaks also claim that Twitter employees were far more concerned with censoring conservative voices than doing their jobs.
From comments made on social media by employees since Musk's takeover, it appears that these rumors are correct.
For many years now Twitter has operated less like a company and more like a cult compound for leftist ideologues, with free lunches, yoga rooms, smoothie bars, wine bars, expresso bars, and minimal work buffered by pointless meetings and near zero productivity. The company runs a collectivist daycare for overgrown children; 7500 of them along with 5500 outside contractors. Musk fired at least 3500 primary staff members and it is also recently reported that he has purged at least 4500 outside contractors, many of them moderators tasked with filtering “misinformation”. Interestingly, Twitter users have not noticed much of a difference in terms of functionality for the platform despite the mass layoffs. The only difference has been the ability to speak more freely. Initial reports of the firings led people to speculate that Musk's actions might be “heavy handed” and that, surely, a lot of employees have nothing to do with the politically motivated side of the platform. However, employee comments suggest that an internal agenda to sabotage the site is underway, justified by purely political ideals, as well as angry reactions to basic responsibilities such as showing up to work for 40 hours a week. Musk's call for free speech on the platform has also elicited a flurry of vitriol, not only from former Twitter management but also a host of average workers. The mainstream media argues that Musk's firings of employees attacking his takeover is hypocritical because it runs contrary to his free speech ideals. This is a rather ignorant notion often employed by leftists as a means to undermine otherwise logical and legitimate measures by free speech advocates to protect themselves from subversion. Employees on the job do not have free speech rights, and are not protected from being fired if their goal is to throw a monkey wrench into the company's functionality or survivability. Employees are paid to do a specific job, and while opinions on the overall operation of the business might be valuable, these views should be expressed privately rather than as a vain attempt to engage in activism and get attention. In the past few years American culture has seen a complete degradation of work ethic that revolves around the idea that workers should have a collective say in the decisions and greater purpose of the company. It is most prevalent in Big Tech and it's a disaster that needs to be corrected. It's only been a few weeks since Twitter came under new ownership and the future of the company remains uncertain. There are millions of people expecting changes to happen quickly and expecting past wrongs to be righted immediately. These things take time and it will be interesting to see how Twitter develops in the coming months without the obsessively biased influence of political zealots. One thing that does provide hope is the employee layoffs. Very few if any of these people have offered anything but rage in response to Musk's plan for more free speech and it is clear that the site cannot move forward with such workers still attached. In other words, these people are getting exactly what they deserve, and it may be prudent for Elon Musk to fire almost everyone and relocate the Twitter HQ to another city and state in due course. In the meantime, watching censor-happy extremists lose their power and their positions of influence has been perhaps the most enjoyable part of this year so far.
“They would rather self-immolate than give up their censorship programs. This shows you how deeply committed they are to Orwellian control of the narratives and global discourse. Scary,”
It's happening, Libtards and Democrats literally burning their shit in vidposts as Trump and hundreds others finally being freed from LibDem twitter jail. A huge day for Free Speech. @JordanBPeterson freed. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/opinion/twitter-yoel-roth-elon-musk.html This account was censorbanned countless times for exposing shit... https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok
CBS Tries to Start Twitter Exit Movement to Punish Elon Musk for Doing Whatever Andrew Anglin November 19, 2022 CBS News and its owned and operated stations are “pausing” activity on Twitter; blaming “uncertainty” on the platform. pic.twitter.com/Pv1gEQjQJH — Jim Lokay (@LokayFOX5) November 19, 2022 CBS News has announced that they are going to stop using Twitter in order to punish Elon Musk. However, it is not clear what they are trying to punish him for. Musk has said that he will not bring back Alex Jones, and Donald Trump’s comeback is dependent on a poll. These Jews are apparently freaking out over the concept of there being any platform on the internet that is not controlled by hardcore Democrat activists. Frankly, I think there was a plan when they decided to allow Musk to buy Twitter. They are going to destroy it somehow and start a clone, leaving Musk holding the bag. Or, at least that must be the plan. The tantrum from CBS and other Jews and women comes after Musk reinstated a few irrelevant accounts that were banned for using the wrong pronouns, including The Babylon Bee and Jordan Peterson. These people are so whiny. That’s maybe more offensive than the child sex agenda. They have a Jewish child sex agenda that involves doing anal on toddlers and sexually mutilating them, then they whine at everyone who they think wants to take that joy away from them. It’s like: “Mommy, they’re saying I can’t cut little boys’ dicks off anymore!” Activists project Elon Musk insults onto deserted Twitter HQ https://t.co/Nuf9eu12lb — The Independent (@Independent) November 19, 2022 Idk man, last time he was here this platform was used to incite an insurrection, multiple people died, the Vice President of the United States was nearly assassinated, and hundreds were injured but I guess that’s not enough for you to answer the question. Twitter poll it is https://t.co/TVEkEH7faR — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 19, 2022 Who died, you gross cunt? It was one person. What was her name? You have bad posture. This tweet appears to be accurate: Twitter then Twitter now pic.twitter.com/gfCVx53izu — Oriental Fury (@FuryOriental) November 19, 2022 If those white cunts are gone and it’s all just a bunch of Asian guys and one jolly nerd, why can’t Alex Jones come back? Is it because the ADL put him on a list, Elon?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1594500655724609536 Best ad ever ;)
Not only is Trump rightly back, now everyone is... Poor Libtards lost one of their biggest and most effective Censorship Steering and Preemption Regimes, their highly prized Mind Control Election Fraud Purveyance Machine, cry a fucking crypuddle, you fucks, payback is coming. @elonmusk Should Twitter offer a general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam? 72% Yes 28% No 3,162,112 votes - Final results 55,524 55,579 15,157 201,475 Elon Musk @elonmusk The people have spoken. Amnesty begins next week. Vox Populi, Vox Dei. 13,061 20,540 7,216 160,649
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: The Media's Deranged Hysteria Over Elon Musk's Promised Restoration Of Free Speech https://systemupdate.substack.com/p/the-medias-deranged-hysteria-over https://rumble.com/v1xbl8g-the-medias-deranged-hysteria-over-elon-musks-rest... https://greenwald.substack.com/p/former-intelligence-officials-citing https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-consortium-imposing-the-growing https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1596652992195088384 https://greenwald.locals.com/post/3068489/watch-the-debut-episode-of-our-pre... It was easy to predict that there would be an all-out war from Western power centers if Musk sought to mildly reduce censorship on Twitter. Still, the media outdid itself... It is hard to overstate how manic, primal and unhinged is the reaction of corporate media employees to the mere prospect that new Twitter owner Elon Musk may restore a modicum of greater free speech to that platform. It was easy to predict — back when Musk was merely toying with the idea of buying Twitter and loosening some of its censorship restrictions — that there would be an all-out attack from Western power centers if he tried. Online censorship has become one of the most potent propaganda weapons they possess, and there is no way they will allow anyone to dilute it even mildly without attempting to destroy them. Even with that expectation in place of what was to come, the liberal sector of the corporate media (by far the most dominant media sector) really outdid itself when it came to group-think panic, rhetorical excess, and reckless and shrill accusations. In unison, these media outlets decreed that not only would greater free speech on Twitter usher in the usual parade of horribles they trot out when demanding censorship — disinformation, hate speech, attacks on the “marginalized,” etc. etc. — but this time they severely escalated their rhetorical hysteria by claiming that Musk would literally cause mass murder by permitting a broader range of political opinion to be aired. The Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz even warned of supernatural demons that would be unleashed by these new free speech policies, as she talked to a handful of obviously neurotic pro-censorship “experts” and then wrote about these thinly disguised therapy sessions with those neurotics under this headline: “‘Opening the gates of hell’: Musk says he will revive banned accounts.” But the self-evident absurdity of this laughable meltdown and the ease of mocking it should not obscure that there are lurking within these episodes some genuinely insidious and serious dangers. These preposterous media employees are just the sideshow. But what they are doing, unwittingly or otherwise, is laying the groundwork for far less frivolous and more serious people to use the attacks on Musk to further fortify the regime of censorship they have been constructing: the limitlessly demonizing language heaped on him, the success they have already had in driving away many if not most corporate advertisers from Twitter, the threats to once again abuse the monopoly power of Google and Apple to destroy Twitter or at least cripple it if Musk does not comply with their censorship orders (as they succeeded in doing last year to the free speech site Parler when it became the most-downloaded app in the country and refused to censor on demand). To examine the media tactics being invoked, and to highlight the underlying conflicts among power centers at stake in this battle, we devoted our monologue to this topic as part of Friday night's episode of the pre-launch test-runs we are airing of our new live SYSTEM UPDATE program, soon to debut nightly on Rumble. As we explained last week, these test-run episodes are designed to air for now solely on the Locals platform, and are available for now exclusively to our Substack and Locals subscribers, in order to elicit feedback and help us perfect the show as we prepare for our debut on Rumble. The audience feedback we received after our first episode and the first interactive after-show we did was genuinely helpful, and we spent the week incorporating many of our audience's suggestions in order to elevate the quality of our program as we head toward our launch. But given the timeliness of our latest monologue to these still-unfolding events, as well as the fact that we were able to keep the test-run glitches to a minimum, we have posted this new full thirty-minute monologue on Rumble, for anyone to watch here. Reflecting the success we believe we can achieve in reaching a large new audience with our program, the number of viewers we attracted to that test-run show before the first full day has already exceeded 100,000: on a Saturday, over Thanksgiving weekend. As we always have done and will continue to do with all video broadcasts and video reporting we do, we have created and are posting a full transcript of the monologue for subscribers only, available below, for those who prefer to read rather than watch (though we do believe that the video component of the show allows us to use another dimension in conveying our reporting, one of the main reasons we committed to produce this new live program on Rumble). But for those who prefer to read, the transcript of our Musk analysis is below; those wishing to watch our new SYSTEM UPDATE monologue can do so by clicking this link and then watch the video on Rumble.
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.youtube.com/watch?v=cJiw_VpnGgk Musk on Twitter Dump https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598825403182874625 @elonmusk Here we go!! @mtaibbi 1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES
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.
Jack Dorsey, the Lefty SocCom CEO, was Fully Responsible for Twitter's Corrupt Campaign of Censorship and Election Manipulation Jack Dorsey Admits 'Biggest Mistake' Was Creating Authoritarian Censorship Toolbox Having had his little tête-à-tête with the current boss of Twitter - over Child abuse protection - the former boss of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, took to Twitter tonight to address a number of issues, including his take on The Twitter Files (which he appears to address as if he was an outsider) and his 'biggest mistake' as well. As a reminder, the current boss of Twitter had this to say recently about Dorsey's role in the past: Absolutely! The real CEO was the head of “Trust & Safety”. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2022 Jack Dorsey titled the blog post 'A native internet protocol for social media' (emphasis ours): There’s a lot of conversation around the #TwitterFiles. Here’s my take, and thoughts on how to fix the issues identified. I’ll start with the principles I’ve come to believe…based on everything I’ve learned and experienced through my past actions as a Twitter co-founder and lead: Social media must be resilient to corporate and government control. Only the original author may remove content they produce. Moderation is best implemented by algorithmic choice. The Twitter when I led it and the Twitter of today do not meet any of these principles. This is my fault alone, as I completely gave up pushing for them when an activist entered our stock in 2020. I no longer had hope of achieving any of it as a public company with no defense mechanisms (lack of dual-class shares being a key one). I planned my exit at that moment knowing I was no longer right for the company. The biggest mistake I made was continuing to invest in building tools for us to manage the public conversation, versus building tools for the people using Twitter to easily manage it for themselves. This burdened the company with too much power, and opened us to significant outside pressure (such as advertising budgets). I generally think companies have become far too powerful, and that became completely clear to me with our suspension of Trump’s account. As I’ve said before, we did the right thing for the public company business at the time, but the wrong thing for the internet and society. Much more about this here: I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct? — jack (@jack) January 14, 2021 I continue to believe there was no ill intent or hidden agendas, and everyone acted according to the best information we had at the time. Of course mistakes were made. But if we had focused more on tools for the people using the service rather than tools for us, and moved much faster towards absolute transparency, we probably wouldn’t be in this situation of needing a fresh reset (which I am supportive of). Again, I own all of this and our actions, and all I can do is work to make it right. Back to the principles. Of course governments want to shape and control the public conversation, and will use every method at their disposal to do so, including the media. And the power a corporation wields to do the same is only growing. It’s critical that the people have tools to resist this, and that those tools are ultimately owned by the people. Allowing a government or a few corporations to own the public conversation is a path towards centralized control. I’m a strong believer that any content produced by someone for the internet should be permanent until the original author chooses to delete it. It should be always available and addressable. Content takedowns and suspensions should not be possible. Doing so complicates important context, learning, and enforcement of illegal activity. There are significant issues with this stance of course, but starting with this principle will allow for far better solutions than we have today. The internet is trending towards a world were storage is “free” and infinite, which places all the actual value on how to discover and see content. Which brings me to the last principle: moderation. I don’t believe a centralized system can do content moderation globally. It can only be done through ranking and relevance algorithms, the more localized the better. But instead of a company or government building and controlling these solely, people should be able to build and choose from algorithms that best match their criteria, or not have to use any at all. A “follow” action should always deliver every bit of content from the corresponding account, and the algorithms should be able to comb through everything else through a relevance lens that an individual determines. There’s a default “G-rated” algorithm, and then there’s everything else one can imagine. The only way I know of to truly live up to these 3 principles is a free and open protocol for social media, that is not owned by a single company or group of companies, and is resilient to corporate and government influence. The problem today is that we have companies who own both the protocol and discovery of content. Which ultimately puts one person in charge of what’s available and seen, or not. This is by definition a single point of failure, no matter how great the person, and over time will fracture the public conversation, and may lead to more control by governments and corporations around the world. I believe many companies can build a phenomenal business off an open protocol. For proof, look at both the web and email. The biggest problem with these models however is that the discovery mechanisms are far too proprietary and fixed instead of open or extendable. Companies can build many profitable services that complement rather than lock down how we access this massive collection of conversation. There is no need to own or host it themselves. Many of you won’t trust this solution just because it’s me stating it. I get it, but that’s exactly the point. Trusting any one individual with this comes with compromises, not to mention being way too heavy a burden for the individual. It has to be something akin to what bitcoin has shown to be possible. If you want proof of this, get out of the US and European bubble of the bitcoin price fluctuations and learn how real people are using it for censorship resistance in Africa and Central/South America. I do still wish for Twitter, and every company, to become uncomfortably transparent in all their actions, and I wish I forced more of that years ago. I do believe absolute transparency builds trust. As for the files, I wish they were released Wikileaks-style, with many more eyes and interpretations to consider. And along with that, commitments of transparency for present and future actions. I’m hopeful all of this will happen. There’s nothing to hide…only a lot to learn from. The current attacks on my former colleagues could be dangerous and doesn’t solve anything. If you want to blame, direct it at me and my actions, or lack thereof. As far as the free and open social media protocol goes, there are many competing projects: @bluesky is one with the AT Protocol, Mastodon another, Matrix yet another…and there will be many more. One will have a chance at becoming a standard like HTTP or SMTP. This isn’t about a “decentralized Twitter.” This is a focused and urgent push for a foundational core technology standard to make social media a native part of the internet. I believe this is critical both to Twitter’s future, and the public conversation’s ability to truly serve the people, which helps hold governments and corporations accountable. And hopefully makes it all a lot more fun and informative again. 💸🛠️🌐 To accelerate open internet and protocol work, I’m going to open a new category of #startsmall grants: “open internet development.” It will start with a focus of giving cash and equity grants to engineering teams working on social media and private communication protocols, bitcoin, and a web-only mobile OS. I’ll make some grants next week, starting with $1mm/yr to Signal. Please let me know other great candidates for this money. * * * As you might imagine, Dorsey's holier-than-thou views prompted some pushback on social media... I agree users should be in charge of their own algorithms and a few other things. It's a bit late for these epiphanies, sadly. — (((clevecarole))) (@Clevecarole) December 13, 2022 If you knew how to fix it, why didnt you when you had the chance ? — Iain (@iain3000) December 13, 2022 Too little to late. — Omnimatty (@omnimattyc) December 13, 2022 @jack You caved and history will remember you as a coward. That is all. — CryptoJbot (@CryptoJbot) December 13, 2022 You hired people that thought alike and then gave them free reign to do as they wished. They banned and suspended on a whim for wrong speak. — Tyrone Jackson (@TyroneBJackson) December 13, 2022 This is pretty weak. I’d just accept the responsibility that Twitter was being run by a cult of middle managers who had personal opinions and vendettas against certain accounts. In addition, you allowed child exploitation, for that you should apologize. — Chef Andrew Gruel (@ChefGruel) December 13, 2022 I read it, it doesn't really make any sense. Summary: We did the right thing but it was the wrong thing. It was simultaneously not wrong at the time but clearly wrong at the time. I was the CEO but I was a nobody. There was nothing I could do but I had total power. — Lastdance 🇺🇦 (@Lastdance_LL) December 13, 2022 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-eGxq2mMoEGwgSpNVL5j2sa6ToojZUZ-Zun8... https://twitter.com/bluesky https://atproto.com/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/06/testifying-at-the-senate-about-a... https://signal.org/
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
'Just A Few Rogue Actors' Behind Banning Of Trump From Twitter; Nothing To See Here... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/12/12/twitter-files-5-release... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1602364197194432515.html https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602372771052367872 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602374265205972992 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602379978741465089 The fifth installment of the Twitter Files release drops today courtesy of Ms. Bari Weiss [READ HERE]. The focus of Ms Weiss was on the decision to ban President Donald Trump from the platform, and her outline walks through the events leading up to the decision to remove him. After a review of internal discussions, slacks and conversations within the social media platform, ultimately the officers within the company decided to protect their view of democracy by removing their biggest ideological opponent. The Twitter executives justified their actions by echo-chambering a belief that President Trump was tweeting “coded messages,” the secret transmission of thoughts that can only be received by those wearing red hats, tuned to a specific psychological frequency. As Weiss notes: “Less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees had determined that Trump’s tweets were not in violation of Twitter policy, Vijaya Gadde—Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust—asked whether it could, in fact, be “coded incitement to further violence.” President Trump tweeted the term “American Patriots,” which would be viewed by the Twitter ideologues as something akin to “the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.” It did not take long for the narrative to embed as the most senior Twitter regulatory officers assembled. “One hour later, Twitter announces Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” The entirety of Twitter File #5 release surrounds this internal Twitter dynamic, carefully avoiding any discussion or sunlight from outside government actors who may have been in direct contact with the senior Twitter team. Indeed, the documents chosen to provide evidence of the debate and decision to remove President Trump are transparently devoid of any inbound government contact to the Twitter organization. Thus, at the end of Ms. Weiss carefully written expose’, she concludes with this: See, it’s only “a handful of people at a private company“…. Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. Apparently, DHS, FBI and CISA officials were involved in direct contact with Twitter through their DHS “trusted partnership” portal to get rid of innocuous rebel voices and influence agents like Dan Bongino, Q conspiracy theorists, and various COVID doctors who were providing information against the interests of the government. However, when it came to removing the most powerful voice of President Donald John Trump, there was nothing but static radio silence from the government side of the DHS portal. You getting this? Do you see how this is presented? “A handful of people at a private company,” that’s the story and they are sticking to it. Swear. Move along folks, move along. Nothing to see here, just move along. That sound you hear in the background is not Ms. Bari Weiss providing an application of spray paint after careful Bondo application. Comrades, the social media messaging vehicle known as Twitter is a clean/refreshed information & communication platform as provided by the magnanimity of Mr Elon Musk, unknown financial underwriting notwithstanding. Brilliant. Now, let’s talk about President DeSantis...
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?
Trump Won A Dark Alliance: Musk's Twitter Files Exposed The Fifth Estate by Mike Solana https://www.piratewires.com/p/the-fifth-estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://www.piratewires.com/p/one-party-state https://www.piratewires.com/p/readable-twitter-files https://www.piratewires.com/p/readable-twitter-files-part-2 https://www.piratewires.com/p/what-the-hell-is-going-on-at-the https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1601720455005511680 https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602364197194432515 https://nypost.com/2021/12/04/data-shows-twitter-employees-donate-more-to-de... https://www.piratewires.com/p/jack-be-nimble-jack-be-quick Dangerous alliance. In 1787, Edmund Burke said there were “Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there [sits] a Fourth Estate more important than they all." The notion of some vital power beyond our government was imported to the New World, and today constitutes a core belief of the American liberal: there is no free people, we’re often told, without a free press independent of congress, the courts, and our president. But throughout the 20th Century thousands of media outlets gradually consolidated, and by the dawn of our internet era only a few giants remained. These giants largely shared a single perspective, and in rough agreement with the ruling class the Fourth Estate naturally came to serve, rather than critique, power. This relationship metastasized into something very close to authoritarianism during the Covid-19 pandemic, when a single state narrative was written by the press, and ruthlessly enforced by a fifth and final fount of power in the newly-dominant technology industry. It was a dark alliance of estates, accurate descriptions of which were for years derided as delusional, paranoid, even dangerous. But today, on account of a single shitposting billionaire, the existence of the One Party’s decentralized censorship apparatus is now beyond doubt. A couple weeks back, alleging proof Twitter acted with gross political bias, and in a manner that influenced U.S. elections (!), Elon Musk opened his new company’s internal communications to a small handful of journalists. They set immediately to breaking a series of major stories that have rewritten the history of Trump-era tech. Long story short, Twitter leadership lied to the public, relentlessly, for years, and everything the most paranoid among us ever said about the platform was true. “Trust and safety” is a euphemism for political censorship, with “expert” teams comprised almost exclusively of the most radical, joyless grievance studies majors you ever met in college. Their goal is to reshape American politics by dominating the bounds of what the public is permitted to consider American politics. In these efforts, they have mostly been succeeding. On December 2nd, Matt Taibbi shared conversations from the company’s “trust and safety” team that led to Twitter’s suppression of the New York Post’s infamous Hunter Biden laptop story. While interesting, Taibbi’s most notable revelation came almost as a side: both major political parties, as well as the White House, maintained direct lines of communication with Twitter, which they used to formally request content be removed from the platform. The company responded enthusiastically to many of these requests, and the examples we have (for now) come from the Democratic Party. Critics have been quick to point out Trump was in the White House at the time, though less interested, for some reason, in what — if anything — he removed from the site. On December 6th, Bari Weiss and her colleagues reported out proof of Twitter’s secret blacklists, in which both specific topics and, more problematically, people were de-amplified by the “trust and safety” team. The blacklisting was done for a nebulous host of reasons that generally amounted to something like ‘this feels dangerous.’ Danger was, of course, defined by partisan operatives, and exclusively targeted right-coded positions. Skepticism of radical gender ideology, distrust of public Covid policy, and almost anything having to do with the integrity of our last election were at the top of the list. Separate from any opinion concerning whether such topics, or the purveyors of such topics, should have been “shadow banned,” the revelation that they were is immensely important on account of Twitter’s censors, with their many supporters in the press, have denied the existence of these tools for years. Finally, over the last few days, Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Bari have all reported out pieces of Donald Trump’s deplatforming, which is easily the most famous digital unpersoning in history. It is also the least compelling story in the series. While it’s good to finally know exactly what happened, it really just was what everyone assumed: Trump was not banned for violating policy. Trump was banned because Twitter employees, who donated literally 99% of their political contributions to the Democratic Party, demanded it be done regardless of their own rules. Altogether, the Twitter Files — an ongoing story — paint a portrait of clear and inevitable partisan bias at one of the most dominant speech platforms in history. A small handful of very left-wing executives, who naturally perceived most opinion right of center as dangerous, worked tirelessly to limit those opinions from view. Empowered to censor “unsafe” content, and protected by a team of people who shared their political orientation, the executives produced, in a legal and decentralized manner, a key component of our defacto state censorship apparatus. While we don’t know for sure this is also happening at Google, Meta, or TikTok (which is for some reason still allowed to operate in this country), I think it’s a safe bet we’re looking at an industry-wide affliction. But I do have questions. Where is the full list of shadow-banned accounts? Which political campaigns, specifically, communicated with Twitter, and what specifically was taken down? What about requests from foreign governments? What about requests from our own government? We need to know which of our government agencies, if any, had content removed from the platform, and we need to know the nature of this content. Taibbi alluded to Trump’s White House — did someone from the Trump administration request a takedown? Who made the request? Who received the request? Was it answered? What, if anything, was removed? The Trump line of questioning is, in particular, something you might assume attractive to the media, which has waged all-out war on the populist clown king for the last seven years. Alas, the press seems broadly disinterested. Is this because they don’t believe the former president ever made such requests, or is their lack of interest rather stemming from a fear of validating a major story most of them are currently trying to frame — for their own obvious political reasons — as not worth reading? A brief selection of positions from our cherished Fourth Estate: This entire story is a “dud” (The Washington Post) — no bombshells here! (Forbes). The Twitter Files, in which a handful of committed partisans enthusiastically censor large swaths of the conservative base, including a former president, actually prove the company was not politically biased. It is, however, now biased against Democrats (New York Magazine). Elon’s exposé is a flop that doesn’t matter. It has also placed multiple “trust and safety experts” in mortal danger (The Verge, predictably). Then, my favorite: it is good to finally see the blacklist tools I have been curious about for many years, which we have by the way always known existed, and therefore don’t matter (The Atlantic). The charge of shadow banning evoked uniquely loud jeering from the press, including Charlie Warzel in particular, a man formerly of the position “Twitter isn’t shadow banning Republicans.” Now, in the face of evidence the company absolutely shadow banned Republicans, the official position is we are using the term “shadow ban” incorrectly. It’s a game of semantics, in which the public is dragged through the exhausting, useless question of how much invisible speech suppression, precisely, constitutes a “real” shadow ban, rather than the glaringly important questions of both ethics and, frankly, safety. In the first place, is it right to run a decentralized censorship apparatus, and to make your rules invisible? In the second, what happens to a free country when the bounds of acceptable speech are set by a small cabal of unelected partisan cops? Because my sense is the answer isn’t “freedom.” There have been a few notable, if cautiously dissenting opinions from prominent voices in media. Buzzfeed’s Katie Notopoulos, the Los Angeles Times’ Jeff Bercovici, and the New York Times’ Mike Isaac all took somewhat risky positions in favor of transparency, apparently no longer in vogue among journalists, with Jeff explicitly acknowledging the important nature of the revelations. But I’ve only seen one actual piece, drafted and published by a reasonably mainstream media entity, embrace any aspect of the Twitter Files. Anthony Fisher, an opinion editor at the Daily Beast, danced around the subject, and awkwardly tried to obscure his overall agreement the story mattered behind many paragraphs demonstrating his conservative-hating bonafides. But in addressing Twitter’s censorship he did include the following important line: And that lesson is “Don’t trust (or demand) billionaire tech bros to be the arbiters of truth and news.” It was a flashback to the position most journalists and activists shared in the days before Donald Trump. Unfortunately, it wasn’t long before they realized they had a political ally in tech industry hall monitors, and set about a national power grab. In any case, if you were to strip the above position from all its obnoxious tribal language, it would really just be: no few people should control the bounds of acceptable discourse. I agree. But narrowly focused on the “tech bro,” the point not only betrays a bias, but misses a defining aspect of technology. The Fifth Estate is a fundamentally different kind of power. It’s more difficult to consolidate than media, and more difficult to control than even our government divided by design. Its impact is also far more difficult to predict. This is because technology is above all things defined in terms of newness, which not only makes it disruptive of pre-existing power, but destructive of itself — a sort of anti-power that only guarantees change. The true failsafe. Our ultimate reset. Tremendously empowering of tyranny in times of stagnation, technology is also our most powerful weapon against tyranny in times of innovation. While many tech giants have gone the way of media in consolidating power, centralizing, and aligning with the state, the future of technology is always change. From encrypted chats and blockchain to artificially intelligent search, every tech giant that amassed power over the last two decades will be facing existential threats in the years to come — not only from the government, but from the industry. In terms of Twitter, Elon is already leveraging Fifth Estate properties, and not by employing current tools to amplify his own opinions (an emerging conspiracy). He is iterating product more rapidly than we’ve seen from any major, consumer-facing tech company in years. The trial and error here has largely been ridiculed by people who have never built a technology company. But while detractors are obsessed with his censorship abilities, Elon’s platform experiments are the things actually capable of root-changing the national discourse. The medium is the message, and the medium is evolving. Whatever works on Twitter will be cloned. The bounds of acceptable discourse will change, and none of this will have anything to do with Elon’s spicy tweets. But about those spicy tweets — As the former lords of Twitter descend into hysterics with outlandish comments declaring Elon a Nazi, or a proponent of the QAnon conspiracy, or whatever other bit of unhinged loser bullshit, he faces two significant threats. First, he’s clearly made an enemy of every other major fount of power, including in particular the Fourth Estate. This will impact all of Elon’s companies, as they all require support from the government and public, and the opinions of our government and public are still shaped, to a large extent, by the media. It’s no coincidence most powerful tech executives, from Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos to Jack Dorsey, share a carefully-crafted language of neutrality. This air of neutrality is how a king behaves, because the air of neutrality is how a king survives. In flaunting his power, rather than obscuring it, Elon is asking to be attacked, and his enemies are happy to oblige, even while more dominant platforms go unbothered. Something like 80 million Americans are using TikTok, a company hopelessly compromised by the Chinese Communist Party. Do you even know the name of its CEO? For a man who controls the bounds of acceptable speech for a third of the country’s adults, he sure doesn’t seem especially interested in speaking. Elon’s second danger is the far more formidable danger of himself. What the Twitter Files prove beyond doubt is censorship in the age of social media is power — a real and dangerous power that corrupts. Last year, Dorsey appeared before Congress, and declared neither he nor anyone else, and certainly not anyone in government, should be allowed to set the bounds of acceptable speech for the entire country. But with no viable alternative, someone does need to bear the ring. In leaked texts from the recent Twitter legal saga, it’s clear Jack believed Elon a worthy steward of this tremendous power, and, for what it’s worth, I agree. But provided the nation remains free, the rules of the Fifth Estate are immutable. Power comes in dramatic upward swings, and resets the status quo. It will not — it can not — last forever. So change the world, but be mindful of temptation, and make good use of your god mode powers while you have them. Because they never last forever. Long story short, Pirate Wires exists because people subscribe. If you’re into what we’re doing here, drag your friends on board for a free sub, and if you haven’t yet already: Subscribe, or die.
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
Donald J Trump Won The US 2020 Presidential Election Stockman: Twitter Implicitly Became The Ministry Of Truth https://brownstone.org/articles/twitter-became-the-ministry-of-truth/ https://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com/re-the-twitter-files-praise-be/ New material Musk released over the weekend confirms the very worst. The banal boys and girls previously ensconced in Twitter’s top echelons were not only having a jolly time attempting to steer the nation’s news narrative; these executives were actually meeting weekly with FBI, Homeland Security and national intelligence officials to discuss “disinformation” they wanted removed from the site, including the notorious suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. That’s just one step removed from a state-run Ministry of Truth and is perhaps even more insidious. That’s because it didn’t even involve unwanted and unconstitutional coercion. Instead, the executives of this private enterprise were voluntarily neglecting their day jobs (maximizing corporate profits and shareholder value) in order to spend a huge amount of corporate time and resources propagating official narratives and suppressing dissenting views. It was as if the Washington powers-that-be had nationalized a multi-billion company, drafting it to propagandize on behalf of their own political and policy agenda and continued tenure in power. So the question recurs as to why Jack Dorsey, Parag Agrawal, Vijaya Gadde, Yoel Roth and countless more top executives were not attending to corporate “biness”, but instead were ostentatiously moonlighting on behalf of an extra-curricular agenda that had absolutely nothing to do with making money at Twitter. The answer is actually no mystery. The Twitter Files published so far by the trio of intrepid journalists given access to the company’s internal files—Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger—provide a screaming case of the dog which didn’t bark. Not once do any of these executives predicate their “content moderation” and thought control actions on the need to mollify advertisers and thereby protect corporate revenues and profits. Not once! Actually, of course, the risk of losing advertising revenue would be a valid free market reason for “de-amplifying” content that caused revenue sources to wither. But no one averred that the NY Post’s dropping the dime on Hunter Biden would send GM or Proctor & Gamble advertising dollars packing or even that the user eyeballs on which those dollars depended would suddenly blink-shut owing to the horror of it. Indeed, the eyes of the company’s collective leadership were so far off the eight-ball of profit maximization that they had seemingly endless time for the pursuit of all manner of foolishness and trivia on Twitter’s network. For instance, former Governor Huckabee’s obviously facetious tweet about fraudulent voting got the attention of the entire upper echelon: Stood in the rain for hour to early vote today. When I got home I filled my stack of mail-in ballots and then voted the ballots of my deceased parents and grandparents. They vote just like me! #Trump2020,” Huckabee tweeted on Oct. 24, 2020. The blatant attempt at humor here should have escaped no one’s attention with an IQ above 80. But as Matt Taibbi revealed, the bigwigs using the Slack channel titled “us2020_xfn_enforcement” actually hosted a lively debate about whether Huckabee’s tweet should be removed. “Hello putting this tweet on everyone’s radar. This appears to be a joke but other people might believe it. Can I get your weigh in this?,” a Twitter employee wrote, linking to Huckabee’s tweet. Twitter’s former Head of Trust & Safety, Yoel Roth, said in the Slack channel that while he agrees “it’s a joke,” Huckabee is “also literally admitting in a tweet to a crime.” “Yeah. I could see us taking action under ‘misleading claims that cause confusion about the established laws, regulations, procedures, and methods of a civic process’ but it’s not one that we could really label in a useful way, so it’s removal (of a stupid and ill-advised joke) or nothing. I’m maybe inclined not to remove without a report from voting authorities given it’s been a while since he tweeted it and virtually all of the replies I’m seeing are critical/counterspeech,” Roth said. There are countless other examples in the Twitter Files of what amounts to trivia and pure partisan sniping garnering top corporate attention. In one tweet, Donald Trump referenced a mail-in voting problem in Ohio that was found to be true. Nevertheless, Twitter executives were praised for their speed to impose “visibility filters” so the tweet could not be “replied to, shared, or liked,” and the staff received a censorship “attaboy”: “VERY WELL DONE ON SPEED.” Still, that was Donald Trump the sitting president—so presumably he was worthy of top level censorship. But what about one John Basham, a former Tippecanoe County, Indiana, Councilor? The latter had apparently caught the attention of the FBI, which sent a report to Twitter for action owing to the fact that Basham claimed, “Between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected for Errors.”… Let’s see. Does the opinion of an ex-official from a place that no one has heard about since the election of 1840 (“Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too”), implicitly claiming that the mail-in error problem was either huge (25%) or relatively trivial (2%), really matter when it comes to running a global corporation, or even a government-contracted censoring operation for that matter? That is to say, these kids and half-baked partisan ideologues were in so far over their heads that it was only a matter of time before the whole enterprise ran aground. Indeed, they had formulated so many rules for content moderation and such complex multi-stage forms of penalty, including parental-style “timeouts”, that much of the internal debate revealed in the Twitter Files amounted to arguments about the application of sheer stupidity. This was more than evident in the case of Twitter’s seven suspensions of the “LIBs of Tik Tok” (LTT) account. This Twitter account was launched by one Chaya Raichi in November 2020 and now boasts over 1.4 million followers. Each time, Raichik was blocked from posting for as long as a week. Yet what was the offense? The committee justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of “hospitals and medical providers” by insinuating “that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.” Actually, that’s a red hot matter of judgement and opinion that can be argued either way—the exact kind of thing that is supposed to be debated in the town square. But either way, the Twitter claim that the LTT viewpoint on the matter amounted to “hate speech” reveals just how far off the deep-end these wokish juveniles had descended. Still, what matters here is the wording of the Site Policy Recommendation: It’s all about school playground style punishments, and nothing at all about the needs of the business or viewpoint of advertisers. Meanwhile, what was happening back at the ranch in 2020-2021 when the Twitter HQ was being transformed into the Village of the Damned? Well, on the one-hand the company’s stock price was coming up roses. After hitting the skids in 2015-2016, the Twitter’s market cap had risen from $12.5 billion in the fall of 2017 to $27 billion by the fall of 2019 to a peak of $54 billion in July 2021. In short, given a quadrupling of the company’s stock price in just four years and the resultant massive gains in the value of executive stock options, the top echelon apparently felt free to become moonlighting volunteers for the Deep State. That is, doing well they faced no penalty for doing good at the shareholders’ expense. And we do mean shareholders’ expense. During its 2020 and 2021 fiscal years combined, which encompassed the peak period of the C-suite insanity chronicled by the Twitter Files, the company did harvest $8.8 billion of revenue from the Lockdown-world’s acceleration of the advertising migration from legacy to digital venues. Moreover, collecting those sums only required $3.2 billion in cost of goods sold, resulting in sterling gross profits at $5.6 billion and 64% of sales. In turn, that should have resulted in a shareholder bonanza on the bottom line. Except it didn’t. In fact, the company’s moonlighting management spent far more than that—$6.1 billion—on R&D, sales and marketing, general overhead and other top-side expenses. That is to say, Twitter’s putative business model went bust, with cumulative operating losses of nearly one-half billion dollars during the two year period. Likewise, its bonafides as a cash-burning machine were reinforced. During 2020-2021 it generated $1.6 billion of cash from operations, but spent nearly $1.9 billion on CapEx. Accordingly, Twitter’s operating free cash flow came in at -$260 million. In short, when the company reached a peak valuation of $54 billion in July 2021 it was bleeding red ink and burning cash. It essentially had an infinite valuation multiple, which absurd valuation, in turn, amounted to a flashing green light for rampant moonlighting by not only its top management, but nearly the entirety of its the 7,500 work force. In that regard we have been waiting for our Twitter screen to go dark ever since Elon Musk fired the employment rooster back to at least its December 2017 level (3,372). But, alas, the tweets just keep on coming, even as expenses have been pared back to the levels extant when Twitter was valued at the aforementioned 25% of its eventual peak. The Twitter story is not a one-off case, nor is it evidence that Wall Street and the homegamers alike are comprised of greedy fools who will fall for anything. To the contrary, the destructive outbreak of corporate moonlighting in behalf of woke ideology and partisan causes was born, bred and matriculated by the money-printers at the Fed. At the end of the day, it is bad money that leads to bad, value-destroying behavior in the C-suites—just one more instance of the “malinvestment” which is the inherent result of monetary inflation. In this context, the unjustified bubble in the Twitter stock is actually small potatoes compared to the giants of Silicon Valley—all of which have been infected with the same bad money based descent into political moonlighting. As it happened, the stock of the FANGMAN (Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and NVIDIA) got enormously bloated by the Fed’s rampant money-printing during the last decade. Thus, in 2013 these seven tech giants were collectively valued at $1.19 trillion, which figure represented 15.9X their combined net income of $75 billion. Arguably, that PE multiple was reasonable and appropriate given the fact that most of these companies were growing rapidly but were also benefiting from a one-time headwinds. These included— the shift of advertising from legacy to digital media; the migration of merchandise sales from bricks and mortar stores to e-Commerce; the shift of computer technology from standalone boxes and their packaged software to the cloud; and the full adoption of smart-phone technology by the mass public. These one-time tailwinds did result in a 20% per annum earnings growth for the seven FANGMEN during the 2013-2021 period. But the flood of Fed liquidity during the same period caused the PE multiple to more than double to 34X based on the view that the Fed would never let the market decline; and also that the rock-bottom interest rates would remain in place indefinitely, resulting in the baleful reign of TINA (there is no investment alternative to stocks). Accordingly, the market cap of the seven companies soared to $11.5 trillion by the fall of 2021, representing a 33% per year gain. In turn, this meant not only that market caps had grown 1.5X faster than unsustainable one-time earnings gains, but that C-suites throughout Silicon Valley had no trouble taking their eye off the profits maximization ball in order to pursue political agendas that had nothing to do with good management of their respective businesses. Alas, the worm has turned. The market cap of the FANGMEN has already dropped by a staggering $4.5 trillion to just $7.1 trillion at present. At the same time, collective earnings of these allegedly perpetual “growth” stocks have declined by nearly 14% since their summer/fall 2021 peak of $336 billion. By our lights, companies experiencing double-digit earnings shrinkage—even before the upcoming recession—do not deserve the 24.5X multiple the market is now putting on their collective profits of$290 billion. Likewise, shareholders never deserved the $4.5 trillion that has already vaporized, even as they were being badly served by management that had gone AWOL, moonlighting on wokeness and politics. In all, bad money is the ultimate devil’s workshop. The bloodbath in Silicon Valley stocks and the Twitter Files disclosures enabled by the proprietor of Tesla, its most hideously over-valued company, are finally proving exactly why.
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.
The Twitter Files: The Corporate Media Ignores The Biggest Story Of The Decade https://www.opindia.com/2022/12/twitter-files-biased-employees-republicans-s... https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/fbi-warned-twitter-of-hunter-biden-hack-before... https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/suppression-of-right-wing-users-exposed-in-lat... The biggest story of the past decade is not the covid pandemic, the January 6th protests, the war in Ukraine, the BLM riots, or even the stagflationary crisis in the US. Behind these major events is another story, one that connects them all together in a disturbing way. Even more important than the effects of geopolitical and economic chaos is the effect of mass censorship; without the free exchange of information and debate the public remains ignorant. And if the public remains ignorant, crisis events have an increasing potential to explode. Public perception of national and international affairs is a key determinant of the outcome of disasters and conflicts. This is why governments and elitists from around the world often seek to manipulate the ways in which people digest information. The idea is rather simple – They believe that 'we the people' cannot be allowed to come to our own conclusions. They think we cannot be trusted to develop the “proper” viewpoints and we are not smart enough to understand the implications of governmental decisions. In other words, they believe the exact opposite of what is outlined in the US Constitution. The establishment will give numerous reasons why they need to censor, suppress, spin and misrepresent the facts of any given situation, but in the end the real rationale is that they have a vision for society that is contrary to our foundations. They have appointed themselves the arbiters of reality to see that vision done. As Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” once stated in his book 'Propaganda': “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” This is pure authoritarianism. It's the stuff of nightmares and revolutions. But for many years now a large subsection of the world has denied such a dynamic exists. It's “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hattery” to claim that a small number of elites work together in secret to control public perception and govern our society from the shadows. After all, where is the proof? Of course, this kind of argument is a coping mechanism for the mentally deficient. Proof of such secretive governance and control is everywhere these days, but some people prefer willful denial. Take for example the ongoing data drops for what is now being called “The Twitter Files.” The mainstream media is barely responding to the information dump initiated by Elon Musk. They seem to be far more interested in Donald Trump's tax records. When they are forced to acknowledge the story, they are hostile, calling the information “boring” or unimpressive. It's a classic psychological tactic of typical narcissists and criminals – When they get caught, they act indifferent, as if neither the evidence nor their crimes really matter. If getting caught doesn't matter to them, then their crimes must not be all that bad, right? The content of these files is astonishing, but at the same time it is true that the conclusions are not surprising. The files simply confirm almost everything conservative and libertarian commentators have been saying for years; all those “conspiracy theories” about Big Tech censorship of conservatives turned out to be true. Not only that, but the theory that government agencies and officials from the DNC worked with Big Tech to silence and undermine their political opponents was also true. Twitter has long denied that they “shadow ban” users, but this was a lie. The data shows that small groups within Twitter called “strategic response teams” suppressed up to 200 accounts per day. Usually these were accounts of larger and more influential conservative politicians and celebrities. And, these teams operated in coordination with Democrat officials and agencies like the FBI. In some cases the goal was to mute a particular individual. In other cases the goal was to steer national elections. Internal Twitter communications show that SRT groups spent most of their time fabricating reasons why certain information was subject to TOS. In other words, if Twitter's rules were not being violated, they made up new rules. The exposure of Twitter is the biggest story of the decade because it provides proof of a hidden cabal. It shows the ugly mechanics behind the scenes and exposes a network of elites and their errand boys who were involved in direct operations to destroy the 1st Amendment for the sake of ideological supremacy. It's the classic definition of fascism, a definition that Benito Mussolini reiterated when he argued: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” And, if this brand of Fascism was happening within the halls of Twitter, then there is little doubt it is also happening at companies like Google/YouTube, Apple, Facebook, etc. Before we had evidence, now we have confirmation. The corporate media argues over relevance instead of morality because they benefited from the censorship. It's important to remember that one of the first measures Big Tech companies applied after suppressing the alternative media during the pandemic was to then amplify the corporate media. These companies are floundering with dismal audience numbers and dwindling profits. No one listens to them anymore. Yet, as long as they promote the establishment narrative their opinions and disinformation are given priority on nearly every search engine and social media platform. Of course they aren't interested in the Twitter Files, liars are often “bored” by honest commentary and factual information. Also, their continued existence relies on the censorship of their competition in the alternative media. The bottom line is this: According to the Bill of Rights, it is illegal for agents of the US government to obstruct the free speech of law abiding American citizens. It does not matter if the action is done by using “private businesses” as middlemen. And, if a private business is colluding with government to implement political policy then it is no longer a private business. Twitter was participating in a form of treason, along with the agencies that they cooperated with. It's a huge story, and one that should lead to punishment for those involved.
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
https://github.com/billstclair/twitter-files Wikipedia is well known to be run and biased by Lefty Democrat Socialists... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files&oldid=1125586660 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files&action=history Twitter Files
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search The Twitter FilesTwitter-logo.svg The logo of Twitter Date December 2, 2022–ongoing Participants
Elon Musk Matt Taibbi Bari Weiss Michael Shellenberger Website 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 Elon Musk in 2015 This article is part of a series about Elon Musk Awards and honors Views Filmography Companies Zip2 X.com PayPal SpaceX Starlink Tesla, Inc. Criticism Energy Litigation OpenAI Neuralink The Boring Company Twitter, Inc. Acquisition In popular culture Elon Musk Ludicrous Power Play "Members Only" "The Platonic Permutation" "The Musk Who Fell to Earth" "One Crew over the Crewcoo's Morty" Related Boring Test Tunnel Hyperloop Musk family SolarCity Tesla Roadster in space TSLAQ Twitter Files 2022 Twitter suspensions v t e The Twitter Files are a set of internal Twitter, Inc. documents shared by owner Elon Musk with independent journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss, and author Michael Shellenberger in December 2022. Taibbi and Weiss coordinated the release of the documents with Twitter management, releasing the details of the files as a part of a series of Twitter threads.[1][2][3] The first installment, presented by Taibbi on December 2, 2022, described what Taibbi said were 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.[4] Taibbi tweeted that the FBI gave Twitter a "general" warning about foreign hacks and leaks but that the Twitter files contained "no evidence ... of any government involvement in the laptop story". Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story.[5][4][6] The second thread, presented by Weiss on December 8, addressed what Musk and others have described as the shadow banning of some users, a practice referred to as "visibility filtering" by previous Twitter management.[7] Twitter had announced in 2018 a new policy of limiting the reach of accounts exhibiting patterns of "troll-like behaviors", which resembled Musk's newly announced "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach" policies intended to limit the spread of "negativity".[8][9] The third installment, released by Taibbi on December 9, highlighted events within Twitter leading to Trump's suspension. The fourth installment, released on December 10 by Shellenberger, covered how Twitter employees reacted to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and the conflict within Twitter on how to moderate tweets and users who were supporting the attack. The fifth installment, released on December 12 by Weiss, covered how Twitter employees influenced the decision to ban Trump from the platform. The sixth installment, released on December 16 by Taibbi, described how the FBI contacted Twitter to suggest that action be taken against a number of accounts for allegedly spreading misinformation.[10] The releases have prompted debate over the nature of blacklisting,[11] vows for congressional investigation, calls for the full release of all documents for the sake of transparency, calls to improve content moderation processes, criticism over alleged shortcomings in the releases including exaggerating the contents' significance, partial reporting, conclusions reached in the reporting with counterclaims against, failure to redact private information, and causing hatred and potential harm against those involved in content moderation. Contents 1 Background 2 Content 2.1 Content moderation of New York Post story 2.2 Visibility filtering 2.3 Attack on the Capitol and suspension of Donald Trump 2.4 FBI communications with Twitter Trust and Safety Team 3 Reactions 3.1 Politicians 3.2 Legal scholars 3.3 Privacy and security 3.4 Former Twitter employees 3.5 Journalists 3.6 Commentators 4 References Background Twitter went live in 2006, reaching over 100 million users in 2012.[12] Like other platforms, it began to develop a content moderation system in response to issues such as trolling, online harassment, and illegal or gruesome content.[13] Content moderation is generally challenging, balancing the desire for an open platform with the removal of problematic content and users,[13] and at Twitter's scale the issue became especially difficult.[14] The inner workings of content moderation systems are also not well-known to the public, as knowledge of the details could enable manipulation.[15] Content like hate speech and misinformation/disinformation tend to spike during major events such as elections,[16] and Twitter and other social media sites were exploited by Russian operatives to boost the candidacy of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.[17][18] Twitter was looking to be acquired in 2016, but could not find a buyer—some in the financial press speculated that the site's insufficient content moderation had turned its environment toxic.[14] Social media networks sought to prevent such exploitation in the future by taking moderation action.[19] Among Twitter's politically contentious decisions were the suppression of a story by the New York Post about the laptop of Hunter Biden during the 2020 election, under its policy of not distributing hacked materials, and its permanent suspension of Donald Trump, citing a risk of violence in the January 6 Capitol attack in 2021.[19][20] American conservatives contended that Twitter was biased against them and saw such moderation actions as evidence,[21] though a 2021 study using Twitter data found that its algorithms favored the political right over the political left in most countries examined, including the United States.[22][23] Elon Musk purchased Twitter in 2022 for $44 billion and became its CEO on October 27, after which he cut much of the staff and unbanning prominent users, including Trump, as part of being a self-described "free speech absolutist."[24][25][26] Musk's approach raised concerns among some experts,[27] and over 70 civil society organizations called on him to tackle the subsequent rise in hate speech.[28] Musk partially reversed his position on November 18 and announced a "freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach" policy of "negative/hate tweets" being "deboosted."[29] On November 28, Musk tweeted "The Twitter Files on free speech suppression soon to be published on Twitter itself. The public deserves to know what really happened..."[30] He gave a series of internal Twitter documents, such as screenshots, emails, and chat logs, to freelance journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss.[15][31][32] 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.[33][34] Weiss stated that the only condition she and her reporting team agreed to was that the material would be first published on Twitter.[9] Musk later stated he had not read the documents prior to their release to Taibbi and Weiss.[35] On December 6, Musk fired James Baker, deputy general counsel at Twitter, for allegedly vetting information before it was passed on to Taibbi and Weiss, and providing an explanation that Musk found "unconvincing." Baker had been involved in the decision to withhold the laptop story,[36] and had previously been general counsel for the FBI when he was a witness for, but not implicated in, the failed John Durham prosecution of Michael Sussmann on allegations that Sussmann worked with the 2016 Clinton campaign to advance a Russian collusion narrative against Trump.[37][38][39][40] Content In his prelude, Taibbi asserts that the Files tell a "Frankenstein tale of a human-built mechanism" - "one of the world's largest and most influential social media platforms" - "grown out [of] the control of its designer".[41] Taibbi posits that these documents as well as the assessment of "multiple current and former high-level executives" demonstrate how, although external requests for moderation from both political parties were received and honored, an overwhelmingly left-wing employee base at Twitter facilitated a left-leaning bias.[42] According to Taibbi, the Twitter Files number in the thousands.[1][32] According to CNBC's December 7 publication, Musk said that the future "Twitter Files" releases would include how Twitter handled the 2020 presidential election, the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the COVID-19 pandemic.[43] Content moderation of New York Post story Journalist Matt Taibbi, who published the first installment of the documents During the 2020 American presidential election, the New York Post published a story about the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. Twitter, along with Facebook, implemented measures to block the sharing of the story, and Twitter further imposed a temporary lock on the accounts of the New York Post and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, citing violations of its rules against posting hacked content.[19][44] The Washington Post added that this was a result of the company's scenario-planning exercises to combat disinformation campaigns, which included potential "hack and leak" situations in the nature of what had transpired during the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The decision generated an outcry from then-President Trump and conservatives who saw it as politically motivated.[44] Then-Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth later acknowleged that it was a “mistake” to censor the New York Post’s story.[6] On December 2, 2022, Taibbi published a Twitter thread on the subject, with internal Twitter emails interspersed with his own reporting.[45][1] Elon Musk's build-up prior to the release was disproportionate with the overall lower level of significance of the revelations; nevertheless, Taibbi's thread attracted thousands of retweets.[46][47] Some documents described Twitter's internal deliberations regarding the decision to censor the reporting of the story,[1][33] while others contained information on how Twitter treated tweets that were flagged for removal at the request of the 2020 Biden campaign team and the Trump White House.[48] He also shared communications between California Democrat Ro Khanna and then-Twitter head of legal Vijaya Gadde, in which Khanna warned about the free-speech implications and possible political backlash that would result from censorship.[49] The thread shed light on an internal debate on whether Twitter should prevent the story from being shared, with leadership arguing that it fell under the company's prohibition on hacked materials.[50] According to Taibbi, then-CEO Jack Dorsey was unaware of the decision to suppress the content when it was made.[51] Days later, he reversed the decision, calling it a "mistake,"[52] and Twitter updated its hacked materials policy to state that news stories about hacked materials would be permitted, but with a contextual warning.[53][33] Taibbi also shared a screenshot of a what seemed to be a request from the Biden campaign to review five tweets, and the reply "Handled these". Taibbi did not disclose the content of those tweets,[54] but four were later found from internet archives to contain nude photos and videos, purportedly of Hunter Biden, which violate Twitter policy and California law as revenge porn; the content of the fifth deleted tweet is unknown.[39][47] House Republicans have vowed to investigate the internal communications of the handling of this story, with Rep. James Comer stating that every Twitter employee who was involved will have the opportunity to explain their actions before Congress.[55] Elon Musk tweeted that Twitter had acted "under orders from the government," though Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story, tweeting, "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."[47][48] His reporting undermined a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories.[47][56] Musk further claimed that this content moderation violated the First Amendment. However, legal experts refuted the idea that content moderation by a private company violates the First Amendment, as it only restricts government actors.[57] David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said that Twitter is legally able to choose what speech is allowed on their site, noting that both the Biden campaign, which was not part of government, and the Trump White House could request specific content moderation actions.[49] Visibility filtering Twitter ranks tweets and limits the reach of some accounts through a practice internally referred to as "visibility filtering". This is done to accounts that violate Twitter rules but do not necessarily merit suspension.[58] The approach was announced in 2018 by then-CEO Jack Dorsey in order to preserve the "health" of conversations by identifying accounts more likely to disrupt conversations rather than contribute to them.[58] The practice is part of the site's terms of service,[59] and is the subject of a Frequently Asked Questions page written in 2018.[60] Twitter distinguishes this from shadow banning, which it defines as making "content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it."[61][62][63] Bari Weiss published a thread on the topic on December 8, posting screenshots of employee views of user accounts with tags indicating visibility filtering, and wrote that politically sensitive decisions were made by the Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support (SIP-PES) team, which included the chief legal officer, head of trust and safety, and CEO.[64][7] She posted screenshots of the accounts of Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, conservative radio host Dan Bongino, and conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which were respectively tagged with "Trends Blacklist", "Search Blacklist", and "Do Not Amplify".[63] She also said that the SIP-PES team was responsible for the multiple suspensions of the anti-LGBT account Libs of TikTok, which had been tagged with "Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES". She noted that Twitter had not taken down a tweet containing the address of the account's owner, Chaya Raichik.[63] Weiss characterized these practices as censorship and as evidence of shadow banning, which Twitter disputed, largely on the basis of its different definition of "shadow ban".[61] The documents she discussed focused on individuals popular with the right-wing and suggested the moderation practices were politically motivated[60][63]—a long-standing claim among American conservatives,[61] which Twitter has denied,[58] and is contrary to internal studies that suggest its algorithms favored the political right instead.[63][65][66] Wired and Slate described the policy by which moderators were unable to act on high-profile conservative accounts without first escalating to high-level management as "preferential treatment",[59][67] since this effectively limited Twitter's enforcement of their content policies on these accounts.[68] Weiss did not reveal how many accounts overall were de-amplified nor the politics of those who were,[25] and this lack of context made it difficult to glean any conclusions on the matter.[63] Kayvon Beykpour, the former head of product at Twitter, called the thread "deliberately misleading"; in the interest of transparency, Dorsey called for all of the Twitter Files to be released, tweeting to Musk, "Make everything public now."[61] Attack on the Capitol and suspension of Donald Trump The third installment was released by Matt Taibbi on December 9, highlighting the events within the company that led up to Trump's suspension from Twitter.[69] Taibbi reported that on October 8, 2020, Twitter executives created a channel entitled "us2020_xfn_enforcement" as a hub to discuss content removal that pertained to the then-upcoming 2020 United States presidential election. Twitter's moderation process was, according to Taibbi, based on guesswork, "gut calls", and Google searches, including moderation of then-President Trump's tweets. As previously reported by The New York Times in 2020,[70] Taibbi said that then-head of Trust and Safety for Twitter, Yoel Roth, met on a regular basis with agencies such as the FBI to discuss potential attempts by foreign and domestic actors to manipulate the 2020 election. Following the suspension of Trump's Twitter account, Taibbi reports that it set a precedent for the suspension of future presidents' accounts, which he said was in violation of Twitter's own policies. Taibbi wrote that he was told that the Trump administration and Republicans had made requests to moderate tweets, but did not find any evidence of these requests in the election enforcement Slack chat.[71][72] The fourth installment was released on December 10 by Michael Shellenberger. It covered how Twitter employees reacted to the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the conflict within the company about how to take action against tweets and Twitter users who were supporting the attack without a specific policy as backing, due to the unprecedented nature of Trump's false claims of winning the 2020 United States presidential election. Shellenberger shared screenshots of Roth asking a coworker to blacklist the terms "stopthesteal" and "kraken", both of which were associated with supporters of the January 6 attack. He also said that pressure from the company's employees appeared to influence former CEO Jack Dorsey to approve a "repeat offender" policy for permanent suspension. After receiving five strikes as per the new policy, Trump's personal Twitter account was permanently suspended on January 8. Shellenberger's thread also provided screenshots suggesting that there were instances when employees flagged tweets and applied strikes at their own discretion without specific policy guidance, which according to Shellenberger are examples of a frequent occurrence.[73] The fifth installment was released on December 12, by Bari Weiss. It covered the conflict between Twitter employees and how it influenced the decision regarding Trump's ban from the platform. Those communications include requests from the FBI and other agencies to determine if a particular tweet violated policies against election manipulation.[56] Weiss reported that two tweets Trump made in the morning of January 8, 2021, were used as a foundation for his suspension: the first one praised his supporters at the ballot box while the second announced he would not attend Joe Biden's inauguration. She said that the two tweets were initially cleared as no indication of incitement of violence, to the agreement of multiple employees. Former head of Legal, Policy, and Trust Vijaya Gadde dissented, according to Weiss, suggesting that the tweets were dog whistles for future political violence. Weiss reported that Twitter's "scaled enforcement" team engaged and agreed with Gadde, suggesting that the tweets violated the "glorification of violence" policy and that the term "American Patriots" Trump used in a tweet was code for the Capitol rioters. She also said that one team member referred to Trump as a "leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to the Christchurch shooter or Hitler". Weiss reported that after a 30 minute all-staffer meeting, Dorsey asked Roth to simplify the language of the document for Trump's suspension. One hour later, Trump's account was suspended "due to the risk of further incitement of violence".[74] FBI communications with Twitter Trust and Safety Team The sixth installment was released by Matt Taibbi on December 16, which described how the FBI reported a number of accounts to Twitter's Trust and Safety Team for allegedly spreading election misinformation. According to Taibbi, many of the accounts reported had small amounts of followers and were making tweets seemingly satirical in nature, such as user Claire Foster who had tweeted "I'm a ballot counter in my state. If you're not wearing a mask, I'm not counting your vote. #safetyfirst" and "For every negative comment on this post I'm adding another vote for the democrats". Taibbi reported that a top member of staff referred to the relationship between the company and the FBI as "government-industry sync" due to the frequency of emails and meetings with the agency.[10] Reactions Politicians After the first Taibbi thread, former Trump White House official and radio host Seb Gorka said, "so far, I'm deeply underwhelmed." He rejected statements made by posters on Truth Social that the First Amendment had been violated.[75] In a Fox News interview, Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy defended Taibbi's reporting and said of Elon Musk that his critics are "trying to discredit a person for telling the truth."[76] Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado said, "We thought Twitter was a corrupt cesspool. We never knew it was this bad."[77] Democratic House Representative Ro Khanna confirmed the authenticity of his email to Twitter where he criticized the suppression of the New York Post's story as a violation of First Amendment principles.[5] He also said that Twitter should implement "clear and public criteria" of removal or non-promotion of content, make such decisions in a transparent way, and give users a way to appeal the decisions.[78] Donald Trump referred to the first release of Twitter Files as proof of "Big Tech companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party" rigging the 2020 United States presidential election against him, declaring that "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" was necessary. He asked whether the "rightful winner" should be declared or a new election should be held. White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates condemned Trump's comments, writing that the U.S. Constitution is a "sacrosanct document" that unites the country "regardless of party" and that calling for its termination is an attack against "the soul of our nation".[79] Musk also condemned Trump by tweeting: "The Constitution is greater than any President. End of story."[2] Legal scholars David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said Twitter was free to decide what content to allow on its platform, and both the Biden campaign and the Trump White House were free to make content suggestions.[80] Jonathan Turley, an attorney, legal scholar and analyst, described the Twitter Files as proof of shadow banning and revealing "an insatiable appetite for more censorship, where even jokes become intolerable". He suggested that legal consequences may emerge for Dorsey and other executives, who denied having shadow banned users under oath publicly and before the U.S. Congress. Turley commented that free speech is being threatened because "the media voluntarily maintains official narratives and suppresses dissenting views".[81] Privacy and security Taibbi was criticized for his failure to redact email addresses from the published screenshots; Yoel Roth, Twitter's former head of Trust and Safety, called it "fundamentally unacceptable", and Musk conceded that the email addresses should have been redacted.[1] Though Musk was supportive of Roth, who is gay, while he was employed by Twitter, after his resignation, he began publicly criticizing him and endorsing tweets making false accusations against Roth — including an accusation that he was sexualizing children, which Donie O'Sullivan of CNN said is a "common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online", resulting in a wave of threats of violence serious enough to force him to flee his home.[82][83] Musk directed his new head of Trust and Safety, Ella Irwin, to give screenshots of internal views of users' accounts to Weiss, which she posted online.[84] The publication of the screenshots, and a statement by Musk that writers working on the files would have unfettered access, raised concerns that people could access sensitive user data in violation of a 2022 privacy agreement between Twitter and the Federal Trade Commission.[84] On December 10, 2022, Musk threatened to sue any Twitter employee who leaked information to the press, despite his claims to be a "free speech absolutist," and having released internal messages and emails to selected journalists. This threat was expressed in an all-hands, with Twitter employees given a pledge to sign indicating that they understood.[85][86] Former Twitter employees Twitter's former CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey urged Musk to release all the internal documents "without filter" at once, including all of Twitter's discussions around current and future actions on content moderation.[87] Dorsey later criticized Musk for only allowing the internal documents to be accessed by select people, suggesting that the files should have been made publicly available "Wikileaks-style" so that there were "many more eyes and interpretations to consider". Dorsey conceded that "mistakes were made" at Twitter, but stated his belief that there was "no ill intent or hidden agendas" in the company. He also condemned the harassment campaigns waged against former Twitter employees, saying that it is "dangerous" and "doesn't solve anything".[88] Former head of product Kayvon Beykour said that Weiss' framing of the account blacklists as shadow banning was "either a lazy interpretation or deliberately misleading," stating that they never denied "de-amplifying" content, and that Weiss was "characterizing any de-amplification as equating to shadow banning."[63] Journalists After the first set of Files were published, many technology journalists wrote that the reported evidence did not demonstrate much more than Twitter's policy team having a difficult time making a tough call, but resolving the matter swiftly.[32][36] Forbes reported on Taibbi's posts regarding the New York Post story that they contained "no bombshells," and appeared to indicate "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting a conspiracy theory that claimed the FBI was involved.[46] Taibbi received criticism from MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan for the appearance of performing public relations for Musk; Taibbi responded by asking how many of his critics "have run stories for anonymous sources at the FBI, CIA, the Pentagon, [and] White House."[1] Intelligencer of New York magazine reacted to the Twitter Files installments one and two, calling them "saturated in hyperbole, marred by omissions of context, and discredited by instances of outright mendacity" and thus "best understood as an egregious example of the very phenomenon it purports to condemn — that of social-media managers leveraging their platforms for partisan ends."[89] Charlie Warzel of The Atlantic characterized the initial two Twitter Files as "sloppy, anecdotal, devoid of context, and...old news," but acknowledged that the files demonstrated the "immense power" possessed by Big Tech platforms as a result of "[outsourcing] broad swaths of our political discourse and news consumption to corporate platforms." Warzel also insinuated that Musk's core goal is to "anger liberals" and appeal to the political right, citing him allowing the documents to only be accessed by select people "who've expressed alignment with his pet issues" and telling his followers to vote Republican in the 2022 midterm elections.[90] After the first Weiss presentation, Caleb Ecarma of Vanity Fair wrote it was still unknown how many accounts had been "shadow banned," how they had been selected and what their political persuasions were, noting that several prominent leftist and anti-fascist users had been banned under Musk; he reinstated several banned prominent right-leaning users.[91][92] Katherine Cross of Wired portrayed Weiss' and Taibbi's presentation of the first two Files as "theatrical transparency that occludes the lack of a real thing under Musk's leadership", insinuating that Musk's ulterior motive is to achieve "freedom from any accountability" and "a world where no one tells him 'no'". Cross said that the word "shadowban" has become "whatever people want it to mean", comparing it to the use of the word "woke" by the political right. She also asked why Musk had not been transparent about his own decision-making, suggesting that "everything they have falsely accused Twitter of doing is what they seek to do to their many ideological enemies".[59] Conservative columnist Gerard Baker of The Wall Street Journal wrote that the Twitter Files "tell us nothing new", and that it does not contain any "shocking revelation[s]" regarding government censorship or manipulation by political campaigns. Baker added that the Files only reveal "the internal deliberations of a company dealing with complex issues in ways consistent with its values."[93] Oliver Darcy of CNN commented on the fact multiple news organizations were not reporting on the Twitter Files, saying that this is because "the releases have largely not contained any revelatory information", for the Files only demonstrate "how messy content moderation can be—especially when under immense pressure and dealing with the former President of the United States." However, he noted news outlets not covering the Files allows for "dishonest actors in right-wing media" to hijack the narrative with "warped interpretation[s]", thus creating complications for laypeople trying to research the Files.[94] Following the sixth release of Files, Robby Soave of the libertarian magazine Reason wrote that "social media companies have every right to moderate jokes" but called the FBI's communications with the company "inappropriate" and a "free speech violation". He commented that it was "frankly disturbing" for tech companies and the federal government to be "working in tandem to crack down on dissent, contrarianism, and even humor".[10] Commentators Miranda Devine, a columnist with the New York Post who was among the first to write about the laptop, told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the presentation regarding the story wasn't the "smoking gun we'd hoped for," adding, "I feel that Elon Musk has held back some material," alluding to a meeting he had with Apple CEO Tim Cook days earlier, amid speculation Apple might remove the Twitter app from its App Store.[75] Devine later criticized ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News for not covering the Files, calling it "shameful", as well as The New York Times' and the Washington Post's coverage of Musk—who she called "Twitter's freedom-minded new owner"—for being "the same ignore-and-smear game across the leftie media sphere". She also characterized the Anti-Defamation League as "propagandists" after reporting a stark increase in hate speech on the platform in the wake of Musk's acquisition.[95] Jim Geraghty of National Review wrote that "the files paint an ugly portrait of a social-media company's management unilaterally deciding that its role was to keep breaking news away from the public instead of letting people see the reporting and drawing their own conclusions."[96] The Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal praised the release for exposing "a form of political corruption" where current and former U.S. intelligence officials have an influence on elections.[97] Musk accused Wikipedia of "non-trivial left-wing bias" after the Twitter Files article was considered for deletion, replying to screenshots of select users referring to it as "not notable" and a "nothing burger"; however the final decision was to keep the article.[98][99] References Grynbaum, Michael M. (December 4, 2022). "Elon Musk, Matt Taibbi, and a Very Modern Media Maelstrom". The New York Times. ""End of story": Elon Musk responds to Trump's "Twitter Files" reaction". Axios. December 4, 2022. Frankel, Alison (December 5, 2022). "Musk is entitled to order disclosures like 'The Twitter Files.' Are states?". Reuters. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 10, 2022. Fung, Brian (December 4, 2022). "Released Twitter emails show how employees debated how to handle 2020 New York Post Hunter Biden story". CNN. Lima, Christiano. "Ro Khanna had no clue he'd star in Musk's 'Twitter Files'". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 7, 2022. Schreckinger, Ben (December 8, 2022). "Elon Musk's release of Twitter documents on Hunter Biden has slowed. Here's why". POLITICO. Archived from the original on December 8, 2022. Retrieved December 17, 2022. Shapero, Julia (December 8, 2022). "Former NYT columnist Bari Weiss releases 'Twitter Files Part Two'". The Hill. Retrieved December 9, 2022. "Serving healthy conversation". blog.twitter.com. Retrieved December 13, 2022. Rebecca Cohen; Erin Snodgrass; Kelsey Vlamis (December 8, 2022). "The 'Twitter Files' part 2 claimed to 'reveal' that the platform limited some accounts' reach, but that was already public knowledge — and in line with Elon Musk's new 'freedom of speech, not freedom of reach' policy". Business Insider. Soave, Robby (December 16, 2022). "Twitter Files: The FBI frequently flagged joke tweets, asked for moderation". Reason.com. Retrieved December 18, 2022. "Twitter Files spark debate about 'blacklisting'". BBC News. December 14, 2022. Retrieved December 17, 2022. "Twitter turns six". Twitter Blog. March 21, 2012. Retrieved December 11, 2022. Gillespie, Tarleton (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven. p. 1-23. ISBN 978-0-300-23502-9. OCLC 1041140246. Gillespie, Tarleton (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven. p. 74-110. ISBN 978-0-300-23502-9. OCLC 1041140246. Coldewey, Devin (December 9, 2022). "Musk's 'Twitter Files' offer a glimpse of the raw, complicated and thankless task of moderation". Yahoo Finance Canada. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Zannettou, Savvas (June 7, 2021). ""I Won the Election!": An Empirical Analysis of Soft Moderation Interventions on Twitter". Proceedings of the Fifteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. pp. 865–876. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Craig Timberg; Elizabeth Dwoskin (October 30, 2017). "Russian content on Facebook, Google and Twitter reached far more users than companies first disclosed, congressional testimony says". The Washington Post. Cummings, William (December 17, 2018). "Senate reports find millions of social media posts by Russians aimed at helping Trump, GOP". USA Today. Cox, Kate (October 14, 2020). "Twitter, Facebook face blowback after stopping circulation of NY Post story". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on October 14, 2020. Retrieved October 15, 2020. Tiku, Nitasha; Romm, Tony. "Twitter bans Trump's account, citing risk of further violence". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved January 8, 2021. "Elon Musk is using the Twitter Files to discredit foes and push conspiracy theories". NPR.org. Retrieved December 18, 2022. "Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets". the Guardian. October 22, 2021. Retrieved December 14, 2022. Huszár, Ferenc; Ktena, Sofia Ira; O’Brien, Conor; Belli, Luca; Schlaikjer, Andrew; Hardt, Moritz (December 21, 2021). "Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (1). doi:10.1073/pnas.2025334119. ISSN 0027-8424. Dang, Sheila; Paul, Katie (November 30, 2022). "Twitter not safer under Elon Musk, says former head of trust and safety". Reuters. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Ecarma, Caleb (November 21, 2022). "We're Officially in the Elon Musk Era of Content Moderation". Vanity Fair. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Serwer, Adam (December 9, 2022). "Why Conservatives Invented a 'Right to Post'". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Delcker, Janosch (November 16, 2022). "Twitter's sacking of content moderators raises concerns – DW – 11/16/2022". dw.com. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Elliott, Vittoria; Stokel-Walker, Chris (November 17, 2022). "Twitter's Moderation System Is in Tatters". WIRED. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Klar, Rebecca (November 18, 2022). "Musk says 'hate tweets' will be 'deboosted & demonetized'". The Hill. Retrieved December 14, 2022. Musk, Elon [@elonmusk] (November 28, 2022). "The Twitter Files on free speech suppression soon to be published on Twitter itself. The public deserves to know what really happened ..." (Tweet) – via Twitter. Corn, David (December 6, 2022). "What Musk and Co. Want You to Forget About TwitterFiles". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 11, 2022. Fischer, Sara (December 6, 2022). "The alternative-media industrial complex". Axios. Zakrzewski, Cat; Faiz Siddiqui (December 3, 2022). "Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' ignite divisions, but haven't changed minds". The Washington Post. Taibbi, Matt (December 2, 2022). "Note to Readers". TK News by Matt Taibbi. Maruf, Ramishah (December 5, 2022). "Elon Musk speaks out on 'Twitter Files' release detailing platform's inner workings". KSLNewsRadio. CNN. "Musk says Twitter lawyer fired amid Hunter Biden laptop dispute". Al Jazeera. December 7, 2022. Retrieved December 7, 2022. Ling, Justin (December 8, 2022). "Elon Musk's Twitter Files Are a Feast for Conspiracy Theorists". Wired. Tong, Sebastian (December 6, 2022). "Musk Says Deputy General Counsel 'Exited' From Twitter". Bloomberg Law. Tangalakis-Lippert, Katherine (December 3, 2022). "Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' drop revealed some of the tweets the Biden campaign asked the social app to remove were nude photos of Hunter Biden spread without his consent". Business Insider. Bachman, Brett (December 6, 2022). "Elon Musk Fires Twitter's General Counsel Over Hunter Biden Laptop Saga". The Daily Beast. Retrieved December 6, 2022. Grynbaum, Michael M. (December 5, 2022). "Elon Musk, Matt Taibbi, and a Very Modern Media Maelstrom". The New York Times. Retrieved December 16, 2022. "Musk releases "Twitter Files" about platform's inner workings | CNN Business". December 3, 2022. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Feiner, Lora Kolodny,Lauren (December 7, 2022). "Democratic lawmakers ask Musk for info on possible Chinese manipulation of Twitter". CNBC. Archived from the original on December 7, 2022. Retrieved December 8, 2022. Dwoskin, Elizabeth (October 15, 2020). "Facebook and Twitter take unusual steps to limit spread of New York Post story". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on October 15, 2020. Retrieved October 15, 2020. Walsh, Susan (December 2, 2022). "Elon Musk promotes release of internal Twitter documents rehashing platform's block of Hunter Biden story". NBC News. Archived from the original on December 4, 2022. Retrieved December 8, 2022. Bushard, Brian. "Musk's 'Twitter Files': Internal Hunter Biden Debate Revealed With Much Hype But No Bombshells". Forbes. Retrieved December 4, 2022. Fung, Brian (December 4, 2022). "Released Twitter emails show how employees debated how to handle 2020 New York Post Hunter Biden story". CNN. Garrison, Joey; Schulz, Bailey; Guynn, Jessica (December 3, 2022). "Elon Musk's 'Twitter files': Emails reveal internal struggle on handling of Hunter Biden laptop". USA Today. Johm Woolfolk (December 7, 2022). "Why one Bay Area Democrat pushed back on Twitter's snuff of Hunter Biden story". The Mercury News. Ray, Siladitya. "Twitter Files: Founder Jack Dorsey Urges Musk To Release 'Everything Without Filter'". Forbes. Retrieved December 8, 2022. Kastrenakes, Jacob (December 3, 2022). "Elon Musk's promised Twitter exposé on the Hunter Biden story is a flop that doxxed multiple people". The Verge. Retrieved December 8, 2022. Grynbaum, Michael M. (December 5, 2022). "Elon Musk, Matt Taibbi, and a Very Modern Media Maelstrom". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 8, 2022. Sonnemaker, Tyler. "Twitter will now add warning labels to tweets containing hacked material instead of banning them entirely, after its blocking of contested New York Post Biden story provoked uproar". Business Insider. Retrieved December 8, 2022. Kang, Jay Caspian (December 6, 2022). "What Elon Musk doesn't know about free speech". The New Yorker. "Analysis | Ro Khanna had no clue he'd star in Musk's 'Twitter Files'". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved December 18, 2022. Picchi, Aimee (December 14, 2022). "Twitter Files: What they are and why they matter". CBS News. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 17, 2022. French, David (December 3, 2022). "Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson Don't Understand the First Amendment". The Atlantic. "Last night, on Fox News, Tucker Carlson also picked up the claim about the First Amendment. With characteristic breathless hyperbole, Carlson declared that the documents "show a systemic violation of the First Amendment, the largest example of that in modern history." Musk and Carlson are both profoundly wrong; the documents released so far show no such thing. In October 2020, when the laptop story broke, Joe Biden was not president. The Democratic National Committee (which also asked for Twitter to review tweets) is not an arm of the government. It's a private political party. Twitter is not an arm of the government; it is a private company." O'Brien, Matt; Ortutay, Barbara; Klepper, David (December 13, 2022). "EXPLAINER: How Elon Musk is changing what you see on Twitter". Associated Press. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Cross, Katherine. "The Transparency Theater of the Twitter Files". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved December 13, 2022. Warzel, Charlie (December 9, 2022). "Elon Musk's Twitter Files Are Bait". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Hart, Robert (December 9, 2022). "Twitter Files 2: Elon Musk's Hyped Up Exposé Unveils 'Secret Blacklists' And 'Shadow Banning' —Which Seem Very Similar To His Own Policies". Forbes. Jersey City, New Jersey. Retrieved December 9, 2022. Gadde, Vijaya; Beykpour, Kayvon (July 26, 2018). "Setting the record straight on shadow banning". Twitter Blog. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Montgomery, Blake (December 9, 2022). "The Twitter Files, Part Two, Explained". Gizmodo. Retrieved December 12, 2022. "Twitter had 'secret blacklists' to limit users, journalist claims - Social Media News". Al Jazeera. December 9, 2022. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Milmo, Dan (October 22, 2021). "Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets". The Guardian. Retrieved December 13, 2022. "According to Twitter, Twitter's algorithm favours conservatives". The Economist. November 13, 2021. "Among the most hotly debated questions on social media is how algorithmic bias affects social media. In America conservatives claim that Facebook and Twitter bury or outright censor their views. The left retorts that right-wing conspiracy theories like QAnon flourish on these sites. An unlikely arbiter recently emerged in this debate: Twitter itself. In October it released a paper it said demonstrated that its algorithm, which picks which tweets users see in which order, favoured right-leaning American news sites. In six of the seven countries studied, the algorithm also gave a disproportionate boost to lawmakers from conservative political parties." "Elon Musk's Echo Chamber Busy Trying to Manufacture More 'Twitter Files' Scandals". SFist - San Francisco News, Restaurants, Events, & Sports. December 9, 2022. Retrieved December 13, 2022. Urquhart, Evan (December 9, 2022). "The Anti-Trans Hate Account That Bari Weiss Says Is Yet Another Right-Wing Voice Censored by Twitter". Slate Magazine. Retrieved December 13, 2022. Dodgson, Lindsay (December 12, 2022). "Musk's media renegades: The anti-establishment writers including Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss chosen for the 'Twitter Files'". Insider. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Tech Giants Prepared for 2016-Style Meddling. But the Threat Has Changed.. The New York Times, March 29, 2020 D'Cruze, Danny (December 10, 2022). "'Deplatforming the President': Twitter Files Part 3 reveals events that led to removal of Donald Trump". Business Today. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Musk releases "Twitter Files" about platform's inner workings | CNN Business. CNN. December 3, 2022. Event occurs at 2:19. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Folmar, Chloe (December 10, 2022). "American author Michael Shellenberger releases 'Twitter Files Part 4'". The Hill. Retrieved December 12, 2022. "Twitter Files Part 5 reveals Donald Trump was banned despite not violating any policies". CNBC TV18. December 13, 2022. Retrieved December 19, 2022. Petrizzo, Zachary (December 3, 2022). "'Deeply Underwhelmed': Right-Wingers on Musk's Overhyped 'Twitter Files'". The Daily Beast. Grynbaum, Michael M. (December 5, 2022). "Elon Musk, Matt Taibbi, and a Very Modern Media Maelstrom". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com. Palmer, Ewan (December 3, 2022). "Donald Trump slams "corrupt" U.S. as he jumps on Musk's Twitter reveal". Newsweek. Archived from the original on December 5, 2022. Retrieved December 10, 2022. Khanna, Ro (December 5, 2022). "archive.today". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 9, 2022. Habeshian, Sareen (December 3, 2022). "Trump: Constitution should be terminated due to 'massive' election fraud". Axios. Retrieved December 13, 2022. John Woolfolk (December 7, 2022). "Why one Bay Area Democrat pushed back on Twitter's snuff of Hunter Biden story". The Mercury News. Turley, Jonathan (December 10, 2022). "With new Twitter files, Musk forces a free-speech reckoning for politicians and pundits". The Hill. Retrieved December 13, 2022. O'Sullivan, Donie (December 12, 2022). "Former top Twitter official forced to leave home due to threats amid 'Twitter Files' release | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Christopher, Wiggins (December 12, 2022). "Elon Musk Accuses Gay Former Twitter Employee of Sexualizing Kids". Wagner, Kurt (December 9, 2022). "Musk Twitter Leak Raises Concern About Outside Data Access". Bloomberg. Retrieved December 12, 2022. Mollman, Steve (December 12, 2022). "Elon Musk demands Twitter employees pledge they won't leak information to the press—and is threatening to sue them if they do: Report". fortune.com. Fortune. Retrieved December 11, 2022. Woodward, Alex (December 11, 2022). "Free speech warrior Elon Musk reportedly threatens to sue Twitter staff if they leak to media". independent.co.uk. The Independent. Retrieved December 11, 2022. Ray, Siladitya (December 7, 2022). "Twitter Files: Founder Jack Dorsey Urges Musk To Release 'Everything Without Filter'". Forbes. Archived from the original on December 7, 2022. Clark, Mitchell (December 13, 2022). "Jack Dorsey on Musk's Twitter Files: 'There's nothing to hide'". The Verge. Retrieved December 16, 2022. Levitz, Eric (December 10, 2022). "The 'Twitter Files' Is What It Claims to Expose". New York. Warzel, Charlie (December 9, 2022). "Elon Musk's Twitter Files Are Bait". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 11, 2022. Ecarma, Caleb (December 9, 2022). "Elon Musk's Twitter Files Say A Lot More About Him Than Twitter". Vanity Fair. Ivanova, Irina (November 21, 2022). "These formerly banned Twitter accounts have been reinstated since Elon Musk took over". Baker, Gerard. "Opinion | Elon Musk's Twitter Files Revelations Are Instructive but Not Surprising". WSJ. Retrieved December 14, 2022. Darcy, Oliver (December 13, 2022). "Why news organizations are largely skeptical of Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' theater | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved December 14, 2022. Devine, Miranda (December 11, 2022). "The media's silence on the 'Twitter Files' is shameful". New York Post. Retrieved December 13, 2022. Geraghty, Jim (December 5, 2022). "'Twitter Files' Paint an Ugly Portrait". National Review. "The Twitter Censorship Files". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on December 9, 2022. Bhaimiya, Sawdah (December 8, 2022). "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales told Elon Musk it is 'not for sale' after the Twitter owner accused the encyclopedia of having a left-wing bias". Business Insider. Retrieved December 13, 2022. "We Are Watching Elon Musk and His Fans Create a Conspiracy Theory About Wikipedia in Real Time - VICE". www.vice.com. Retrieved December 14, 2022.
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 James A. Baker Fired at Twitter 2 Article trending on Twitter following Musk’s comment 3 What are the files? 4 Requested move 6 December 2022 5 Ongoing news 6 BRD discussion of possible UNDUE content 7 Link to investigating reporters page could be beneficial 8 is it really "investigative journalism" 9 Page Name: "Twitter Files" 10 Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022 11 Which "prominent conservative conspiracy theories"? 12 Bizarre, misleading, and non-encylopeadic attribution style 13 No mention that the laptop showed zero evidence of unethical or illegal behavior. Must be fixed, import text from main article summarizing laptop "controversy" immediately 14 why remove the strong Reaction from the far-right Gab 15 Leading Paragraph 16 Un protect the article 17 James Baker, former FBI General Counsel went to Twitter as their General Counsel and and through those channels got Biden's laptop banned from being posted 18 Wikipedia is not Fox News 19 Attempts to delete the page 20 Trump's commentary 21 Jim Baker legal controversy 22 Twitter files 23 Washington Post's reaction 24 Wikipedia bots 25 "I did indeed move it down" 26 "no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter Biden] laptop story," 27 "in-depth New York Times investigation" 28 Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022 29 Weiss quote in lead James A. Baker Fired at Twitter I added a section on James A. Baker's firing as general counsel. It was deleted by an anonymous editor. Here is what I added: James A. Baker, deputy general counsel at Twitter, was fired by Elon Musk on December 6, 2022, after his role in the Twitter suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story was discovered. source: Paul West. "Elon Musk fires Twitter deputy general counsel Jim Baker amid Hunter Biden laptop fallout." Fox Business News. December 6, 2022. I presume citing Fox Business News was the reason, but there has been no other source yet.Kmccook (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It would appear that someone brought it back with a Bloomberg reference that people aren't objecting to. While the particular Fox story you linked didn't appear to be much more than fact reporting, Fox News/Business is considered semi-unreliable on WP as a general policy due to pretty erratic levels of objectivity. Not that there aren't problematic sources on the left too. Just sayin' that's why. Felice Enellen (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'd seen Musk report it, then went for a secondary source and FBN was the only one at that time. Thank you.Kmccook (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Article trending on Twitter following Musk’s comment As the creator of the article, I hereby use this space to say that the discussion regarding it, which as filled my notifications for the past 48 hours, as reached Elon Musk and is now a trending topic on Twitter following the comments of many verified accounts regarding the possibility of the article being deleted. I have been on this platform for seven years, having created articles with regularity. With that said, I will respect the decision of the admins but something has to be said — the arguments against its creation have been vague, biased, and above all, have lacked class and a polite discourse. I am appalled by what the last 48 hours have been. The amount of hate has been overwhelming. I will keep fighting for what I believe to be accurate and unbiased, but it certainly is a challenge. With the upmost honesty, Wikisempra. Wikisempra (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree. Colliric (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There are no words to describe what you just wrote. I don’t even live in the U.S., I don’t even like Trump. Even if I did, that would give you no write to speak like that. What a terrible society Wikisempra (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA What are the files? Are the Twitter Files used to refer to the leaked documents themselves (such as "files" in Xinjiang Police Files), or do they refer simply to Taibbi's tweets? My understanding is that it is the former, but we're currently reflecting the latter in the lead of our article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've changed the first sentence to have the files refer to the documents — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think Twitter Files is just a shorthand way of saying 'all the stuff Taibbi is revealing at this point'. Your change is an improvement, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] DDOSecrets has a 3.6GB cache on their web site of the Hunter Biden files, stating that they are mirroring the cache as published by Garrett Ziegler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169 (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Requested move 6 December 2022 The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The result of the move request was: Moved speedily due to unanimaty. This seems obvious (the page was only named "investigation" because I had created redirects of "Twitter Files" and "The Twitter Files" to Taibbi's page and the page creator didn't make the page over the redirect). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Twitter Files Investigation → Twitter Files – I think that more sources are labeling this as "Twitter Files" than are labeling this as "Twitter Files Investigation", and I think the WP:COMMONNAME should probably prevail here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support. This article isn't about a formal investigation. The proposed title is also more concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support. It's more like an overarching title for podcast series in a way. Could expand to many topics. Nweil (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support. A concise title is appreciated. Gensao (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support: per others above. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support - no sort of "investigation" here. casualdejekyll 00:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support The original title is more accurate, since it is an investigation, but "Twitter Files" is how it is being referred to almost universally, including in the press and by the people directly involved with it. DanielDeibler (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support This is more accurate and more widely used Slugiscool99 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support Precisely as per reasoning articulated by Rreagan007. And, I might add, even if the U.S. House or Representatives conducts a formal investigation, details of that would become a section under this new title. Greg L (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support WP:COMMONNAME. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support - I see no reason why Investigation should be applied, if anything just put a redirect from Twitter Files Investigation to Twitter Files Meganinja202 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support. "Twitter Files Investigation" is a misnomer; it wasn't an investigation--it was a release of documents (from what I can tell, given from Musk). SWinxy (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support per WP:COMMONNAME. MarioGom (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support There is no valid reason. Article must be titled as "Twitter Files". Nkverma2022 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support - There isn't any formal investigation I am aware of and almost everyone knows it as "Twitter Files" because it is published with the title "THE TWITTER FILES" Mstf221 (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support it is a more streamline name.2603:8000:5000:E9D2:8D21:67FF:96C9:725F (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support however this article is at AFD, and so shouldn't be moved until the AFD is concluded, as that messes up the links in the AFD discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] That shouldn't be an issue since moving auto-creates redirects. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 13:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support This article should not be on the AFD list. It's relevance is immeasurable on many fronts. To delete it entirely would be disastroust. Merging with Twitter Files article is supportable at the moment. Sewnew (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sewnew: This discussion is not related to deletion. It's just a proposal to rename the article from Twitter Files Investigation to Twitter Files. MarioGom (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support as this is not a formal investigation, but a release of files. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] • Mostly Support Maybe "Twitter Files Controversy" instead of investigation? Fharryn (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Gonna need someone with page mover perms to perform a WP:ROUNDROBIN. I was about to close this myself considering there's roughly two dozen !votes and there's unanimous support, but the target page Twitter Files already exists. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support moving to simply Twitter Files, per MOS. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 18:05, 7 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. Ongoing news This article is an ongoing news event and be classified as such. Colliric (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "should be" sorry my mistake. Colliric (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Already done here. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:NOTFORUM BRD discussion of possible UNDUE content Per WP:BRD, I have just removed the WP:BOLD edits that included this content: "The tweets in question contained nude photos of Hunter Biden.[1] [2] [3] Business Insider, Salon and CNN have speculated these were removed in compliance with Twitter's own non-consenual nudity policy [2][1][3] and California state law, which makes sharing such imagery illegal.[1] " Since none of the first installment of the Twitter Files, Taibbi's 30 or 40 tweets of 2 December 2022, discussed the nude photos, this seems as if it is WP:UNDUE to have in the article at this time. Even if other sources are turning it into a nude photo discussion, the actual journalism by Taibbi was about Twitter content moderation policy of a particular New York Post article. Please discuss, add perspectives, of what other editors think. — N2e (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agree that the content of the Hunter Laptop is not what the article is about. Trying to discredit or diminish the article by discussing hunter nudes is not worth of consideration. Deal with and discuss the overarching censorship and collusion issues that are affecting American politics and changing or influencing elections. 2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Tangalakis-Lippert, Katherine (Dec 3, 2022). "Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' drop revealed some of the tweets the Biden campaign asked the social app to remove were nude photos of Hunter Biden spread without his consent". Business Insider. Fung, Brian (Dec 4, 2022). "Released Twitter emails show how employees debated how to handle 2020 New York Post Hunter Biden story". CNN. Shah, Areeba (Dec 5, 2022). "Elon Musk's hyped "Twitter Files" show Biden campaign asked to remove Hunter Biden nude photos". Salon. N2e (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's right there in the articles, eg: "Taibbi shared a screenshot of five deleted tweets, four of which had archives available online that depicted nude photos and videos of the president's son. The contents of Hunter Biden's laptop had been leaked after he allegedly left his device at a Delaware repair shop." Several WP:REPUTABLE news outlets reported on this. -Kieran (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] We can speculate over why Taibbi never explicitly mentioned that the deleted tweets were nude photos, but that's what they were. It also makes zero sense not to include actual reporting by reputable sources about this. -Kieran (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Link to investigating reporters page could be beneficial https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1598822959866683394?refresh=1670024869 Wpow (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] is it really "investigative journalism" WP:NOTFORUM Page Name: "Twitter Files" Why is this the longer and clumsier "Twitter Files Investigation", a name I'd never heard used until just now, instead of the shorter and more commonly used "Twitter Files"? Mathmo Talk 11:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Good question, you can always {{requested move}}. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There is already a move discussion at Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022. MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There was 100% support for a move! Glad to see that. Mathmo Talk 12:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022 This edit request to Twitter Files has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Provide full quotation (tweet) for Jack Dorsey's comment. Current language ("urged") is editorializing. Different commas (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Not done: that's the exact characterization used by the reliable source given. It's not editorializing if we have a non-opinionated reliable source to back it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Which "prominent conservative conspiracy theories"? The article includes a few qualifiers to the effect of "contradicting conservative conspiracy theories" without any relevant citations or attributions. Which conspiracy theories were those? What did they theorize? Who theorized them? If the conspiracy theories were that the government was directly and specifically involved in suppressing the "Hunter Biden Laptop" story on Twitter *AND* that these Twitter Files would contain that evidence, then yes, those conspiracy theories are contradicted. But as written, these qualifying statements might imply that theories of any government involvement in the suppression of the "Laptop" story have been contradicted. They have not. First, those theories aren't _contradicted_ by an absence supporting of evidence. Rather, they are simply _unsupported_ by it. In short, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - It is otherwise known that the US government interacts, generally, with social media companies about the spread and removal of information. - Federal law enforcement did approach social media companies in the months preceding this _specific_ event with _general_ warnings about foreign hacks and disinformation re: the election. Both points would provide relevant and meaningful context re: "government involvement" despite these Twitter Files not happening to contain a smoking-gun "Dear Twitter, Suppress this story. Love, The FBI" email. At the very least, I would recommend rephrasing "contradicting... conspiracy theories" with something to the effect of "offering no direct evidence in support of... conspiracy theories" as its more accurate and less politically charged. Mmurrian (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've changed it, but it reads poorly now. I do feel we are bending over backwards to accommodate conspiracists in a manner unbefitting to an encylopedia. In other articles, we call a spade a spade, and call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories (republican claims about global warming being a hoax, dinosaurs being made up, earth being flat, the lie that Trump "won" the election.) In my mind, it's extremely improper that we are creating a false balance here. There are policies that explicitly say we are not to create false balances of this kind. Wikipedia is NOT meant to be balanced between conspiracy theories and published evidence in reliable sources. I fear this article has already veered into the territory of unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. Sad. There-being (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And what is that fringe theory? That's all I am asking for. If there is a certain and specific "conspiracy theory" that can be identified and has been contradicted by the "Twitter Files" then, by all means, cite it and write it. But why is some vague "debunking the vast right-wing conspiracy" quip any more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry? It's political editorializing in itself. Maybe just leave it off in either form and let the facts speak for themselves. Mmurrian (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sorry if it's not clear. I simply meant the theory that Twitter suppressed this story at the Federal Government's behest (specifically the FBI). This is mentioned in more detail in the body of the article. I was attempting to be more brief in the lede. I think it is important that this is clarified at the beginning of the article, just as in an article on the false claim that the earth is flat we mention that this is a discredited conspiracy, or that in an article on "Pizzagate" we immediately write that the idea of lizard sex people is false, and that we would immediately state in an article on Trump's claims that the election was stolen that these claims have been proven false. Why? Because we have policies that require that we do not create a false balance by treating conspiracies and reliably sourced claims on par. Anyway, I can try to make it clearer if you'd like if the current sentence is too vague. There-being (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Fact: FBI warns social media companies about the potential for attempted Russian interference in the elections, placing them on "high alert". Fact: "50 former intelligence officials warn NY Post story sounds like Russian disinformation". Fact: Against that back-drop, Twitter finds any reason within their TOS to suppress the story. Narrative: Since we don't have an email "From: FBI, To: Jack Dorsey, Subject: Censor the Laptop Story.", the right-wing conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked. Touche' to the FBI for operating like an actual clandestine organization and "50 former intelligence officials" for playing their part. Mmurrian (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You are engaging in original research. I am simply transmitting what the reliable sources say. Your inference from "FBI warns social media companies" to the "Twitter Files confirmed that the FBI pressured Twitter to suppress photographs of Hunter Biden's genitals" is an outrageous leap of logic. You also make a further large logical leap in mentioning "former intelligence officials." Fact of the matter is that the Twitter files did not show any evidence of the purported conspiracy by the federal government (controlled at the time by Donald Trump, so this conspiracy theory is not even internally coherent) to pressure Twitter to suppress information. That's what the reliable sources say, and that's what an encyclopedia that draws from reliable sources should say. Speculations based on absence of evidence as somehow indicating proof do not belong in an encyclopedia. I've already compromised to an extraordinary degree (far more than I regard as reasonable) based on your concerns so I'm rather astonished that you could still have a problem at this point. There-being (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] But I do 100% agree that there is no supporting evidence that the FBI sent any emails from @fbi.gov accounts to @twitter.com accounts directing them to suppress the "Hunter Biden Laptop Story". When the net effect of their "general warning" combined with that letter from "50 former intelligence officials" already achieved the desired result, why would they do something so obviously improper over unsecured email? If anyone thought such emails would ever exist, they were laughably naive. Definitely. Mmurrian (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] But then you agree with the reliable sources conclusion (and Taibbi's) that the Twitter files do not provide any evidence that the FBI pressured Twitter. You are simply acting as if the absence of evidence is somehow confirmation. That is the hallmark of conspiratorial thinking. In any case, it should go without saying that we cannot publish anything on the basis of hunches that the absence of evidence of FBI pressure is actually evidence of FBI pressure. There-being (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Extended "content" The relevant portion of the body reads as follows: "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.[16] Taibbi tweeted, "there is no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story."[16][6] Donald Trump was president at the time in question and had appointed the sitting FBI director." It is absolutely necessary that a similar statement be in the lede, preferably in the first paragraph-- just as we would in any article whose topic is a prominent discredited conspiracy theory. There-being (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Per this discussion, I've now revised the lede sentence as follows, to better reflect the body content it summarizes and address your concern: "Taibbi stated that the Twitter files showed "no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter Biden] laptop story," thus failing to support prominent conservative conspiracy theories that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories." There-being (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is not the conspiracy theory that Matt's quote is debunking though. The conspiracy theory his quote is debunking is the theory that some government actor was behind hacking or fabricating the information released from Hunter's laptop. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Can you provide a reliable source that backs up your reading? Frankly, I find your proposed reading of the Taibbi quote not only preposterous on its face but deliberately obtuse, and I've not seen a single reliable source that reads it that way, directly contrary to the plain meaning of the text. There-being (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The full quote from Matt backs it up. I fail to see why we can't include the full Tweet from Matt here and let the reader decide. As to your point about FBI not influencing social media companies, I provide this article from the BBC. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You can't say "the full quote backs it up." You are offering a highly counter-intuitive reading that contradicts how Reliable sources have read the Taibbi quote. If you want to support your reading, offer a reliable source that backs it up. Wikipedia primarily works off of reliable sources. If you don't have that, you don't have a basis for your edit. As for your source, I've no idea what you're trying to prove with your source. It certainly doesn't document that the FBI pressured Twitter to censor the scoop on what Hunter Biden's genitals look like. Certainly it doesn't indicate anything that contradicts the current article text that the Twitter files failed to offer any evidence of government pressure to censor the story. There-being (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Bizarre, misleading, and non-encylopeadic attribution style Someone is repeatedly harming the article by introducing misleading attributions. For example, we have our lead now saying "MSNBC host criticized Taibbi for doing PR work for the world's richest man." There are at least 30 sources you could find making nearly identical criticisms. The same goes for the Forbes article, which is also attributed by name. It is disgustingly and disturbingly misleading to write this article as if these are lone wolves whose opinion must be directly attributed in addition to referenced when these are merely representative reliable sources standing in for many sources that posit identical opinions. This is not how you write an encylopedia article, deliberately obfuscating the consensus of reliable sources and falsely implying the opinion of the vast majority of reliable sources is held by a lone individual at MSBNC and Forbes. I am aghast at the conspiracists taking over this article. There-being (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I would strongly suggest you read talk page guidelines before casting WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors for being "conspiracists taking over this article" (in this case, me). I would also suggest you read the source cited at the end of the sentence, which does not say he was "broadly criticized" -- it mentions "critics" and cites that particular criticism to one person from MSNBC. We write for verifiability, not truth: we cannot write the sentence "Bob ate twenty pierogies" and cite it to a The Pierogie Post article saying "Bob ate ten pierogies", regardless of how many pierogies he ate. jp×g 02:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Please make the effort to understand a post before responding to it with a stock message. What I said is that we shouldn't write "MSNBC host criticized Taibbi for doing PR work for the world's richest man" or "Forbes said there were no bombshells" as if these are unusual lone wolf opinions when there are multiple sources given in the article stating the exact same thing, as this misrepresents our reliable sources. It is verifiable that these are not opinions held by a lone individual at Forbes or MSNBC as the article falsely implies, but representative of a broad swath of verifiable sources given in the article. Hence, what we should write is "Critics said X" or just "X" or something to that effect because that's what our reliable sources show. Your comment has literally nothing to do with what I wrote. At no point did I suggest adding unverifiable material to the article. There-being (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If there is a "broad swath" of sources saying something, it should be easy to find them and then cite them, yes? jp×g 03:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It is easy. They are already in the article, just look at every single one of the references in the article. Nearly every source cited states that there were few revelations or bombshells from the twitter files.[1][2][3] As far as the PR work comment, the source you mention itself says "critics" it does not state that this was the comment of some lone commentator at MSNBC. That should be adequate, but if you really want here's a list of 27 other criticisms of Taibbi stating the "PR work for the richest man alive" bit. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by There-being (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] References https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/03/elon-musk-twitter-files... https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/tech/musk-twitter-hunter-biden/index.html https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/2/23490863/elon-musk-twitter-expose-hunter-... https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-twenty-seven-most-embarrassing-reactions... No mention that the laptop showed zero evidence of unethical or illegal behavior. Must be fixed, import text from main article summarizing laptop "controversy" immediately The main article on the Hunter Biden controversy states that investigations showed the laptop indicated no evidence of unethical or illegal behavior by Hunter or Joe Biden. It is wrong, wrong, absolutely wrong that this article as it stands skates by on innuendo without ever mentioning the fact that the entire investigation into this dumb fucking laptop never showed evidence of unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the Bidens. Honestly, I'm disgusted at the conspiracist, right-wing tone how this article is written right now, which is little better than a salacious gossip rag like the Post. I'd love to hear an adequate explanation of why this well-sourced, stable information from the main article is undue here. It belongs in the lead to reduce the tone of sleazy innuendo of wrongdoing that infects every sentence of this article as it now stands. There-being (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @There-being What are you talking about? Notice this sentence in this article: "In March 2022, an in-depth New York Times investigation authenticated the relevant emails, but did not find that Joe Biden had committed any improprieties." Also, the purpose of this article is to discuss Twitter's internal handling of the laptop story, not the contents of said laptop. Moreover, the article's tone is largely dismissive of conservative claims, calling them "conspiracy theories." This article seems reasonably factual given the evidence provided, if not mildly biased to the left. It is certainly not skewed to the right, in any event. Please try to remain more neutral as seemingly you wish this article to pander to your own political views. CandleinDarkness (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Here is the text from the main article I propose to summarize the laptop conspiracy theory (rather than shamefully imply by our silence that the laptop contains some major evidence of wrongdoing): "Although then-President Trump falsely claimed Biden had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office,[1][2][3] extensive scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties revealed no evidence of illegal or unethical activity by Joe Biden or Hunter Biden.[4]" What investigation are you referring to that showed there is no evidence of unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the Bidens? I can see that you are angry and that’s unfortunate, but being outraged doesn’t give someone the right to lie and make false statements. I’m going to quote a CNN article discussing this “investigation” you seem to believe is taking place. “His (Hunter’s) father is not being investigated as part of the probe of his son's business activities, according to sources who have been briefed.” I provided the link below. In that same link it discusses how this “investigation” has been paused for some time. Again, you can’t call people right wing conspiracists when you are just making up lie after lie. I did post another link that provides the detailed corruption you say isn’t taking place regarding this administration. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-critical-... https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/fbi-possesses-significant... WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] References Padden, Brian (October 28, 2020). "Trump Campaign Focuses on Hunter Biden Emails as "October Surprise"". Voice Of America. Retrieved April 26, 2022. "Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine - The New York Times". The New York Times. Retrieved 2022-10-29. "A quick guide to Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens". The Washington Post. 2019-09-27. Retrieved 2022-10-29. Andrew Rice; Olivia Nuzzi (September 12, 2022). "The Sordid Saga of Hunter Biden's Laptop". New York. why remove the strong Reaction from the far-right Gab as well as the source that supports the whole paragraph? soibangla (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Didn't mean to remove that citation; I've just added it back. It is a strong reaction, and it'd normally be noteworthy if people who were expected to be very receptive to the files, called them a nothingburger — but in this case, they did so to reframe it a distraction" from Kanye's incitement of violence and suspension; it just doesn't seem like a good-faith reaction. Gab is itself a "haven for neo-Nazis" (per out well-sourced article on it), and all they're trying to do is hijack the topic to defend antisemitism. I don't think their founder is noteworthy enough for his tweets to be due in most cases, but especially not that tweet. DFlhb (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Whether it's a "good-faith" reaction or not is irrelevant. What needs to be determined here is whether it's a reaction with enough coverage by reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Leading Paragraph The leading paragraph seems slightly skewed to me. While everything said is factually correct, it seems to downplay some aspects and emphasise others. Does anyone else feel it doesn’t conform to NPOV? 27.125.165.242 (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If you have specific NPOV concerns, please, state them explicitly. MarioGom (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Un protect the article This article should be open to public edits, as Taibbi has indicated there is more to come shortly 46.230.141.96 (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] James Baker, former FBI General Counsel went to Twitter as their General Counsel and and through those channels got Biden's laptop banned from being posted Cover up of Biden's laptop should not have happened. 70.126.246.179 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yeah I'll agree censorship is bad, however.... the talk page here isn't the right place for that kind of discussion: WP:NOTAFORUM. Mathmo Talk 13:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not Fox News Fox News often writes a headline known to be false or without evidence, and attributes it to someone saying it. Eg, "VACCINES FOUND TO BE HARMFUL, says So-and-So". Maybe buried in the story, far below the lede, is info that there is no evidence for the statement, or evidence it is false. Superficial readers only see the headline and info in the lede, and go away misinformed. This Wiki article has the same misleading structure, stating an allegation in the 2nd lede sentence, and only later stating there was no evidence for it, in the selective info release. Thia article should begin with a statement that the selective release lacked evidence for allegations, then state the allegations and who made them without evidence, and continued to make them in a misleading way after the select release failed to support the allegations. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I corrected this misleading structure by changing the order of sentences in the lead so that factual info is 1st, and evidence-free allegations is later. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Attempts to delete the page INCORRECT VENUE This page is not an AfD. To view and comment on the deletion discussion, please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation, instead of clogging the article talkpage with endless "Keep"s and "Delete"s. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:01, 7 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. Delete: All mainstream media outlets have agreed that this was a nothingburger (such as https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/elon-musk-twitter-files-flop-...). As Wikipedia relies on mainstream news sources, it is obligated to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Delete: This is a clear nothingburger. This article is bias and its purpose is ultimately to promote hate and fascism. The longer this article remains the longer Wikipedia is demonstrating its silent support for fascism. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep: public interest in this information is still growing, more reliable sources will appear pretty soon since this is still a developing story. To suggest the article for deletion without a single argument on said suggestion is no way to conduct a Wikipedia where we attempt to be honest. I took care in referencing and am still formatting said references - it is appalling that users would describe work as a “disaster” without saying why. Wikisempra (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It makes sense to delete this nothingburger. It is not notable enough for its own article and should be in the main Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. "The prevailing consensus has been that the files were underwhelming, not bringing to light anything that was not known about Twitter's handling of the story beforehand." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Didn’t realize that evidence of collusion between government entities & the private sector, & attempts to hide that collusion, are a “nothing burger”, when journalism’s history is replete with examples of stories exposing government corruption. That’s the primary purpose of the “fourth estate”: to call out government corruption, not participate gleefully in it. Spdragoo (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The government itself was not involved, though. Two political parties doing relatively routine things that people were already for the most part aware of. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It is not considered "routine" for a political entity, namely a political party acting in the interest of a particular candidate for office, to conspire with Big Tech companies to suppress and injure the confidences of the United States enfranchised citizenry, nor to suppress possible evidence of criminal activity by that candidate or their children. The content of these Files constitutes the assertions of a person with actual knowledge of the material fact at issue. The material facts at issue point to possible imputation of government agent status to the Twitter company, to clandestinely act on the requests of a US government-connected entity, for improper search as well. Thus, the 4th Amendment may be implicated. Further, due to the "oppression" that this action entails upon the free speech of United States citizens, a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, it is being discussed that this may meet the elements of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S. Code § 241, a federal crime. Lastly, consider the following SCOTUS jurisprudence on the topic of voting: "Because the right to vote ‘is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government,’… voting is a ‘fundamental’ right." Rehnquist, J., speaking in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). "In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction." Marshall, J., speaking in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972). Myself, and many others in my field, will be very interested in reading the discussion regarding deletion of this article. 32.141.150.90 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "It is not considered "routine" for a political entity to conspire with Big Tech companies", while true, is misleading: there's very clearly no conspiracy here, and it's also not obvious what Hunter Biden's penis has to do with injuring voter confidence. casualdejekyll 00:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The only people talking about the nudes are people trying to distract the issue. Lying and or ignorant people like you have destroyed this site 120.22.191.3 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Historians don't call significant archival disclosures in a politically-charged subject a "nothingburger". This is extremely unprofessional and I question your neutrality on this issue if you are not at least interested in investigating further. What sources would you deem "reliable" if you dismiss what is basically a press release, i.e. from the actual Twitter horse's mouth? Felice Enellen (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It most certainly is notable. The effort to delete the article is outrageous and indicative of everything wrong about Wikipedia. WBcoleman (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wikisempra, I know this is discouraging, but it's par for the course here. My first few articles were deleted. Creating an article on a new, breaking news, story is always risky, and it's often best to develop the content in the existing main article. Then, if it grows too large and creates a due weight problem there, it can be split off into a legitimate WP:Summary style fork article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If it is such a nothingburger then why are so many people so.. eager.. to remove it? The answer is obvious, similar to the censorship requests of Mass killings under communist regimes 188.146.192.133 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Just look at the "comment" added below while not following the proper way to comment (edit by 2.221.19.63). I am not even from the US. This is the reason for this being scheduled for deletion : 188.146.192.133 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] After careful review of the store and all available information at the this time it is clear this article must remain. The core of the article should address and describe that the censorship of a sensitive story concerning one of the candidates in the 2020 presidential election changed or may have changed the outcome of that election. That censorship was in collusion between a candidates party and twitter senior leaders. The “twitter files” represents a major social and political issue affecting the United States and could also be seen in other political environments around the world. The twitter files could be connected to numerous other issues like cancel culture, 1st amendment rights, president Biden, president trump, social media, and so on… Any attempt to remove or deny these facts or this story would represent clear bias and prejudice. 2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Cry more why don't you. Your orange daddy lost. Deal with it. If activists are successful in deleting this article about historic mass corruption, wikipedia will no longer be relevant to the future. This is the issue where wikipedia decides if it's about information or about censorship and mentally deranged activism. Jasondesante (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, there are so many articles that have similar opinions... if you keep deleting... where does it stop?? Delete it and you will lose credibility and my contributions. Prasadchavali (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] December 5, 2022, there was commentary by a U.S. Congressman at the Wall Street Journal. Ro Khanna wrote, "Although Twitter is a private actor not legally bound by the First Amendment, Twitter has come to function as a modern public square. As such, Twitter has a responsibility to the public to allow the free exchange of ideas and open debate." I did add this to the Matt Taibbi page. It might be allowed as reliable source here if the page is not deleted. Kmccook (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agree. Wikipedia deleting this article would be equivalent to Twitter suppressing news embarrassing to the Biden campaign in the first place. If that happens, Wikipedia will have received my last donation. Particularly given the history of the 2020 elections, Elon Musk's bid to buy Twitter, resistance to same, reactions after the deal was closed, etc., release of "The Twitter Files" is a significant historical event. 216.24.45.33 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree. For over a decade I have made donations to Wikipedia every time I was prompted for one, even before I made an account. I recognized the immense value of a real-world HHGttG. If Wikipedia is being corrupted to the point that it's possible for partisans to suppress important information that comes in the form of internal memos being released by the company where they were written because that is somehow not a "reliable source", I am done donating. Felice Enellen (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] But it's equally important that Wikipedia not become another "proving ground" for people trying to manufacture conspiracies out of nothing. This is listed under 2020s scandals but it's a whole lot of howling about nothing. Dan (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And who decides whether that's nothing or not? You? Your favorite mainstream publications? I think that the fact the whole Twitter ecosystem is in turmoil (exception made for a few deniers) is way more than enough to have this page here. But more importantly to have it *objectively* covered. It's an unfolding story and there *seems* to be potentially compromising materials. Freedom of speech is not a second-hand argument when it comes to one of the most important, online public squares in the world. It's out of the discussion that it would be wrong to censor just because that doesn't fit some (most?) of Wikipedia editors' framework of beliefs, opinions, and political orientation. Guys, you gotta be neutral, have you forgotten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.32.33.56 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think you can trust that there are enough wikipedians watching this page like a hawk right now that the page cannot reliably be used to push a narrative for more than about 30 seconds. If someone adds editorial conjecture or data that isn't backed by reliable references, you can be sure someone is going to revert that shit pretty fast, no matter whether it supports a conspiracy or tries to suppress information. Felice Enellen (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Clearly it’s not nothing when censorship of the story changed or affected the outcome of the election… 2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Delete - nobody cares about this whipped-up nothing of a "controversy". Telling people it's important doesn't make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.19.63 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep This article reflects an important event, relating perhaps to a shift in power away from the liberal elite. I’d suggest that that is why there is so much annoyance at retaining it. The left wing bias on Wikipedia has gone far enough! Keep! Boscaswell talk 02:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Longmanout, Gensao, 2.221.19.63, Colliric, Felice Enellen, and Boscaswell: Comments made on this talk page regarding whether or not the article should be deleted will most likely be entirely disregarded when deciding whether or not to keep the page. If you are hoping to find the place where Wikipedians are discussing whether or not to keep this page on Wikipedia, there is a link on the top of the article to go to it, but please familiarize yourselves with our deletion policy and our civility policy before commenting there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep This shouldn't even be a question due to being so obvious. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The files show no government involvement, that the story was released, and moreover that the laptop itself contains little more than dick pics of Hunter Biden. it’s not really a big deal if the story is kept as long as it’s made clear that there were no revelations of government involvement or wrongdoing, but it’s questionable that the story is notable given how little it turned out to show. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:3571:F817:C542:9EF0 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Red-tailed hawk The link you gave us just brings us back here. Eventually. There is no formal delete or keep discussion thread that I can find, other than this one. Boscaswell talk 05:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation should take you to a different page. Is it not working in my comment above? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep This is a very significant news story, and one of the worst cases of 1st Amendment violations I've ever seen. Just because left wing news outlets, who I might add, was involved in helping Twitter spread the idea that "hacked materials" and "Russia Russia Russia" were valid reasons for censoring the New York Post, say that it's a "nothing burger" should be moot. Keep it for sure. Froggy26rk (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Why are we even allowing non-Wikipedia members to make decisions on what can stay or go on here? Froggy26rk (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Any semblance of NPOV and unbiased documentation of ANY political issue is IMPOSSIBLE given the left wing skew of Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is a part of the establishment that currates and bends information to the benefit, always, of the political left. 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. Those who wish to silence others (or this article) do not do so because they believe they're right, but because they fear what the other has to say. Rugs8200 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above may be closed, but I can still point something out about its closure. The reason given seems either short-sighted or disingenuous. Only 0.25% of editors on Wikipedia have the 500 edits necessary to become extendedconfirmed, which is required to participate on the linked page. Felice Enellen (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Felice Enellen, extended confirmed protection was only applied to the AfD discussion after it was closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Ah, so I see. Thank you for the insight—it's nice to know the diversion wasn't actually problematic. Felice Enellen (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Most of the people who are saying to delete the article refuse to actually put their username or their only edits are the edits to this discussion. All of the "real" people want to keep the article. Zzmonty (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Trump's commentary Should we include Trump's commentary (per BBC here]) "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!" he said." The BBC article comes short of saying that Trump's statement is clearly in regards to the Twitter files, but implies it is so: "The post came just hours after Twitter's internal deliberations around limiting a 2020 story about Hunter Biden were revealed." Bonewah (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This can be added in aftermath ~ElSussyBaka ElSussyBaka (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I would say it could be added to the "Reactions" section but without confirmation that it was in regards to the release of the files, it's likely best to leave it out for now. Thenewsoftoday (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It should be added. I did vote for Trump, but I have been going back and forth about 2024. I personally think he is too old, but I was also willing to support him due to actions of the Democrats. But Trump saying "ignore ... even those found in the Constitution" is a statement that never should have been said. Trump is talking about due to what was revealed in the Twitter files that Biden and Harris should be removed from office (which can already be done through impeachment hearings. Trump want a redo of the election due to fraud, which there is no prevision for in the US Constitution and by the time it went through all of the hoops to have that done, it will be the next election cycle. Zzmonty (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Jim Baker legal controversy WP:NOTAFORUM Twitter files WP:NOTFORUM Washington Post's reaction The Washington Post's assesment of the impact of the Twitter Files appears better suited to be placed under the 'reactions' section, as opposed to the opening section of the article. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] If this article is going to stay, it needs to be clarified at the beginning of the article that there were no bombshells revealed in the lede and that it showed no government involvement. Unless you're purely here to mislead readers and spread unfounded conspiracies? There-being (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agreed! We need to make this article convey the message that the "Twitter Files" really aren't a big deal, and in the end it's more alt-right conspiracies. 65.190.186.126 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree that this information is important to include. However, it squarely falls under the "reactions" section. As of now it looks like it's duplicated there, so there is no need to have it in the lead section. The way it has been currently edited is far better than it was when I started this discussion, so that's a good thing. It's still redundant and out of place as it stands though. If it stays where it is it will just invite more alternative "reactions" being placed outside of the designated "reactions" section. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You're analyzing and making conclusions when you suggest we make edits based on the idea that it's not a big deal and it's just alt-right conspiracies. That isn't your job as a wiki editor, since your analysis of the meta story (an alt-right conspiracy theory), rather than the information being reported (what was said and what was relayed), counts as original research. Your job is to discover factual, verifiable information and to place it in the encyclopedia. The information may elsewhere be used to support an alt-right conspiracy theory, but as long as what is posted here is the information and not the theory, it belongs here. For instance, if you somehow discovered verifiable information that Donald Trump is the second coming of Jesus Christ, you should post that information to Wikipedia, along with the way to verify it, even if you you're a lifelong Dem voter and hate Don with every cell of your being, because it would be verifiable factual information. (Lucky for you, that is not an obligation you're likely to be burdened with.) Felice Enellen (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] PS: Indeed, look at this part of what you wrote: "We need to make this article convey the message that ..." No! Wikipedia is not for conveying messages! It is for recording history and current events so that future humans will know what happened. Messages are opinions, not facts. Felice Enellen (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No. I Agree the information is valid and appropriate for the page to contain. It's just not in the appropriate place. I see someone already removed that explicit text that indicated this was the Washington Post's opinion. That's a good start, but the paragraph itself is most definitely a "reaction". I'd have the same issue if someone put "Trump said it was the biggest most importantist thing that ever happend!" In the same location. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Technically it doesn’t show “no government involvement”. Taibbi simply states that he hasn’t seen any government involvement. The files clearly state both political parties had channels in which they could petition Twitter execs to manipulate speech and that the Biden team would “routinely” send them tweets to delete. This talk section has no problem labeling the Twitter Files as an alt-right conspiracy theory. Except for the part where Taibbi says “there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story.” That’s all true. Funny how that works if you ask me. Now after all of that I do understand that at this point, in these files there is no proof that the federal government was involved with the laptop story, but there is also isn’t any evidence that they weren’t involved either. Based on what we know from the Twitter files and combine that with the sworn testimony given by Yoel Roth I’d say it’s fairly obvious that the Biden team and federal government were absolutely involved in suppressing free speech by covering up the laptop story though. WhowinsIwins (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia bots This is going nowhere fast, closing per WP:NOTFORUM Also completely WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:NOTAFORUM. This page is about the release of the "Twitter Files", not the accuracy or lack thereof of NY Post reporting in 2020 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "I did indeed move it down" DFlhb I don't see Taibbi's presentation largely confirmed what was already known and did not contain any significant new revelations now appears anywhere after your edits. Maybe I'm missing something. soibangla (talk) (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Because I copyedited it to: "Taibbi's Twitter thread largely confirmed what was already known and did not contain any significant new revelations." (since "presentation" is too fuzzy) It's still there! DFlhb (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] ok, I don't see what the problem with "presentation" is. it's not "pretentious." soibangla (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No, I thought "salacious imagery" was pretentious; hadn't seen that there were videos too. How about "nude photos and videos"? DFlhb (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes I know you meant "salacious imagery," but what's wrong with presentation? Whatever, movin' on. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Salacious imagery is not a good description. I would prefer a description readers would understand such as "nude photos" or "dick pics".There-being (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @There-being @soibangla change made. DFlhb (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I understand there was also crack smoking. So the whole thing can be summarized as salacious. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Please give a source if you are going to claim that. There-being (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm not claiming crack smoking in the article. I read that in a RS I came across but I'm not willing to go back to find it just for this. Salacious works for me, it has been frequently used in RS to describe the content, but I won't again object if others think it's super-important to change. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter Biden] laptop story," This is false. The tweet, if taken in whole context and not this bad faith selective quote, is clearly referring to foreign governments because of the allegations of Russian involvement not about the role of the US government. Please fix. 189.92.227.51 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree with you. Taibbi's comment is not correctly interpreted and this bit features prominently in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] How is it "not correctly interpreted"? It was a direct quote from his Twitter thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Here is the full quote that is in the body " "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."" Taibbi starts the sentence referring to the possibility of foreign (government) hacks, then follows it by saying he's seen no evidence of that. This article attempts to take that bit and mean he was talking about some kind of conspiracy theory that the US government was involved instead of the foreign governments who the FBI was warning may attempt something nefarious. The phrase after the comma is related to the phrase before it, because the sentence opens with "Although." In a different way he could have written "Although some warned that foreign governments could be peddling hacked material, there is no evidence of their involvement." The "any" refers to the possibility of more than 1 foreign government, not another interpretation of something happening at all. Like "I didn't see any of my children on the playground" vs "I didn't spill any water on the floor." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well, first off he's wrong off the bat with "Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks" as there wasn't a "general warning", there were weekly meetings between Yoel Roth and the government on this topic. Secondly, the "full quote" of Tweet #22 in the thread 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. In fact, that might have been the problem..."[1] Surely he's referring to the U.S. government and is not suggesting that the lack of foreign government involvement was the problem, do you not agree? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Matt" (I'm tired of mistyping his surname, so I'm going with Matt now) didn't start "the sentence referring to the possibility of foreign (government) hacks". He started with "a “general” warning from federal law enforcement," which is the "government" he later references. The context is clear and unambiguous. soibangla (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's not too hard to remember, you just need to take advantage of chunking. Split it in two: "Tai" and "bbi". "Tai" + "bbi" = "Taibbi". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It isn't so unambiguous. I am seeing lots of people interpreting it the other way. But the reliable sourcing is clear at least so the point is largely moot. I think the "In fact, that might have been the problem" line is helpful, because when I go back and look at it again his next sentence is saying that Twitter just suppressed it on it's own (but without Dorsey's consent). Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I re-read the thread and I agree that it is ambiguous. I think that's part of a sign of (1) the haphazard and selective release of these emails in a bad attempt to make them fit their narrative, and (2) Taibbi being a shitty journalist overall. But RS is better at expressing those points than I am. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Not only is the wrongful edited quote is still kept but it was moved to the intro. Wikipedia is a bad joke. 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:FC1E:3725:483F:7B76 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "in-depth New York Times investigation" DFlhb, I think you mean the WaPo article, right? NYT also verified emails, but WaPo published the "in-depth" analysis, NYT was not in-depth. soibangla (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I hesitated on which to pick; WaPo is probably a better choice. DFlhb (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022 This edit request to Twitter Files has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. The references used do not support the statements. I viewed references 1-15 and not a single one supported their specific statements. Some of them are the same references, I assume because whoever edited it cannot find another professional article to support the misinformation. I didn’t even finish reading the article. If references 1-15 are all completely irrelevant, why even keep reading? The article is clearly another attempt at downplaying the “twitter files”. This concept would only benefit the left and has already been debunked. This site is supposed to be unbiased. You don’t have to provide analysis on how devastating the twitter files were or weren’t to either party. It is irrelevant. That is where the unnecessary analysis clearly shows a bias. In fact, I would argue that the left was blindsided by this and has yet to address the issue. Regardless, the editor does not need to add analysis (false analysis for that matter) to any part of this. Explain the twitter files and that’s it. 2601:183:C802:45F0:944C:FE5E:6B6C:4293 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Or... and I'm just spitballing here... there's nothing in the burger. Just because something doesn't support your view that the "twitter files" are a "big deal" doesn't mean that it's true. The facts are the facts, and that doesn't mean they're being downplayed. It just means there's nothing there. Mkamensek (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "You don’t have to provide analysis on how devastating the twitter files were or weren’t to either party. It is irrelevant." I think it would be more relevant to include such things once the impact of these files are clear and the consequences become history. When facts and opinions can be easier distinquished. 2A02:A452:BF00:1:5D44:5967:783A:1A9F (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Weiss quote in lead This is an assertion of a proponent from a tweet that is presented as established fact in the lead before any reliable sources have scrutinized it, and it is not sourced or attributed anywhere in the article. It should be removed, at least for now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1126391899 soibangla (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I rephrased it, but weakly. Someone else can do better. I was too busy to read Bari's thread earlier and I'm just not interested enough to now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Much better DFlhb (talk) 04:59, 9 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.
Contents 1 Background section 2 NPOV template 3 Content > Planned releases on other topics 4 Replacing "troll-like behaviors" with "tweets which detract" 5 Sorting out a weird problem with posts getting miscounted and deleted with other edits 6 Fourth release, this time by Shellenberger 7 The Economist/Guardian misleading snippet "on Twitter's right-wing bias contradicting Weiss" Background section User:Soibangla: don't know how strongly you felt this change was needed; there's two conflicting needs, one is to offer comprehensive background and context, and the other is to avoid the background section becoming a huge part of the article. I think that tipped us over that line; is there anything else you think should be kept beyond the Sussman stuff? DFlhb (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think it's important to briefly show the long history of the alleged FBI/Clinton/DNC "Russia hoax" that Trump has promoted into 2022, with a lawsuit, which he and his supporters have characterized as the "real collusion," and which now dovetails into the current narrative of FBI/Twitter/Biden collusion as part of a supposed sweeping deep state operation. This now includes the involvement of Baker, upon Musk's discovery that Baker was involved and worked for the FBI in 2016 and had a witness role in the Sussmann case that conspiracy theorists were confident would blow the "real collusion" wide open. Twitter Files didn't suddenly come out of nowhere, it had a long deep state narrative that preceded it, and that narrative is not supported by the many reliable sources across other Wikipedia articles. I don't see it's "a huge part of the article," as there's still the Bari Weiss stuff coming, and presumably much more analysis and reactions. soibangla (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @DFlhb: I tend to agree with you. Excessive “background” that is ostensibly added to put things into perspective can quickly appear like proselytizing with bias. Greg L (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Appear" to whom? Those with their own bias? Is the content inadequately sourced? Is it inaccurate, misleading or defective in a way that can be specified? Can it be tweaked rather than chucked? soibangla (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What in the world is that diff? Was someone editing the wrong page by mistake? I do not see any reason to include a paragraph of random stuff about QAnon in this article -- is the reasoning that it's about American politics, so it's relevant to Twitter, because Americans post about politics there?? jp×g 05:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] a paragraph of random stuff about QAnon? um...no? soibangla (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yeah; the main problem with it is that the link to QAnon and the "deep state" is tenuous, and attempts to frame it as a marginal narrative, when it's very pervasive among even mainstream conservatives. Conservatives mainly believe that the government is involved because of these three things: the Zuckerberg FBI warning, which conservatives saw as the FBI deliberately trying to suppress the story; keep in mind that the FBI had the laptop for a year at that point, and therefore knew its contents. the 51 intel officers that attempted to frame it as Russian disinformation, and were echoed by the Biden campaign; which Vox later said was never backed by evidence (one could uncharitably say, discredited); conservatives perceived this as an attempt to control the narrative the year-old news about the DHS disinfo board (which conservatives saw as aptly-named), and more recent revelations about it, which went utterly viral in conservative social media & television circles I concede the above is OR, but I doubt the majority of editors are as familiar as me with conservative thinking — I monitor that space very closely. It would be good (and far more relevant) to include the above in the Background section, as long as it can be reliably sourced without OR or SYNTH, as a way to explain the "government involvement" claims; which can then be described as baseless where appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "the link to QAnon and the "deep state" is tenuous" but the reliable source [1] discusses it a bit, yet I did not use that as the preface of my paragraph, but only briefly at the close of the paragraph; it is not "a paragraph of random stuff about QAnon", discussion of QAnon comes late in the story, and that's how I treated it. Nevertheless, major QAnon influencer Liz Crokin was at MAL this week, where Trump "heaped praise on...Michael Flynn—who has become one of the most high-profile QAnon influencers in recent years," who was also at MAL this week. The paragraph does not contain "attempts to frame it as a marginal narrative", though a perusal of our various relevant articles show that it is, in fact, a marginal narrative, but that's not suggested in this paragraph. The key, but not only, reason the paragraph should be included is: Fans of Trump suspected there was more to Twitter’s actions. They believed the FBI and the Democratic National Committee, which they believed colluded to rig the 2016 election with allegations of the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, were meddling in the 2020 vote as well: the Deep State in action. For convenience, here's the paragraph in question: The Russian government exploited social media extensively as part of its interference in the 2016 presidential election to boost Trump's candidacy. Since that election that Trump won, he and many of his supporters promoted a narrative that the FBI, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and others colluded to fabricate allegations of Trump collusion with Russia, so as to prevent his election and damage his presidency. This narrative extended into the 2020 election season, after Twitter withheld distribution of the story on the Hunter Biden laptop, characterizing it as a deep state operation that now included social media and the Biden campaign, to defeat Trump. The narrative was boosted by news during the Twitter Files release that Musk had fired deputy general counsel James Baker for his involvement in the decision to withhold the laptop story and later vetting documents for the Twitter Files project. Baker had previously been general counsel for the FBI when he was a witness for, but not implicated in, the failed John Durham prosecution of Michael Sussmann on allegations he worked with the 2016 Clinton campaign to advance a Russian collusion narrative against Trump. The deep state narrative was promoted by influencers in the QAnon conspiracy theory. Maybe take another read of the Wired story? soibangla (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I’m surprised soibangla didn’t seek a lower profile after nominating this article for deletion only one hour after it was created. The nomination was WP:Snowballed because the nomination was wildly contrary the sensibilities and general consensus of the wikipedian community. The background information that soibangla added amounts to editorializing and is a bit too tangential for this article. It therefore isn’t sufficiently encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia and isn’t a venue to use to slant or bias the reader so they interpret properly cited facts in a preferred or desired context. We have ample hyperlinks in the article if the reader wants to follow up on a related topic. This article, more so than nearly any other, is right now under the general public’s microscope precisely because of soibangla's nomination for deletion received national headlines. We need to adhere particularly closely to Wikipedia's values and rules and push back on partisanship. This article is about the “Twitter files” and we follow what the WP:RSs are writing about after each release from Musk. If soibangla wants to editorialize and “put things in context,” he/she can go on Twitter and extol the important background information and history lessons there. Greg L (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Or perhaps you might go on Twitter or some dumb podcast[2] to take shots at me. soibangla (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Greg L, I'm happy to consider any responses you might provide to the specific questions I previously posed to you: Is the content inadequately sourced? Is it inaccurate, misleading or defective in a way that can be specified? Can it be tweaked rather than chucked? soibangla (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I wholeheartedly agree with Greg L. soibangla is basically ubiquitously trying to shape the wiki in an "opinionated" way, his (or hers). Recusing oneself would have been maybe more cautious, especially since his/her emotionality exudes from the comments in all his/her comments in the talk section. These comments are not appropriate for this Talk page. Bring it to my Talk page and maybe I'll discuss it. Or maybe not. soibangla (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Oh, come on, Soibangla. Do you really expect people to bring things to your talk page if you immediately delete them, like you did here with me? And that was accompanied by this edit summary: "HAHAHA". You did the very same thing recently to JPxG here, where you didn’t respond in a collegial and responsive manner and instead just ignored it by reverting. Given that tendency of yours, which can come across as insular and resistant to peer pressure, people will instead attempt to hash things out where the sunshine of an open forum sanitizes the behavior of editors a bit so we can have a proper collaborative writing environment. It’s not too much to ask that you listen to others’ comments and respond productively and in a collegial fashion. Greg L (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Seems a convenient way to deny/ignore your own, evident bias in the topic. There remains the fact that no good will come from a factious editing and trying your best to bludgeon other users' edits with your imposed view of the currently unveiling story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.155.143 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] NPOV template Iamahumanborninearth (talk · contribs) has added an NPOV template to the article, but has not initiated any talk page discussion, outlining their objections, as required by WP:NPOV dispute#Adding a tag to a page. Anyone want to weigh-in? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Removed in this edit. Iamahumanborninearth or anyone else needs to raise specific objections on this talk page when placing that tag. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The Twitter Files page is based on the claims made by three journalists (Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger) and the related information provided so far via Twitter with allegedly more installments and material still promised to be made public. These journalists have made several claims which have to be reported on the Twitter Files page. That’s the whole purpose of having a “Twitter Files” page in the first place. Denying the integration of the asserted and documented claims done by the authors is a POV neutrality infringement, biasing the whole purpose of the page. I’ve respectfully pointed this out several times to no avail, so I’m raising the issue again - it’s not about defining whether the claims/allegations are true yet. It’s about stating facts as reported by the journalists that launched the coverage and are reporting on the “Twitter Files”. Saying that, e.g., Matt Taibbi claimed that (quoting here) “[...] the Slack entries in Part 3 contain multiple, clear displays of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence [...]" is simply describing that these are his unequivocal and undisputed words (he wrote them, so by definition, we can (I'd say we ought to) report that he wrote them!) and is in no way misleading or fake news. What is also true is that we would still not be claiming that what he wrote has been universally verified or accepted by anyone. These are 2 different aspects that must be distinguished. Some editors seem incapable of recognizing the issue, and very keen only on focusing on the latter, then dabbling in quibbling the most extravagant of cavils in WPs policies to avoid confronting the issue - this, in my humble opinion, harms the neutrality of the article at its core and that's why I'm raising this as a WP:NPOV violation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.249.30 (talk) Content > Planned releases on other topics This section is supposed to be about the content of the disclosures, isn't it? Yet with the official tweet deleted, all we are left with is: "On December 10, 2022 Musk threatened to sue any Twitter employee who leaked information to the press. This was expressed in an all-hands email to Twitter employees with employees being given a pledge to sign indicating that they understood him.[refs]" And this is surely only relevant here if we can word a hook to hang it on; if we can make the angle explicit. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] We can change the section title, dropping planned would do it. Unfortunately WP:BLP required us to remove the tweet, kind of shocked at the lack of competence of whoever added it in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that's bad. Primary sources can be used only for uncontroversial and simple statements of fact, not BLP stuff. (Also 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) 19:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Very true, the tweet is from today so we should not have to wait long for secondary coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Then we can quote it using the secondary RS as the source. That's how we can still fulfill our purpose to document the "sum of all human knowledge," including fringe nonsense and stuff that might otherwise violate BLP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] As it stands, there is no link to the content of the disclosures. The statement is in limbo. We really need an RS that says something along the lines of "here we have Musk maintaining one thing and yet here he is doing something else. And no, we can't make that link ourselves. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Have you not read the sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You can't just rely on what you or other people may have seen in, and deduced from, the sources: you have to actually use that content in the wiki article (which should stand on its own merits), explicitly making the link. You may know it's hypocritical; I may know: but this entry does not make that clear. And that is surely the reason for including this information. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. I think your point is spot on, Esowteric. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] What is your proposed text? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've amended the wording (just a draft proposal), as follows: "On December 10, 2022 Musk threatened to sue any Twitter employee who leaked information to the press, despite his claims to be a "free speech absolutist" who believes that "transparency is the key to trust", and having himself released internal emails to selected journalists.[refs] This threat was expressed in an all-hands email to Twitter employees with employees being given a pledge to sign indicating that they understood him.[refs]" Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] No. This is a pretty blatant attempt to use RS to lead a reader by the nose to a particular conclusion.Slywriter (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Care to suggest an improvement? I think that Esowteric does a pretty good job, but of course there's almost always room for improvement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, drop the quotes and report the facts of what happened in the email without reference to other events/statements. If the quotes are WP:DUE, cover them separately. As it stands despite, believes and having releases are all weasel statements that tell the reader how to feel about his email to workers, which is standard run of the mill corporate policySlywriter (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't see how WP:NPOV lets us do that, we can't violate neutrality that egregiously. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I can't access the first source but Independent reads like an opinion piece, not a news article. And separating out the statements does not violate NPOV unless the statement is going to be attributed to the reporter writing it, so that it's clear it's their opinion of the matter and not wikivoice. Slywriter (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The Independent's title makes the link / hypocrisy quite clearly: "Free speech warrior Elon Musk reportedly threatens to sue Twitter staff if they leak to media". "who believes that "transparency is the key to trust" has already been removed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] While the headline does say that, I would point out WP:HEADLINE. That a piece's headline (or subhead) is extremely pointy is not relevant to how we ought write articles; the guideline correctly notes that headlines are often overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. In general, headlines are not the sort of thing we should be citing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I merely quoted the headline and subheading here to show the story's overarching angle. I also quoted from the text Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And given that the angle of the story was something like "do as I say, not do as I do", my use of the structure "... despite ..." seems fair. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Subtitle: "World’s wealthiest person suggests staff could face ‘full extent of the law’ for leaking to press after he gave access to internal messages and emails to select media". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The piece does not appear to be marked opinion, its a news article unless you can present a WP:RS which says it isn't. You can't make your own rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Text: "The new owner of the social media company – who has repeatedly endorsed free speech absolutism and asserted “transparency is the key to trust” and that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” – has ordered staff to sign a document acknowledging the warning, according to reporting from Platformer managing editor Zoe Schiffer." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Last I checked, we can evaluate a source on a talk page and question whether the source can be used in wiki-voice to make statements of fact. So kindly, do not attempt to gatekeep opinions you disagree with by inventing rules of discussion or implying I have created some rule. The source looks like an opinion piece and reads like an opinion piece. Others can disagree and life will go on, but saying that violates no rule of wikipedia Slywriter (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] We have a community consensus that they're generally reliable. There are two ways forward for you: either you provide a WP:RS which says that this is an opinion piece or you challenge the reliability of The Independent at WP:RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've generally trusted The Independent over the last 30-or-so years. It was a respectable national newspaper in the UK and has since gone digital-only. This piece looks like basic reporting to me, with a catchy story angle along the lines of "do as I say, not do as I do." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hi, Esowteric. Though some editors advise caution when citing the online version (and that would especially be the case on Twitter-related issues at the moment), The Independent is considered to be an RS for use on Wikpedia. Like all RSs, The Independent, provides a secondary, reliable source to establish relevance and filter the meaning of a primary source. And it’s always helpful when the cited article provides a hyperlink to the primary source (which could be a Tweet) or an image of it so there is no mistaking the subject matter being covered. Greg L (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hi Red-tailed hawk. I removed the article-wide {{POV}} tag, but please feel free to add a {{POV section}} tag if you feel it's still warranted. I couldn't quite follow this discussion except to say that I don't think there's an active dispute about the neutrality of the article overall, just maybe a specific paragraph or section. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Replacing "troll-like behaviors" with "tweets which detract" Soibangla The problem is "troll-like behaviors" is neither a direct quote from the Business insider article, nor the Forbes article. It could be replaced with a paraphrase, but it needs to reflect the source used. Insider references tweets, not accounts. Forbes doesn't directly reference the 2018 policy. I believe the language of my edit better represents the source used, although it would be an improvement to replace it with a better source. Here is the actual text from Business Insider: "Twitter first announced in 2018 it would effectively hide some tweets from conversations and search results, according to The Washington Post's Will Oremus. Twitter at the time said it would look at the way other individuals reacted to an account in order to avoid showing tweets that "detract" from conversations." Amthisguy (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree. Assuming the facts that “troll-like behaviors” wasn’t text by the cited RS, it treads a bit too far into editorializing. Greg L (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well here's what they said: What we’re talking about today are troll-like behaviors that distort and detract from the public conversation on Twitter, particularly in communal areas like conversations and search. Some of these accounts and Tweets violate our policies, and, in those cases, we take action on them. Others don’t but are behaving in ways that distort the conversation. [3] soibangla (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, Soibangla. The primary source uses “troll-like behavior”, so it seems fine by me. As long as the secondary RS is discussing that particular part of the original Tweet, and the author of the secondary RS is addressing the meaning of that particular paragraph (the one containing “troll-like behavior”) so the quote isn’t being taken out of the intended context, I don’t see anything wrong with quoting the primary source. I don’t think I fully understand Amthisguy’s concern. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] The issue was the article lacked an in-line citation to the source of the quote. I'll add it, along with the other half of my edit which hasn't been objected to. Thank you. Amthisguy (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sorting out a weird problem with posts getting miscounted and deleted with other edits Hello everyone. The wiki engine appears to be having trouble with new sections accidentally deleting previous ones. I suspect the various servers are struggling to stay in sync. Try modifying this section (and rename it) instead of clicking the “New section” tab. Greg L (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think I know why this is happening, and it's due to how "edit section" links work. The URL I'm typing stuff into right now is Talk:Twitter_Files&action=edit§ion=56, i.e. this is the 56th section on the talk page. Normally, if someone edits a page while I'm editing it, I will get an edit conflict when I save -- but this doesn't happen with section edits. That is, I can edit section 56, and in the meantime, someone else can edit section 30... and if their edit adds a new section, then 31 will become 32, 32 will become 33, etc -- and section 55 will become section 56. So when I send the server my edit to "section 56" it will just nuke whatever was there. I don't know if there is a way to overcome this. jp×g 01:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] It may have been my use of a horizontal rule {{hr}} inside my post. That might be fouling up section counts. I fixed that this time. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] But Soibangla purposely deleted my whole post just moments ago, with an edit statement of “What part of WP:NOTFORUM eludes you?” I asked him on his talk page not to do that again. He deleted that request, which is his right. The concept of “ The best response to bad speech is better speech ” …must not have registered. And I see he deleted my post earlier too, accompanied by an edit summary that read “…right-wing blowhard glad-handing and congratulating himself…”. At least he didn’t call me a Nazi, so Godwin's law hasn’t yet applied. Looking over the history on this talk page, it appears that Soibangla has had a long and exceedingly bold history of unilaterally taking it upon himself to decide what he will permit to be discussed here. I think we need to keep an eye on that sort of behavior. The hotter the topic, the more we need vigorous debate, not censorship and hiding entire discussion threads behind WP:NOTFORUM curtains. If my below “thank you” to the community offends Soibangla’s sensibilities, he can have an admin delete it or (better yet) respond with a thoughtful post of his own that informs. I received two “thank yous” in response to it, so it seems to be a 2:1 consensus in favor of my post here not being banned from this talk page (irony intentional). Greg L (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Oh, Soibangla, please desist with using WP:NOTFORUM as a pretense for deleting others’ posts like this. That policy is obviously intended to apply to WP:ARTICLESPACE. The whole point of talk pages is to express views and great leeway is afforded to posts on talk pages, including political and editorial policy views that might “trigger.” Wikipedia has a long history on its talk pages of having I.P. editors weigh in with some left-field suggestion and the proper practice is to just read them and move on; they eventually get archived along with everything else. You know this, don’t you? If you disagree with another editor’s sentiments, try writing something cogent, illuminating, and thoughtful in response. If post is a personal attack, take them to ANI. And if you see a post that expresses a view that triggers you, just suck it up. Greg L (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] I also found your cringe-inducing pontificating on irrelevant matters embarrassing and grossly inappropriate and have deleted it, per policy. Please save such stuff for forums, or better yet, your diary. 174.197.133.171 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] PS: the fact that you state “Notforum is clearly meant to be about article space” indicates you may be fundamentally unfamiliar with policy. Look at the top of this page, where is posted NOTFORUM. Not forum is specifically meant to outlaw posts such as yours where editors just discuss their thoughts on the topic rather than how to improve the article, as if anyone cares about your feelings or ill-considered political views. No one cares. 174.197.133.171 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] You aren’t fooling anyone by logging out and editing as an I.P. on the precise same topic that triggered you. If you delete my posts another time, Soibangla, the only proper recourse will be to report you to ANI. This is a friendly warning. Greg L (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Fourth release, this time by Shellenberger American author Michael Shellenberger releases 'Twitter Files Part 4'[1] Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] And, we've got part 5 now as well. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, Red-tailed hawk. I’ve worked separately with three Chinese mechanical engineers over the years and I understand their worldview. That just-released internal email had an impact on me and I hope the following quote from the article makes it way into our Twitter Files article: "Maybe because I am from China, [but] I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation." Maybe The Twitter Files will one-day provoke Congress to build upon Marsh v. Alabama, which held that trespassing laws "could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town." Key point here regarding editorial content of this article: I hope other wikipedians here will be on the lookout for Marsh v. Alabama and related statutes and case law being discussed by RSs in connection with The Twitter Files. Anytime the privately owned equivalent of a public square begins internally asking “Should this sort of topic be permitted to be discussed?? Let’s go ask the CEO,” we’re—as the Chinese employee wrote—at risk of destroying the public conversation. Greg L (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Are there sources that connect Marsh v. Alabama to this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] There remains intense interest in this article (click “Logarithmic scale” under “U.S. Senate”), so I hope other wikipedians here will be on the lookout for Marsh v. Alabama and related statutes and case law being discussed by RSs in connection with The Twitter Files. If the RSs discuss it, we may. I haven’t dug for any but seem to recall that recently a member of congress mentioned that Congress should consider laws governing censorship on privately owned public-discussion venues. As I recall, the musings of that congressman was in response to Twitter. Of course this article isn’t about Twitter in general; it is specifically about The Twitter Files, which is Musk-released documents regarding past Twitter censorship. Accordingly, it’s not a stretch to anticipate than an RS would cover the legal regulation of privately owned public-discussion venues (à la Marsh v. Alabama, but it wouldn’t be that particular Supreme Court decision as that is established legal precedent) in an article on The Twitter Files. Greg L (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Trespassing laws are criminal laws enforced by the government - ergo their enforcement falls under the First Amendment. Twitter banning an account involves no government action, therefore does not implicate the First Amendment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well… shucks, counselor. Matters of law are complex and I’m certainly no Constitutional scholar (though I might play one on Wikipedia, along with a thousand others). I do, however, know that other Supreme Court rulings like Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins further buttress the principle that there are limits to the extent private businesses may limit speech rights. That was a case about high school students who were trying to solicit signatures for a petition at a mall. Now, in that case, the Supreme Court held that a state constitution (California’s) afforded free speech rights beyond those of the U.S. Constitution. My point with mentioning Marsh v. Alabama wasn’t that it was specifically governing with regard to Twitter, but to illuminate the broad concept that with true 18th-century public town squares and other “public forums” long replaced by 20th-century (privately owned) malls, and those now replaced by 21st-century digital town squares (also privately owned) the extent to which private enterprise may decide who may hand out pamphlets on their property and what sort of messages they will permit can most certainly be limited by statute. That’s all. Thus, it didn’t surprise me in the least that a U.S. congressman would be talking about legislation along these lines. So I propose we doff our Wikipedia-grade powdered wigs and just keep an eye peeled for how Congress deals with this issue and—especially—keep an eye peeled for what the RS’s cover on that topic. Greg L (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] "the extent to which private enterprise may decide who may hand out pamphlets on their property and what sort of messages they will permit can most certainly be limited by statute" - that's a speculative opinion at best, and I don't think this line of speculation is helpful here. Might as well speculate that Tesla's tanking stock will soon force Elon to sell Twitter to the Saudis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Not at all speculative, NorthBySouthBaranof; just insufficiently cited, which apparently resulted in failure to overcome skepticism. I was going off memory. Per Reuters – U.S. Senator thinks Twitter and Facebook may need a license to operate, twas U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham. And, our very own article: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins – Relevance to cases involving online forums, very handily connects the dots from A) what I wrote above and B) to what you just declared was purely “speculative”. It took me only 20 seconds to locate the Reuters article to find out which lawmaker it was, and only 30 more seconds to find Wikipedia’s very own article specifically connecting Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins to Twitter. You could have done the same, NorthBySouthBaranof, before declaring what you think isn’t “helpful here.” Not that you don’t have a right to express your opinion. Thanks for that. Now let me make myself clear: I agree with you; both Marsh v. Alabama and Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that there is no 1st Amendment “U.S. Constitutional” right at the federal level requiring that those with political speech must be accommodated on private property when the speakers and/or messages are contrary to the wishes of the property owner who has Great Wisdom©™® to know what speech is “helpful here,” as you put it, and what speech people need protection from and can’t be allowed to hear. It’s equally noteworthy that Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that many state constitutions, including California’s, do give their residents a constitutional right to free speech on private property that serves as a public forum; which is to say, private venues equivalent to a town square. And, of course, as Senator Graham is intent upon, legislation can fill in the gaps not expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. I think you missed both my broad point about what lawmakers are contemplating, why they are contemplating it, and how that relates to Twitter Files. Senator Graham took his stance before Musk made his first release of The Twitter Files. Now that evidence is coming out in droves demonstrating what Graham and most other Republicans and Republican lawmakers long suspected, this issue of political speech over privately owned “public forums” will undoubtedly become much more topical as it relates to this article. Accordingly we wikipedians should A) understand the relevancy of “political speech on privately owned public forums”; specifically as it relates to Twitter and The Twitter Files, and B) be on the lookout for articles discussing both. So, as I wrote in my previous post (and taking a cue from the waitress “practicing politics” in Billy Joel’s The Piano Man), I propose we doff our Wikipedia-grade powdered wigs, just deliver the drinks to tables, and watch what Senator Graham and other lawmakers do because legislation based on these principles of free speech is being discussed. Greg L (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] References Folmar, Chloe (December 10, 2022). "American author Michael Shellenberger releases 'Twitter Files Part 4'". The Hill. Retrieved December 12, 2022. The Economist/Guardian misleading snippet "on Twitter's right-wing bias contradicting Weiss" Claim: "Twitter reported in 2021 that there was "statistically significant difference favoring the political right wing" in every country except Germany, which is in contradiction to Weiss' claims of left-wing bias." Sources The Guardian - source [4] The Economist - source [5] Upon reading the sources it's clear that this is a completely "straw claim" since it refers to an unexplained right-wing bias related to the Twitter algorithm and obviously does not refer to the human bias around which the Twitter Files released information is built on. The Guardian - "... Twitter said it wasn’t clear why its Home timeline produced these results and indicated that it may now need to change its algorithm ... - The post acknowledged that it was concerning if certain tweets received preferential treatment not as a result of the way in which users interacted, but because of the inbuilt way the algorithm works. - "...Further root cause analysis is required in order to determine what, if any, changes are required to reduce adverse impacts by our Home timeline algorithm,” the post said" The Economist - The algorithm did give extra amplification to news sources that independent groups like Ad Fontes Media classify as conservative. - Twitter's algorithm gave most of these sites extra exposure" Not only the snippet doesn't belong to the page (unwanted algorithmic vs deliberate human bias) but the way it is reported is misleading with respect to the sources' contents reported. Please notice, in fact, that The Economist article makes it clear that this "exposure boost" must be intended as a variation (or rate of change) of the exposure provided and that must be intended on average and not for all conservative media/newspapers (→ this picture extracted from The Economist article shows is quite clearly → [6]) Moreover, in fact, the Economist article significantly adds that: → "The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (still) appeared most often, whereas more partisan sources like the Nation or the Daily Wire received less exposure" → "Right-leaning sources on the right did get larger boosts on average, but the difference was small". → "Factual accuracy was a much better predictor of the algorithm's behavior. After combining reliability scores for each site from several independent sources, we found that the algorithm gave the biggest boosts to the least accurate sites, regardless of their politics" → "Left-wing sites with poor accuracy scores, like tmz, were amplified more than credible, conservative ones like the Wall Street Journal" Conclusion: what is portrayed by the articles, especially the Economist, is more complex and can't be included as a trivial report to simply contradict what Weiss is claiming to be a human bias (and not a minor & unwanted algorithm bias). Doesn't belong to this article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.32.8.179 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Dear I.P. I think I agree. I note that when I click the first link you provided, Twitter admits bias in algorithm for rightwing politicians and news outlets it has a yellow banner at the top stating that "This article is more than 1 year old". What is significant—and what your point seems to be if I understand you correctly—is that article hails to a time when Twitter was still under original management. So when Twitter responds, as reported in The Guardian as follows: "Twitter said it wasn’t clear why its Home timeline produced these results and indicated that it may now need to change its algorithm", we would be ill-advised to disregard common sense and common knowledge about the general nature of corporate culture and CYA tactics when Twitter P.R. brass over a year ago profess utter bafflement over how in the world their algorithms could somehow be biased. I hope I have correctly interpreted your point, and if I have, then I agree. And if I haven’t understood you correctly, then this much seems clear: Outdated citations that precede the release of The Twitter Files mustn’t be used in a manner that purports to rebut The Twitter Files. Greg L (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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
Ron Paul: 'Twitter Files' Make It Clear, We Must Abolish The FBI http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/december/19/... As we learn more and more from the “Twitter Files,” it is becoming all too obvious that Federal agencies such as the FBI viewed the First Amendment of our Constitution as an annoyance and an impediment. In Friday’s release from the pre-Musk era, journalist Matt Taibbi makes an astute observation: Twitter was essentially an FBI subsidiary. The FBI, we now know, was obsessed with Twitter. We learned that agents sent Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth some 150 emails between 2020 and 2022. Those emails regularly featured demands from US government officials for the “private” social media company to censor comments and ban commenters they did not like. The Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), a US government entity that included the FBI as well as other US intelligence agencies expressly forbidden from domestic activities, numbered 80 agents engaged regularly in telling Twitter which Tweets to censor and which accounts to ban. The Department of Homeland Security brought in outside government contractors and (government-funded) non-governmental organizations to separately pressure Twitter to suppress speech the US government did not like. US Federal government agencies literally handed Twitter lists of Americans it wanted to see silenced, and Twitter complied. Let that sink in. This should be a massive scandal and likely it would have been had it occurred under a Trump Administration. Indeed, Congress would be gearing up for Impeachment 3.0 if Trump-allied officials had engaged in such egregious behavior. But since these US government employees were by-and-large acting to suppress pro-Trump sentiment, all we hear are crickets. What is interesting about these Twitter revelations is how obsessed the FBI and its government partners were with satire and humor. Even minor Twitter accounts with small numbers of followers were constantly flagged by the Feds for censorship and deletion. But knowledge of history helps us understand this obsession: in Soviet times the population was always engaged in joking about the ineptitude, corruption, and idiocy of the political class. Underground publications known as samizdat were rich with satire, humor, and ridicule. Tyrants hate humor and cannot withstand satire. That is clearly why the FBI (and CIA) was determined to see a heavy hand raised against any American poking fun at the deep state. There is good news in all of this, however. As Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote over the weekend, a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll found that even though the mainstream media has ignored the “Twitter files,” Americans have not. Nearly two-thirds of respondents believe that Twitter was involved in politically-motivated censorship in advance of the 2020 election. Some 70 percent of those polled believe Congress must take action against this corporate/state censorship. As Professor Turley points out, although the First Amendment only applies to the US government, “it does apply to agents or surrogates of the government. Twitter now admits that such a relationship existed between its former officials and the government.” So now we have proof that the FBI (along with US intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security) have been acting through “private” social media companies to manipulate what Americans are allowed to say when they communicate with each other. Is there anything more un-American than that? Personally, I find it sickening. We do not need the FBI and CIA and other federal agencies viewing us as the enemy and attacking our Constitution. End the Fed…and End the Federal Bureau of Investigation!
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
Moving en masse to Distributed Uncensorable P2P Social Media platform networks solves all this. Twitter Files Point To Urgent Need For Platform Transparency https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2022/12/20/twitter_files_point_to_urg... https://api.gdeltproject.org/api/v2/summary/summary?d=iatv&t=summary&k=%28%22twitter+files%22+OR+taibbi+OR+weiss%29&ts=custom&sdt=20221202000000&fs=station%3ABLOOMBERG&fs=station%3ACNBC&fs=station%3ACNN&fs=station%3AFBC&fs=station%3AFOXNEWS&fs=station%3AMSNBC&fdn=raw&svt=zoom&svts=zoom&swvt=zoom&ssc=yes&sshc=yes&swc=yes&stcl=yes&c=1 Hypocrite Jack Dorsey ass-covers and re-engineers himself to look good... https://twitter.com/jack/status/1600469184755822597 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1602800290876588032 https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/10/1892_leetaru-social-media-digital... December has been a whirlwind month in the Twitterverse. A new academic study argued that hate speech was surging on the platform, while new company owner Elon Musk countered that such tweets were being quietly hidden, so they didn’t count. High-profile journalists were abruptly suspended and restored with little explanation, with condemnations from the EU and UN. All the while, the so-called “Twitter Files” allowed an unprecedented inside look at the messy and controversial world of platform moderation. What can we learn from all of this about the how the social platforms at the heart of our digital democracies are run? Twitter is unique among major social platforms in that outside researchers can access a real-time data feed of every tweet ever sent. This enables external audits of its content and is the means by which researchers have been able to document a significant rise in hate speech. But there’s a catch: Because Twitter does not make available the number of views each tweet gets, it’s impossible to distinguish between a tweet that received millions of views and one that was seen by three people. This difference between production (sending a tweet) and consumption (how many users see that tweet) lies at the heart of the dispute over Twitter’s changes to its moderation practices. Researchers claim hate speech is soaring because that is what they can measure, while Musk claims those tweets aren’t being seen, based on data that only Twitter itself possesses. If Twitter were to make such viewership data available, it could both generate rich new revenue streams and demonstrate to its critics that its visibility filtering is as effective as it claims. In one of the company’s most controversial moderation decisions since Musk took ownership, Twitter suspended a group of journalists last week, before restoring some of them just days later, leaving others banished and suspending new ones. Musk’s explanation, delivered after the fact with little specificity, was that he was only silencing journalists who were engaged in “doxxing” behavior that put his own family at risk. This wasn’t necessarily true: Some of those suspended were merely covering the controversy. But what was undeniably true was that only days earlier, the legacy media had largely ignored the revelations of the recent “Twitter Files.” The mainstream outlets that did cover it were mostly dismissive, arguing that Twitter is a private company that has the right to decide which voices to allow or disallow and does not owe any explanation to conservatives banished in the past. Yet when their own voices were suddenly silenced, the same mainstream media condemned the idea that voices could be silenced “without warning, process, or explanation” and denounced the “zero communication from the company on why I was suspended or what terms I violated.” Buzzfeed reporter Katie Notopoulos best summarized the reactions in her comment to Musk himself: “It's highly unusual for a journalist at The Washington Post and The Washington Times to have their Twitter account suspended.” In other words, Twitter is a private company that can silence whomever it likes – until it comes for them. In this way, the “Twitter Files” served as a kind of Rorschach test, as Musk likely knew it would. Working with a hand-picked set of journalists, he granted access to selected internal correspondence and data to offer a never-before-seen glimpse into how Twitter has conducted some of its most controversial moderation decisions. The first release, on Dec. 2, offered more detail on the company’s decision-making around suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story and the degree to which partisan players with an interest in the outcome influence how Twitter prioritizes content removals. While containing no bombshell revelations, the tranche of internal emails nonetheless documented the routineness of external influence in Twitter’s enforcement. Yet the larger, unanswered question is what this landscape of external takedown requests really looks like: Who is the cast of characters that has access to this direct line into Twitter’s removal teams? Releasing the entire archive of these requests would enable journalists and scholars to form a more complete picture of what was taking place. The second release, on Dec. 8, focused on how Twitter quietly adjusts the visibility of tweets, accounts, and even entire topics in real-time to nudge its platform away from speech it views as allowable but “harmful.” While this was seized on as a newly uncovered revelation, the company has for years openly touted this “visibility filtering” as a powerful tool for addressing speech it believes detracts from its community. The real story is whether this filtering has been applied more to some constituencies than others. If Twitter were to release a master list of everything that has ever been subject to visibility filtering over time, this would go a long way toward answering this existential question. As a first step towards such transparency, Twitter says it will soon alert users about whether they themselves are subject to filtering. The third, fourth, and fifth releases, Dec. 9-12, documented Twitter’s banishment of Donald Trump in January 2021. While offering slightly more detail on his removal, the emails largely match what had already been widely reported. The sixth release, on Dec. 12, focused on Twitter’s engagement with law enforcement, specifically the FBI. Combined with earlier revelations of government-requested visibility filtering, it revealed the deference the company granted government agencies and select outside organizations. While any Twitter user can report a tweet for removal, officials at the platform provided more direct and expedited channels for select organizations, raising obvious ethical questions about the government’s non-public efforts at censorship. It also captured the degree to which law enforcement requested information – from the physical location of users to foreign influence – from social platforms outside of formal court orders, raising important questions of due process and accountability. Despite this trove of internal documents raising profound questions about the role of outside influence in platforms’ decisions, the amount of media coverage the Twitter Files received was almost utterly dependent on the partisan orientation of the media outlet itself. As of Sunday, Fox News had mentioned them 943 times, compared to just 33 mentions on CNN and just 29 on MSNBC. In contrast, the 2021 “Facebook Files,” in which internal communications and documents from the company were released to the public by a whistleblower, garnered global media coverage. Besides ideological considerations, the biggest difference is that the Facebook Files consisted of a vast tranche of internal documents that were released under embargo to a wide array of mainstream news outlets who could all review and report on them, contact sources for comment, contextualize them, etc. Those documents were provided in their entirety to newsrooms, enabling reporters to see their full context and counteract claims of cherry-picked statements. And Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey himself has called for all of the underlying Twitter Files documents to be released to the public – sidestepping why he is only now embracing the idea of moderation transparency when these actions occurred under his watch. Releasing the documents in full would address the emerging consensus in the media world that might be best summarized as “Musk is baiting mainstream media companies to cover a manufactured scandal about something that happened years ago” with “cherry-picked so-called evidence.” In the end, the Twitter Files provide few revelations that were not already widely known and reported on. That Twitter’s moderation practices and external engagements are so surprising to the American public offers a stark reminder of just how little the public understands about the way social platforms work. In the end, however, perhaps their greatest lesson is just how urgently we need transparency into the inner workings of the social platforms that form our modern digital public square.
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
THE TWITTER FILES: The FBI assigned so many agents to search for ways to deplatform accounts they didn't like (by gaming Twitter's Terms of Service) that it was even making the FBI's former top lawyer uncomfortable. The FBI's former top lawyer **who had left to go work at Twitter.** Listen to this Space about the latest #Twitterfiles exposing the relationship between Twitter and the CIA and how the US Deep State is using Big Tech to censor and manipulate Americans in breach of the US Constitution. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1606698155785048064 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1606747282887806976 The media ignored: Hunter Biden laptop “10% for the Big Guy” and the... #TwitterFiles "When you realize that the media is just a State Sponsored Propaganda machine everything else makes sense."
https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/twitter-files-thread-the-spies-who Twitter Files Thread: The Spies Who Loved Twitter
From FBI to DNI the DNI to "OGA," the full thread on Twitter and its intelligence partners
https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1gqxvyMPXejJB Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald For the crime of reporting that the US Security State agencies are heavily involved in Big Tech's censorship regime, and for confessing that he found this deeply disturbing, liberals have spent a full week saying that @mtaibbi has mental health problems and needs therapy. 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* https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1jMJgLnrYajxL President Donald J. Trump: “It has just been learned that the FBI Office that is ‘investigating’ Hunter Biden sent many censorship requests to keep all of his bad news confidential just prior to the 2020 Election. In other words, the exact same people that were "investigating him" were making sure that he doesn't get any bad publicity --- "Only good publicity, please." This is an outrageous disgrace, & the same group that is after me on the Boxes Hoax, the Jan 6th Unselect Committee Hoax, & the many past Hoaxes and Scams."
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://leightonwoodhouse.substack.com/p/in-response-to-the-twitter-files Establishment journalists' response to the Twitter Files is that of a profession committed to protecting the state instead of exposing it. Establishment Media Rushes to Defend the FBI The Hunter Biden laptop story shows the extent to which the corporate media has become the propaganda arm of the state Last week, the FBI responded to the revelations exhumed from the Twitter Files in the most predictable way imaginable: by calling the journalists who reported on them [20]“conspiracy theorists.” A decade ago, an attack like this on the free press by the federal government’s top law enforcement agency might have united journalists in indignant outrage. No longer. If the Twitter Files showed the extent to which the intelligence agencies are in bed with the social media platforms, the story’s reception by the mainstream press has only shown how eager the establishment media is to jump into the sheets with them. It’s not just that the corporate media has abandoned the kind of adversarial journalism exemplified by the reporting on the Twitter Files; it has taken on the role of defending the state against those who continue to practice it. A few days after my friend and colleague [21]Michael Shellenberger dropped [22]Part 7 of the Twitter Files, CNN reporters Evan Perez, Donnie Sullivan and Brian Fung published a big [23]story, also [24]featured on the news channel, expressly aimed at refuting its findings. The central claim of the story was that the FBI had never “ordered” Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. That claim is true: the FBI, indeed, had never issued a direct order to Twitter that they had no legal authority to issue. But neither Shellenberger nor any other Twitter Files reporter had ever made that allegation in the first place. Elon Musk had, in a [25]tweet posted two and a half weeks prior to Shellenberger’s thread, in a discussion of an earlier Twitter Files installment written by a [26]different reporter. And CNN’s conclusion was correct: Musk, who is famous for his reckless tweets, had spoken inaccurately. But so what? Musk carelessly hyping a tweet thread with the hyperbolic claim that the FBI “ordered” suppression of a story does nothing to undermine the actual claim in the reporting, which is that the FBI used its influence improperly to discredit a true but politically inconvenient story. Seizing on Musk’s sloppy editorializing is a classic [30]motte and bailey that CNN is using to tarnish a story that it cannot in fact factually refute. What the Twitter Files do show is that the FBI ran what appears to be a disinformation campaign to persuade social media platforms to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story — a story they knew to be true. That last part bears repeating, as it is crucial to understanding the gravity of the FBI’s alleged impropriety: the FBI knew from the start that the story was authentic. FBI agents knew that Hunter Biden had personally dropped off his laptop at a computer repair shop in Delaware in 2019 and then abandoned it, that the computer repairman had viewed its contents and then contacted Rudy Giuliani to inform him of the sensitive information stored on the machine, and that the New York Post was writing a story on it. The FBI knew all of this because in 2019, the computer repairman had, via his father, contacted the FBI himself to tell them about it. FBI agents had visited him at his home, and the agency had then taken physical possession of the laptop. The FBI was also spying on Giuliani, which is how they were aware that the New York Post had an article coming. Knowing all of these facts, the FBI nevertheless went on to represent the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation” to social media executives.
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)
Juan admits having withdrawal panic attack over Twitter banning CSAM World Economic Forum Cancels Twitter, Directs Followers To Chinese Social Media Apps https://dossier.substack.com/p/world-economic-forum-cancels-twitter https://dossier.substack.com/p/exclusive-davos-2023-will-feature https://www.mediamatters.org/elon-musk/less-month-elon-musk-has-driven-away-... Prior to its upcoming conference in Davos next month, the World Economic Forum (WEF) appears to have joined the cancel campaign against Twitter, taking to recommending Chinese state-controlled social media apps to “follow along” with Davos Man into the future. Twitter is noticeably absent from the entities listed on the organization’s “How to follow Davos 2023” social media pamphlet, and that appears to be no accident. To stay up to speed with all that is happening within the invite-only doors of the ruling class confab, the WEF recommends following along through a handful of social media sites. They include the U.S.-based narrative-compliant Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube, along with the Chinese social media apps TikTok WeChat, and Weibo. Twitter, which has freed itself from the grasp of the WEF-endorsed censorship-compliant social apps, is no longer included. Through its founder Klaus Schwab and partner organizations, the WEF has a very cozy relationship with the Chinese government. Davos recently revealed that their China office now has 40 full time staffers. Moreover, every year in Beijing, the WEF hosts its “Annual Meeting of the New Champions,” which facilitates partnerships between international businesses and the Chinese Community Party. In 2018, the CCP awarded Klaus Schwab with its China Reform Friendship Medal, a medal for non-Chinese people who do the CCP’s bidding overseas. Davos 2023 will feature Shou Zi Chew, the CEO of TikTok, on stage. First reported by The Dossier, he will appear at an event titled “Tackling Harm in The Digital Era.” In case you missed it, The Dossier has obtained an early, partial list of both events and confirmed speakers for Davos 2023. On the agenda for the 2023 conference includes event titles such as Why We Need Battery Passports, Leading The Charge Through Earth’s New Normal, A Living Wage For All, Enabling An Equitable Transition, and Beyond The Rainbow: Advancing LGBTQ+ Rights, among others. The Bird App has faced a ferocious cancel campaign following its change of management. Elon Musk’s pledge to turn Twitter into a free speech platform has met major resistance from the institutional corporate and governmental ruling class. Several WEF partners, such as BlackRock, have joined the attacks against Twitter, boycotting the platform in protest of its “content moderation” policies. It should come as no surprise that the ruling class’s favorite narrative and ideas shop for technocratic tyranny has come after Twitter, given that the latter app is now serving as the one major global social media platform for open debate and dialogue.
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.
Democrat News Media Liars Elon Musk Calls Out "Corporate Journalism" Over Twisted Coverage Of His 'Twitter Files' https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musk-calls-out-corporate-journalism-over-... https://leightonwoodhouse.substack.com/p/in-response-to-the-twitter-files https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1601046501194489856 https://www.wicker.senate.gov/2022/12/wicker-calls-for-big-tech-investigatio... https://www.theepochtimes.com/elon-musk-releases-twitter-files-ii-exposing-s... https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-twitter-files-show-fbi-tried-to-discredit-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-deviated-from-longstanding-policy-to-j... https://www.theepochtimes.com/newly-released-emails-show-fbi-flagging-accoun... Elon Musk has criticized mainstream media outlets over their coverage of the so-called “Twitter Files.” “Why is corporate journalism rushing to defend the state instead of the people?” Musk wrote on Twitter on Dec. 27, in response to a tweet from journalist and documentary filmmaker Leighton Woodhouse. The latter was sharing his new Substack post about how corporate media rushed to defend the FBI and the state instead of exposing them. “The Hunter Biden laptop story shows the extent to which the corporate media has become the propaganda arm of the state,” Woodhouse wrote in his Substack, pointing to the recent release of the seventh installment of Twitter’s internal documents. Independent author Michael Shellenberger published the seventh installment on Dec. 19, revealing how there was an “organized effort” by federal law enforcement agents to discredit the 2020 Hunter Biden laptop report, by targeting social media and news companies. Related Coverage Elon Musk Calls Out ‘Corporate Journalism’ Over Coverage of His ‘Twitter Files’New ‘Twitter Files’ Show Company Suppressed COVID Information From Doctors and Experts Other installments of Twitter’s internal communications have shown how the media giant placed certain individuals on “secret blacklists,” debates over how to handle former President Donald Trump’s account before it was suspended in January 2021, and how the FBI allegedly flagged accounts and tweets for Twitter to take action against. The FBI has dismissed the “Twitter Files,” alleging that “conspiracy theorists” are attempting to discredit the bureau. A Twitter user responded to Musk’s question by writing, “Simple… it’s Corporate Journalism… Not Journalism.” To which Musk replied: “Exactly. Why would anyone trust corpo journalism?” Substack In the same thread, Musk also said that he was “open to the idea” of buying the Substack platform, while responding to a tweet from Wall Street Silver. The latter wrote, “Twitter plus Substack creates instantly massive competition for obsolete legacy corporate media.” Substack allows independent writers and podcasters to publish directly to their audiences and get paid through subscriptions, the platform’s website says. Tuesday was not the first time that Musk has expressed an interest in buying Substack. On Dec. 8, conservative commentator Dave Rubin started a thread by alleging that Google and YouTube’s “manipulation for political purposes is FAR worse than Twitter’s.” A Twitter user continued the thread and recommended Musk buy Substack. The Twitter user wrote: “You would have the information layer with Twitter and the narrative layer. Corporate media would then have [to] specialize on reporting government leaks, from ‘people familiar with the matter.'” “I’m open to the idea,” Musk wrote in response to the recommendation. Reputation On Dec. 28, Musk responded to a Twitter clip posted by CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” during which Axios reporter Hope King said the new Twitter chief’s reputation was “in danger.” “All of the macro conditions are against his favor. Market-share for $TSLA is down year-over-year. His reputation with Twitter is impacting his reputation when it comes to all of his companies,” she said. In response, Musk wrote: “The legacy media should worry about its reputation. We have only just begun.” Musk has promised to promote free speech after acquiring Twitter and his decision to release the company’s internal documents is tied to his promise. Related Coverage Elon Musk Calls Out ‘Corporate Journalism’ Over Coverage of His ‘Twitter Files’Elon Musk Becomes a Freedom of Speech Hero “The Twitter Files on free speech suppression soon to be published on Twitter itself. The public deserves to know what really happened,” Musk wrote on Twitter on Dec. 28, just days before the first batch of the “Twitter Files” was released by independent journalist Matt Taibbi. The first installment exposed how the social media giant’s efforts to suppress the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story published just weeks before the 2020 presidential election. Emails from the laptop’s hard drive and Treasury records revealed how then-Vice President Joe Biden, his brother James, and Hunter Biden were involved in various foreign business ventures, in countries such as Ukraine, Russia, and China. At the time, many media outlets discredited the revelations as “Russian disinformation” and the news was blocked by social media platforms. Hunter Biden recently hired high-profile defense lawyer Abbe Lowell to his legal team, as House Republicans plan to launch probes into his overseas business interests. Congressional Probe Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, said Congress needs to probe “Big Tech” companies, following the revelations made by the “Twitter Files.” “These explosive revelations show the enormous power that a handful of liberal tech executives have over our public discourse,” Wicker wrote in his weekly report published on Dec. 26. “We should be grateful that new leadership is lifting the hood on Twitter, but Congress needs to follow up with wider investigations into Big Tech companies, including Facebook and Google,” he said. Related Coverage Elon Musk Calls Out ‘Corporate Journalism’ Over Coverage of His ‘Twitter Files’Doctor Censored on Twitter After COVID Lockdown Warnings Says ‘Unspecified Agents’ Behind Blacklisting The Mississippi senator dismissed suggestions by some lawmakers that tech companies shouldn’t be investigated because they are “free enterprises operating in a free market.” “What this fails to recognize is that these massive companies wield unprecedented power over our nation,” he explained. “We live in a big country where people hold a wide range of views and convictions. This diversity makes it all the more vital that we protect free speech. Big Tech has shown that it cannot be trusted to do so. Congress now has an obligation to act on behalf of the American people and bring transparency and accountability to these public platforms,” he added. “Americans deserve to know the full extent of tech bias and corruption that is impacting our country.”
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.
Feds used Russian election interference fears to gain access to Twitter influence policy thepostmillennial.com/breaki… Following Hillary Clinton’s comments that the platform was a hotbed for Russian disinformation, Twitter saw it appropriate to form a “Russia Task Force” to self-investigate, in what was likely a move... thepostmillennial.com @elonmusk US govt agency demanded suspension of 250k accounts, including journalists & Canadian officials! @mtaibbi 11.The GEC report appeared based on DHS data circulated earlier that week, and included accounts that followed “two or more” Chinese diplomatic accounts. They reportedly ended up with a list “nearly 250,000” names long, and included Canadian officials and a CNN account:
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
Ron Paul: Isn't It Time For Adam Schiff To Be Expelled From Congress? http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/january/16/isnt-... With each new release of the “Twitter Files” we learn more and more about the deep corruption in Washington. We sensed during Covid that something was really wrong – for example the bizarre denial of natural immunity. But thanks to Elon Musk’s decision to open the books, our worst fears have been proven true. Each new release seems to show something even more criminal inside America’s rotten ruling class. In the latest release, thanks to the excellent reporting of independent journalist Matt Taibbi, we see outgoing Chair of the House Intelligence Community, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), continuously pressuring Twitter to validate his fantasies of “Russian bots” manipulating US politics. The short version of what Taibbi reported comes from around the time then-Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) was about to release his Committee’s findings about the FBI misuse of the FISA Court to spy on the Trump presidential campaign. The FBI, it turns out, relied exclusively on the widely-discredited “Steele Dossier” – paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign – as justification to spy on the Trump campaign. When pressure grew to release the Nunes findings, Twitter exploded with users demanding that Congress “release the memo.” That’s where then-ranking Member Schiff and his staff began relentlessly pressuring Twitter to show that the accounts demanding the release of the memo were actually Russian agents, out to help their supposed favorite, Donald Trump. Schiff was not alone. Fellow “Russiagate” hoaxers like Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) also pressured Twitter to find Russians behind the demand to release Nunes’ findings. Over and over, Twitter – which was hardly sympathetic to Trump – told Schiff and his colleagues there was simply no evidence of Russian involvement. As much as some Twitter employees may have liked to report the opposite, to their credit they refused to participate in the scam. Even after Twitter had informed Schiff and his fellow hoaxers that there was no Russian involvement, Sen. Blumenthal released a statement he knew was not true: “We find it reprehensible that Russian agents have so eagerly manipulated innocent Americans.” Again, this was right after he had been informed by Twitter employees - who were by-and-large strongly opposed to Trump - that there was just no evidence to back up such a statement. We are moving closer and closer to a nuclear showdown with Russia over Ukraine. For political gain the Democrats – and plenty of Republicans – have been pushing the “Russiagate” hoax and in so doing have fertilized the ground for the obsessive Russia hatred prevalent in the US today. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that if US/Russia relations had not been poisoned by the lie of “Russiagate” for pure political gain, we would not be anywhere near our current state of near-direct conflict with the largest nuclear power on earth, Russia. It is shocking that Schiff and his "Russiagate" allies would potentially sacrifice millions of dead Americans to defeat Trump and other political enemies. Let’s not forget: Rep. Jim Trafficant was expelled from Congress for asking his staffers to wash his boat. Shouldn’t there be at least equal punishment for Senators and Members who are lying us into World War III?
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://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/yoel-roths-secret-twitter-account-r... https://clearnewswire.com/682796.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/majorie-taylor-greene-acc... https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/02/08/marjorie-taylor-greene-assa... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/yoel-roths-gay-data-dissertation-mistakenly... https://contra.substack.com/p/yoel-roth-gay-data-and-child-exploitation https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/02/08/hearing-on-big-tech-explodes-during-... https://ussanews.com/2023/02/08/breaking-video-former-twitter-censor-in-chie... https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1985/ https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2286 https://www.scribd.com/document/613629769/Yoel-Roth-Gay-Data-2015 https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/twittier-executive-hearing-bias https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1623434247129411584 https://www.revolver.news/2022/12/the-gay-science-revolver-read-yoel-roths-3... BREAKING VIDEO: Former Twitter Censor-in-Chief, Yoel Roth, Caught in ... Representative Taylor Greene also revealed an excerpt from Yoel Roth's doctoral dissertation, "Gay Data," where he allegedly argued that minors should have access to the adult, male gay "hookup" site Grindr. The Georgia representative blasted Roth, saying "You permanently banned my account, but you allowed child porn all over Twitter!" " Is it any surprise that Yoel Roth the obviously flaming gay jew was part of a woke democrat activist government affiliated misinfo company (aka: Twitter) that apparently allowed both CSAM and adult sex on its supposedly wholesome curated and censored social media service? The left is morally corrupted compromised by and spreading its depraved sexual deviancy, offline, online, and in the schools and governments. That, and much more that they are doing, is getting worse. " Yoel Roth’s Secret Twitter Account Revealed – Former ‘Head of Twitter Integrity’ Was Posting Photos of His Gay Hookups Published December 15, 2022 at 1:30pm Yoel Roth is the former head of Twitter site integrity and top censor for the social media giant. Roth held the position until he left the company in early November. Since then it has become apparent that Yoel Roth was behind much of the censorship of conservatives on the platform. Earlier this month a Twitter Files report was released by journalist Matt Tiabbi. The latest drop included information on Roth and federal officials plotting against conservatives and blacklisting conservatives including President Trump. The federal government and social media interfered in the 2020 election to censor conservatives and promote liberal voices. This appears to be likely election interference and criminal conduct. Elon Musk was confronted on the fact that for several years Twitter employees refused to take action on child exploitation. They were too busy silencing conservatives. On Saturday Elon Musk suggested the blame may be with Yoel Roth. Yoel Roth wrote his PhD thesis arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services. Yoel Roth also argued in favor of children having sex with their high school teachers. And Roth posted that on Twitter. That might explain a lot. Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis: pic.twitter.com/1NiBohjhMQ — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 10, 2022 Twitter sleuths recently discovered that Yoel Roth had a second Twitter account. Roth tweeted about this account previously back in 2011. Roth called this his “secret dirty Twitter account.” And he bragged that it was at least 60% dirtier than his main account. And here we thought Twitter frowned on users opening several accounts? In one post the gay Emergency Otter account posted a photo fo “hot otters” Yoel Roth and his bunk mate in the morning. It is not clear who took the photo, Yoel or his Otter hookup. Roth also posted several sexual tweets on his accounts over the years promoting gay porn and gay porn bareback. Is it really a surprise that this guy censored Trump and conservatives?
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1633830002742657027 1. TWITTER FILES: Statement to Congress THE CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
nitter Logo Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 1. New piece from the TWITTER FILES. How the pharmaceutical industry lobbied social media to shape content around vaccine policy. The push included direct pressure from Pfizer partner BioNTech to censor activists demanding low-cost generic vaccines for low-income countries. 819 18,493 1,948 39,779 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 2. In 2020, it was clear that the pandemic would require rapid innovation. Early on, there was a push to make the solution equitable: an international partnership to share ideas, technology, new forms of medicine to rapidly solve this crisis. medicinespatentpool.org/news… New agreement under C-TAP aims to improve global access to COVID-19 testing technologies - MPP Geneva – A new, open, transparent sublicence agreement between the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) on behalf of C-TAP, and South African pharmaceutical company Biotech Africa will accelerate the manufa... medicinespatentpool.org 47 1,469 36 7,050 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 3. But global drug giants saw the crisis as an opportunity for unprecedented profit. Behind closed doors, pharma launched a massive lobbying blitz to crush any effort to share patents/IP for new covid-related medicine, including therapeutics and vaccines. 84 2,205 109 8,623 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 4. BIO, the lobby group that represents biopharma, including Moderna & Pfizer, 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. theintercept.com/2021/03/03/… Drug Lobby Asks Biden to Punish Foreign Countries Pushing for Low-Cost Vaccines Big Pharma is fighting for tight control over Covid-19 vaccine production, limiting availability worldwide while reaping billions. theintercept.com 106 3,276 200 10,054 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 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. 127 2,731 244 9,395 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 6. Twitter's reps responded quickly to the pharma request, which was also backed by the German government. A lobbyist in Europe asked the content moderation team to monitor the accounts of Pfizer, AstraZeneca & of activist hashtags like #peoplesvaccine 44 1,757 98 7,540 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 7. The potential "fake accounts" that Twitter monitored for protesting Pfizer? These were real people. Here's one the Twitter team flagged for potential terms of use violations. I talked to Terry, a 74 year old retired bricklayer in the UK on the phone. Terry Brough #PeaceJusticeSocialism ✊ @TerryB28937065 14 Dec 2020 Dear @AlbertBourla, @sbancel & #PascalSoriot, 9/10 people in poor countries are going to MISS OUT on a #COVID19 vaccine next year. Will @Pfizer, @BioNTech_Group @moderna_tx & @AstraZeneca #JoinCTAP to ensure that everyone, everywhere can be safe? We need a #PeoplesVaccine! 29 1,644 44 7,512 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 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. 24 1,138 27 6,373 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 9. In a separate push, Pfizer & Moderna's lobbying group, BIO, fully funded a special content moderation campaign designed by a contractor called Public Good Projects, which worked w/Twitter to set content moderation rules around covid "misinformation." 47 1,735 93 7,057 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 10. BIO provided $1,275,000 to the campaign, part of which is revealed through tax forms. The PGP campaign, called "Stronger," helped Twitter create content moderation bots, select which public health accounts got verification, helped crowdsource content takedowns. 42 1,954 96 7,163 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 11. Many of the tweets the BIO-funded campaign focused on were truly unhinged misinfo, like claims that vaccines include microchips. But others Stronger lobbied Twitter on were more of a grey area, like vaccine passports & vaccine mandates, policies that coerce vaccination. Jan 16, 2023 · 4:17 PM UTC · Twitter Web App 79 1,362 49 6,473 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 12. The Moderna/Pfizer-funded campaign included direct regular emails with lists of tweets to takedown & others to verify. 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. 108 2,572 182 8,802 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 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. PhRMA @PhRMA 9 Nov 2022 The biopharma sector employs more than 900,000 workers and supports 4.4 million U.S. jobs. Those jobs would be at risk if the #TRIPS waiver is extended to #COVID19 treatments. Read more about the real consequences of waiving commitments to protect IP: onphr.ma/3WIS8ER 40 1,982 68 7,675 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 14. Here is my reported piece w/more detail. I was given some access to Twitter emails. 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. theintercept.com/2023/01/16/… Covid-19 Drugmakers Pressured Twitter to Censor Activists Pushing for Generic Vaccine The social media pressure campaign was just a part of the pharmaceutical industry’s successful lobbying blitz to retain patents — and make record profits. theintercept.com 94 1,905 71 7,289 Lee Fang @lhfang Jan 16 15. Thanks @davidzweig and @lwoodhouse for help, and look for more Twitter reporting from @mtaibbi, @ShellenbergerMD, @bariweiss/@TheFP and others. You can find me on Substack here leefang.substack.com/p/creat… Creating a Substack I’m starting a Substack. For now, this is a platform for me to provide further context for my reporting, as well as original source documents, research tips, and analysis. I’m interested in exposing... leefang.substack.com 165 1,155 24 6,523 Daniel Bocic Martinez @Dan4CA31 Jan 16 Replying to @lhfang 1 4 26 Amy Peikoff @AmyPeikoff Jan 16 Replying to @lhfang What about the safety signals? Similar suppression, I assume? Content like this, for example? piped.kavin.rocks/eYz-yelhkYE Rare complications Changes of ECG parameters after BNT162b2 vaccine in the senior high school studentshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36602621/Full text linkhttps://www.ncbi.nl... youtube.com 2 7 DZDӨЯK2 @dzdork2 Jan 16 Replying to @lhfang I would suggest journalists refrain from using ‘judgey’ terms like “unhinged misinfo” in light of how much of that unhinged misinfo has later been proven to have been true. 4 5 22 DZDӨЯK2 @dzdork2 Jan 16 It’s really not your job to apply these labels. 1 11 English Constitution Party @grahamHmoore Jan 16 Replying to @lhfang This is not a grey area: Coercion is illegal. As is subverting the right of individuals to informed consent. 1 21 DZDӨЯK2 @dzdork2 Jan 16 Replying to @lhfang Can listen to these Twitter files read here: rumble.com/v25vg24-twitter-f… Twitter Files: Big Pharma Edition Patrick Gunnels: @pgunnels1 on Twitter Chris Paul: @imyourmoderator on Twitter rumble.com 2 4 Load more
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 search: Stanford Research Institute SRI History of 1984 Stanford Project Worked To Censor Even True Stories On Social Media "True Stories... Could Fuel Hesitancy -- Stanford" https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/19/true-stories-could-fuel-hesitancy-stan... https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/content/virality-project https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/launching-sio-virality-project https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/06/more-trout-than-milk-twitter-releases-... https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1636729166631432195 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD While lost in the explosive news about Donald Trump’s expected arrest, journalist Matt Taibbi released new details on previously undisclosed censorship efforts on social media. The latest Twitter Files revealed a breathtaking effort from Stanford’s Virality Project to censor even true stories. After all, the project insisted “true stories … could fuel hesitancy” over taking the vaccine or other measures. The effort included suppressing stories that we now know are legitimate such as natural immunity defenses, the exaggerated value of masks, and questions over vaccine efficacy in preventing second illnesses. The work of the Virality Project to censor even true stories should result in the severance of any connection with Stanford University. We have learned of an ever-expanding coalition of groups working with the government and social media to target and censor Americans, including government-funded organizations. However, the new files are chilling in the details allegedly showing how the Virality Project labeled even true stories as “anti-vaccine” and, therefore, subject to censorship. These files would suggest that the Project eagerly worked to limit free speech and suppress alternative scientific viewpoints. Taibbi describes the Virality Project as “a sweeping, cross-platform effort to monitor billions of social media posts by Stanford University, federal agencies, and a slew of (often state-funded) NGOs.” 1.TWITTER FILES #19 The Great Covid-19 Lie Machine Stanford, the Virality Project, and the Censorship of “True Stories” pic.twitter.com/v41dyC26ZR — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) March 17, 2023 He added: “We’ve since learned the Virality Project in 2021 worked with government to launch a pan-industry monitoring plan for Covid-related content. At least six major Internet platforms were ‘onboarded’ to the same JIRA ticketing system, daily sending millions of items for review.” 5.Just before @ShellenbergerMD and I testified in the House last week, Virality Project emails were found in the #TwitterFiles describing “stories of true vaccine side effects” as actionable content. pic.twitter.com/dKxTnxDc3a — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) March 17, 2023 According to Taibbi, it targeted anyone who did not robotically fall in line with the CDC and media narratives, including targeting postings that shared “Reports of vaccinated individuals contracting Covid-19 anyway,” research on “natural immunity,” suggesting Covid-19 “leaked from a lab,” and even “worrisome jokes.” That included evidence that it “knowingly targeted true material and legitimate political opinion, while often being factually wrong itself.” The Virality Project warned Twitter that “true stories … could fuel hesitancy,” including stories on “celebrity deaths after vaccine” and the closure of a central New York school due to reports of post-vaccine illness. The Project is part of the Cyber Policy Center at Stanford and bills itself as “a joint initiative of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Stanford Law School, connects academia, the legal and tech industry and civil society with policymakers around the country to address the most pressing cyber policy concerns.” The Center launched the Project as a “a global study aimed at understanding the disinformation dynamics specific to the COVID-19 crisis.” As with many disinformation projects, it became a source of its own disinformation in the effort to suppress alternative views. It is being funded by Craig Newmark Philanthropies and the Hewlett Foundation. On its website, it proclaims: “At the Stanford Internet Observatory our mission is to study the misuse of the internet to cause harm, and to help create policy and technical mitigations to those harms.” It defines its mission to maintain the truth as it sees it: “The global COVID-19 crisis has significantly shifted the landscape for mis- and disinformation as the pandemic has become the primary concern of almost every nation on the planet. This has perhaps never happened before; few topics have commanded and sustained attention at a global level simultaneously, or provided such a wealth of opportunities for governments, economically motivated actors, and domestic activists alike to spread malign narratives in service to their interests.” What is even more disconcerting is that groups like the Virality Project worked against public health by suppressing such stories that are now considered legitimate from the efficacy of masks to the lab origin theory. It was declaring dissenting scientific views to be dangerous disinformation. Nothing could be more inimical to the academic mission. Yet, Stanford still heralds the work of the Project on its website. There is nothing more inherently in conflict with academic values than censorship. Stanford’s association with this censorship effort is disgraceful and should be a matter for faculty action. This is a project that sought to censor true stories that undermined government or media narratives. I am not hopeful that Stanford will sever its connection to the Project. Censorship is now the rage on campuses and the Project is the perfect embodiment of this movement. Cloaking censorship efforts in self-righteous rhetoric, the Project sought to silence those who failed to adhere to a certain orthodoxy, including scientific and public health claims that were later found flawed or wrong. The Project itself is an example of what it called “media and social media capabilities – overt and covert – to spread particular narratives.” Stanford should fulfill its pledge in creating the Virality Project in fighting disinformation by eliminating the Virality Project.
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?
https://public.substack.com/p/why-renee-diresta-leads-the-censorship Renee Diresta is a Deep State CIA Agent PIECE OF SHIT. Michael Shellenberger @ShellenbergerMD A growing body of evidence shows U.S. govt officials, agencies, & contractors demanding Facebook & Twitter censor ordinary Americans. Now, an influential censorship advocate has admitted that she worked for the CIA. Who is she? Why is she so influential? Why Renee Diresta Leads The Censorship Industry How a former CIA fellow came to lead US government efforts to stamp out disfavored speech on the Internet. Notice how the entire mainstream fake news media is effectively silent on THE TWITTER FILES... all traditional broadcast and print news outlets... silence... all Democrat oriented entities... silent... they're all totally corrupt. Corrupt social and media services are shutting down the embarassing Twitter Files story just like they did with covax jan6 truth etc. You're being psyop'd and losing, badly. Fight Back, Revolt Now. https://rumble.com/v2fhjss-they-are-dangerous-people-free-speech-is-under-th... https://twitter.com/saikate108/status/1642384601418199040 Matt Taibbi discusses disturbing new findings in the Twitter files. Aspen Institute discussions in 2021 revealed their Orwellian plan to rollout legislation in the EU/US designed to ensure complete control and immediate surveillance over media content monitored by AI... https://rumble.com/v2frpa8-club-grubbery-doctors-with-voices-01-04-2023.html Our last Club Grubbery was taken down by me for reasons that will soon be made very clear. We are in a desperate state of censorship in this that has gone beyond reprehensible. I have made a decision... https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/velvet-revolution-begins-in-czec... @FBIPantyRaid: They studied history and are worried about an American “velvet revolution”. They know the only thing that will derail their plans of total control is a peaceful velvet revolution with an effective general strike. Our side is way behind. 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a roadmap to tyranny. Same with Network and Being There.
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!
https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1647686211090219010 Elon Musk says US government had full access to Twitter user activity, including DMs under previous management. Jack Dorsey CEO of Twitter (and SocDem favorite friend) Dorsey's sly snake early exit from Twitter shall not be allowed a free responsibility pass on this culpability and TOP-SECRET operation.
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.
It's Official: Top NBCUni Ad Exec And World Economic Forum Taskforce Chair Is Twitter's New CEO It's official - moments ago NBC confirmed that its head of advertising is leaving the company... NBCUniversal today announced that Linda Yaccarino is leaving the company, effective immediately. Mark Marshall, currently President, Advertising Sales and Client Partnerships, will become interim Chairman of NBCUniversal's Advertising and Partnerships group, reporting to Mark Lazarus, Chairman, NBCUniversal Television and Streaming. Mike Cavanagh, President of Comcast Corporation said, "We are grateful for Linda Yaccarino's leadership of NBCUniversal's Advertising Sales business, and for the innovative team and platform she has built. Linda has made countless contributions to the company during her twelve year tenure, and we wish her the best." Linda Yaccarino said, "It has been an absolute honor to be part of Comcast NBCUniversal and lead the most incredible team. We've transformed our company and the entire industry—and I am so proud of what we've accomplished together, and grateful to my colleagues and mentors, especially Brian Roberts, Mike Cavanagh and the entire NBCU leadership team." Mark Lazarus was named Chairman, NBCUniversal Telvision and Streaming in May Musk has finally tweeted to confirm her position, noting that Yaccarino will focus primarily on business operations, while he will focus on product design & new technology I am excited to welcome Linda Yaccarino as the new CEO of Twitter!@LindaYacc will focus primarily on business operations, while I focus on product design & new technology. Looking forward to working with Linda to transform this platform into X, the everything app. https://t.co/TiSJtTWuky — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 12, 2023 Paul Joseph Watson breaks down the two sides' view on this hire... * * * Are Twitter's days of encouraging free speech and independent thought numbered... or is Musk, just days after unveiling that Tucker is joining, playing 4D chess? Just hours after Elon Musk announced he had picked a new female Twitter CEO candidate, the WSJ revealed the identity of the person in talks to become the next CEO of the world's most important social network: it is Linda Yaccarino, who is currently NBCUniversal’s influential head of advertising. Yaccarino, who is chairman of global advertising and partnerships at NBCU, has been with NBCU for more than a decade, where she has been an industry advocate for finding better ways to measure the effectiveness of advertising. As head of NBCU’s advertising sales, she was key in the launch of the company’s ad-supported Peacock streaming service. Elon Musk, Twitter’s owner, said in a tweet Thursday that he had hired a new CEO, but didn’t say who it was. “She will be starting in ~6 weeks!” Mr. Musk said in the tweet. In some ways, Musk's pick of Yaccarino is not a surprise: as Chair of the Advertising Council's Board of Directors and arguably NBCU's top advertising exec, she is meant to fill a critical void at the new Twitter: that of advertising. After all, despite having massive traffic, Musk's social network - which as a reminder cost him $44 billion - has been hemorhaging ad revenue as woke brands have abandoned the website. Of the top 100 advertisers on Twitter before Mr. Musk bought the company, 37 spent nothing on Twitter advertising during the first quarter of this year, according to market-intelligence firm Sensor Tower, while an additional 24 brands reduced their average monthly Twitter ad spending by 80% or more. As such, it will be Yaccarino's job to convince advertisers to return: Yaccarino, who oversees roughly $13 billion in annual ad revenue, is well-known for her tight relationship with marketers and ad agencies. Yaccarino has a reputation for hard-nosed negotiating tactics, and media buyers have described her as the “velvet hammer.” Musk's announcement of the new CEO came days before one of the biggest events of the year for NBCU, the company’s annual pitch event for advertisers, known as the upfront, which is scheduled for Monday in New York. And according to the WSJ, an NBCU spokesman said Ms. Yaccarino is in back-to-back rehearsals for NBCU’s upfront. On the other hand, the hiring of Yaccarino to head the social network which in recent months has become the bane of liberals and progressives through its encouragement of free speech and independent thought, both of which are despised and suppressed by the left, could be a problem. For one, according to her LInkedIn profile, Yaccarino is the "Chairman of the WEF's Taskforce on Future of Work and sits on the WEF's Media, Entertainment and Culture Industry Governors Steering Committee. She is also highly engaged with the Value in Media initiative." Most recently, she delivered the following speech in Jan 2020: 'World Economic Forum: Creating the Workplace of the Future by Focusing on People." Source: LinkedIn Additionally, in 2014 Yaccarino joined the Ad Council Board of Directors and became a member of the Executive Committee in 2015. She first served as Vice Chair before her appointment to Board Chair from 2021-2022. And then there's this: in 2021-2022, as Ad Council Chair, "Yaccarino partnered with the business community, the White House, and government agencies to create a COVID-19 vaccination campaign, featuring Pope Francis and reaching over 200 million Americans." Know the facts! The @AdCouncil is working to inform Americans on why we must embrace an FDA-approved #Covid vaccine and how to go about it. We're almost there, let’s cross the finish line. @lisaesherman https://t.co/AUv9tf9IFb — Linda Yaccarino (@lindayacc) November 24, 2020 And finally: As an industry advocate, Yaccarino has called for a return to values-based, trusted partnerships, spotlighting the most important issues facing her colleagues and peers. As 2021-2022 Ad Council Chair, Yaccarino partnered with the business community, the White House, and government agencies to create a COVID-19 vaccination campaign, featuring Pope Francis and reaching over 200 million Americans. At NBCU, she uses the power of media to advance equity and helps to launch DEI-focused initiatives, including BOLD, a program for employing veterans; #ShesMy, a campaign to uplift women and girls; Scene in Color, a collaboration with Target to elevate emerging BIPOC film creatives; and a partnership with Telemundo to release a Latina-centric storytelling guide. Yes! It’s time for action and working towards a more inclusive society. https://t.co/IMQreJ1K9P I nominate @laura_molen @MarkMarshallNBC @joefbenarroch @OsAnsari @kknorring — Linda Yaccarino (@lindayacc) October 21, 2020 Things get a little more complicated however, when one considers that in May 2018 Trump Named Yaccarino (alongside Bill Belichick and a bunch of other folks) to a two-year term on the President's Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition. It wasn't immediately clear how long she lasted in this particular role. Bottom line: despite that last rather odd detour, which can be attributed to Trump's habitual lack of due diligence, Yaccarino appears to be the perfect establishment hire, one who will help Twitter recover most of its lost ad revenue... the trade-off may very well be that in the process twitter may just become the same company it was before its acqusition by Trump. In response to the news of her hiring, the outcry has been - as one would imagine - extremely polarized. The ostensible new Twitter CEO is a literal Cathedral propagandist who is an executive at NBC, the WEF, and the Ad Council creating vaccine propaganda pic.twitter.com/cngnBxSufO — America's Conscience (@saveusculture) May 11, 2023 Please, @elonmusk, tell me you're trolling us, Linda Yaccarino! You may as well put Rachel Maddow in charge of Twitter pic.twitter.com/jy5jNS08sq — Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) May 12, 2023 This is reportedly the new Twitter CEO. Pro- mask, pro-vaxx, and a participant in The World Economic Forum. Under her Twitter, The #DiedSuddenly film would have never been allowed to see the light of day. @elonmusk if this is true- please reconsider this decision. pic.twitter.com/H9qqjdxH0f — DiedSuddenly (@DiedSuddenly_) May 12, 2023 In Linda Yaccarino, Elon Musk gets a CEO who is a seasoned ad executive who generally shares his political leanings. But she's also the Chairman of a World Economic Forum task force so she can comfortably liaise with Twitter's current investors and advertisers around the world. — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) May 11, 2023 Linda Yaccarino (@lindayacc), the woman who is reportedly the new CEO of Twitter, follows: - Chaya Raichik - Jesse Watters - Michael Shellenberger - Ron DeSantis - The Babylon Bee - Giorgia Meloni - Maye Musk - Catturd - Vivek Ramaswamy - Tulsi Gabbard - Bari Weiss — Max Berger (@maxberger) May 11, 2023 BREAKING: It appears that the new CEO of Twitter will be Linda Yaccarino, if the Wall Street Journal’s reporting is correct. People are already unfairly attacking her for her ties to different organizations and because she follows certain accounts here on Twitter. The new CEO… pic.twitter.com/Cm6WKRAqEy — Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) May 12, 2023 JUST KIDDING!! It looks like Trump ally Linda Yaccarino will be taking over. So don't expect the trolling, hate speech, disinformation or criminal acts committed on this site to stop anytime soon! https://t.co/B40PDiOtzW — Whistleblower Rebekah Jones (@GeoRebekah) May 12, 2023 If true, Linda Yaccarino would be a great CEO of Twitter. She gets the ad business and understands the needs of advertisers, can talk their language (ROI/brand safety) and will speak her mind while being deferential. $TSLA @elonmusk https://t.co/qIh2ktrc4r — Gary Black (@garyblack00) May 11, 2023 Elon Musk is reportedly in talks to bring Linda Yaccarino, “Top World Economic Forum Official,” on board as his new CEO of Twitter. Anyone else getting major Twitter 1.0 vibes or is it just me? pic.twitter.com/yTDrUWhNPr — Jason Jones (@jonesville) May 12, 2023 @elonmusk don't Bud Light yourself — Dom (@brutusbrandy) May 12, 2023 Finally, the boss himself: The commitment to open source transparency and accepting a wide range of viewpoints remains unchanged — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 12, 2023 In conclusion, while it is certainly possible that Musk is playing 4D chess here, a prevailing sentiment among the replies is that "Twitter was fun for a few months. See you guys in the gulag." One can only hope that it is wrong.
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
Jack Dorsey, Democrat and CEO at one of the most egregious online social network media censorship and democrat party deep state agencied election fraud campaign conspiracies in history, crawls out trying a bit to polish spin claim he wasn't aware didn't do anything isn't responsible. Sure navigation was hard, but still, c-suites owners devs founders etc are all the execs, are in the know, and can resist, speak, shutdown, or quit. But which of the big Medias and Socials and Techs have done that of note. Will redemption and path be in open unowned apolitical unbiased non-agenda'd p2p uncensorable permissionless distributed encrypted protocols and currencies... billions of people will certainly be looking forward to trying them out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS7xmb3UhCU Dorsey's 1st ex-Twitter Interview
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...
Corrupt Zuckerberg Facebook Admits He Censored For Biden Dem Regime Zuckerberg and his $Billions Corrupted and Stole Elections Both On The Ground and In Cyberspace... "We Shouldn't Have Done It": Facebook Exec Admitted They Censored For Biden Regime https://www.racket.news/p/the-new-facebook-files-show-everything https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1684595375875760128 https://summit.news/2023/07/28/video-jordan-blasts-biden-facebook-censorship... https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson Update (1440ET): A leaked Facebook email from 2021 written by Nick Clegg, the company's president of Global Affairs, to colleagues, reads: "We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more," adding "We shouldn't have done it." As Matt Taibbi of Racket News writes: In yesterday’s Facebook Files release, it came out that Facebook, in its desperation to cool down these White House apes, promised to reduce traffic to Carlson’s video by 50% while it was “in the queue to be fact-checked”! Apart from the obvious, why was this insane? Because while the White House fumed and outlets like the Washington Post excoriated Carlson for a “just asking questions… shtick,” it turned out he was asking the right questions. Why, if the vaccine worked, was Anthony Fauci telling people they shouldn’t “attend medium to large gatherings” or remove masks? “If vaccines work,” Carlson asked, “why are vaccinated people still banned from living normal lives?” Similarly: why was Justin Trudeau saying, “Vaccination on its own isn’t enough to keep us safe,” if the shot worked? Maybe, Carlson speculated, the vaccine doesn’t work? These were obvious and appropriate questions, but officials and journalists alike killed Carlson for them anyway. YouTube is still packed with TUCKER DISINFO DERP videos that are, themselves, actually wrong: Subscribers to Racket News can read the rest here... * * * Representative Jim Jordan came out with a series of released and unredacted emails provided to a Congressional committee from Facebook (full Facebook Files below), showing the massive pressure the White House and other entities put on the social media giant during the pandemic. The purpose was to quash narratives and even memes that the White House took umbrage with. This has become all too familiar. As Summit News' Steve Watson reports, Rep. Jordan spoke out on Fox News after releasing the documents were released proving that the Biden administration pressured Meta to aggressively censor Americans expressing opinions they disagreed with on Facebook and Instagram. “They knew it was wrong,” Jordan told Fox News host Laura Ingraham, adding: “One of those Facebook executives said ‘This is a significant incursion into the boundaries of free expression.’ That is a fancy way of saying this violates the First Amendment for goodness sake.” The executive Jordan was referring to is Nick Clegg, Facebook’s president for global affairs. “The White House was outraged, because Jen Psaki stood there at the podium what you played, in the White House and demanded this happen because the White House was demanding it and they wanted to keep their cozy relationship with the Biden Administration, they censored First Amendment speech,” Jordan continued. The Congressman also referred to a Federal Judge issuing a recent injunction to put a stop to the Biden Administration acting like an “Orwellian Ministry Of Truth” by colluding with big tech to censor opinions it doesn’t like, much to the disliking of the establishment media. “We had that great federal court decision on July 4th in the Western District of Louisiana, great decision,” Jordan said, adding “So, I don’t think it’s going on now. But we got make sure it doesn’t go on in the future, it doesn’t happen because we have this amazing thing in greatest country ever called the First Amendment.” Jordan continued, “Rand Paul and I have introduced legislation… which would say if you are in the government and doing what was happening there, you get fired, you don’t get your pension benefits, there could be civil liability that you are subject to, you lose any security clearance you may have.” “We want real penalties for people in the government engaging what Professor [Jonathan] Turley called this censorship by surrogate,” Jordan added. Watch the full interview below: * * * THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: SMOKING-GUN DOCS PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS BECAUSE OF BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESSURE Never-before-released internal documents subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee PROVE that Facebook and Instagram censored posts and changed their content moderation policies because of unconstitutional pressure from the Biden White House. During the first half of 2021, social media companies like Facebook faced tremendous pressure from the Biden White House—both publicly and privately—to crack down on alleged “misinformation.” In April 2021, a Facebook employee circulated an email for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, writing: “We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House” to remove posts. In another April 2021 email, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s president for global affairs, informed his team at Facebook that Andy Slavitt, a Senior Advisor to President Biden, was “outraged . . . that [Facebook] did not remove” a particular post. What did the Biden White House want removed? A meme. That’s right, even memes weren’t spared from the Biden White House’s censorship efforts. When Clegg “countered that removing content like that would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US,” Slavitt disregarded the warning and the First Amendment. What happened next? Facebook panicked. In another April 2021 email, Brian Rice, Facebook’s VP of public policy, raised the concern that Slavitt’s challenge felt “very much like a crossroads for us with the [Biden] White House in these early days.” But Facebook wanted to repair its relationship with the White House to avoid adverse action: “Given what is at stake here, it would also be a good idea if we could regroup and take stock of where we are in our relations with the [White House], and our internal methods too.” This wasn’t the first time that the Biden White House was angry that Facebook didn’t censor more. According to these documents, the Biden White House demanded to know why Facebook had not censored a video from @TuckerCarlson So, Facebook prepped its response. To appease the Biden White House, talking points were drafted for Clegg. Facebook was ready to tell the White House that it had demoted a video posted by Tucker Carlson by 50 percent in response to the White House’s demands, even though the post didn’t violate any policies. Public pressure mounted as well. In July 2021, President Biden publicly denounced Facebook and other social media platforms, claiming they were “killing people” by not censoring alleged “misinformation.” On August 2, 2021, Facebook admitted it was going to change its policies because of pressure from the Biden White House. August 2, 2021: “[Facebook’s] Leadership asked Misinfo Policy . . . to brainstorm some additional policy levers we can pull to be more aggressive against . . . misinformation. This is stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the [Biden] administration.” But it wasn’t just the White House. Facebook also changed its policies in direct response to pressure from Biden’s Surgeon General, censoring members of the “disinformation dozen.” These documents, AND OTHERS that were just produced to the Committee, prove that the Biden administration abused its powers to coerce Facebook into censoring Americans, preventing free and open discourse on issues of critical public importance. Only after the Committee announced its intention to hold Mark Zuckerberg in contempt did Facebook produce ANY internal documents to the Committee, including these documents, which PROVE that government pressure was directly responsible for censorship on Facebook. Based on Facebook’s newfound commitment to fully cooperate with the Committee’s investigation, the Committee has decided to hold contempt in abeyance. For now. To be clear, contempt is still on the table and WILL be used if Facebook fails to cooperate in FULL.
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.
A Dark Alliance: Musk's Twitter Files Exposed The Fifth Estate https://www.piratewires.com/p/the-fifth-estate https://twitter.com/piratewires https://twitter.com/micsolana https://twitter.com/foundersfund/status/1559683081346465792 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEgifO_Y-Ak DIY government, and “micro-countries” are the future, including Voluntary ones having no Government.
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.
Musk should have datamined all the slackspace on all media, including backups... Politically Corrupt Fake News Meda Refuses to Cover Actual Political Corruption, Go Figure... NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, & MSNBC Have Spent Just 14 Minutes Combined Covering The 'Twitter Files': Report https://summit.news/2022/12/08/elon-musk-some-data-likely-hidden-and-deleted... https://summit.news/2022/12/05/fbi-held-weekly-meetings-with-big-tech-ahead-... https://summit.news/2022/12/09/the-twitter-files-part-ii-twitters-secret-bla... https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-cnn-abc-nbc-cbs-blackout-coverag... https://summit.news/2022/12/15/report-nbc-cbs-abc-cnn-and-msnbc-have-spent-j... The major left leaning U.S. news networks have spent only 14 minutes between them covering Elon Musk’s ongoing release of the Twitter files, which have highlighted a policy of censorship based on the partisan political alignment of woke former company executives and employees. The data drops, which have also revealed that former Twitter execs, were regularly meeting with U.S. intelligence officials and policing content at their behest, have been almost completely ignored by the likes of CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS. Let's see which mainstream media outlets cover the "Twitter files" — zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 3, 2022 Fox News reports that Grabian’s analysis of news transcripts shows the term “Twitter files” has only been used six times by anchors. The report notes that “CNN covered the story for three minutes, only on Dec. 9, while MSNBC spent two minutes on the story the same day, as well as five minutes on Dec. 11 and four minutes on Dec. 12.” “CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News have not discussed the Twitter files in the last week,” it adds. MSNBC’s coverage basically consisted of hosts Mehdi Hasan and Joe Scarborough dismissing the bombshell revelations as nothing of any importance. “Do the Twitter files show evidence of left-wing bias on Twitter?,” Hasan asked rhetorically, answering “No. In fact, the whole Twitter-discriminates-against conservatives-line that Elon or his spin merchants, conservative journalists, like to spout, is literally the opposite of the truth.” According to the legacy media, despite concrete proof, it’s still a ‘conspiracy theory’ that Twitter was shadow banning and blacklisting accounts of conservatives. As we highlighted last week, Musk announced that he thinks it is likely that some data that was contained in files on Twitter servers has been hidden and deleted since he vowed to make everything public. Musk’s comments came in the wake of the ‘exiting’ of James Baker, the FBI affiliated Twitter Deputy General Counsel who was revealed to have vetted the first round of files without Musk’s knowledge, before they were sent to journalist Matt Taibbi.
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
Donald J Trump Won The US 2020 Presidential Election Twitter Trust And Safety Team Found Trump Tweets Did Not Violate Policy THE TWITTER FILES - Full text and images in original articles https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602364672874643456 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1602387025855885312 Reported by @ShellenbergerMD @IsaacGrafstein @SnoozyWeiss @Olivia_Reingold @petersavodnik @NellieBowles Follow all of our work at The Free Press: @TheFP After an unexplained delay, journalist Bari Weiss has dropped the third installment of THE TWITTER FILES: The Removal of Donald Trump. Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here. The new drop reveals that Twitter employees did not believe former President Trump had violated Twitter's policies. "I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement," wrote one staffer in an internal message, adding: "It's pretty clear he's saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?)..." Another staffer agreed, writing: "Don’t see the incitement angle here." "I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet," wrote Anika Navaroli, a Twitter policy official. "I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vios”—or violations—“for the DJT one.” Under pressure from hundreds of activist employees, Twitter deplatforms Trump, a sitting US President, even though they themselves acknowledge that he didn’t violate the rules: https://t.co/60PplztV4k — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 12, 2022 Read the entire thread below: 2. 6:46 am: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” pic.twitter.com/7L252fqqK6 — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 12, 2022 Continued; 3. 7:44 am: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” 4. For years, Twitter had resisted calls both internal and external to ban Trump on the grounds that blocking a world leader from the platform or removing their controversial tweets would hide important information that people should be able to see and debate. 5. “Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly,” the company wrote in 2019. Twitter’s aim was to “protect the public’s right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account.” World Leaders on Twitter: principles & approach 6. But after January 6, as @mtaibbi and @shellenbergermd have documented, pressure grew, both inside and outside of Twitter, to ban Trump. 7. There were dissenters inside Twitter. “Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee on January 7, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.” 8. But voices like that one appear to have been a distinct minority within the company. Across Slack channels, many Twitter employees were upset that Trump hadn’t been banned earlier. 9. After January 6, Twitter employees organized to demand their employer ban Trump. “There is a lot of employee advocacy happening,” said one Twitter employee. 10. “We have to do the right thing and ban this account,” said one staffer. It’s “pretty obvious he’s going to try to thread the needle of incitement without violating the rules,” said another. 11. In the early afternoon of January 8, The Washington Post published an open letter signed by over 300 Twitter employees to CEO Jack Dorsey demanding Trump’s ban. “We must examine Twitter’s complicity in what President-Elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.” 12. But the Twitter staff assigned to evaluate tweets quickly concluded that Trump had *not* violated Twitter’s policies.“I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement,” wrote one staffer. 13. “It's pretty clear he's saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) from Wednesday.” 14. Another staffer agreed: “Don’t see the incitement angle here.” 15. “I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet,” wrote Anika Navaroli, a Twitter policy official. “I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vios”—or violations—“for the DJT one.” 16. She does just that: “as an fyi, Safety has assessed the DJT Tweet above and determined that there is no violation of our policies at this time.” 17. (Later, Navaroli would testify to the House Jan. 6 committee:“For months I had been begging and anticipating and attempting to raise the reality that if nothing—if we made no intervention into what I saw occuring, people were going to die.”) 18. Next, Twitter’s safety team decides that Trump’s 7:44 am ET tweet is also not in violation. They are unequivocal: “it’s a clear no vio. It’s just to say he’s not attending the inauguration” 19. To understand Twitter’s decision to ban Trump, we must consider how Twitter deals with other heads of state and political leaders, including in Iran, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. 20. In June 2018, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, “#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” Twitter neither deleted the tweet nor banned the Ayatollah. 21. In October 2020, the former Malaysian Prime Minister said it was “a right” for Muslims to “kill millions of French people.” Twitter deleted his tweet for “glorifying violence,” but he remains on the platform. The tweet below was taken from the Wayback Machine: 22. Muhammadu Buhari, the President of Nigeria, incited violence against pro-Biafra groups.“Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war,” he wrote, “will treat them in the language they understand.” Twitter deleted the tweet but didn't ban Buhari. 23. In October 2021, Twitter allowed Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed to call on citizens to take up arms against the Tigray region. Twitter allowed the tweet to remain up, and did not ban the prime minister. 24. In early February 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government threatened to arrest Twitter employees in India, and to incarcerate them for up to seven years after they restored hundreds of accounts that had been critical of him. Twitter did not ban Modi. 25. But Twitter executives did ban Trump, even though key staffers said that Trump had not incited violence—not even in a “coded” way. 26. Less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees had determined that Trump’s tweets were not in violation of Twitter policy, Vijaya Gadde—Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust—asked whether it could, in fact, be “coded incitement to further violence.” 27. A few minutes later, Twitter employees on the “scaled enforcement team” suggest that Trump’s tweet may have violated Twitter’s Glorification of Violence policy—if you interpreted the phrase “American Patriots” to refer to the rioters. 28. Things escalate from there. Members of that team came to “view him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.” 29. Two hours later, Twitter executives host a 30-minute all-staff meeting. Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde answer staff questions as to why Trump wasn’t banned yet. But they make some employees angrier. 30. “Multiple tweeps [Twitter employees] have quoted the Banality of Evil suggesting that people implementing our policies are like Nazis following orders,” relays Yoel Roth to a colleague. 31. Dorsey requested simpler language to explain Trump’s suspension. Roth wrote, “god help us [this] makes me think he wants to share it publicly” 32. One hour later, Twitter announces Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” 33. Many at Twitter were ecstatic. 34. And congratulatory: “big props to whoever in trust and safety is sitting there whack-a-mole-ing these trump accounts” 35. By the next day, employees expressed eagerness to tackle “medical misinformation” as soon as possible: 36. “For the longest time, Twitter’s stance was that we aren’t the arbiter of truth,” wrote another employee, “which I respected but never gave me a warm fuzzy feeling.” 37. But Twitter’s COO Parag Agrawal—who would later succeed Dorsey as CEO—told Head of Security Mudge Zatko: “I think a few of us should brainstorm the ripple effects” of Trump's ban. Agrawal added: “centralized content moderation IMO has reached a breaking point now.” 38. Outside the United States, Twitter’s decision to ban Trump raised alarms, including with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, and Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. 39. Macron told an audience he didn’t “want to live in a democracy where the key decisions” were made by private players. “I want it to be decided by a law voted by your representative, or by regulation, governance, democratically discussed and approved by democratic leaders.” 40. Merkel’s spokesperson called Twitter’s decision to ban Trump from its platform “problematic” and added that the freedom of opinion is of “elementary significance.” Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny criticized the ban as “an unacceptable act of censorship.” 41. Whether you agree with Navalny and Macron or the executives at Twitter, we hope this latest installment of #TheTwitterFiles gave you insight into that unprecedented decision. 42. From the outset, our goal in investigating this story was to discover and document the steps leading up to the banning of Trump and to put that choice into context. 43. Ultimately, the concerns about Twitter’s efforts to censor news about Hunter Biden’s laptop, blacklist disfavored views, and ban a president aren’t about the past choices of executives in a social media company. 44. They’re about the power of a handful of people at a private company to influence the public discourse and democracy. 45. This was reported by @ShellenbergerMD, @IsaacGrafstein, @SnoozyWeiss, @Olivia_Reingold, @petersavodnik, @NellieBowles. Follow all of our work at The Free Press: @TheFP
participants (6)
-
grarpamp -
Karl Semich -
punk -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0
-
Shawn K. Quinn -
Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many