Censorship: Twitter Takeover Totally Panics Political Regime of LeftLibDemSocMediaTechPol

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 17:41:15 PST 2022


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.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list