by Matt Taibbi
I’ve just published the “Twitter Files, Part 3” thread from Friday night here on TK. Because it exceeds size limits, I couldn’t email it to subscribers, but the document does live on the site now. Click here to access the material.
Remember that the next tranche of “Twitter Files” material is coming out soon at @ShellenbergerMD, and another one tomorrow is dropping @BariWeiss. Please check out their contributions.
In the meantime, I wanted to draw up a quick summary of the main revelations in these documents. I keep seeing colleagues talking about how it’s a “nothingburger” or “just shows a bunch of normal people doing the best they can,” which I guess is an opinion one could have. I obviously disagree. There’s a lot in this tranche, but the key takeaways, as I see them.
FBI/DHS/DNI coordination. We entered this project conscious of reports that federal law enforcement agencies might be in contact with platforms like Twitter about content moderation. 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, including:
a) Senior executives like Trust and Security chief Yoel Roth not only met regularly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, but on at least one occasion liaised with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). This was not known previously.
b) Twitter executives didn’t just meet with agencies like the FBI, and didn’t just get general guidance about trends or warnings. We now have concrete examples of the FBI sending over reports about individual tweets, after which Twitter staff apply warning labels and other actions. This is direct evidence that federal law enforcement is in the business of identifying speech for regulation. How anyone can see that as a non-story is difficult for me to understand.
c) Continuing the theme of learning more about how Twitter works with its “trusted partners” in federal law enforcement, one of the most interesting exchanges was one of the least-noticed. In this Slack, Roth asks Twitter employees if they have a “debunk moment” about “the SCYTL/Smartmantic” vote counting conspiracies. He then says contacts at the DHS told him that these tales were an amalgam of “about 47 conspiracy theories.” He regrets DHS did not make this comment publicly.
This exchange both speaks in Twitter’s favor and serves as further proof of government meddling. The exchange seems to suggest Roth needs something he can hang his hat on to formally bounce a tweet, like a ruling from Politifact or an NPR article (the level of evidence they use to censor tweets reminds me of magazine fact-checking, and not in a good way). We seem to have seen multiple methods: either an agency like the FBI sends over evidence against this or that tweet, or it simply makes an ask informally, after which someone like Roth goes looking for a real-world excuse to ban. Again, it speaks in Twitter’s favor that they even had that much of a process, but it’s clear again that federal agencies are intensely involved with regulating speech at the most micro level.
ELECTION INTERFERENCE? When @BariWeiss proved once and for all that Twitter does indeed engage in shadow-banning, or what they call “visibility filtering,” it was a significant step forward in our understanding of how internet platforms affect our perception of reality. In this batch of Slacks it’s unmistakeable that Donald Trump — whatever you think of him — was being “visibility filtered” even before the election. One of the first things new Twitter chief Elon Musk brought up with me was the question of whether or not Twitter interfered with elections. “For instance, is this candidate actually more popular than another, or did Twitter put a thumb on the scale?” he asked. Even these first document reviews make it pretty clear Twitter the company did do this. Again, it is very hard to look at these internal discussions and not conclude that the firm interfered with elections.
Now, what we don’t have (yet?) is proof that federal law enforcement or intelligence was heavily involved with electoral questions. We’ve seen individual reports filed from the FBI about smaller political accounts, and we have a sizable pile by now of communications showing that executives like Roth were in regular contact with those agencies. But so far these are just outlines. Nonetheless, they’re significant.
“HIT HIM HARD WITH FUTURE VIO” Watch @ShellenbergerMD for a more consequential example, but internal wrangling over a James Woods tweet shows the company doesn’t rule on a tweet-by-tweet basis, but has muscle memory about whom it likes and doesn’t, and who will be held to the letter of the rules, and who’ll be let slide.
“We now have concrete examples of the FBI sending over reports about individual tweets, after which Twitter staff apply warning labels and other actions. This is direct evidence that federal law enforcement is in the business of identifying speech for regulation. How anyone can see that as a non-story is difficult for me to understand.”
I have noticed that our resident leftist ideologs have been demonstrably absent from discussion that would presumably defend what twitter and the fbi had colluded to do.
It is becoming more and more evident that not only was the 2020 election but the 2022 midterms were censored for speech that would have negatively affected democrat candidates. The balance of power as a result of the 2022 midterms is suspect.
The case set forth by the Kari Lake campaign is solid and now will be determined by a judge who respects the rule of law. The campaign seeks a remedy from one of two points, either the judge rules the election in Maricopa County was fraudulent and rightfully awards the governorship to Kari Lake or the judge will nullify the election on 08 November and order a new election.
Election Contest Kari Lake by Jordan Conradson on Scribd
The key to being a leftist (assuming one has an actual soul and morals) is to maintain willful ignorance. Notice, when they do show up, it is to address some tangential aspect of the scandal, like “they didn’t suppress that one” or “it’s a private business”. They go to great lengths to avoid reading what actually was done to voters with this censorship.
Besides, like a N. Korean that goes overseas for education or training, they face the prospect of being “reeducated” if they were to look at truth.
“In this batch of Slacks it’s unmistakeable that Donald Trump — whatever you think of him — was being “visibility filtered” even before the election. One of the first things new Twitter chief Elon Musk brought up with me was the question of whether or not Twitter interfered with elections. “For instance, is this candidate actually more popular than another, or did Twitter put a thumb on the scale?” he asked. Even these first document reviews make it pretty clear Twitter the company did do this. Again, it is very hard to look at these internal discussions and not conclude that the firm interfered with elections.”
It is more than undeniable that Twitter became a vessel through which the fbi censored and suppressed free speech.
The fbi has lost credibility.
I love how the left obviously KNOWS something they do or support is wrong, so they have to create less-obnoxious sounding euphemisms for their actions. Like “visibility filtering” for censorship or “health care” for abortion.
1. TWITTER FILES, PART 4
The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7
As the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban
Thread by @ShellenbergerMD on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App
What they discussed was how harmful the repercussions would be, not what was right, wrong, true, untrue. It was risk management. But, no matter what might happen, the laptop contents story HAD to be smothered to death; otherwise, Trump would be allowed to be elected.
Of course the corrupt liberal media will suppress the story, something they are well versed in. censorship and suppression. Are they supposed to cover THEIR complicity in the fascism?