The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

Matt unrolling. Let me guess…
Partisan Hack 1: this is earth shattering!
Partisan Hack 2: it’s a nothing burger!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Matt unrolling. Let me guess…
Partisan Hack 1: this is earth shattering!
Partisan Hack 2: it’s a nothing burger!

Is he really? Why does he keep dumping this stuff on Friday nights when fewer people are paying attention?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Matt unrolling. Let me guess…
Partisan Hack 1: this is earth shattering!
Partisan Hack 2: it’s a nothing burger!

I think objectively, Twitter Files 1 and Twitter Files 2 were a nothingburgera. Can you point out anything that was reported that would suggest otherwise?

Your "both sides" approached, if applied to geography would be like this:

Partisan Hack 1: The earth is flat!
Partisan Hack 2: The earth is round!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt unrolling. Let me guess…
Partisan Hack 1: this is earth shattering!
Partisan Hack 2: it’s a nothing burger!

Is he really? Why does he keep dumping this stuff on Friday nights when fewer people are paying attention?

What he is reporting is not important because there is nothing there. He just is just creating smoke because he wants people to think that where there is smoke there is fire. Meanwhile, plenty of right-wingers are telling everyone that that his tweets are describing a bonfire.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt unrolling. Let me guess…
Partisan Hack 1: this is earth shattering!
Partisan Hack 2: it’s a nothing burger!

I think objectively, Twitter Files 1 and Twitter Files 2 were a nothingburgera. Can you point out anything that was reported that would suggest otherwise?

Your "both sides" approached, if applied to geography would be like this:

Partisan Hack 1: The earth is flat!
Partisan Hack 2: The earth is round!

Well, to be as honest a broker as the other James Baker, as I’m reading this oddly timed unroll, it actually seems to be a nothing burger. And that’s putting it mildly. So Hack 1 has it on this. Matt needs to … move on from this weirdness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt unrolling. Let me guess…
Partisan Hack 1: this is earth shattering!
Partisan Hack 2: it’s a nothing burger!

I think objectively, Twitter Files 1 and Twitter Files 2 were a nothingburgera. Can you point out anything that was reported that would suggest otherwise?

Your "both sides" approached, if applied to geography would be like this:

Partisan Hack 1: The earth is flat!
Partisan Hack 2: The earth is round!

Well, to be as honest a broker as the other James Baker, as I’m reading this oddly timed unroll, it actually seems to be a nothing burger. And that’s putting it mildly. So Hack 1 has it on this. Matt needs to … move on from this weirdness.

^ excuse me. Hack 2.

[Anonymous]

Just to step back for a moment and ask two contextualizing questions. First, are these people being paid for these twitter file drops? And, second, how does this not expose them to liability?

[Anonymous]

It’s all mundane meetings and discussions with not one scandalous or even remarkable revelation. As should have been expected, Twitter practiced minimal due diligence, not overreach.

[Anonymous]

Matt Taibbi admitted again this evening that they’ve only just started to review the Twitter files, which tells us they are trying to at least imply conclusions that could very well be destroyed by subsequently reviewed documents. That’s terrible journalism. Even when an outlet is publishing a multi-part investigative series, they do their full investigation before they start publishing so they know their ultimate conclusions have foundation, and then revise subsequent installments as appropriate if people come forward with new information after the earlier installments are published. Taibbi, Weiss and their team are violating pretty much every principle of responsible investigative journalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Matt Taibbi admitted again this evening that they’ve only just started to review the Twitter files, which tells us they are trying to at least imply conclusions that could very well be destroyed by subsequently reviewed documents. That’s terrible journalism. Even when an outlet is publishing a multi-part investigative series, they do their full investigation before they start publishing so they know their ultimate conclusions have foundation, and then revise subsequent installments as appropriate if people come forward with new information after the earlier installments are published. Taibbi, Weiss and their team are violating pretty much every principle of responsible investigative journalism.

Taibbi has not been a responsible investigative journalist in a really long time, and Bari Weiss never has been one.

[jsteele]

Taibbi is now showing examples of Yoel Roth getting tweets escalated to him an, after discussions with others, deciding there is no violation and nothing is done. For some reason this is supposed to be scandalous. I think it demonstrates their system working. If anything, the examples show Twitter executives bending over backwards to let Republicans get away with things that others wouldn't.

[Anonymous]

This has “audience of one” all over it. Musk is just hoping to say “you were treated very unfairly” often enough that Trump returns and Twitter gets his free content (and outrage) generation again.

[Anonymous]

Which Substack Free Speech Fighter does Matt hand off to for round 4?

[jsteele]

There are so many amateurish errors or misinformation contained in Taibbi's tweets tonight. Two examples:

First, he shows a tweet by Trump, saying that voting by mail is a fraud so you shouldn't vote by mail. Twitter gives this a label including a link to learn more about voting. Then, he shows a tweet by a Democratic guy (I never heard of him) saying there is one week until the election so vote in person, not by mail because it might not get there in time. Twitter decides this guy is not discouraging voting but pointing to a real issue that the mail is slow. Taibbi thinks these two examples are the same and Twitter is showing a double standard.

Second, another guy says to vote in person because it is close to the election and the Supreme Court restricted late mail ballots. He has a hashtag "#SteelOurVotes". A Twitter moderator escalates the tweet to Yoel Roth and another guy. Taibbi implies that the other guy said the hashtag was "understandable". In reality, Roth and the other guy say they don't see any rule violation and the first guy says, "thanks, I was concerned about the hashtag." The other guy says, "Ah, that's understandable". He is saying the first guy's concern is understandable, not that the hashtag is understandable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Taibbi admitted again this evening that they’ve only just started to review the Twitter files, which tells us they are trying to at least imply conclusions that could very well be destroyed by subsequently reviewed documents. That’s terrible journalism. Even when an outlet is publishing a multi-part investigative series, they do their full investigation before they start publishing so they know their ultimate conclusions have foundation, and then revise subsequent installments as appropriate if people come forward with new information after the earlier installments are published. Taibbi, Weiss and their team are violating pretty much every principle of responsible investigative journalism.

Taibbi has not been a responsible investigative journalist in a really long time, and Bari Weiss never has been one.

Years and years ago I remember that I used to think Taibbi was smart. Now I feel stupid that I felt that way.