The Twitter Files

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

That's actually an exaggeration of what Zuckerberg said. His exact words were:

The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532

He went on to say:

He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".

Unsurprisingly, this is completely consistent with what was outlined by Taibbi. The FBI gave general warnings about disinformation. Twitter and Facebook decided on their own that the laptop fit the pattern and decided, again on their own, that the NY Post article should be blocked. The FBI did not instruct either company to restrict the story.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.

There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.

It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.

Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.

I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

IOW, you didn’t read the whole piece because Vladeck specifically addresses that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

[Anonymous]

Yep, #TwitterFiles is pretty much this -

"Really reminds me of 2016 DNC leaks, nothing to see but folks trying to do their job while every leak is couched in innuendo and mock horror."

https://twitter.com/gedaliap/status/1601405835321933824

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Yes it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Why not? Isn’t it up to the company to decide what their policies and practices are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

A social media company can moderate content in any manner it chooses, being mindful that advertisers are its ultimate customers for most such companies that answer to shareholders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Oh heck it is. Remember when Pizzagate was all over Facebook? Then the guy showed up with a rifle at the pizzeria on a Sunday afternoon to save the kids being raped by Dem pedophiles and it was sheer lick that there were no victims (and all the stores in the strip were harmed financially). And making a fake story going viral online just before the election, to fizzled out just after the damage is done is equally bad, especially when the story is pushed by a foreign country. Or is now ok to have our elections decided by MBS, Putin, Xi or the dictator du jour?

[Anonymous]

I guess the right is so desperate for a hero they will worship Musk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.

There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.

It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.

Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.

I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.

99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess the right is so desperate for a hero they will worship Musk?

or Glenn Greenwald?