The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, where was the external pressure to delete Trump from the platform coming from?

Ask Barri:

That just reiterates what I asked. Who were the external ones? I know one was Michelle Obama. Curious as to who the others are.

It was a thing on the left for awhile, to try and get him deplatformed. I saw activist Greg Laden push for it at his blog.

Anyone who was familiar with Twitter and why anyone there was suspended and/or banned could tell that Trump had been violating Twitter’s terms of service over and over. After January 6 this was no longer just a “thing on the left.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: "I’ve seen a sworn affidavit from Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter’s trust and safety. He was meeting every week before the election with FBI and other intelligence officials." -

Miranda Devine on @FoxNews

That IS a violation of the 1st

Because of BS like this Yoel Roth is getting death threats.

In addition to this, Musk just dissolved the Twitter trust and safety council. He’s also bringing back Q-Anon.

And all this is good how?

I don’t think that PP said it was good. Just stating facts for all those who seem to think Elon is some figure of good. He’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.

This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.

Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.

It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.

Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.

You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.

Yes, anti-Trump, anti-war…not right wing.

Ah yes so left wing to talk with Ben Shapiro about how no liberals are funny, young people love conservatism and Matt Walsh is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, where was the external pressure to delete Trump from the platform coming from?

Ask Barri:

That just reiterates what I asked. Who were the external ones? I know one was Michelle Obama. Curious as to who the others are.

It was a thing on the left for awhile, to try and get him deplatformed. I saw activist Greg Laden push for it at his blog.

Anyone who was familiar with Twitter and why anyone there was suspended and/or banned could tell that Trump had been violating Twitter’s terms of service over and over. After January 6 this was no longer just a “thing on the left.”

The Twitter files show that - Trump violated their ToS repeatedly but Twitter staff kept handwringing and giving him grace after grace, and it was only J6 that ended up being the final straw. That's the reality of what is actually shown in the releases Taibbi dropped.

But to hear the MAGA crew you'd think the exact opposite, that it was from the start a major witch hunt against Trump.

Sorry but the facts simply do not align with your narratives and faux outrage, MAGAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, where was the external pressure to delete Trump from the platform coming from?

Ask Barri:

That just reiterates what I asked. Who were the external ones? I know one was Michelle Obama. Curious as to who the others are.

It was a thing on the left for awhile, to try and get him deplatformed. I saw activist Greg Laden push for it at his blog.

Anyone who was familiar with Twitter and why anyone there was suspended and/or banned could tell that Trump had been violating Twitter’s terms of service over and over. After January 6 this was no longer just a “thing on the left.”

This is factually wrong and the "Twitter files" show it. Twitter staff couldn't find any violation of existing policies by Trump, they just chose to ignore the rules and ban him anyway while allowing much worse offenders on the platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.

This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.

Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.

It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.

Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.

You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.

Yes, anti-Trump, anti-war…not right wing.

Ah yes so left wing to talk with Ben Shapiro about how no liberals are funny, young people love conservatism and Matt Walsh is hilarious.

Yes… John Oliver, Jordan Klepper, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Seth Meyers prove Tiabbi wrong unless he thinks punching down is the only funny?! Matt Walsh is what the right offers as humor? Eeek, the right has a weird sense of humor. Pathetic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, where was the external pressure to delete Trump from the platform coming from?

Ask Barri:

That just reiterates what I asked. Who were the external ones? I know one was Michelle Obama. Curious as to who the others are.

It was a thing on the left for awhile, to try and get him deplatformed. I saw activist Greg Laden push for it at his blog.

Anyone who was familiar with Twitter and why anyone there was suspended and/or banned could tell that Trump had been violating Twitter’s terms of service over and over. After January 6 this was no longer just a “thing on the left.”

The Twitter files show that - Trump violated their ToS repeatedly but Twitter staff kept handwringing and giving him grace after grace, and it was only J6 that ended up being the final straw. That's the reality of what is actually shown in the releases Taibbi dropped.

But to hear the MAGA crew you'd think the exact opposite, that it was from the start a major witch hunt against Trump.

Sorry but the facts simply do not align with your narratives and faux outrage, MAGAs.

Twitter waited until he was a lane duck to kick him off the platform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, where was the external pressure to delete Trump from the platform coming from?

Ask Barri:

That just reiterates what I asked. Who were the external ones? I know one was Michelle Obama. Curious as to who the others are.

It was a thing on the left for awhile, to try and get him deplatformed. I saw activist Greg Laden push for it at his blog.

Anyone who was familiar with Twitter and why anyone there was suspended and/or banned could tell that Trump had been violating Twitter’s terms of service over and over. After January 6 this was no longer just a “thing on the left.”

The Twitter files show that - Trump violated their ToS repeatedly but Twitter staff kept handwringing and giving him grace after grace, and it was only J6 that ended up being the final straw. That's the reality of what is actually shown in the releases Taibbi dropped.

But to hear the MAGA crew you'd think the exact opposite, that it was from the start a major witch hunt against Trump.

Sorry but the facts simply do not align with your narratives and faux outrage, MAGAs.

Twitter waited until he was a lane duck to kick him off the platform

They waited until longer than that. Those pesky calendars!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.

This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.

Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.

It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.

Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.

You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.

Yes, anti-Trump, anti-war…not right wing.

Ah yes so left wing to talk with Ben Shapiro about how no liberals are funny, young people love conservatism and Matt Walsh is hilarious.

Yes… John Oliver, Jordan Klepper, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Seth Meyers prove Tiabbi wrong unless he thinks punching down is the only funny?! Matt Walsh is what the right offers as humor? Eeek, the right has a weird sense of humor. Pathetic!

They also think Gutfeld is funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think this is about a right wing addiction problem.

They are addicted to their lies.

After all, look at the behavior...

Like a drug addict, they go batshit if the source of their lies is threatened.

Like a drug addict, they go batshit if their ability to indulge in their lies is threatened.

Like a drug addict, they will try to keep on doing it no matter how many times they have been caught and called out for it (all the RWNJs out there who have dozens of twitter accounts because they keep getting banned)

Like a drug addict, they don't care about the consequences, don't care if it destroys lives, including their own.

Like a drug addict, they deny they have a problem, they will deflect, dodge and attack if questioned about their problem.

There are also those upon whom the lies are a matter of their livelihood - the propagandists. That's why they fight tooth and nail to protect the medium for their lies and gaslight about whether they are lies.

Meanwhile, many on the left have been suspended even after and especially after Musk took over. As such there is no truly principled "free speech" stance in evidence whatsoever, so that can no longer be the argument here. It's about the lies and propaganda. Always was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.

This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.

Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.

It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.

Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.

You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.

Yes, anti-Trump, anti-war…not right wing.

Ah yes so left wing to talk with Ben Shapiro about how no liberals are funny, young people love conservatism and Matt Walsh is hilarious.

Yes, Ben Shapiro looks like a bundle of fun!

[jsteele]

Musk once said that the @Elonjet account could remain even though he thought it was a threat to his security. Then it got shadow banned. The shadow ban was removed for two days for some reason and now the account has been suspended.

The account did nothing but share publicly-available information. Musk is clearly demonstrating that he is a free speech absolutist. /s

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Musk once said that the @Elonjet account could remain even though he thought it was a threat to his security. Then it got shadow banned. The shadow ban was removed for two days for some reason and now the account has been suspended.

The account did nothing but share publicly-available information. Musk is clearly demonstrating that he is a free speech absolutist. /s

If Weiss and Taibbi really want to investigate something, they should give us the full story of Elonjet-gate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Musk once said that the @Elonjet account could remain even though he thought it was a threat to his security. Then it got shadow banned. The shadow ban was removed for two days for some reason and now the account has been suspended.

The account did nothing but share publicly-available information. Musk is clearly demonstrating that he is a free speech absolutist. /s

Musk is banning any real time location tracking tweets, etc:

"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."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Musk once said that the @Elonjet account could remain even though he thought it was a threat to his security. Then it got shadow banned. The shadow ban was removed for two days for some reason and now the account has been suspended.

The account did nothing but share publicly-available information. Musk is clearly demonstrating that he is a free speech absolutist. /s

Musk is banning any real time location tracking tweets, etc:

"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."

Yeah, that's going to be a fun rule to enforce. Also, @elonjet was not able to post yesterday and the location of Musk's jet has nothing to do with car locations. So I am not seeing the connection here.