Latest ‘Twitter Files 2’ Reveal Secret Suppression of Right-Wing Commentators

[Turd Fergusen]

The second installment of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” dropped Thursday night and reveals how the social media giant was secretly “blacklisting” conservative tweets and users.

Independent journalist Bari Weiss detailed in a series of posts how Twitter used so-called “shadow banning” to limit the visibility of tweets coming from far-right users.

Conservative talk show host Dan Bongino, Stanford University’s anti-COVID lockdown advocate Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and right-wing activist Charlie Kirk were among the users targeted for suppression by Twitter, according to Weiss.

The former New York Times and Wall Street Journal writer said that the blacklists were built “in secret” and “without informing users.”

“A new [Twitter Files] investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics — all in secret, without informing users,” Weiss wrote in a tweet Thursday.

She notes that the company strayed from its original mission of giving “everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers” by developing the methods to suppress specific individuals.

Dr. Bhattacharya’s account, for example, was flagged as being on a “trends blacklist,” according to Weiss, who shared an image of his account from Twitter’s point-of-view with the yellow tag indicating the restriction.

“Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a ‘Trends Blacklist,’ which prevented his tweets from trending,” Weiss wrote.

An image of Bongino’s account showed a similar yellow notice that read “search blacklist.”

Full Article:

Latest ‘Twitter Files’ reveal secret suppression of right-wing commentators

Independent journalist Bari Weiss revealed on Thursday how Twitter used blacklists to limit the visibility of tweets coming from conservative users in the latest disclosure of the social media gian…

nypost.com

 

[Sejanus]

It's funny but this entire issue is both complex yet also simple at the same time. Let me explain.

One area of contention seems to be permitting or not permitting people with questionable use to have a say on a privately owned platform. Right off the bat that's a key component it is privately owned. It is not maintained by the government and is not subject to free speech per se. Ultimately it is about putting a view out there and seeing if it gets any traction.

Let's put this another way. Consider the old story of shouting fire in a crowded movie house. Is the owner and operator of the theater under an obligation to not only permit the individual to do the shouting but also in an extreme measure obliged to provide a megaphone? I would argue that no they aren't. The person in question had their ability to stand up and make a choice to make a claim. At that point it is irrelevant whether it is accurate or false. Just take the claim for what it is. The person was able to do it. They are not however free from consequences of the action. In an ensuing Riot they run the risk of being trampled for starters. If it turns out that their claim was false and can be proven as false then they run the risk of penalties from the owner and operator of the theater not the least of which would be having their future access to the premises denied. Again the theater owner has the right to protect their own business operation and assets within the law. They can eject the person for trespassing and be considered trespassing because they have violated the rules of conduct associated with attending the venue.

In the terms of Twitter it is fairly similar. Also this could potentially be a little more complex had something not taking place in the 1980s. I am talking about the removal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in Broadcasting. Had that not been removed under the Reagan Administration it is possible to project forward to a point where broadcasting would include some elements of the internet. You put up a tweet or you put something on Facebook and is it technically Broadcasting or more broadly is it something that you put in print? If that rule we're still in place this might look quite a bit different as a discussion.

Now, in a broader sense were those people who were on this purported Blacklist or Shadow banned or however you want to express it, were they subject to having their free speech curtailed or eliminated? I would tend to say no not at all. Why? Well, there were and certainly are many other avenues of communication available to engage in your free speech and have your say. They were not legally muzzled by the government or any government entity. They are free to have their opinions and free to share those opinions. The only thing they are subject to are the conditions of fair usage where or how they are doing it. In other words don't violate a user agreement implied or otherwise.

Just some thoughts I have had going down this rabbit hole.

Speaking for myself, I left Twitter some time ago approaching a year at this point, and it was arguably one of the best moves I ever did. I was frankly sickened by how the discourse has declined and become nothing more than a shout Fest. It is an aggravation I just don't need and have no interest in.

 

[Turd Fergusen]

Jack Dorsey told Congress under oath Twitter was not shadow-banning​

Former Twitter boss Jack Dorsey once testified under oath in 2018 that his company never shadowbanned or censored conservative users.

The claims have blown up amid a series of disclosures by the company — now under new management by billionaire and free-speech advocate Elon Musk, who bought it in October — showing a systemic effort to silence prominent conservative voices on the platform.

Dorsey appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on September 2018 to discuss “Transparency and Accountability” at the company. While there he came in for a grilling from GOP lawmakers.

“I want to read a few quotes about Twitter’s practices and I just want you to tell me if they’re true or not,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) said. “Social media is being rigged to censor conservatives. Is that true of Twitter?”

“No,” Dorsey responded.

“Are you censoring people?” Doyle followed.

“No,” Dorsey answered again.

“Twitter’s shadow-banning prominent Republicans… is that true?” Doyle followed.

“No,” Dorsey said a third time.

In another exchange with Rep. Steve Scalise, (R-La.), Dorsey told the Congressman that any shadow-banning of GOP lawmakers by the company’s algorithm “was not written with that intention.”

Dorsey’s claims were echoed for years by company executives like Vijaya Gadde, one of his closest lieutenants.

But in recent days Musk and journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss have released bombshell reports proving extensive political censorship at Twitter, based on a vast trove of internal documents.

Jack Dorsey told Congress under oath Twitter was not shadow-banning

Dorsey appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on September 2018 to discuss “Transparency and Accountability.”

nypost.com

 

[Turd Fergusen]

‘My fault alone’: Jack Dorsey takes ‘blame’ for scandals revealed in ‘Twitter Files’​

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has taken full responsibility for the social media platform’s many failings — admitting he “completely gave up” pushing back against powerful activists in the company.

The site’s former CEO took full “blame” in a blog giving his “take” on the “Twitter Files,” which have exposed a series of extraordinary behind-the-scenes maneuvers buckling to political pressure, starting with censoring The Post’s exclusive exposes on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

He now believes that Twitter should have stuck to three core principles, including keeping the company out of controlling posts and algorithms spreading them — and being “resilient to corporate and government control.”

‘My fault alone’: Jack Dorsey takes ‘blame’ for scandals revealed in ‘Twitter Files’

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has taken full responsibility for the social media platform’s many failings — admitting he “completely gave up” pushing back against powerful …

nypost.com

 

[Turd Fergusen]

FBI paid Twitter $3.4M for doing its dirty work on users, damning email shows​

The FBI paid Twitter nearly $3.5 million of taxpayer cash to ban accounts largely linked to conservative voices and target so-called “foreign influence” operations, the latest installment of the “Twitter Files” revealed on Monday.

In an email dated Feb. 10, 2021, an unidentified Twitter employee told then-deputy general counsel Jim Baker and then-general counsel Sean Edgett that “we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!”

The email, published by independent journalist Michael Shellenberger, explained that Twitter’s Safety, Content & Law Enforcement (SCALE) division had instituted a “reimbursement program” in exchange for devoting staff hours to “processing requests from the FBI.”

FBI paid Twitter $3.4M for doing its dirty work on users, damning email shows

The FBI reimbursed Twitter to the tune of more than $3 million as it pushed the social media company to ban accounts.

nypost.com

 

[Satanica]

What a surprise. But there was nothing at all hinky about the 2020 election. Got it.

 

[Metalfan]

I don't know how true it is but alot of different sources,people ,ect, say Facebook is,was govt funded, and if so why couldn't TWATTER, or any other social media platform be the same.

 

[Satanica]

I don't know how true it is but alot of different sources,people ,ect, say Facebook is,was govt funded, and if so why couldn't TWATTER, or any other social media platform be the same.

It's not even a secret any more. Alphabet agencies were "managing" all the social media platforms.

 

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

"As for the accounts that were flagged, from everything revealed to date in the Twitter Files, it mostly appears to be accounts that were telling a certain segment of the population (sometimes Republicans, sometimes Democrats) to vote on Wednesday, the day after Election Day, rather than Tuesday. Twitter had announced long before the election that any such tweets would violate policy. It does appear that a number of those tweets were meant as jokes, but as is the nature of content moderation, it’s difficult to tell what’s a joke from what’s not a joke, and quite frequently malicious actors will try to hide behind “but I was only joking…” when fighting back against an enforcement action. So, under that context, a flat “do not suggest people vote the day after Election Day” rule seems reasonable.

Given all that, to date, the only “evidence” that people can look at regarding “the FBI sent a list to censor” is that the FBI flagged (just as your or I could flag) accounts that were pretty clearly violating Twitter policies in a way that could undermine the US election, and left it entirely up to Twitter to decide what to do about it — and Twitter chose to listen to some requests and ignore others."

" But the payments!

So, there’s no evidence of censorship. But what about these payments? Well, that’s Musk’s hand-chosen reporters, Musk himself, and his fans totally misunderstanding some very basic stuff that any serious reporter with knowledge of the law would not mess up. Here’s Shellenberger’s tweet from yesterday that has spun up this new false argument:

Tweet from Shellenberger saying "The FBI's influence campaign may have been helped by the fact that it was paying Twitter millions of dollars for its staff time.""

"The law already says that if the FBI is legally requesting information for an investigation under a number of different legal authorities, the companies receiving those requests can be reimbursed for fulfilling them.

(a)Payment.—

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information. Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored.

But note what this is limited to. These are investigatory requests for information, or so called 2703(d) requests, which require a court order."

No, The FBI Is NOT ‘Paying Twitter To Censor’

Sigh. Look. I want to stop writing about Twitter. I want to write about lots of other stuff. I have a huge list of other stories that I’m trying to get through, but then Elon Musk does someth…

www.techdirt.com

 

[Satanica]

 

[Blizzard]

this has been a crazy story.

5 bucks says, youtube today = same.

 

[knockout]

FBI looking like a left wing pro democrat mafia. Countries top LE from top to bottom doing what they’re supposed to keep criminals from doing. Some idots think this is ok because they have TDS, as long as it’s anti Trump it’s ok. We see it on here constantly posters cheering every time the FBI tries to get something on Trump. The FBI’s job is to stop crime, not to propagate it, starting to seriously believe they instigated and helped plan the capital riots

 

[Turd Fergusen]

They probably shouldn't have responded at all...

FBI blasts ‘conspiracy theorists’ over ‘Twitter Files,’ claims to provide ‘critical information’ to ‘protect’ company​

The FBI said Wednesday that revelations agents pressured Twitter to muzzle its own users for so-called “misinformation” and “foreign influence” and falsely warned of a “hack-and-leak” operation involving first son Hunter Biden were just business as usual.

“The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries,” the FBI told The Post in a statement in response to the latest jaw-dropping revelations from the “Twitter Files.”

“As evidenced in the correspondence,” the bureau went on, “the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers.

“The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public,” the statement concluded. “It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”

On Monday, independent journalist Michael Shellenberger revealed that the FBI pushed Twitter to suppress The Post’s blockbuster October 2020 scoop about Hunter Biden’s laptop by warning it could be part of a Russian trick — despite having taken possession of the laptop months earlier from a Delaware repair shop.

Yoel Roth, Twitter’s now-former head of trust and safety, has since given sworn testimony that the feds had primed him to view any reporting on the laptop as a “Russian ‘hack and leak’ operation” meant to discredit 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

FBI blasts ‘conspiracy theorists’ over ‘Twitter Files,’ claims to provide ‘critical information’ to ‘protect’ company

“As evidenced in the correspondence,” the bureau went on, “the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their custome…

nypost.com

 

[knockout]

The FBI is so compromised they’ll never regain the respect of the general population, although they’re revered by the woke and ultra left. Especially by the liberal propagandist fired clowns at Twitter