Elon Musk has released the third installment of “The Twitter Files,”
detailing the decision to ban former President Donald Trump after the
Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Only a day after the company
dropped the second installment related to the company’s content
moderation practices, the company is now divulging the forces
surrounding the decision to remove the former president from the
platform.
What is noteworthy about this release is that it also discusses
Twitter’s collaboration with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) when it comes to moderating the platform. Journalist Matt Taibbi,
who released the first part of the series, notes that “the internal
communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear
historical import” and that the company’s employees “understood in the
moment that it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech.”
5. Whatever your opinion on the decision to
remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between
January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter’s
employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the
annals of speech. pic.twitter.com/tQ01n58XFc
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
The journalist explains how Twitter executives “started processing
new power” after they banned Trump and laid the groundwork for future
decisions regarding the banning of presidents.” The employees said the
Biden administration would “not be suspended by Twitter unless
absolutely necessary.”
6. As soon as they finished banning Trump,
Twitter execs started processing new power. They prepared to ban future
presidents and White Houses – perhaps even Joe Biden. The “new
administration,” says one exec, “will not be suspended by Twitter unless
absolutely necessary.” pic.twitter.com/lr66YgDlGy
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Twitter executives said they removed Trump because of the “context
surrounding” the actions of Trump and his supporters throughout the 2020
election season.
7. Twitter executives removed Trump in part over
what one executive called the “context surrounding”: actions by Trump
and supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+
years.” In the end, they looked at a broad picture. But that approach
can cut both ways. pic.twitter.com/Trgvq5jmhS
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Prior to the riot, the company employed a more “subjective moderation” approach.
9. Before J6, Twitter was a unique mix of
automated, rules-based enforcement, and more subjective moderation by
senior executives. As @BariWeiss
reported, the firm had a vast array of tools for manipulating
visibility, most all of which were thrown at Trump (and others) pre-J6.
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Taibbi notes that after the riot, communications on Slack showed
Twitter executives “getting a kick out of intensified relationships with
federal agencies.”
The journalist goes on to discuss a Slack channel in which Twitter
would converse about “election-related removals,” particularly related
to “ accounts, which are called “VITs,” or “Very Important Tweeters.” He
wrote:
On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a channel called
“us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home for discussions
about election-related removals, especially ones that involved
“high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important
Tweeters”).
14. On October 8th, 2020, executives opened a
channel called “us2020_xfn_enforcement.” Through J6, this would be home
for discussions about election-related removals, especially ones that
involved “high-profile” accounts (often called “VITs” or “Very Important
Tweeters”). pic.twitter.com/xH29h4cYt9
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
The smaller group consisting of former CEO Jack Dorsey, former head
of legal, policy, and trust Vijaya Gadde, and former cybersecurity head
Yoel Roth, were a “high-speed Supreme Court of moderation,” according to
Taibbi. They made content moderation decisions “on the fly, often in
minutes and based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in
cases involving the President.”
It appears these individuals did not put much thought into decisions
to ban, or otherwise punish, accounts tweeting views with which they
disagreed.
16. The latter group were a high-speed Supreme
Court of moderation, issuing content rulings on the fly, often in
minutes and based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in
cases involving the President. pic.twitter.com/5ihsPCVo62
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Meanwhile, these executives were “clearly liasing” with federal
agencies regarding the moderation of content related to the 2020
election.
17. During this time, executives were also
clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies
about moderation of election-related content. While we’re still at the
start of reviewing the #TwitterFiles, we’re finding out more about these interactions every day.
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
In fact, Roth met weekly with officials from the FBI and DHS, and
also the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
This post about the Hunter Biden laptop situation shows
that Roth not only met weekly with the FBI and DHS, but with the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI):
20. This post about the Hunter Biden laptop
situation shows that Roth not only met weekly with the FBI and DHS, but
with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI): pic.twitter.com/s5IiUjQqIY
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
In a report to these three agencies, Roth wrote:
We blocked the NYP story, then we unblocked it (but said
the opposite) … and now we’re in a messy situation where our policy is
in shambles, comms is angry, reporters think we’re idiots, and we’re
refactoring an exceedingly complex policy 18 days out from the election.
21. Roth’s report to FBI/DHS/DNI is almost farcical in its self-flagellating tone:
“We
blocked the NYP story, then unblocked it (but said the opposite)… comms
is angry, reporters think we’re idiots… in short, FML” (fuck my life). pic.twitter.com/sTaWglhaJt
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
The FBI even sent Twitter reports highlighting certain tweets, one of
which involved Indiana Councilor and Republican named John Basham in
which he said: “Between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected
for Errors.”
24. Here, the FBI sends reports about a pair of
tweets, the second of which involves a former Tippecanoe County, Indiana
Councilor and Republican named @JohnBasham claiming “Between 2% and 25% of Ballots by Mail are Being Rejected for Errors.” pic.twitter.com/KtigHOiEwF
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
Twitter decided that these tweets were “proven to be false” and that one of them was “no vio on numerous occasions.”
25. The FBI-flagged tweet then got circulated in
the enforcement Slack. Twitter cited Politifact to say the first story
was “proven to be false,” then noted the second was already deemed “no
vio on numerous occasions.” pic.twitter.com/LyyZ1opWAh
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
What is also noteworthy is that the journalists did not “see one
reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump
White House, or Republicans generally.”
27. Examining the entire election enforcement
Slack, we didn’t see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump
campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally. We looked.
They may exist: we were told they do. However, they were absent here.
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
The company also prepared to put a “mail-in voting is safe” warning
label on a tweet from Trump calling out a voting mishap in Ohio that
involved mail-in ballots. They decided against it after realizing that
“the events took place” which means the former president’s tweet was
“factually accurate.”
35. In another example, Twitter employees prepare
to slap a “mail-in voting is safe” warning label on a Trump tweet about
a postal screwup in Ohio, before realizing “the events took place,”
which meant the tweet was “factually accurate”: pic.twitter.com/4r6nJ3JDmY
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 10, 2022
Even more damning is that Trump was “visibility filtered” about a
week before the election despite not appearing “to have a particular
violation.” Employees worked quickly to ensure that any of Trump’s
tweets could not be “replied to, shared, or liked.”
Taibbi indicated at the beginning of the thread that more drops would
be coming on Saturday and Sunday further explaining the decision to ban
Trump as well as other issues. Journalists Bari Weiss and Michael
Shellenberger are expected to handle the next batch of information.
No comments:
Post a Comment