Matt Taibbi releases THE TWITTER FILES. The first installment in a series. This is the greatest election interference in US history. People from Twitter and the media need to be locked up.

submitted by Chipit from threadreaderapp.com

all 39 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jerkwad152 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Here is a comprehensive list of the consequences that will result:

[–]chottohen 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Finally, this story gets into the MSM.

[–]HiddenFox 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I've noticed a lot of articles going around yesterday and today talking about Twitter and hate content. It looks like deliberate misdirection as the timing is right when the Twitter files are being released.

Example: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/twitter-moving-fast-moderation-harmful-content-surges-says-executive-3119651

The part I like best is that while they talk about a surge in hate content in the start of the article they always conculed that thing are improving but they leave that part to the end! Gotta love headlines!

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

timing is right when the Twitter files are being released.

Well, no, because first of all, these files contain basically nothing of relevance, and absolutely nothing here is damaging to Twitter or Biden more than to trump and the republicans.

And then furthermore: the timing for this release was something Elon decided. I don't think you can credibly claim that the editors of something called "channelnewsasia" were so worried that Elon was going to release a total nothingburger that they decided it was really urgent to publish comments made on Thursday about trust and safety. Like - "ohmagerd fellow newsasian staff, Elon is about to release a complete dud story, quick! Let's give timely reporting to the newsworthy comments made this week!"

Honestly u/HiddenFox watching you develop a conspiracy theory out of absolutely nothing, in real time, is quite illuminating about how the mind of a conspiracists malfunctions

[–]HiddenFox 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

At the time this article was released the contents of the Twitter files were generally unknown. It could turn out to be nothing or it could result in several law suits (for sure it will) and possibly hard proof of some of the biggest election interference in the USA's history. Do you honestly believe no one was worried about what was in those files? (TBH I've yet to read the files so I can't comment onto how impactful these files are.)

Next, it's not a conspiracy to state that this story was released before Musk gave notice he was publishing the Twitter files. Nor is it a conspiracy to state that most of these articles lead with a headline about a surge in hateful content only to then acknowledge that Twitter is actively fixing it at the end of the article.

If you're critical of "channelnewsasia" here is a link to 34 more variations of the same story. mostly left or left leaning.

https://ground.news/article/hate-speech-on-twitter-is-rising-under-elon-musk-say-campaigners_5170a3

Last, what is this comment about?

Honestly u/HiddenFox watching you develop a conspiracy theory out of absolutely nothing, in real time, is quite illuminating about how the mind of a conspiracists malfunctions

What proof do you have that I'm a conspiracists? Is one interpretation of a comment the level of proof you require? Why would you even phrase it like that other then to attempt a negative interaction?

[–]Drewski 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Site_rly_sux regularly makes ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the actual post. I've tried engaging them before and it's clear they're not arguing in good faith.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

makes ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the actual post

I already addressed the content of the post. I read it all and this was my conclusion. If you check again, you may notice that I'm the only person here who HAS actually commented on the content of the post.

The smoking gun here, is that both teams had a backchannel to report offending tweets for policy review..

So both Trump's and Biden's people had an extended version of the "report tweet" button that everyone gets

Would you like to talk with me about the content of the post, u/Drewski? What about the post shall we talk about - I have read it, and there's my summary, happy to talk about it in detail with you. But you're not happy to join me in engaging on the content - nobody here is, because it would mean acknowledging that they're wrong. So instead of calling me out about some petty behaviour that I've exhibited the exact opposite of in this thread, why don't you read the Taibi thread and tell me where I'm wrong?

[–]Drewski 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So instead of calling me out about some petty behaviour that I've exhibited the exact opposite of in this thread

I called you out for your poor mannered comments towards HiddenFox, which is consistent with many of your other posts here on Saidit.

Well, no, because first of all, these files contain basically nothing of relevance, and absolutely nothing here is damaging to Twitter or Biden more than to trump and the republicans.

If that's your takeaway, fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. To me it seems that Twitter was engaging in censorship with a clear partisan bias, which many of their own employees had qualms about.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, there's nothing in the content of the post that you wanted to talk about?

makes ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the actual post

For someone who seems to really want to address the content of the post, you've been doing a lot of talking about me instead. That's ok, let's talk about the content of the actual post, what would you like to talk about? Do you think it's concerning that twitters largest advertisers have a dedicated account manager that they can email.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What proof do you have that I'm a conspiracists

Because you are postulating these conspiracies

  1. There's a conspiracy at twitter. Taibi didn't show this, you admit "it could turn out to be nothing", but you know for a fact that people are "worried about what was in those files". There's no evidence around, beyond Taibi's stupid vacuous nonsense, that anything happened, yet you believe there was a conspiracy at twitter

  2. You just told me that at least 34 media editors have conspired to bury a story. That's what you think happened - it's not that something newsworthy happened recently, it's a conspiracy to cover up the Twitter non-story.

That's why I said you're a conspiracy theorist - because you've just conjured two out of ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE.

[–]HiddenFox 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's a conspiracy at twitter.

I've read my OP 3 times now. At no point did I postulate there is a conspiracy at twitter. I mentioned that I noticed articles about twitter going around and I said it looks like an attempt at misdirection. That does not mean there is a conspiracy, that's my opinion. I feel like you disagree with what I said and are tossing out "Conspiracy theorist" as a way to shoot down my comment without providing a rebuttal.

I've been on Saidit for over 2 years and before that Reddit since 2010. In that whole time it's never been implied that I was a conspiracy theorist. To me this is just the latest buzz term used to dismiss people without any discussion. It's right up there with 'disinformation'.

You just told me that at least 34 media editors have conspired to bury a story. That's what you think happened - it's not that something newsworthy happened recently, it's a conspiracy to cover up the Twitter non-story.

That's not a conspiracy, it's collusion and/or being complacent and it has happened many times. The first things that comes to mind are the second Iraq war, 2008 housing bubble/crash, Occupy Wall street, BLM protests and Covid-19 reporting. All these events are examples of when the media fixated on a singular narrative. Information that went against the established narrative was ignored or actively suppressed. That is 100% factually what happened. To believe that this is not happening again is naive.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

an attempt at misdirection

...by actors who are conspiring. That's called a conspiracy theory. You invented a conspiracy theory out of absolutely nothing.

it's collusion

Oh, a collusion theory. So you're a collusion theorist

Why, if you accept that you're a collusion theorist, would you fight me on the term "conspiracy theory"? You're just throwing up your mental barriers against the content of what I wrote: that you theorised two sets of collusion, out of no evidence whatsoever.

All these events are examples of when the media fixated on a singular narrative. Information that went against the established narrative was ignored or actively suppressed.

Who actively suppressed? Was it people who were conspiring - sorry, colluding? Are you really going to throw 15 conspiracy theories at me to prove you're not a conspiracy theorist?

second Iraq war, 2008 housing bubble/crash, Occupy Wall street, BLM protests and Covid-19 reporting

"Bro I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nobody ever called me that, now here's all the conspiracy theories that I believe in"

Why dont you just face facts?

  1. That this is a non-story

  2. That you were wrong to think, without checking, that this information is damaging to someone

  3. That you were wrong to think that 34 editors colluded to cover up a nothingburger by printing newsworthy recent events

  4. That you cant pretend you're not a conspiracy theorist who invents fictional stories out of nowhere by insisting you're just a collusion theorist

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent points - you've listed the main problems better than I could have done.

[–]Site_rly_sux 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

The smoking gun here, is that both teams had a backchannel to report offending tweets for policy review..

So both Trump's and Biden's people had an extended version of the "report tweet" button that everyone gets.

That's it, that's the smoking gun.

Is it a nothingburger?

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Yep - a nothingburger in the form of: OMG - wait until you see the Tweets Feds didn't want to be shared!! But there is a market for influence, involving numerous special interests, only one of which is a Democrat team, sometimes called, 'Biden', so that dimwits can think he's somehow mastermind of all of it.

Spreading misinformation and disinformation repeatedly effectively convinces many readers that these lies are true, or that they are not necessarily false. That's why a lot of money was invested in sharing these lies. Did political groups and Feds have a right to try to stop the spread of those lies? When there was no evidence to support those claims as factual, it was legitimate to restrict the spreading of lies, regardless of what we may learn about that information in the future.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (19 children)

Did political groups and Feds have a right to try to stop the spread of those lies?

No, in America, lying is protected by the first amendment. The government has no right or obligation or ethical reason to change Twitter content. It may even be criminal to do so.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It may even be criminal to do so.

Not in the least. One can and should actively protect themselves and others from libel, slander and defamation, and can sue those who are guilty of this abuse.

What is not protected by the 1st amendment: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

Libel, slander, and defamation law: the basics

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Libel, slander, and defamation law: the basics

Are you aware of how high the bar is for this for journalists? I'll give you an example.

Sarah Palin sued the NYT for printing false information about her, suggesting she was responsible for Gabby Gifford's shooting

Her team proved that information was false

Her team proved NYT knew the information was false

They could not prove the NYT printed the false information 'with malice', and hence NYT was not found guilty.

https://deadline.com/2022/02/sarah-palin-libel-new-york-times-dismissed-1234933150/

It is pretty clear this laptop story would not have met the bar for libel, as even conspiratorial speculation is protected speech

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, though we're not really discussing a lawsuit against a journalist. News media are occasionally sued for libel, slander, and defamation, but it's rare, ot my knowledge.

We're discussing requests for the removal of libel, slander, and defamation from Twitter. Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone.

No.

Anyone can request Twitter remove anything they want, but there isn't anything legally binding about this. They appear to only be responsive to the requests of elected officials, which by law CANNOT be legally binding, as the 1st amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech in this manner

If you mean anyone can send a cease and desist letter from a lawyer, they can also do this, but this is also not legally binding in any way shape or form. These letters are sent by legal teams to signal their willingness to file a suit in court if one does not 'cease and desist'

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Obviously Twitter prioritizes cases according to several factors. You must know that Twitter has removed items that were considered defamatory or abusive to children, or a Star of David Swastika post by Kanye, or whatever. Since you seem to need examples: 5 factors:

Lawyers - legal teams can get Twitter's attention

Social pressure - a group annoyed with Star of David Swastika post by Kanye

Child abuse - duh (really irresponsible to fire the folks who keep this stuff off of Twitter, which can also be used for child trafficking, or abuseses against children who then kill themselves, rape and much more)

EU regulations - also duh: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/eu-raises-prospect-of-big-fine-or-ban-if-twitter-fails-to-follow-new-legislation

Coordinated misinformation campaigns, eg. against a US president's son - see note about lawyers above - really not that difficult to understand how and why there were attempts to limit the spread of that misinformation

In short: Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone, and with enough lawyers, get Twitter to restrict a coordinated misinformation campaign

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Social pressure - a group annoyed with Star of David Swastika post by Kanye

That image is the 'Raelian Star', a legally protected and registered trademark of a religious group that does not espouse any hateful views

https://trademarks.justia.com/852/32/n-85232504.html

Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone,

I'm still not sure you understand what legally binding means, there isn't any legal obligation created by receiving a cease and desist letter

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Public perception of that star was sufficient to suspend Kanye's account. Context...

'Legally-binding' is a term for a legal letter that binds the plaintiff in this case, not the defendant. It's the plaintiff's legal (binding) record and initiation of legal action, in advance of the potential for a lawsuit.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

You said lying, not imminent threats of violence, slander, and libel. Do you really think that I need the first amendment mansplained to me?

If DHS, CBP, etc.,* are operating outside of their charter, they are wasting my taxpayer dollars and it may be illegal. Private companies and groups would be different of course.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I wrote, "spreading misinformation and disinformation repeatedly" as well as "lying".

slander, and libel

That's what private individuals, groups and governments try to limit on a regular basis. They have the right try and avoid 'libel, slander and defamation' against their own. it's not difficut to understand. No the government was not limiting free speech, in cases where lies, 'libel, slander and defamation' were obvious.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

The US government is not tasked with controlling speech! These dumbass heavy handed strategies are going to get Trump elected in 2024. Nice work retard.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Nice work retard.

so this is a discussion between 9-year-olds?

anyone can send a cease and desist letter for defamation content, even government officials

grow up (also stop spreading far right authoritarian misinformation propaganda, if you know what's good for you. And ask the fam to move back in, or my next username is d3rp-the-abusive-POS.)

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

anyone can send a cease and desist letter for defamation content, even government officials

But that's not what was happening at all. The discussion is back channels between Twitter and different feds and influence makers. A simple email with a link to the tweet, and it's gone.

And ask the fam to move back in, or my next username is d3rp-the-abusive-POS.

Ask my ex that is 1 month into her new apartment to move back in? Great plan.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

back channels between Twitter and different feds and influence makers.

A lot of individuals and groups have this access, because it's Twitter and there are thousands of probem posts regularly.

Step 1: ask someone at Twitter to remove something, or dozens of something (this is likely easier for feds than for us)

Step 2: if this doesn't happen, send the cease and desist letter

Step 3: if that doesn't work, sue

[–]thoughtcriminal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One can and should actively protect themselves and others from libel, slander and defamation, and can sue those who are guilty of this abuse

That's not true. You can't sue for someone else being defamed. One of the criteria from your source:

  1. The statement caused you injury;

Okay, what is injury? Also from your source:

This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement

Those involved with the suppression don't have any standing to sue for defamation.

The government suppressing speech or even coercing a different entity to do so is plainly unconstitutional.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Defamation lawsuits aren't that difficult to understand, nor are cease and desist requests. You can't pick your favorite points in the law and focus only on those, while avoiding the principle of the law. Simply look up Twitter suspensions and defamation claims &c. There are many. My many other comments here may also help.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Going straight from "it never happened" to "it's no big deal it happened" in record time.

I guess we can expect "it's a great thing it happened and you're a bigot if you think otherwise" by tomorrow.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't believe I ever claimed that "it never happened", I think you're making that up.

I also don't think it's a great thing that happened, just a normal, run of the mill thing.

It really sounds like you're unable to engage on the actual content of the post we're commenting on. Was there anything in the content of the post that you think I misread? Anything you would like to engage on? Or did you just come here to talk about me

[–]UncleWillard56 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Twitter in its conception was a brilliant tool for enabling instant mass communication, making a true real-time global conversation possible for the first time.

Is it? I'm not a user, but it just sounds like a glorified IM platform. I think the people who created it, swear by it, and profit from it have elevated it higher than it really is. I was on it for a minute, but saw how slanted the platform became, especially after 2016.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Leftists are already justifying this saying it's not violating free speech because at the time Biden and DNC were not the government. I wish I was joking: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-and-tucker-carlson-dont-understand-the-first-amendment/672352/

This story will have no impact as everyone thought it would. It also is revealing how evil these people are.