I don’t think it’s that each of the elements of what Twitter does won’t be recreated, but the essence of Twitter, the je ne sais quio won’t. Whatever you want to call it, the town square we all participate in. It will be recreated in the aggregate, but that won’t be the same.
But your point is the point as to why it’s not hubris! they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies. This I think is why the censorship story is such a non issue, because Twitter is not an exclusive source of this information.
> they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies.
Well, it seems more like they were trying to apply their moderation policies to another website, which isn't the same as applying their moderation policies to their own website.
Anyway, moderation is censorship. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that's what it is.
Can you clarify what you mean about them attempting to apply their moderation policies to another website then? The rest of the context makes this appear as if you mean the NY Post...
The content in question was not hosted on Twitter, it was hosted on the NY Post website. Twitter moderates the content hosted on Twitter, the NY Post moderates the content hosted by the NY Post. But when Twitter censored links to the NY Post, Twitter was attempting to apply its own moderation policy to content hosted outside of Twitter.
Again, I'm not claiming that blocking links is inherently bad. For example, it may be reasonable to block links to malware, phishing, misleading URL shorteners, etc. I'm just saying that this is censorship. "Moderation" is a euphemism for censorship.
Did you read the OP? Even their CEO questioned of this was proper application of the policy. Their top legal dude admitted that they had been wrong but advised to stay the course. It was NEVER about the policy, except as a justification. They literally admit so multiple times...
Yes exactly! They asked all the right questions then realized they didn’t have justification and it was a mistaken, apologize and I hope learned from the incident. And will react faster in the future. But this is the point. They made a mistake, fine but no one said “hey, I hate Trump, maybe we should keep this down”
Never make moderation mistakes can’t be the standard.
When moderation policies (or laws) are subjectively and arbitrarily enforced based on the identity of the party being persecuted, it ceases to be a policy and is simply another tool used to bludgeon those who are disfavored. It was a big story in September of 2020 when the NYT published Trump's hacked/leaked tax returns - a story that did not receive the Hunter Biden treatment, but was amplified all across Twitter. How can anyone who is even reasonably impartial and reasonably intelligent argue that Twitter was merely neutrally enforcing moderation policies in the Hunter Biden situation when it took the polar opposite stance when it came to Trump?
Indeed, numerous articles written explicitly from hacked sources (unlike the Biden laptop, which was only [faslely] rumored to be "hacked") were published and advertised on Twitter. These articles were never suppressed. How can it be argued Twitter was merely neutrally enforcing their policy when the only articles suppressed were clearly done to benefit their preferred political partisans?
Personally I am (and have never been) neither a Republican or a Trump supporter, but what I (and many other like me) am is someone who supports free speech, open discourse and rational thinking. This is only part 1 of the "Twitter files", with many more revelations to come, and it is already incredibly damning. It is stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people do not see the problem with big tech colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies to brazenly attempt to distort and censor public discourse - especially right before an election. The ability of people to willfully delude themselves is astounding.
>It is stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people do not see the problem with big tech colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies to brazenly attempt to distort and censor public discourse - especially right before an election.
You took a giant leap from maybe people at Twitter were acting with bias. You’d need a lot more information to justify this assertion, and who is saying this wouldnt be a problem? I al saying this didn’t happen, not it wouldn’t be a problemZ
>You took a giant leap from maybe people at Twitter were acting with bias. You’d need a lot more information to justify this assertion
A bipartisan group of 50 CIA agents and various spooks released a letter falsely labeling the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" at the exact same time the story was being censored by Facebook and Twitter at the behest of the Biden campaign. It is unfortunate that so many are willing (and able) to willfully delude themselves into denying reality.
>Hang them all, put social media in the hands of the government, ban moderation?
If Twitter had unilaterally decided to act as political partisans without direction from political campaigns, elected officials and intelligence agencies it would be an entirely different issue - this isn't the case as clearly illustrated by part one of the Taibbi series. I have little doubt when it comes to the Covid chapter you will see even more direct censorship coordination between Twitter and government officials, which will also be downplayed (if not supported) by those who believe it was "good" or "necessary". The fact is that The Constitution is the foundational document of our country. It isn't some sort of optional set of guidelines that can be ignored when inconvenient. The 1st Amendment is the most important part of this foundational document, the bedrock of a free society. All of our elected leaders, including the president, swear an oath of office to protect and uphold The Constitution. The legitimate authority of the government is derived from The Constitution. A government acting outside of the Constitution is not a legitimate government.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Let's check in on one of Tickle me Elno's other goals: free speech. Kathy Griffin? Banned. Random South African dude who was tweeting Nazi quotes, pictures, and adoration? Not banned.
Maybe we should check in on one of Elno's other goals, the big Hunter Biden exposé that was set to go down today. Delayed. Aaaaaaand… crickets.
Elno doesn't have any goals he's just spewing word salad.
> Kathy Griffin? Banned. Random South African dude who was tweeting Nazi quotes, pictures, and adoration? Not banned.
Have you considered that the difference in follower size matters? Some random dude’s tweets have a much smaller blast radius and impact than someone like Kathy.
This part is weird, and it seems like there was an agreement between Musk and Matt not to smear Jack in this process. But if you really think there’s massive corruption at Twitter I don’t know how you think Jack should be absolved.
That part just shows that even explosive news like this is really just PR work. Pretty much every major news story can be reduced to “who is willing to finally talk about X and what do they want to convey?”
> . If Elon thinks this is some sort of big shock that will cause people to get excited.... I can't really see why.
I don’t think he does, I think he can literally see engagement falling in the days after a stunt and he’s trying to keep it up. Matt seemed to imply there would be another thread following this one so buckle up
There is a story here! Politicians having direct access to social networks to suppress narratives they don't like is interesting. But 1) I don't think it's surprising and 2) it appears it was not politically motivated at least in a bipartisan sense.
A story but one delivered with the kind of panache to drive traffic.
You can do whatever you want. However, Taibbi doesn't provide a single email where the Biden campaign asks to suppress a narrative. There is an email where the Biden campaign asks for twitter to take down a few posts that were naked pictures of Hunter. I'm not quite sure that's what I'd call suppressing a narrative. Frankly, given the email, I find it hard to believe that could have been even most of the Hunter nude posts on Twitter. My reasonable assumption is that they were particularly graphic.
None of this news today except that Taibbi has now proven that Twitter actually did have an internal debate about whether to take down the laptop story, which runs contrary to his own narrative.
That's why I think your characterization is ridiculous because there is: a) no suppressing of narratives; b) the "direct connection" is the same thing any other VIP would have. Further to this, the guy was running for President of the united states, I can think of dozens of reasonable reasons why the campaign would want to have quick access to someone at Twitter. Also, your characterization is ridiculous because on top of assuming all that (which are contrary to the facts you are pointing to), you also made all of these assumptions without even bother to inquire what it was that was taken actually taken down.
Your argument is not that they didn't have elevated access to control content on Twitter but that it was a specific type of access and a specific type of content.
And I agree! My point is they had that channel, not a value judgement on whether that was in or out of twitters terms of service.
You may say this was known years ago, and that's also true, but the general public probably doesn't know this.
That's flat out false. He clearly claimed in the thread there was clear evidenceof political motivation. For one, he cited the political donations are heavily slanted. Secondly, he mentioned the mass confusion that reigned as they tried to fit it into the hacked material case, even though it was clearly was not. It was a NY Post story about a lost/abandoned laptop. Read the thread.
A lone company acting on its own to suppress a story may not be surprising to you, but collaboration between government and a corporation to suppress speech definitely should be. It's where fascism begins.
I agree with you, and I’m surprised Matt glossed over it. I think the question for me as a more government trusting person is;
What is the difference between the government providing unique information, because of its potential Intelligence insights, and what is the government trying to get things taken down that are not against twitters policies
> what is the government trying to get things taken down that are not against twitters policies
Twitter's policies being the basis of credibility in this question?
If this story showed us anything it's clear they were censoring at the whims of the moderators feelings, not based on some predefined set of rules or conditions. Even when multiple people brought up the fact the hacking angle was mere speculation, the Twitter execs glossed over it and said to say it's true in public communiqués anyway (until they have time to find out if it is true).
As long as there's a strong culture of censorship, all that matters is who has influence on the gatekeepers. Not what arbitrary rules they set for themselves.
Are you saying they were expecting to get proof it was a hack within the next day and simply jumped the gun? What happened after those 24hrs of “deliberation” then? Did they backtrack?
It took almost a year to find out it wasn’t hacked and it was bullshit like everyone thought it might be from day 1 (including we found out today even Twitter employees). Plenty of time to deliberate I guess.
Here’s the thing thought. So far the emails show a team making a mistake, and being thoughtful about it. Trying to look to their moderation principals and disagreeing about the path forward. Then, later we know Jack and Yoel and most of the team apologized and admitted it was a mistake.
If these people were all conservatives and I saw this interaction I would say the same thing. So tell me a story about principals that apply universally that should make me more concerned.
> the hunter biden laptop story should have been a much bigger story.
Should it? This is the most Barbara Streisanded news story in history; There have been two years of investigations and nothing has come of it. Maybe it was just a nothingburger that also happened to have been handled by Twitter badly. Even Matt taibbi said that the suspression was a bigger story than the original article.
They got caught doing something that it was public knowledge they were doing and the whole point of them doing it was immediately acknowledged in public?
I just don't believe there is anyone that would look at what they are doing and go "yes, that's the right course" only to figure out that maybe manipulating politics using your power in social media company is not a good thing to do.
