Thread by @emptywheel

The single solitary example that #MattyDickPics does show is Yoel Roth, who is the villain of not just this thread, but the
entire fictional narrative, CORRECTING PEOPLE when they claim Trump was lying.

Wow. Villainous behavior: Making sure people don't falsely accuse Trump.

This tweet is really important for a different reason: it reveals that if Trump said something false about the election it'd be a violation. Well, he did that. So show us what happened in response! That's what you've promised to show us!

Nada. #MattyDickPics doesn't do that.

Let me tell you what happened, because #MattyDickPics didn't do that, even though it was the ONLY JOB he had to do.

What happened when Trump did stuff that would have gotten other people banned is, he didn't get banned.

Seems like an important detail.

So in this thread, at least, #MattyDickPics shows the erosion of exactly one standard: that when someone lies about the election over and over, they get removed.

Here's a tweet that #MattyDickPics uses to show that Roth was meeting with USG regularly, including w/people who worked for DEEP STATE VILLAINS Chad Wolf (illegally in the position) and John Ratcliffe (later shown to have lied abt election stuff in this period).

But note that #MattyDickPics DOESN"T mention? 1) Roth believed at that point that the Hunter Biden laptop was hacked.

While there are still real questions abt provenance of it, that certainly wasn't proven at that point. STILL, it shows WHY he did what he did.

2) It shows that Roth immediately recognized Twitter blew it.

Okay, fine. That's what you wanted to prove, right? You win! They fucked up.

3) Most importantly--bc #MattyDickPics is presenting you this screen cap as "proof" of suspect coordination with the FBI: When Roth ASKED for guidance, FBI said nothing. This is literally the opposite of what #MattyDickPics claims it is.

If #MattyDickPics were an honest journalist, this entire tweet thread would start w/BREAKING: even when Twitter asked, FBI did not get involved in Hunter Biden laptop response.

Instead, #MattyDickPics presents it as part of proof of opposite.

Here's another example of a tweet showing the opposite of what #MattyDickPics claims. His thesis: Roth was totally in bed with "law enforcement." Truth: Those meetings weren't locked into his calendar.

Incidentally, this right wing project takes as given that CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) is law enforcement. Not sure if that's what #MattyDickPics means by DHS or not. But CISA is not LE.

Here, #MattyDickPics dings Twitter because the labeled something TRUE that some people had believed was misinformation

Here #MattyDickPics complains that Twitter didn't call FBI/DHS experts, which is funny bc that's something Glenn Greenwald often argues--that people give the Deep State too much authority.

Finally, this. Remember: #MattyDickPics' job is to show what happened before Jan 6. Instead of doing that, he presents a screen cap with no date and projects an opinion, "getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies" on to Roth w/no evidence.

Now, WITH CONTEXT (starting with a date), this screen cap might actually be genuinely interesting. For example, IF Roth was genuinely meeting with FBI (and not naming his wifi "FBI surveillance van" as a joke), then why wouldn't be put that in his schedule?

As #MattyDickPics has told us OVERANDOVER, Roth met with the FBI a lot. So why couldn't he just put that on his schedule?

There are reasons why it might be different--for example, you may have heard there was a criminal investigation that started around then.

In this entire thread, #MattyDickPics doesn't consider what happens as a criminal investigation starts--and it started during the attack itself.

In other words, this screen cap means something else but #MattyDickPics hasn't bothered to try to figure out.

To sum up: 1) #MattyDickPics admits they are cherry picking and writing up before they understand this 2) #MattyDickPics doesn't show what he promises (lead up to banning, ESPECIALLY Twitter allowing Trump to break rules abt lying) 3) His claims abt Roth are projections.

I want to return to this Tweet from #MattyDickPics' latest thread.

Matty confessed that Elmo's stenographers didn't try to understand the process, then write. They instead cherry picked names they knew.

It's one of multiple confessions that this is not journalism.

Now go to Tweets 15 and 16, and read them with the eye of someone who understands the least little bit about how bureaucracies work--and how they're SUPPOSED to work.

In Safety Operations, people used, "a [] rules-based process for addressing issues like porn, scams, and threats."

This, by the way, is one of the things Elmo has seen fit to gut -- the rules based process addressing threats and scams.

Senior policy execs issue "content rulings on the fly, often in minutes."

He CALLS them "policy execs."

You see, Matty doesn't understand the difference between policy and procedures.

And he's complaining that the people who set policy were ... the policy execs.

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of implications of this misunderstanding (and Matty's decision to cherry-pick those very same policy execs rather than review the process as implemented by people following the rules).

One is that if you decide to check the discussions of "policy execs" to see how the rules are implemented, it's gonna look like they're changing the rules.

Because you know who changes the rules?

The policy execs.

This is a basic reality of how bureaucracies work, btw.

TO BE QUITE SURE, about the only thing #MattyDickPics showed (aside from that Yoel Roth protected Trump against a false claim) is that these Twitter policy execs DID set new rules with Trump. But that's bc they didn't ban him far sooner than they did, which was the rule.

Anyway, I continue to be amused that Matty claims to be outraged by a group of ~10 debating and making policy decisions but he's working for a guy whose group debating policy decisions is just the richest man in the world responding to complaints from the far right on Twitter.

Understand the implication of #MattyDickPics' complaint: that rather than following rules that would have banned Trump Twitter first throttled before they banned. Matty suggests Twitter should have done nothing.

That amounts to a demand that Twitter be an accomplice in a coup.