Thread by @GalG____

🧵 1/ Rulers of Public Discourse:

On February 8, former Twitter excts were called to testify before members of the Congress’s Oversight Committee regarding the #TwitterFiles. A review of the hearing and the dramatic recent legal developments of internet governance >

2/ Before I get to Congress - let's set a frame for this discussion: ‘The Control of Content’- who and how should control the content of the public discourse, should there be such control at all? - this question has been sharpened during the unprecedented Covid censorship
>

3/ In these years, the social networks went through an accelerated process from careful and very reserved control of how positions and opinions are expressed (censorship of incitement and calls for violence) to aggressive and shameless control of the positions themselves >

4/ eventually creating a centrally coerced truth and false that allowed those in control of the content to determine WHAT is allowed to be said or expressed - leading the public discourse into a fake “consensus”.
>

5/ I have been following this process very closely, first on Facebook - where the censorship rules changed blatantly and quickly, then on Twitter after the unprecedented and unreasonable action of suspending the account of a sitting president - Trump

>

6/ I’ve been researching Internet law in recent years and I followed closely and with great concern the rapid and dramatic changes in the private governance policy of social networks. During the Covid years I noticed a very clear change in their governance policy
>

7/ It became clearer and clearer that the social networks are no longer managed in a way that preserves and protects the liberties of their users from governments and other seekers of this content control
- but -
>

8/ Never have I imagined how close and routine their relationship with the government administration was, all for the purpose of monitoring the individual, censoring the discourse into a uniform narrative and using the networks as a GLOBAL and "private" platform -

>

9/ to create a covert global content control that governments were NOT (then) allowed to carry out within the framework of the constitutions and the brakes applied to them to protect basic rights and important democratic principles.

So this was a constitutional bypass.
>

10/Simply put: the public sector has let the private corporations be the free "liberator" of democracy- so that we all depend on it for the maintenance of discourse- and thus the liberator can become an effective prison, to be then used- by those government agencies.
>

11/ The complexity of the issue of monitoring/regulating/controlling the discourse has always been around the dilemma - how do we do no harm? How do you do it solely to keep this space as authentic and safe and not to select and filter preferred opinions and silence others,
>

12/ and also - who can actually be the person that will have this enormous power and not abuse it? who will monitor this person against misuse of power? - Do we prefer private governance or public governance?

Or maybe non at all?
>

13/ This increased censorship policy on social networks and the absolute abuse of power came into light with the reveal of #TwitterFiles and the public debate that followed

(following this also- the recent events that happened in the @Project_Veritas - see attached tweet)
>

https://twitter.com/liz_wheeler/status/1623473056516653059

14/ Back to the US Congress’s Oversight Committee’s hearing regarding the #TwitterFiles 4 ex Twitter employees, invited to testify: Jim Baker, Vijaya Gadde, Yoel Roth, Anika Collier Navaroli

Who are they? >

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1623340792155865088

15/ Jim Baker- fmr FBI lawyer,served as Twitter Deputy General Counsel

Vijaya Gadde- an attorney, former general counsel & Head of legal, policy, and trust at Twitter.

Yoel Roth- former Global Head of Trust & Safety at Twitter.

Anika Collier Navaroli- Twitter Whistleblower
>

16/ The hearing was titled ”Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story.”
It was set up for a discussion on the censorship case of Biden Jr.’s computer, but -
>

17/ Inevitably it dealt with the censorship on Twitter in general, including the censorship of scientists, doctors, politicians - and thus a broader picture of control of content and public discourse was revealed. Let’s review the hearing first >

18/ Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) argued that the entire discussion is a misuse of public resources, But imagine she was censored for that argument- across all social platforms, is it still a waste of time do discuss the abuse of censorship powers?

The hearing begins >

https://twitter.com/BentizK/status/1623733384873738241

19/ Here are the claims against former these ex Twitter employees -

@RepClayHiggins: Claim #1
Content governance interfered with the 2020 US presidential elections, knowingly and willingly.
Higgins announces his intention to collect evidence from them leading to arrests
>

https://twitter.com/skyraid369/status/1623509434876952577

20/ @laurenboebert: Claim #2 - Twitter governance silenced Members of Congress from communicating with their constituents, in this case with “an aggressive visibility filter” (shadow ban) because of one tweet on Hilarity Clinton

“Who the hell do you think that you are?”
>

https://twitter.com/rose_k01/status/1623421103426404352

21/ To complete the picture, this is the tweet that got @laurenboebert shadow banned:

>

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1623429771848990720

22/ @RepMTG : Claim #3 - Twitter Content governance censored congress members’s tweets - with critical views on vaccines, masks, etc.- but pedophile accounts were not taken down or censored:

>

https://twitter.com/jota_dbs/status/1623770233566625802

23/ @RepJamesComer - Claim #4: Twitter previously lied to Congress. And - “Twitter under the leadership of our witnesses today was a private company the federal government used to accomplish what it constitutionally cannot — limit the free exercise of speech”

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1623340017711022082

24/ @RepNancyMace : Claim #5 - Twitter Content governance also censored and silenced an important, substantive and professional criticism of government Covid policy - and cost lives:
>

https://twitter.com/helswicks/status/1623642536911699970

25/ Here @DrJBhattacharya explains how he found out he was "blacklisted" on Twitter from the first day he entered the platform:

>

https://twitter.com/togetherdec/status/1622572284052471811

26/ Freedom of speech is protected under the 1st amendment of the US constitution, so,

How could Twitter (and other platforms) do all that and get away with it? Are they really more powerful than everyone else? Who in Twitter has that power?

Well,
>

27/ Let’s go back to Jim Baker for a second. Baker claimed in the hearing that he ‘did not act unlawfully or otherwise inappropriately with respect to the Biden laptop’ affair (an affair which the members refer to as criminal interference in the US elections)
>

https://twitter.com/thecharlesdowns/status/1623344722105212931

28/ “I’ve acted in a way consistent with the First Amendment. As a private entity, The First Amendment protects Twitter and its content moderation decision.” Says Baker, a former FBI lawyer, that served as Twitter Deputy General Counsel
>

https://twitter.com/marionawfal/status/1623457763547582465

29/⚖️ This absurd argument of using the freedom of speech amendment to allow private corporations to censor speech- is argued now by NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (which both represent Facebook, Google, Twitter) in recent legal developments.
>

30/ The representative groups say the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-based laws that restrict websites’ editorial choices.

👉🏻 The federal court wasn’t convinced when ruling in the case of the anti-censorship new Lee in Texas:
ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
>

31/ This interesting legal issue arose when two states (Texas, Florida) enacted anti-censorship laws that prevent platforms from filtering content - following the suspension of Trump's Twitter account and other censorship events. This issue was brought to the Supreme Court.
>

32/ Two other cases were recently brought to the Supreme Court the question whether platforms should have a complete immunity from publishers responsibility to published content and/or to censorship of content, as a non-publisher under section 230 to the DCA

33/ So, on one hand the platform seek constitutional protection as a private editor of speech, and on the other hand - they seek ‘complete immunity from liability’ under Section 230 to the DCA (1996) - as a “non publisher”
>

34/ But it gets worse.
The private censor did not act with independent judgment but in coordination and conspiring with government agencies - against citizens.
>

35/ On February 1 -
@RepDanBishop explained how government agencies have used Twitter to spy on US citizens. ‘Bad enough if it was just the FBI but it was also intelligence agencies that should be directing their attention abroad’ based on the #TwitterFiles
>

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1620568498610278400

36/ On the February 8 hearing-
🚨 @RepLuna exposes 👉🏻 Jira
a private cloud server that used Twitter to secretly communicate with the government

>

https://twitter.com/vidmaxmedia/status/1623755734524518403

37/ “The law allows governments to have complex, multi-faceted relationships with the private sector. When done properly, these interactions can be of interest to the company and the general interest of the public.” Says Baker on the February 8th hearing:
>

https://twitter.com/marionawfal/status/1623457767108513792

38/ Was Twitter really a private company (Dr facto)?

It is a vital and complicated question- whether a private company can censor the public discourse in such manner (I’ll get back to that) but can Twitter still argue the private company protection?
>

39/ Let’s go back to Jim Baker - FBI lawyer that served as Twitter Deputy General Counsel - who is he? And is this just anecdotal?

>

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1604894334561660928

40/ Was Baker the only Twitter employee who previously worked for the FBI? -

Apparently there were many. Here’s a review:

What can we conclude from that?

>

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1604895371360374784

41/ Can there really be a private censor with such power?

Can it stay independent as a private entity, free from governments?

We saw on the #TwitterFiles that the government agencies used the private sector as a shield from the constitution. Can we stop this from happening?
>

42/ Maybe the problem is the excessive power that those entities (private and public) have when they conspire TOGETHER?

Listen to this clip from a follow up discussion on the #TwitterFiles and the dangerous relationship between the private platforms and the administration
>

https://twitter.com/Weaponization/status/1623790303260844033

43/ Can there really be a “Safe & Effective” separation between the private sector power and the public sector power? Listen👇🏻

>

https://twitter.com/realmattcouch/status/1623394330311372801

44/ The SECRET relationship between Twitter executives and the government administration and agencies led to them being high on power

>

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1623410220839096320

45/ “colluded to shape and mold the narrative” @Jim_Jordan
>

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1623740545217470468

46/ #TwitterFiles uncovered that Biden Admin officials colluded with Big Tech companies to silence differing opinions during the pandemic.

But also - the dangerous potential in such power and in internet content moderation in general
>

https://twitter.com/repharshbarger/status/1623433792584290305

45/ One of the scariest revelations on this topic is that, Apparently, this new censorship policy and mechanism is an “industry” that has become a career path, it is a whole new language that promotes “safety” as a cover for content control :

A whole-of-society

>

https://twitter.com/janjekielek/status/1621273454677745670

46/ This new mechanism of censorship is also used as a bypass to the constitution, by government agencies.

But, as I mentioned above, the main question here is not whether Twitter allows the government to monitor the content but rather the preliminary question -
>

47/ 👉🏻 Can anyone really moderate and regulate content objectively and without abuse of power?

who should monitor the public discourse?

what is the scope of the appropriate governance?

and can there be a discourse platform without governance of WHAT content is allowed?

https://twitter.com/marionawfal/status/1623457784313401351

48/ Can we overcome the challenges of a free social content interaction without trying to moderate and govern it?

>

https://twitter.com/johndo1344/status/1623762162286985218

49/ how can we protect the free flow of information from both censorship and manipulation of foreign interests?

>

https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1623348609981771776

50/ And most importantly- can there really be a “neutral & objective” protector of information, without prejudice?

>

https://twitter.com/minds/status/1623773415956963331

51/ Whistleblower Anika Collier Navaroli explains that in her point of view this governance was necessary to maintain public safety, and there always has to be a final human team for the hardest decisions

>

https://twitter.com/marionawfal/status/1623457805540945922

47/ Did those particular people fail or did the whole mechanism fail?

Is it possible for the public to find out and judge the content completely on its own? And if not, is there a mechanism less at risk of abuse of power?
>

https://twitter.com/marionawfal/status/1623457818362650626

48/ ⚖️ The U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide soon on the boundaries of this complicated issue that affects our lives to the core.

The court recently delayed its decision and asked the Biden administration for its views on the controversial laws in the meantime.
>

49/ If the court takes the cases up, it likely won’t be until the next term, and a decision wouldn’t come until 2024, which coincides with the next presidential election.
spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas…

>

50/ 👉🏻 The Supreme Court’s move came as new Twitter owner Elon Musk has granted “amnesty” to many suspended accounts, including Trump’s. Could this be the reason for restoring those accounts? Prevention of a problematic ruling?
Or is it simply to make us depend on it again?
>

51/ ⚖️ On February 21, 2023 there will be a hearing at the US Supreme Court in the case of the lawsuit filed by the Gonzalez family against Google, which will examine the protections granted to networks under Article 230.

reuters.com/legal/supreme-…

>

52/ 🇩🇪 Meanwhile, in December 2022 - a German court ruled that Twitter should remove offensive tweets •BEFORE• they are reported -
That means they have an even greater responsibility, for active censorship

>

https://twitter.com/reclaimthenethq/status/1604230216435499008

53/ Another thing is happening at the same time - Google's search engine is exercising ׳preventive control׳ over the contents in advance )like a vaccine 😂) This is how it looks like to cultivate habits of chilling discourse and self-censorship.
>

https://twitter.com/berniespofforth/status/1626127977355386885

54/ 🇮🇱 Last but not least- Israel’s internet governance

The Ministry of Communications recently adopts the recommendations of the committee for regulating the social networks operating in Israel.
>

55/ The main recommendations of the committee: applying regulation to platforms with over 500,000 active users in Israel (5% of the country's population), determining legal responsibility of the platform operators in relation to clearly offensive illegal content >

56/ requiring the platforms to operate an online HOTLINE for reporting illegal and offensive content and handling In these reports, the duty of transparency and more.
>

57/ It would’ve sounded wonderful if it hadn’t come at the end of a tsunami of legislation that seriously harms individual freedoms and especially their privacy, in the post-Covid era,

And if we weren't painfully aware now of the dangers of having “discourse rulers”