Critics of Twitter are roasting @elonmusk for agreeing to the censorship demands of the Turkish government days before last Sunday’s election.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said Musk should have done what “What Wikipedia did: we stood strong for our principles and fought to the Supreme Court of Turkey and won. This is what it means to treat freedom of expression as a principle rather than a slogan.”
But Twitter did exactly that. “We will continue to object in court,” Twitter explained yesterday, “as we have done with all requests, but no further legal action was possible before the start of voting."
"Five court orders have been issued against Twitter regarding these actions and we have already objected to four of them," it wrote. "While one of our objections has been rejected, three of them are still under review. We are filing our objections to the fifth order tomorrow.”
Critics say that Musk should have called the government’s bluff and let the government shut off Twitter entirely. I am sympathetic to this view since I think it would be a strong show of force at a time when governments worldwide are cracking down on freedom of speech.
At the same time, Twitter under Musk has been more transparent than any other Internet company, including Twitter pre-Musk, in announcing the government’s censorship.
Yesterday, Twitter released the Turkish court orders and the letter from the government regulator, demanding censorship.
Neither Google, Facebook, or any other Internet company has done so, despite having complied with Turkish censorship demands for at least two years and perhaps longer.
As such, while all of the attention over the last few days has been on Twitter, other Internet companies are being let off the hook.
It wasn't always this way. In 2021, ProPublica reported, “Sheryl Sandberg and Top Facebook Execs Silenced an Enemy of Turkey to Prevent a Hit to the Company’s Business.”
And Turkey has cracked down significantly since Wikipedia’s lawsuit in 2019.
In an October 7, 2022, email describing Turkey’s new law, a Twitter executive complained, “Google has been disengaged and intends to comply.”
Meta “has been proactive at the highest levels in its efforts to change/delay/derail the law.... However, if the law is passed and their businesses are materially challenged by sanctions, I would expect both companies [Meta + Tik Tok] to find compliance solutions”
Moreover, even Musk hater @CaseyNewton concluded in early 2021, based on what had happened in India as well as Turkey, that “whether a social network complies with government requests or challenges them, in the end it will eventually be brought to heel.”
And yesterday, @CaseyNewton & @ZoeSchiffer wrote, “On this point [relating to Turkey’s censorship], we can be sympathetic to Musk.... in 2021, before Musk bought the company, Twitter restricted access to various high-profile accounts at the behest of the Indian government."
"The rationale for these moves is fairly straightforward: it’s typically better for the cause of speech to have at least some content available," they wrote. "Pakistan banned YouTube outright from 2012 to 2016; when the government relented and allowed it to return, it was largely… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Indeed, the Twitter Files show that Twitter was in the process of complying with Turkey’s censorship law long before Musk bought the company.
On June 14, 2021, Twitter’s then-deputy legal counsel, Jim Baker, emailed another senior legal executive to say, “we need to: (1) agree to comply (as much as possible) with the 48-hour requirement (which I understand people think is achievable); and (2) agree to cobble together… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
That same month, Twitter's law firm, Shearman and Sterling, sent over a report which described Twitter’s options at length. “The Turkish Government has intermittently blocked access to Twitter, notably during elections and in the wake of arrests of opposition politicians,” noted… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Shearman didn’t recommend that Twitter continue to pursue the matter in Turkish courts, perhaps because Turkey’s National Assembly passed a new law in reaction to Wikipedia’s Supreme Court victory in early 2020.
Instead, Shearman recommended Twitter consider international arbitration proceedings, filing a case with the European Court for Human Rights, going to the World Trade Organization, or going to the United Nations.
In August 2021, a Twitter executive emailed Vijaya Gadde, Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust at Twitter, about the legislation the National Assembly would pass in 2022. “President Erdogan has made several statements indicating strong support for more prohibitive social media… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The executive said Turkey was inspired by the censorship regime of the German government. “The Turkish government says it has formulated the plans for this legislation by conducting an analysis of laws enacted in other countries, particularly Germany’s NetzDG.”
By October 2022, Twitter executives discussed the company’s limited remaining options. “We've been told that the law will go into effect on April 1. The timing of the law is deliberate, as it's widely regarded as a means for the government to exert more control over the public… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Once again, Facebook caved. "Meta and TikTok both say that they can't see a way to comply with some of the law's requirements, particularly around fully authorised local (Turkish citizen) representation, as they share our concerns around employee safety. However, their views may… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
On November 23, 2022, a Twitter executive wrote an email to senior Twitter executives Senior Legal Counsel for Turkey laying out options. The first two were for complying and the latter proposed taking a legal route.
It appears that Twitter under Musk chose the legal route that his critics, including Wikipedia’s Wales, urged. It didn’t work:
So “60 Minutes” straight up lied. Plus, they could have gone to a White House press briefing or asked Trump after a cabinet meeting or on Air Force One. They chose not to. Totally unethical & irresponsible behavior. @bariweiss was right to hold the piece.
It was "corporate censorship" for CBS @bariweiss to delay her story, says "60 Minutes" reporter Sharyn Alfonsi. But Alfonsi presented no evidence to support her allegation. And Alfonsi has a history of biased reporting that even liberal "fact-checkers" denounced as inaccurate.
In April of 2021, CBS’s “60 Minutes” falsely claimed that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis exclusively chose Publix, a major Florida supermarket chain, to distribute Covid vaccines because it had donated to his political campaign.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat who helped oversee the state’s vaccine distribution at the time, repeatedly debunked the accusation. He did so first in response to a March 2, 2021, Miami Herald piece.
“This idea why @Publix was picked has been utter nonsense,” Moskowitz wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “We reached out to all pharmacies and they were the only one who at the time could execute on the mission.”
On April 4, the day the “60 Minutes” segment aired, Moskowitz tweeted, “@60Minutes I said this before and I’ll say it again. @Publix was recommended by @FLSERT and @HealthyFla as the other pharmacies were not ready to start. Period! Full Stop! No one from the Governor’s office suggested Publix. It’s just absolute malarkey.”
Now, the same reporter who did the flawed DeSantis piece, Sharyn Alfonsi, has accused her employer of censoring her story about deportees El Salvador’s prison. “The public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship,” Alfonsi wrote in an email to her colleagues that has been viewed four million times on X.
However, Alfonsi offered no evidence to support her allegation of “corporate censorship,” implying that people to whom Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss reports caused her to delay the piece.
Neither Weiss nor Alfonsi responded to a request for comment. If either does, we will update this story immediately. Moreover, we will report any evidence that we or others find that shows that corporate executives above Weiss directed her to kill the story. So far, there is none.
And an editorial decision is not the same as censorship, particularly since Weiss said she is delaying, not killing, the segment.
Alfonsi, in her leaked email, said she tried to get a response from the Trump administration but couldn’t, which was one of the reasons Weiss cited in her email to CBS staff for holding back the piece.
An experienced television news journalist, who has been in the business for three decades, said CBS could have done what it has often done in the past, which is to ask a Trump official at one of the many press availabilities.
“They could have sent a CBS reporter to the White House press briefing,” the person said, or had a reporter ask President Trump directly during one of his frequent press conferences at the White House and on Air Force One. The CBS website shows that it has at least six full-time reporters at the White House.
“The episode shows Sharyn’s poor investigative skills,” the person added. “She should have doorstepped the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or sent someone to the White House.”
To “doorstop” a person is when a journalist confronts someone, such as a senior government official, often when they are coming or going into their workplace.
“Sharyn could have gone to the briefing herself, or CBS could have gone in and said ‘CBS has finished an investigation. Here are the allegations. How do you respond?’”
Alfonsi falsely claimed in her segment that DeSantis gave an “exclusive” to Publix. Floridians could get the Covid vaccine from many different sources, including county health departments, other major pharmacy chains including CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart, and mass vaccination drive-thru sites with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Three major liberal or left-wing fact-checking organizations and the liberal Boston public TV station WGBH all criticized the piece. “60 Minutes’ misses the mark in its story about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Poynter. “A sloppy moment on Sunday’s show is raising serious concerns.”
Wrote Politifact, “While “60 Minutes” focused on his emphatic denial, it left out the background that he offered about how the state had been working with other retail pharmacies to distribute coronavirus vaccines at long-term care facilities in December and his own interactions with Publix customers.”
Said the progressive Media Nation, “It’s a rare day when we encounter as blatant an example of liberal media bias as in the “60 Minutes” report last Sunday on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis…Unfortunately, the botched story on DeSantis, a Republican, will be cited by conservatives for a long time as evidence that you just can’t trust the media.”
And a Boston CBS News reporter said, “If you’re going to smear someone by guilt-by-association, or pay-to-play, which is about the most serious offense a public official can engage in, you better have the facts in a row. If you don’t, you’d best leave it out.”
Here is the liberal Boston PBS member station segment on Sharyn Alfonsi's biased and inaccurate story. Every single person in it criticizes Alfonsi's piece about Ron DeSantis' vaccine roll-out.
Nobody who looks at this walks away thinking that Alfonsi did anything other than an irresponsible hit piece.
Days before last year’s election, the media claimed Trump wanted to kill Liz Cheney, which we debunked at the time. @BBC has now admitted it was a lie. @CNN should do the same. Notably, BBC & CNN have, for years, promoted censorship of their competitors for “misinformation.”
The media around the world demand government censorship on the basis of the disinformation it produces on Trump, covid, climate, gender, Ukraine, etc. The EU is currently paying European media to act as “trusted flaggers” — censors — of social media.
It’s digital totalitarianism.
Marco Rubio is the most powerful Secretary of State since Kissinger. As such, it is significant that he believes the US has recovered alien tech and given it to private military contractors. A senior Rubio advisor says, “We’re headed toward massive disclosure.”
Since May of this year, Marco Rubio has served in a dual role as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. The National Security Advisor is the President’s principal in-house advisor on all national security matters, chairs the National Security Council, coordinates the interagency process across the government, and briefs the President daily.
As Secretary of State, Rubio negotiates treaties, appoints and directs ambassadors, controls the $84 billion State Department and USAID budget, oversees 80,000 employees at more than 270 diplomatic posts worldwide, and has direct authority over diplomatic security, intelligence sharing, sanctions enforcement, and emergency evacuations of U.S. citizens abroad.
The last official to hold both such positions was Henry Kissinger from 1973 to 1975. For Rubio, who was also the former ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to play both roles reflects President Trump’s high confidence in him.
As such, it is significant that Rubio believes that elements within the US government have recovered technology from a nonhuman intelligence, reverse-engineered it, and let private military contractors take control of it in ways that could be undermining national security and result in a Pearl Harbor-like event.
“The real risk in transferring technology that is not useful to us today to a corporate entity over decades,” says Rubio, “is that the corporate entity comes to basically possess and control access to it for their own purposes, not for the purposes of national security.”
Nick Pope, who investigated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) for the UK Ministry of Defence, said, “It’s hard to overstate the significance of [Rubio’s] statement. Rubio’s remarks are so forthright that one could speculate they’re officially-authorized prelude to Disclosure, to test the waters ahead of an official, Presidential announcement.”
The State Department declined to provide an on-the-record comment to Public for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of War said it had no “verifiable information to substantiate claims that any U.S. government or private company programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials and technology have existed in the past or exist currently...."
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism and to read the full article!
Any true skeptic of this issue should want significantly more government transparency and disclosure on UAP. Anyone arguing against greater transparency and disclosure is telling you that they want to continue the cover-up.
If you belive that this is all a dangerous delusion and social contagion resulting from years of government disinfo to cover up secret weapons programs, which has now infected the highest levels of government, then you should be the loudest advocate for UAP transparency and disclosure in the world.
The secrecy has gone on for too long. It is destablizing for our highest security, defense, and intelligence officials say one thing to journalists and filmmakers and for the DOD to say something completely different. The State Department, CIA, ODNI, and White House all declined to comment publicly for my piece. We need our government officials to be honest about what is going on.
There is no security justification for this level of secrecy. We are free people governed by a constitution that protects us against unaccountable government actors. We must fight to maintain that status.
We can trust Oracle to centralize our data in a single place to create digital IDs, says Larry Ellison. We can't. Thanks to a "previously unknown & widespread vulnerability" in Oracle's "E-Business Suite software" thousands of us recently had our personal data stolen.
"The Washington Post... didn’t explain why it took almost a month to determine the amount of data stolen and has not responded to multiple requests for comment." @JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews
@JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews "Oracle quietly admits data breach, days after lawsuit accused it of cover-up"
New Epstein files show Rep. @StaceyPlaskett got real-time help via text messages from Jeffrey Epstein on how to hurt Trump during 2019 congressional hearing with former Trump attorney. Plaskett is the person who smeared us during Twitter Files hearing & falsely accused @mtaibbi
From WaPo:
"At 10:02 a.m., Epstein texted Plaskett: 'Great outfit'
'You look great,' he added at 10:22 a.m. 'Thanks!' she replied shortly afterward.
"'Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,' Epstein texted, misspelling Graff’s first name."
“'RONA??'” Plaskett responded. “'Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,' she added, suggesting she would question Cohen soon."