1. TWITTER FILES: Missouri v. Biden edition
"Thank you for your ongoing collaboration!"
2. After a controversial decision in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, here are a few docs from the Twitter Files, illustrating what the Attorneys General meant when they claimed a “Censorship Enterprise” exists.
3. Judge Terry Doughty in his ruling said the government “significantly encouraged” and “coerced” tech platforms into censoring content. What might “significant encouragement” look like?
4. Here’s the whole scheme, in one picture:
5. Senior FBI man in Washington pings SF field office about three accounts. SF agent pings Twitter. Twitter suspends accounts.
From DC whim to Bay Area suspension, the whole transaction takes a day.
6. But, you say, it’s not an order, just the FBI passing along helpful info. Or is it? In this case Twitter had a “tooling” error and the ordered suspension never took place. Upset, the senior FBI man sent a WTF letter two weeks later:
7. In essence, he reminds Twitter he wrote a letter two weeks ago and asks to know why the accounts are still up. Twitter apologizes and quickly moves to “fix the glitch,” as they say in Office Space.
8. It later came out that Twitter wasn't even sure the accounts were malign. One of the three came from Canada. They were suspended anyway.
9. Is this sequence showing a censorship demand from a de facto superior, or just a polite ask from a pal?
The American speech system is a simple premise. A free press delivers the information, voters make the political decisions. We’re supposed to trust audiences to know what’s best for them. (1/4)
The new digital censorship movement is based on two fallacies. The first is that voters are too stupid to sort out information on their own, so they need institutional vanguards to weigh information, “help” them choose. (2/4)
The second is that the state has special responsibility to “protect” us from bad speech. The opposite is true. The constitution specifically enjoins the government from restricting citizen-to-citizen discussion. (3/4)
Not only is the @nytimes is totally wrong implying @mirandadevine’s reporting hasn’t held up, the paper ignored its own multi-level failure on that same story in 2020, which included ignoring their own reporting. It’s almost actionable — they owe a huge apology (1/6):
First of all the Times in 2020 tried to use the unprecedented censorship of the story by Facebook and Twitter to call Miranda’s story “dubious,” without saying what was dubious. (The censorship angle they of course ignore entirely.) It got worse (2/6):
Just a few paragraphs down, the Times contradicted itself, saying Twitter didn’t block the story because it was “dubious,” but because it was supposedly “hacked materials.”
The laptop contents were not even “hacked materials,” as Twitter quickly determined. But also (3/6):
1. TWITTER FILES Extra: The Defaming of Brandon Straka and #Walkaway
Smeared as a Russian proxy after founding a movement to "#Walkaway" from the Democratic Party, Twitter documents suggest @BrandonStraka and his followers were set up
2. In Atlanta Monday, I testified before Georgia state Representative @MeshaMainor, in a free speech hearing centered around the censorship of members of the “#WalkAway” Facebook Group, whose 500,000-plus accounts were deleted by Facebook on January 8th, 2021. washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/…
3. The #TwitterFiles contained material about federal interest in #WalkAway, including exculpatory Twitter analyses that contrasted with coverage describing #WalkAway as a “Kremlin operation.” These documents should have been published earlier. I apologize to @BrandonStraka.
You obviously didn't read the reports (@lhfang is a right-wing ideologue?). We went out of our way to show censorship/manipulation taking place across the spectrum, mentioning everyone from the Green Party to the Yellow Vests to Truthout and Consortium News. (1/5)
If you read the reports there was very little about which "side" was suppressed more. There was some chatter within the company about it, and some current and former executives talked about it with us, but mainly we focused on the who/how of censorship (2/5)
The main revelations were about roles the FBI, DHS, GEC, ODNI, DOD, HHS etc. played in flagging content. Lee's reports were about DOD creating fake accounts abroad. Other projects put USG agencies in the middle of flagging election or Covid-related content (3/5)
1. TWITTER FILES (DEAMPLIFIED)
How the Censorship Industrial Complex Case Was Built
2. I made a deal with the owner of this platform to publish new #TwitterFiles material only on this site. However, since this account is denylisted, I don't feel obligated to add the context, since no one will see it. Full explanations for images on Racket.News
1. UK FILES EXTRA:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate, the IRS, and 501 (c)(3) status
2. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, or CCDH, is one of the most powerful players in the global "anti-disinformation" space, with a reputation for successfully pressuring Internet platforms to remove disfavored speech:
3. CCDH is currently being sued by this platform, X, which has accused it of manipulating X data to make it "appear as if X is overwhelmed by harmful content":