1. TWITTER FILES EXTRA
The Senate, New Knowledge, and Manufacturing Russian Bot Hysteria
Reporting by @SchmidtSue1
2. On December 17, 2018, a new report to the Senate Intelligence Committee describing pervasive Russian bot activity generated scare headlines by the dozen:
3. Virginia Senator Mark Warner of the Senate Intelligence Committee called it a “bombshell”:
4. This was the peak of Russiagate panic. Stephen Colbert days later ran a feature about Robert Mueller rescuing Santa Claus – they were old “Nam” buddies, apparently – so they could deliver Donald Trump new orange “pajamas” for Christmas:
5. Internally at Twitter, executives were calling BS on the Senate report, lead-authored by a firm called New Knowledge.
“Nothing to see here,” wrote Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth.
6. Regarding accounts identified by NK as Russian, Roth wrote “may be spam, but nothing insidious,” and “don’t want to throw fire on the NK report by making anyone think they’re correct.”
7. Twitter knew what the public didn’t: the CEO of New Knowledge, Jonathon Morgan, helped design the infamous Hamilton 68 dashboard, which Roth called “bullshit.”
8. Twitter’s Nick Pickles tied NK to Hamilton in describing its method: “They pick accounts that they have deemed to be IRA controlled, and then spin up bigger macro analysis of their activity.”
9. He added: “We have met with them several times and they have gone out of their way to avoid giving any meaningful insight into their methodology.”
10. Two days after the Senate report, the New York Times reported New Knowledge had been caught faking the existence of Russian bots and linking them to Republican Roy Moore in an Alabama Senate Race.
11. Weeks later, it came out New Knowledge also ran a phony Facebook page boosting two campaigns to aid Democrat Doug Jones in the Alabama race.
12. The Alabama projects were engineered by former Obama administration official Mikey Dickerson, and funded by billionaire Reid Hoffman, who subsequently apologized.
13. Reaction inside Twitter: “Pretty brutal for NK,” wrote Roth.
14. Pickles added the episode highlighted the “ongoing question of people who do this sort of work conflating basic spam issues with nefarious foreign influence.”
15. He would later add that NK decided to “engage in their own info ops in a special election,” adding that another Senate author, Graphika, had been “over-stating the problem”:
16. Former State Department official Daniel Fried said he hoped the Alabama incident would be “so scandalous and discredited that no one dares do it again,” adding “Putin’s ultimate victory” would be to “turn us into them.”
17. The Alabama/New Knowledge story was already public when NBC published a hit piece on then-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s alleged Russia links citing New Knowledge as a source:
18. The Senate Intel Committee has never fully answered questions about the methodology of its influential report - or about one of its author's ties to Hamilton 68. The episode also raises questions about news outlets who knew the Alabama story was coming but said nothing.
19. A spokesperson for Warner told @SchmidtSue1, the reports “speak for themselves” and the Committee “did not endorse” them, rather encouraging Americans to “draw their own conclusions.”
20. Neither Roth nor Pickles responded to requests to discuss New Knowledge. DiResta and Morgan did not respond to interview requests.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, a Barack Obama appointee, conducted an extensive investigation of the issuance of four FISA warrants that required an in-depth review of the Steele dossier: justice.gov/storage/120919…
"CORROBORATED LIMITED INFORMATION... MUCH OF THAT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE."
There is NOT ONE piece of original reporting in the Steele dossier that turned out to be true. The only "confirmed" details were from prior public news reports, and even got some of those wrong...
PEE TAPE: "JUST TALK" OVER "BEERS" AND IN "JEST"
Horowitz noted the sources of Steele's spiciest revelations, like the "pee tape," were tracked down and stunned they'd been taken seriously. They laughed the story off as "just talk" told over "beers" in "jest":
On the new piece about Jeffrey Sachs and “Shock Therapy”:
I see people already suggesting this story is propaganda that paints Putin’s Russia as a victim. That’s not what this account says at all (cont’d)
The victims here are the Russian and American people, not the governments. After the Cold War we had a historic opportunity. Instead of making Russia a quasi-partner like Japan or Germany, we went the other way:
The result was economic disaster in Russia (which Westerners bailed out btw), which thanks to help from U.S. ended up ruled by rapacious oligarchs. Anti-US sentiment exploded during my time there.
When I first started covering policing I was taken aback by the complexity. Post-Broken Windows, big cities essentially gave up on high-end enforcement and used tactics closer to commercial fishing: sweep up everyone on small offenses, throw back some innocents.
The infamous 2015 Mike Bloomberg address to the Aspen Institute confirmed that NY busted young black men on drug offenses with the aim of pre-empting a statistical probability of them committing more serious crimes like murder - Minority Report stuff
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.