1) Twitter Files: Democrats & media claimed Twitter 1.0 was a “private company” that made its own decisions, despite Biden Administration pressure to censor.
But new emails show Twitter hired a lobby shop staffed w/ Biden loyalists & then coordinated w/ Biden State Dept.
2) “This is John Hughes from Albright Stonebridge Group, the commercial diplomacy firm founded by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,” wrote Twitter’s lobbyist to a senior official at State.
Twitter was seeking “advice” and help.
3) Politico reported around this same time that 10 of Biden’s top foreign policy crowd came from Albright Stonebridge.
“The Blob”
4) Albright Stonebridge’s chair was Madeleine Albright who also sat on the board of the Atlantic Council.
@mtaibbi reported that The Atlantic Council was also pressuring Twitter to censor, and had a State Dept grant.
5) So State was pressuring Twitter to censor, but Twitter partnered w/ State to deal with censorship in India.
Does the make Twitter appear a “private company” free to make its own decisions? Or one reliant on State Dept approval?
6) Twitter VP: “Would you have time to meet us again for an update ….on government action against Twitter in India?”
State: “We are trying to get in touch w/ our colleagues in the Embassy as well as get more details.”
7) In a hearing on #TwitterFiles Congresswoman Sally Plaskett said that “real evidence shows there wasn’t coordination between Twitter and the federal government…”
This is laughable.
8) Twitter to State: “Happy to brief you before you speak to your colleagues at the Embassy, who have been briefed by my colleague, Shagutta, in Delhi.”
Seems Twitter was coordinating w/ State, no?
How was Twitter “independent” at that time?
9) A State Dept official then asked Twitter to send around a calendar invite to all fed officials on the email, noting that both Deputy Assistant Laura Stone and another Deputy Assistant would attend Twitter briefing.
10) How could Twitter claim to be "independent" of the Biden Administration while coordinating w/ Biden's State Department on India? substack-proxy.glitch.me/articles/disin…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) EXCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS: Working w/ @mtaibbi we report on @CCDHate documents showing the Labour Party's political front's objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter" thru "Advertising focus" meaning harass his advertisers.
See internal documents provided by a whistleblower.
2) Internal Center for Countering Digital Hate document shows their annual objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter"
This is their internal monthly planner. Their goal is to also trigger regulatory action, although they are a tax-exempt nonprofit.
3) CCDH held a private conference w/ a slew of liberal groups organizing against Musk including Biden White House, Congressman Adam Schiff's office, Biden/Harris State Department officials, Canadian MP Peter Julian & Media Matters for America
2) Cochrane's Karla Soares-Weiser put out a statement attacking Cochrane's own mask review due to pressure from Zeynep Tufekci:
“Lisa, I have been back and forth with NYT about the mask review. CAN I GET YOUR VIEWS ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?”
3) Several days later, Tufekci published a "masks work" essay in the NY Times and Karla Soares-Weiser rushed out a statement claiming problems with the mask review.
Soares-Weiser did this w/o consulting the scientists who wrote the mask review.
1) Going through hundreds of emails, it's clear @zeynep bullied Cochrane into publishing a statement against their own review and twisted the words of Cochrane editor Michael Brown.
2) After Cochrane published their 2023 mask review update, Bret Stephens wrote a NYT column ridiculing mask mandate activists--people like Zeynep Tufekci.
3 days later on Feb 24, Zeynep contacted Cochrane, but not the scientists. She went around them to the editors.
3) Zeynep introdued herself to Cochrane editor Michael Brown as an "academic" working on a review "in my own field."
Zeynep has published 0 in the academic literature this year, and one article in 2023--an opinion piece. As for that review, it has never appeared.