More information from an actual Twitter employee. Elon comments “Worth a read”
I find this interesting
Their definition of shadowbanning. Cont…
They even blogged about it (but we know conservatives here don’t use Twitter so how we they know)
2 Likes
“During this time, executives were also clearly liaising with federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election-related content. While we’re still at the start of reviewing the #TwitterFiles, we’re finding out more about these interactions every day,” Taibbi added“
What business does the FBI and intelligence agencies have coordinating with Big Tech what we are allowed to read during elections? We hear about intelligence agencies interfering in foreign elections. They have the background, and apparently the will, to interfere in our elections.
As soon as Republicans take over the House they need to subpoena information on every communication our government agencies have had with Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Fortunately, with Twitter at least , there will be a way to find out when they lie under oath.
6 Likes
Everything, we’ve all been saying, for years now. All coming to light just like that. 
5 Likes
Anywho, back to the Portal marathon for a few hours while they prepare the next installment of The Twitter Files (there really needs to be alien music in the background every time that phrase is spoken 
).
Y’all enjoy.
4 Likes
Maybe they should but nothing will come of it. End up being a waste of time and money.
They knew the commonly understood meaning of shadow banning and they knew that is exactly what they were doing when they said under oath that they were not.
The Biden administration is going on about the red herring of hate speech. That was and still will get you banned. That has not changed. It is the Charlie Kirks and Dan Bonginos that had their messages blocked from searches or proliferating that was the problem. Twitter was carefully managing legitimate speech during and after the election and lying to congress and their users about it.
True, I have not personally seen the documents involved. We should have a chance over the next several months.
2 Likes
I’d like to see more about what they were asking and what Twitter did about it. Also noticed that the date on some of the internal slack conversations was during the Trump admin.
I wonder why they didn’t post screenshots of what the requests were and what Twitter did about them?
In my role I have similar interactions with those three letter agencies. Having connections into those agencies is standard for a lot of companies (including space X). I’d bet my life Twitter still has meetings with the FBI and DHS.
At least make the truth known about the controlled discussions we were, and probably still are in Facebook and YouTube, getting. That is more important to our democracy than a year of hearings on a several hours long trespass in the Capitol building.
And while private companies have a right to meet with the FBI and intelligence agencies, what right do intelligence agencies have to work with private companies to control our speech and interfere with elections?
2 Likes
Good. We do need the details. If the problem is being over sold, we will find that out too.
You say this but it seems like Twitter had a different definition. Who’s to say you are right and they are wrong? It’s a recently made up word.
Because Twitter determined that they violated their terms. Who’s going to tell them they are wrong?
We don’t know if they were lying. Again, if they had an internal definition of shadowbanning that differed from conservatives… who’s definition should they follow?
Did congress clarify their definition and ask the twitter executives using that definition?
I’d welcome more documentation of actual actions taken based on feedback from the FBI. Like I said there are legitimate reasons to remove tweets based on government information.
The testimony in congress was that there was no shadow banning. This was not followed by “but we have a different definition of shadow banning than is normally used”.
Did you rob the bank.
I did not rob the bank. (But I have a different definition of “rob” than is commonly used.
1 Like
They did not violate their advertised terms or they would have been banned or suspended. They were secretly blocked…a practice that was denied. It was a misrepresentation to their customers that this was a public forum. It was not.
3 Likes
Libs and Dems will find a way since Weasels don’t change.
3 Likes
Based on the second batch of files i am not sure why this needs to be defended.
There was clear control of how Twitter users were being silenced based on their message
The reaction however is so very silly given how many times we were told that it is laughable to believe that social media can affect democracy. Welcome to reality …
Twitter needs to be burned or the ground.
The left built a whole belief around secret Russian organizations interfering with our elections by tweeting from Russia and now it is all poo poo?
4 Likes
I am sorry what?
The Russian bots were a secret lefty ploy?
According to twitters definition, their might not have been.
I doubt that you really couldn’t understand what I typed.
2 Likes
Problem is I don’t believe they will get to the truth.
How do you know?
Sure. Are they required to tell someone that their tweets are deamplified?
Possibly. More of an ethical issue rather than law. It’s a free service and they can exercise their terms of service as they see fit.
This is true under Musk as well. See the recent ban of Ye.
