According to Yoel Roth, the Trust & Safety organization within Twitter was mostly unaffected by these layoffs. The team size was reduced by just 15%[1] and the amount of moderation activity is largely unchanged[2]. Roth says that their "efforts on election integrity – including harmful misinformation that can suppress the vote and combatting state-backed information operations – remain a top priority." [3]
More than 15% of time in big ops orgs goes to hiring so if they aren't hiring they don't need all that slack in the system to be able to do the same work output.
And companies very frequently cut 10-15%, just to shore up the bottom line, to prepare for a bad quarter. I work for a company that is FAMOUS for binge-and-purge hiring practices. They shed that every couple of years, and have for three decades.
This is hyperbolic in the extreme - the only things I've seen on the election information is tagging conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence, or noting that videos going viral are faked.
Every time I see people advocate for less moderation its really freedom to lie through their damn teeth.
The Post's article acknowledges Roth's tweet -- but that "Trust & Safety organization" seems like a different organization than the election information team that "has worked for years to counter election-related falsehoods."
"As recently as two weeks ago, Twitter was touting the team’s debunking efforts as a key aspect of its approach to the 2022 midterms. But on Friday, multiple Twitter employees told The Washington Post the entire team appeared to have been cut amid Musk’s layoffs."
I think it is objectively obvious, most of the time, when a video is doctored or a false statement is presented as fact.
I'd rather not live in a place where absolutely nothing is real. Societies crumble under such a culture. Birds are considered real only because its not politically advantageous to believe they aren't real. What a dumb fucking value system to live under.
Did you RTFA? Roth was directly quoted by the post.
> In October 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election, the team added context to all trends that could be found in Twitter’s prime real estate — its “For you” and “What’s happening” boxes — on its app and website. As recently as two weeks ago, Twitter was touting the team’s debunking efforts as a key aspect of its approach to the 2022 midterms.
> But on Friday, multiple Twitter employees told The Washington Post the entire team appeared to have been cut amid Musk’s layoffs.
It's hard to know where exactly the cuts were made inside of the trust and safety org, and even how twitter is laid out internally to know whether (or how) if trust and safety intersects with departments paying attention to information ops.
anecdotally, i've seen at least a few people working in those areas laid off.
The point I'm making is to question whether we should take the Washington Post article more seriously than direct statements from named employees.
The article is making assertions based on claims made by anonymous people who claim to be Twitter employees, and that either through malice or stupidity or "telephone" style information loss, there are countless ways that this article can end up being wrong. And precisely to your earlier point, the article encourages the reader to fill in the blanks about what various departments existed, what their roles are, whether they have direct, indirect, or no effects on the material on Twitter. There is nothing accurate nor verified about any of that.
It's all intentionally hazy, and contributes to the article's overt desire to push a specific narrative rather than provide clarity.
The thing is, I generally trust established media organizations to fact-check because their integrity and reputation depends on it. Facts are often cross-checked and verified prior to publishing. Journalists have a vested interest in preventing their publications from 'he-said-she-said' rags.
Do I trust a twitter figurehead, who clearly has tweeted this for Elon's sake, more than a journalistic enterprise? No, actually. I think there's a lot to read between the lines. My questions actually came FROM the twitter thread. The article filled in more holes that the twitter thread left open.
Considering these are the teams that put their thumbs on the scale during the 2020 election by censoring the New York Post, I'm not sure much has been lost here. They later reversed the decision long after the election when they could no longer deny they censored the truth.
Seems like a poor approach to just throw out a system based on a fault case (or two, or ten, or at Twitter’s scale, immense amounts of iffy and bad corner cases).
Seems important that there would be some sort of reform when there has been no mea culpa whatsoever by the perpetrators. Quietly issuing a reversal 6 months after the election does not count. Maybe I'm just not aware, but was there an official change in policy after this debacle? I assume it remained business as usual at Twitter until about a week ago.
"Naming and shaming" and firing people for something that we now all agree didn't happen? The claim was that articles about Hunter Biden's laptop were disallowed from Twitter until 6 months after the election. This is false.
“The best approach” is to throw your employees under the bus and personally shame them in public on a matter that could very legitimately put themselves and their families at risk?
The explanation is in the article. Twitter's policy changes around hacked materials didn't apply retroactively, so it didn't affect the suspension of the New York Post's account, which occurred because of violations of the hacked materials policy that happened before the change.
> They later reversed the decision long after the election when they could no longer deny they censored the truth.
> With just a few weeks to go before the Nov. 3 vote, […] Twitter underlined just how fluid its policies were when it began letting users share links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article about Hunter Biden that it had previously blocked from its service.
This link literally says the opposite of what you are saying.
You're right. I'm wrong about the timing after hastily re-reading this article.
They allowed the article to be shared a few weeks before the election. They kept the NY Post account banned until October 31st. 1 week before the election.[1]
This was meaningful censorship of a right-leaning news organization. It would not have happened were the shoe on the other foot at a liberal bastion like Twitter.
The solution to the problem is to greatly pare back the type of moderation allowed by the platform. Elon seems to be implementing this.[2]
Eh, not obvious at all it wouldn’t have happened the other direction. There are obviously hairy questions with deciding whether to propagate material that’s 1) definitely hacked and 2) potentially tampered with by an adversary.
I think Twitter made the wrong call but it’s not like this was the Pentagon Papers or the Lewinsky story.
Imagine if Twitter had suspended Vox, the NYT, or any other beloved liberal news org. You can't. Impossible. How much unsubstantiated stuff about Donald Trump was propagated by these outlets for years? What's the fundamental difference between opposition research like the Steele Dossier, and "hacking"?
Imagine the outrage if Elon tomorrow decided to suspend one of these news orgs, even with only a few days to go before the election. Compare that to the crickets we hear about the NY Post.
They didn’t suspend the Post, did they? I remember them banning that article. And could I imagine them banning a Vox or NYT article? Well no, because for better or worse, not being an actual tabloid tends to impart more trust than being an actual tabloid does. NYPost is broadly regarded as a tabloid and NYT is broadly regarded as the paper of record. Should it be this way? Will it stay this way? I don’t know.
If there’s a left wing analog to NYPost, I can definitely imagine an article getting deboosted or banned under similar conditions.
Eh, it’s kind of between banning the article and banning the account I suppose. They froze the account until the Post deleted the 6 offending tweets, and the Post declined to do that. Again would be a very believable standoff with any publisher once the story was in question.
Twitter permabanned DDOSecrets (a left wing org) when they started distributing leaked police files in 2020, due to their "distribution of hacked materials policy." Not that any facts are going to change your victimhood. Source: https://twitter.com/natsecgeek/status/1275573681507500032
There's no reason to think it was hacked or tampered with. Most of it has been substantiated as valid so no indication of tampering.
It honestly takes a lot of belief in fantasy to think an entity capable of hacking multiple 2FA services, major corporations and multiple governments, did so and planted evidence on a laptop. Then gave that laptop away on the hope that the shop owner would discover it and give it to the news.
It seems far more likely that the incestuous child molester who filters millions of dollars in bribes annually dropped off one of his connected laptops then forgot about it and failed to pay because he has abused cocaine for 3+ decades.
It does not seem more likely to me that he handed his laptop to a blind computer repair guy, identified himself as Hunter Biden, and then that repair guy saw (?) what was on the laptop and reached out to Rudy Giuliani. It’s a really bizarre story.
The whole motivation of these rules is to avoid consequences of letting false information spread unhindered. Actually, it was the abuse of twitter (and facebook's, etc) liberal content policies that allowed the disinformation campaigns of 2016 to be so effective. The policies were enacted BECAUSE of bad actors.
So I think your claim that 'it would not have happened if the shoe were on the other foot' is false -- because it did happen in a significant way, and not one favourable to your imagined 'Liberal Establishment'.
OTOH, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to enforce the terms of service as a front man for oligarchs became candidate for candidate for president became candidate for president became president became ex-president encouraging violence to stay in power. The manager of a string of chain restaraunts would have been kicked off years earlier for the same behaviour.
Non-paywalled article from same day https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/daily-crunch-twitter-new-y... says the censored article was about Hunter Bidens laptop. What is the truth about about the laptop story and why would the story have influenced the election?
Several of the emails found on the laptop make it look as though Hunter was selling influence/access to his father to foreign companies and other foreign entities. Whether or not Joe was in on it is not certain, but several of the foreign parties Hunter was working with certainly seemed to think it got them something of value.
Perhaps more controversially is the reminder that Washington Post and Twitter are just two large media organisations privately owned by billionaires. And it's no secret that Bezos and Musk are not friends.
"The website is built on sticks, it might fall apart" - if all those billions poured into engineering built a near real time messaging platform that will fall apart when a few people change hands, I'd go on a firing spree as well.
I remember full well when I was at a startup and the principal engineer pulled me aside and said: "you have been poking around everywhere and you have identified problems. I want you to stop talking about them otherwise the whole thing will fall apart".
As a leader, that is your immediate cue to silently work on transitioning that person out of the company and build cement where he put sticks.
EDIT: This whole commentary is really weird. Normally you publish this sort of information, if you feel like there is no one at the company that is willing to address such issues. But there has just been a leadership change and the leadership has hinted at wanting to address exactly these sort of issues. But assuming that the commentary is correct, to keep it private, to protect incompetent leadership and then publish it in hopes that the government steps in, to specifically NOT address these issues, is a logic that I can't really wrap my head around.
I can't stand the Washington Post or MSNBC, but the cure for bad faith is not to consult some other bad faith merchant. It's like ho you can find perfectly edible food in a supermarket dumpster, but that doesn't make the dumpster clean. If you're trying to maximize objectivity you can generally cast around for a better source. In this case the tweet framing is bullshit and the video has little evidentiary value other than feeding confirmation bias.
Except that Bezos has been very publicly trying to establish a firewall between him and the Post. Editors wrote about their independence after the acquisition, etc.
It is very difficult to believe Bezos' personal political beliefs would have zero impact on the content WaPo chooses to publish or promote and who they choose to hire.
It may not be overt, but what they choose to publish is just as powerful as what they choose not to publish, and there have been some very high profile stories that were deliberately not published in the WaPo.
I don't see why. The biggest news story you can find about Bezos being involved in the Post is when he personally delivered a birthday president to the executive editor when he turned 65.
Meanwhile, the Columbia Review of Journalism (a well-respected academic source) reported in 2021 that the Post is uninfluenced by Bezos. They point out the many negative articles about Amazon and otherwise against Bezos's interests.
Bezos doesn't have to call the editor to exert influence, or give input on every hire.
It's a Bezos company now, and just like all the other Bezos companies, it will consider it's owner's desired outcome before taking action.
Just flip the idea on it's head - would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow? Probably not... he might actually pick up a phone then but I digress.
The influence is implicit and persistent. There is no reason to own a newspaper other than influence. It's been that way probably forever...
> There is no reason to own a newspaper other than influence.
Actually, again, academic analysis suggest there are two primary reasons rich people buy media outlets. One is for influence (like Murdock) and the other is for prestige (like they would buy a Van Gogh or a wing at the ballet).
> would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow?
Probably not. Those are far lower in prestige. In much the same way that people donating to an opera company would be upset if they primarily decided to use their venue for open-mic nights.
It's the reason Benjamin Franklin founded and ran various newspapers, including America's first German-language newspaper. He was trying to drum up support for the Revolution.
I'm not looking to make this a political thing. It should suffice to say all media organizations are political and have an angle for every story they report or don't report. The language chosen, how the story is framed, how opposing opinions are presented, etc. It all shapes the story.
Even the fabled NPR has a pretty extreme political view they want you to accept. The WaPo is not different, and Bezos (and people like Bezos) only buy media organizations for the influence they provide.
In a sense, the fact that we're debating whether Bezos's personal beliefs influenced The Washington Post or not is already a point in favor of Bezos. If he was like Musk, we'd be instead arguing "When Bezos ordered The Washington Post to run a full-page announcement titled 'If you unsubscribe from The Washington Post you are racist,' was Bezos out of line?"
You might approve of what Musk is doing, but he's still actively doing things. Bezos seems to want the Post to win awards so he can put it in his trophy case.
That is very possibly true. And it would not be inconsistent with employees at WaPo second-guessing themselves when reporting on certain matters. Maybe not even a majority of employees. Maybe not consciously. But every time they have to put that disclaimer in an article, they're reminded that they better bloody not get something wrong.
There doesn't have to be any editorial edict. The unspoken obvious reality is that no Washington Post reporter is ever going to be as brazen and quick to print on an article about Bezos or Amazon as they are about Musk or Twitter or Tesla. That's bias. That's ownership affecting the product.
Who really cares. The top number of mDAUs on twitter in the US is 41 million, and 42% of that are people 18 to 29 who are not super likely to vote in general. Somewhere north of 6% of active users are too young to vote. The most active twitter users are journalists, a few writers, activists, and celebrities. Twitter also isn't really a place where regular people go for election information.
Twitter has a large off platform impact though. It's where information starts and/or spreads and eventually hits Facebook, less mainstream news sources, and in real life conversations.
Twitter embedding made short statements look like quotes from larger speeches. It was interesting to see “A tweeted X and B tweeted Y” journalism for the first time.
IDK maybe care bc Twitter is used by politicians of all stripes to whip up their most rabid fans into violent mobs, and by state-sponsored disinformation outfits to throw fuel on the fire?
So they do that on twitter though? To clarify, in the US this seems to mostly happen at in person rallies advertised on Facebook and radio. In other countries WhatsApp seems to be the tool most favored for organizing angry right populists.
Twitter just doesn’t seem to be used that way. It’s mostly just hot takes, flaming, journalists arguing, and occasionally people mobbing to try to get some random person fired from their job.
That article literally says that the organization happened on facebook and only referred to that tweet. But that is cherrypicking, the rally had already been organized and was being advertised on all channels. We know for a fact that these groups primarily operate on Facebook. They could just as easily posted a short video of the man saying something similar. Twitter is incidental here.
I'm not trying to say, fix Twitter and everything is fixed. But I take issue with the argument that it doesn't matter bc it has a small audience relative to other networks. It has been useful to reach a certain demographic and has real-life impact.
That seems like an irresponsibly circumstantial claim. I cannot believe that a tweet caused a “surge in the crowd”. Allow me to explain my thinking.
1. Based on my reading it seems like by mid afternoon cell reception on the mall and around the capitol was spotty at best and degrading. It seems unlikely many would have seen the tweet.
2. As noted prior, we know for a fact that the few organized parts of the mod did so via Facebook and to some extent signal. Disseminating a tweet under spotty connections through a secondary network is a leap with no supporting evidence.
3. Given the previous two points if the hypothesis is correct there should have been a time delay of more than a minute or two.
4. This isn’t really how mobs work. People are going to be more attuned to the feeling of the moment and the events happening physically around them.
5. No corroborating evidence is provided.
6. Even if true, twitter was neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the mob. The claim you made up thread was that people like trump are whipping up mobs on twitter but the provided example is too many degrees removed to support such a strong claim.
I think it's very reasonable to observe the past few years of American politics and feel that words on Twitter matter and are powerful, including in heat of the moment. Thankfully / sadly depending on your point of view we don't have a counterfactual world in which we'd have had to deal with more veiled calls to violence / dog whistles to disrupt the lawful transition of power.
That seems to be the opinion of everyone regardless of political opinion: if Twitter truly didn't matter, the people who got kicked out of it wouldn't make such a big deal out of it. The fact that they do mean that they agree it's an important platform.
I'm just skeptical about the importance of twitter per se.
> if Twitter truly didn't matter, the people who got kicked out of it wouldn't make such a big deal out of it
I'm pretty sure that you can be trollish ass-hat and wrong at the same time. I think a lot of people tie up a lot of self worth in follower counts on twitter, but its illusory and probably not important. If you talk to any authors, musicians, or journalists with presences on twitter they'll all tell you that twitter doesn't drive traffic or sales its just a place to scream at people who mildly disagree with you.
I think the greatest trick that twitter ever pulled was convincing people that twitter mattered outside of twitter.
Seems to me that we will very, very quickly see why these teams were created.
Less snarkily, I appreciate that not everyone loved their work. But their work solved a particular problem, even if it created others. Now that problem is unsolved again. It will be interesting to see if a better solution to the problem appears by 2024, or if the decision is to allow that original problem to exist.
It goes without saying that the political landscape in 2012 vs now is completely different, where one party is actively working to undermine elections.
The world is a different place than it was in 2012. Imo, around 2010/2012 is when social media disinfo in politics really started taking off in an organized/concerted way from the big players.
> Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
How are you supposed to trust a team to moderate election information a-politically? It's no secret that this team had a bias, fully displaying its faults. To me, this is a reasonable move.
Plenty of things are flat out facts and those can be moderated objectively.
When do polls open? When do they close? What IDs do you need to vote? Can you register when you vote? Where are polling places? Did channel X actually call a race? Is the number of votes that voted actually the number the state offices released? Is voting day Tuesday or Wednesday?
Not everything is grey and interpretation based. I’m not looking for them to call if Biden is a good president or Herschel Walker is qualified. Just stop people from committing voter suppression (which is illegal anyway) with demonstrably false facts.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is what happened here, will result in misinformation about these basic things being used to suppress votes from being cast.
This sentiment, and this thread, is bordering on unintelligible.
Is Twitter such critical election infrastructure now that if it’s trending information is not perfect the provenance of the election is now in question?
If so, how long has Twitter been this important? Would elections function without it? How much “misinformation” is enough for the election to be suspect?
Is this concern simply limited to what’s on Twitter itself and not, ya know, out in the citizenry?
It's bad to amplify election disinformation. Its pensiveness enhances its efficacy and it doesn't need to be particularly widespread to be impactful. Georgia was decided by under 12000 votes in the 2020 presidential election.
Right.. I mean this is the same moderation team that still believes that Trump didn't win the 2020 election and posted facts saying he didn't. How can they be unbiased?
Just kidding.. people here are just upset that facts hurt their preferred candidate in 2020.
This is crazy, I know, but if you're not sure about objective facts like "when the polls are open" or "who is running for each position", the best course of action would be to consult your local elections board. If you're in the US, your local elections board almost certainly has a .gov website and multiple channels by which you can obtain this information, and it will be much more trustworthy than rather than random people on Twitter (or Facebook, or TikTok, or literally any social media channel, for that matter).
A few ways that come to mind: 1) detect accounts funded by overseas groups to interfere and spread hate, 2) display fact check warnings when sharing links to debunked conspiracy theories, 3) put checks in place to reduce harassment of elected officials and candidates.
The only surprise was how long it took them. It was clear that something like Cambridge Analytica had hacked the front page algorithm for many months leading up to the election.
/r/the_donald didn't even get banned until 2020. In 2016, Reddit was forced to change their front page algorithm after the_donald spent all summer gaming the algorithm to float multiple megathreads to the top of /r/all every day, leading to the rise of subreddits like /r/enoughtrumpspam as a way to bring attention to the issue of vote manipulation. IIRC, as a result of the algorithm change, pinned posts were no longer given special treatment by the algorithm and subreddits could no longer have more than one post on the front page at any given time. It was a rule that applied to every subreddit, but of course the_donald shrieked about censorship due to their sudden lack of ability to shove their nonsense down everyone's throats every single day.
Are you suggesting we post the personal details of the Twitter employees? I think that's a little silly. Twitter isn't censoring so much as they are moderating. There's a difference: one is a third party trying to stop two parties from communicating, and another is a third party attempting to prevent bad actors from ruining the platform. There is a difference.
If they think they’re capable, against all evidence, that they can discern truth from fiction, they should be among the most notable people on the planet.
I would urge anyone whose uses tweets as a basis for decisions on who or what to vote for, to not do so. The same is true for campaign ads on YT and other social media platforms, or on cable TV channels, or on billboards or campaign mailers.
If you're going to vote, be responsible and do a diligent background check on the candidates and measures in your district. Check their funding sources (opensecrets). Check their voting history, if they're an incumbent. See what donors and PACs they owe loyalty to. Yes, it takes a little time, and you may have to deal with Google or other search engines presenting biased results, but then at least you have some idea what you're really voting for.
However, I personally think these Congressmembers have very little real power or decision-making capability. They're lower down in the state-corporate hierarchy, with the actual Central Committee consisting of people like CEOs of the major defense contractors, investment banks and hedge funds, fossil fuel producers, technology and communications corporation, etc. The American government is essentially an oligarchic or plutocratic system, with politicians and bureaucrats acting as little more than middle managers.
Or, to put it another way: don't depend on a single channel for the majority of your information, regardless of what that channel is. If you get your information from a variety of unrelated channels, then one channel being compromised becomes much less of an issue.
All you need to know is this: The betting odds of this coming election [1] (not 538 or polls) to understand the situation on social media. Post-musk meltdown to thumping on social media about misinformation.
137 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 211 ms ] thread[1] https://twitter.com/yoyoel/status/1588657228462317568
[2] https://twitter.com/yoyoel/status/1588657230836305920
[3] https://twitter.com/yoyoel/status/1588657232279130112
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/white-house-twitter...
And companies very frequently cut 10-15%, just to shore up the bottom line, to prepare for a bad quarter. I work for a company that is FAMOUS for binge-and-purge hiring practices. They shed that every couple of years, and have for three decades.
Every time I see people advocate for less moderation its really freedom to lie through their damn teeth.
"As recently as two weeks ago, Twitter was touting the team’s debunking efforts as a key aspect of its approach to the 2022 midterms. But on Friday, multiple Twitter employees told The Washington Post the entire team appeared to have been cut amid Musk’s layoffs."
The freedom to publish statements that the establishment (aka Ministry of Truth) deems as false.
It's also called lying.
You might think it's obvious what's true and false, but if that's the case you clearly haven't done enough philosophy...
I'd rather not live in a place where absolutely nothing is real. Societies crumble under such a culture. Birds are considered real only because its not politically advantageous to believe they aren't real. What a dumb fucking value system to live under.
> In October 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election, the team added context to all trends that could be found in Twitter’s prime real estate — its “For you” and “What’s happening” boxes — on its app and website. As recently as two weeks ago, Twitter was touting the team’s debunking efforts as a key aspect of its approach to the 2022 midterms.
> But on Friday, multiple Twitter employees told The Washington Post the entire team appeared to have been cut amid Musk’s layoffs.
It's hard to know where exactly the cuts were made inside of the trust and safety org, and even how twitter is laid out internally to know whether (or how) if trust and safety intersects with departments paying attention to information ops.
anecdotally, i've seen at least a few people working in those areas laid off.
The whole point in either case is that what is being reported is accurate and verified.
I think Twitter moderation these days is pretty transparent and fact-based when they take action.
The article is making assertions based on claims made by anonymous people who claim to be Twitter employees, and that either through malice or stupidity or "telephone" style information loss, there are countless ways that this article can end up being wrong. And precisely to your earlier point, the article encourages the reader to fill in the blanks about what various departments existed, what their roles are, whether they have direct, indirect, or no effects on the material on Twitter. There is nothing accurate nor verified about any of that.
It's all intentionally hazy, and contributes to the article's overt desire to push a specific narrative rather than provide clarity.
Do I trust a twitter figurehead, who clearly has tweeted this for Elon's sake, more than a journalistic enterprise? No, actually. I think there's a lot to read between the lines. My questions actually came FROM the twitter thread. The article filled in more holes that the twitter thread left open.
1. Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect[1]
2. Ligma Johnson[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
[2] https://www.wionews.com/world/ligma-johnson-two-pranksters-p...
> Most of the 2,000+ content moderators working on front-line review were not impacted, and access will be fully restored in the coming days.
An implication here is that engineering was hit that much harder.
(Assuming that "most of" doesn't mean "50% + 1")
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-yo...
“The best approach” is to throw your employees under the bus and personally shame them in public on a matter that could very legitimately put themselves and their families at risk?
Get real.
Yes, they changed their https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materi... according to https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked...
Changes newly allowing things should almost always be retroactive.
> With just a few weeks to go before the Nov. 3 vote, […] Twitter underlined just how fluid its policies were when it began letting users share links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article about Hunter Biden that it had previously blocked from its service.
This link literally says the opposite of what you are saying.
They allowed the article to be shared a few weeks before the election. They kept the NY Post account banned until October 31st. 1 week before the election.[1]
This was meaningful censorship of a right-leaning news organization. It would not have happened were the shoe on the other foot at a liberal bastion like Twitter.
The solution to the problem is to greatly pare back the type of moderation allowed by the platform. Elon seems to be implementing this.[2]
1. https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-unblocks-new-y...
2. https://nypost.com/2022/04/26/elon-musk-says-suspending-ny-p...
I think Twitter made the wrong call but it’s not like this was the Pentagon Papers or the Lewinsky story.
Imagine the outrage if Elon tomorrow decided to suspend one of these news orgs, even with only a few days to go before the election. Compare that to the crickets we hear about the NY Post.
If there’s a left wing analog to NYPost, I can definitely imagine an article getting deboosted or banned under similar conditions.
Prior to that Twitter had never taken such action against a news outlet.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/30/twitter-n...
It honestly takes a lot of belief in fantasy to think an entity capable of hacking multiple 2FA services, major corporations and multiple governments, did so and planted evidence on a laptop. Then gave that laptop away on the hope that the shop owner would discover it and give it to the news.
It seems far more likely that the incestuous child molester who filters millions of dollars in bribes annually dropped off one of his connected laptops then forgot about it and failed to pay because he has abused cocaine for 3+ decades.
So I think your claim that 'it would not have happened if the shoe were on the other foot' is false -- because it did happen in a significant way, and not one favourable to your imagined 'Liberal Establishment'.
Wiki has a well-cited article on the topic that's probably worth your attention: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_... -- specifically the social media section.
Several of the emails found on the laptop make it look as though Hunter was selling influence/access to his father to foreign companies and other foreign entities. Whether or not Joe was in on it is not certain, but several of the foreign parties Hunter was working with certainly seemed to think it got them something of value.
Update to my comment. Found it: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1588572920066240512 (Cernovich can have bad faith takes, but the video speaks for itself)
I remember full well when I was at a startup and the principal engineer pulled me aside and said: "you have been poking around everywhere and you have identified problems. I want you to stop talking about them otherwise the whole thing will fall apart".
As a leader, that is your immediate cue to silently work on transitioning that person out of the company and build cement where he put sticks.
EDIT: This whole commentary is really weird. Normally you publish this sort of information, if you feel like there is no one at the company that is willing to address such issues. But there has just been a leadership change and the leadership has hinted at wanting to address exactly these sort of issues. But assuming that the commentary is correct, to keep it private, to protect incompetent leadership and then publish it in hopes that the government steps in, to specifically NOT address these issues, is a logic that I can't really wrap my head around.
I can't stand the Washington Post or MSNBC, but the cure for bad faith is not to consult some other bad faith merchant. It's like ho you can find perfectly edible food in a supermarket dumpster, but that doesn't make the dumpster clean. If you're trying to maximize objectivity you can generally cast around for a better source. In this case the tweet framing is bullshit and the video has little evidentiary value other than feeding confirmation bias.
Musk is doing very much the opposite.
It may not be overt, but what they choose to publish is just as powerful as what they choose not to publish, and there have been some very high profile stories that were deliberately not published in the WaPo.
Meanwhile, the Columbia Review of Journalism (a well-respected academic source) reported in 2021 that the Post is uninfluenced by Bezos. They point out the many negative articles about Amazon and otherwise against Bezos's interests.
It's a Bezos company now, and just like all the other Bezos companies, it will consider it's owner's desired outcome before taking action.
Just flip the idea on it's head - would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow? Probably not... he might actually pick up a phone then but I digress.
The influence is implicit and persistent. There is no reason to own a newspaper other than influence. It's been that way probably forever...
Actually, again, academic analysis suggest there are two primary reasons rich people buy media outlets. One is for influence (like Murdock) and the other is for prestige (like they would buy a Van Gogh or a wing at the ballet).
> would Bezos be happy if WaPo suddenly became a right-leaning publication tomorrow?
Probably not. Those are far lower in prestige. In much the same way that people donating to an opera company would be upset if they primarily decided to use their venue for open-mic nights.
It's the reason Benjamin Franklin founded and ran various newspapers, including America's first German-language newspaper. He was trying to drum up support for the Revolution.
What stories are you thinking of here?
Even the fabled NPR has a pretty extreme political view they want you to accept. The WaPo is not different, and Bezos (and people like Bezos) only buy media organizations for the influence they provide.
There doesn't have to be any editorial edict. The unspoken obvious reality is that no Washington Post reporter is ever going to be as brazen and quick to print on an article about Bezos or Amazon as they are about Musk or Twitter or Tesla. That's bias. That's ownership affecting the product.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Atlantic-Monthly
Twitter just doesn’t seem to be used that way. It’s mostly just hot takes, flaming, journalists arguing, and occasionally people mobbing to try to get some random person fired from their job.
I'm not trying to say, fix Twitter and everything is fixed. But I take issue with the argument that it doesn't matter bc it has a small audience relative to other networks. It has been useful to reach a certain demographic and has real-life impact.
1. Based on my reading it seems like by mid afternoon cell reception on the mall and around the capitol was spotty at best and degrading. It seems unlikely many would have seen the tweet.
2. As noted prior, we know for a fact that the few organized parts of the mod did so via Facebook and to some extent signal. Disseminating a tweet under spotty connections through a secondary network is a leap with no supporting evidence.
3. Given the previous two points if the hypothesis is correct there should have been a time delay of more than a minute or two.
4. This isn’t really how mobs work. People are going to be more attuned to the feeling of the moment and the events happening physically around them.
5. No corroborating evidence is provided.
6. Even if true, twitter was neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the mob. The claim you made up thread was that people like trump are whipping up mobs on twitter but the provided example is too many degrees removed to support such a strong claim.
That seems to be the opinion of everyone regardless of political opinion: if Twitter truly didn't matter, the people who got kicked out of it wouldn't make such a big deal out of it. The fact that they do mean that they agree it's an important platform.
> if Twitter truly didn't matter, the people who got kicked out of it wouldn't make such a big deal out of it
I'm pretty sure that you can be trollish ass-hat and wrong at the same time. I think a lot of people tie up a lot of self worth in follower counts on twitter, but its illusory and probably not important. If you talk to any authors, musicians, or journalists with presences on twitter they'll all tell you that twitter doesn't drive traffic or sales its just a place to scream at people who mildly disagree with you.
I think the greatest trick that twitter ever pulled was convincing people that twitter mattered outside of twitter.
Less snarkily, I appreciate that not everyone loved their work. But their work solved a particular problem, even if it created others. Now that problem is unsolved again. It will be interesting to see if a better solution to the problem appears by 2024, or if the decision is to allow that original problem to exist.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign....
> Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
I’m still waiting for a fail whale. I was promised a whale!
When do polls open? When do they close? What IDs do you need to vote? Can you register when you vote? Where are polling places? Did channel X actually call a race? Is the number of votes that voted actually the number the state offices released? Is voting day Tuesday or Wednesday?
Not everything is grey and interpretation based. I’m not looking for them to call if Biden is a good president or Herschel Walker is qualified. Just stop people from committing voter suppression (which is illegal anyway) with demonstrably false facts.
That’s true. I don’t trust twitters moderation team to limit themselves to those facts even a teeny, tiny bit.
Is Twitter such critical election infrastructure now that if it’s trending information is not perfect the provenance of the election is now in question?
If so, how long has Twitter been this important? Would elections function without it? How much “misinformation” is enough for the election to be suspect?
Is this concern simply limited to what’s on Twitter itself and not, ya know, out in the citizenry?
Just kidding.. people here are just upset that facts hurt their preferred candidate in 2020.
If you're going to vote, be responsible and do a diligent background check on the candidates and measures in your district. Check their funding sources (opensecrets). Check their voting history, if they're an incumbent. See what donors and PACs they owe loyalty to. Yes, it takes a little time, and you may have to deal with Google or other search engines presenting biased results, but then at least you have some idea what you're really voting for.
However, I personally think these Congressmembers have very little real power or decision-making capability. They're lower down in the state-corporate hierarchy, with the actual Central Committee consisting of people like CEOs of the major defense contractors, investment banks and hedge funds, fossil fuel producers, technology and communications corporation, etc. The American government is essentially an oligarchic or plutocratic system, with politicians and bureaucrats acting as little more than middle managers.
Without this team who will suppress “disinformation” right before an election that later turns out to be true?
We can’t have this!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/31/hunter-bi...
[1] https://www.predictit.org/