Mehdi Hasan Dismantles The Entire Foundation Of The Twitter Files As Matt Taibbi Stumbles To Defend It
from the i'd-like-to-report-a-murder dept
So here’s the deal. If you think the Twitter Files are still something legit or telling or powerful, watch this 30 minute interview that Mehdi Hasan did with Matt Taibbi (at Taibbi’s own demand):
Hasan came prepared with facts. Lots of them. Many of which debunked the core foundation on which Taibbi and his many fans have built the narrative regarding the Twitter Files.
We’ve debunked many of Matt’s errors over the past few months, and a few of the errors we’ve called out (though not nearly all, as there are so, so many) show up in Hasan’s interview, while Taibbi shrugs, sighs, and makes it clear he’s totally out of his depth when confronted with facts.
Since the interview, Taibbi has been scrambling to claim that the errors Hasan called out are small side issues, but they’re not. They’re literally the core pieces on which he’s built the nonsense framing that Stanford, the University of Washington, some non-profits, the government, and social media have formed an “industrial censorship complex” to stifle the speech of Americans.
As we keep showing, Matt makes very sloppy errors at every turn, doesn’t understand the stuff he has found, and is confused about some fairly basic concepts.
The errors that Hasan highlights matter a lot. A key one is Taibbi’s claim that the Election Integrity Partnership flagged 22 million tweets for Twitter to take down in partnership with the government. This is flat out wrong. The EIP, which was focused on studying election interference, flagged less than 3,000 tweets for Twitter to review (2,890 to be exact).
And they were quite clear in their report on how all this worked. EIP was an academic project to track election interference information and how it flowed across social media. The 22 million figure shows up in the report, but it was just a count of how many tweets they tracked in trying to follow how this information spread, not seeking to remove it. And the vast majority of those tweets weren’t even related to the ones they did explicitly create tickets on.
In total, our incident-related tweet data included 5,888,771 tweets and retweets from ticket status IDs directly, 1,094,115 tweets and retweets collected first from ticket URLs, and 14,914,478 from keyword searches, for a total of 21,897,364 tweets.
Tracking how information spreads is… um… not a problem now is it? Is Taibbi really claiming that academics shouldn’t track the flow of information?
Either way, Taibbi overstated the number of tweets that EIP reported by 21,894,474 tweets. In percentage terms, the actual number of reported tweets was 0.013% of the number Taibbi claimed.
Okay, you say, but STILL, if the government is flagging even 2,890 tweets, that’s still a problem! And it would be if it was the government flagging those tweets. But it’s not. As the report details, basically all of the tickets in the system were created by non-government entities, mainly from the EIP members themselves (Stanford, University of Washington, Graphika, and Digital Forensics Lab).
This is where the second big error that Taibbi makes knocks down a key pillar of his argument. Hasan notes that Taibbi falsely turned the non-profit Center for Internet Security (CIS) into the government agency the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Taibbi did this by assuming that when someone at Twitter noted information came from CIS, they must have meant CISA, and therefore he appended the A in brackets as if he was correcting a typo:
Taibbi admits that this was a mistake and has now tweeted a correction (though this point was identified weeks ago, and he claims he only just learned about it). I’ve seen Taibbi and his defenders claim that this is no big deal, that he just “messed up an acronym.” But, uh, no. Having CISA report tweets to Twitter was a key linchpin in the argument that the government was sending tweets for Twitter to remove. But it wasn’t the government, it was an independent non-profit.
The thing is, this mistake also suggests that Taibbi never even bothered to read the EIP report on all of this, which lays out extremely clearly where the flagged tweets came from, noting that CIS (which was not an actual part of the EIP) sent in 16% of the total flagged tweets. It even pretty clearly describes what those tweets were:
Compared to the dataset as a whole, the CIS tickets were (1) more likely to raise reports about fake official election accounts (CIS raised half of the tickets on this topic), (2) more likely to create tickets about Washington, Connecticut, and Ohio, and (3) more likely to raise reports that were about how to vote and the ballot counting process—CIS raised 42% of the tickets that claimed there were issues about ballots being rejected. CIS also raised four of our nine tickets about phishing. The attacks CIS reported used a combination of mass texts, emails, and spoofed websites to try to obtain personal information about voters, including addresses and Social Security numbers. Three of the four impersonated election official accounts, including one fake Kentucky election website that promoted a narrative that votes had been lost by asking voters to share personal information and anecdotes about why their vote was not counted. Another ticket CIS reported included a phishing email impersonating the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) that was sent to Arizona voters with a link to a spoofed Arizona voting website. There, it asked voters for personal information including their name, birthdate, address, Social Security number, and driver’s license number.
In other words, CIS was raising pretty legitimate issues: people impersonating election officials, and phishing pages. This wasn’t about “misinformation.” These were seriously problematic tweets.
There is one part that perhaps deserves some more scrutiny regarding government organizations, as the report does say that a tiny percentage of reports came from the GEC, which is a part of the State Department, but the report suggests that this was probably less than 1% of the flags. 79% of the flags came from the four organizations in the partnership (not government). Another 16% came from CIS (contrary to Taibbi’s original claim, not government). That leaves 5%, which came from six different organizations, mostly non-profits. Though it does list the GEC as one of the six organizations. But the GEC is literally focused entirely on countering (not deleting) foreign state propaganda aimed at destabilizing the US. So, it’s not surprising that they might call out a few tweets to the EIP researchers.
Okay, okay, you say, but even so this is still problematic. It was still, as a Taibbi retweet suggests, these organizations who are somehow close to the government trying to silence narratives. And, again, that would be bad if true. But, that’s not what the information actually shows. First off, we already discussed how some of what they targeted was just out and out fraud.
But, more importantly, regarding the small number of tweets that EIP did report to Twitter… it never suggested what Twitter should do about them, and Twitter left the vast majority of them up. The entire purpose of the EIP program, as laid out in everything that the EIP team has made clear from before, during, and after the election, was just to be another set of eyes looking out for emerging trends and documenting how information flows. In the rare cases (again less than 1%) where things looked especially problematic (phishing attempts, impersonation) they might alert the company, but made no effort to tell Twitter how to handle them. And, as the report itself makes clear, Twitter left up the vast majority of them:
We find, overall, that platforms took action on 35% of URLs that we reported to them. 21% of URLs were labeled, 13% were removed, and 1% were soft blocked. No action was taken on 65%. TikTok had the highest action rate: actioning (in their case, their only action was removing) 64% of URLs that the EIP reported to their team.)
They don’t break it out by platform, but across all platforms no action was taken on 65% of the reported content. And considering that TikTok seemed quite aggressive in removing 64% of flagged content, that means that all of the other platforms, including Twitter, took action on way less than 35% of the flagged content. And then, even within the “took action” category, the main action taken was labeling.
In other words, the top two main results of EIP flagging this content were:
- Nothing
- Adding more speech
The report also notes that the category of content that was most likely to get removed was the out and out fraud stuff: “phishing content and fake official accounts.” And given that TikTok appears to have accounted for a huge percentage of the “removals” this means that Twitter removed significantly less than 13% of the tweets that EIP flagged for them. So not only is it not 22 million tweets, it’s that EIP flagged less than 3,000 tweets, and Twitter ignored most of them and removed probably less than 10% of them.
When looked at in this context, basically the entire narrative that Taibbi is pushing melts away.
The EIP is not part of the “industrial censorship complex.” It’s a mostly academic group that was tracking how information flows across social media, which is a legitimate area of study. During the election they did exactly that. In the tiny percentage of cases where they saw stuff they thought was pretty worrisome, they’d simply alert the platforms with no push for the platforms to take any action, and (indeed) in most cases the platforms took no action whatsoever. In a few cases, they added more speech.
In a tiny, tiny percentage of the already tiny percentage, when the situation was most extreme (phishing, fake official accounts) then the platforms (entirely on their own) decided to pull down that content. For good reason.
That’s not “censorship.” There’s no “complex.” Taibbi’s entire narrative turns to dust.
There’s a lot more that Taibbi gets wrong in all of this, but the points that Hasan got him to admit he was wrong about are literally core pieces in the underlying foundation of his entire argument.
At one point in the interview, Hasan also does a nice job pointing out that the posts that the Biden campaign (note: not the government) flagged to Twitter were of Hunter Biden’s dick pics, not anything political (we’ve discussed this point before) and Taibbi stammers some more and claims that “the ordinary person can’t just call up Twitter and have something taken off Twitter. If you put something nasty about me on Twitter, I can’t just call up Twitter…”
Except… that’s wrong. In multiple ways. First off, it’s not just “something nasty.” It’s literally non-consensual nude photos. Second, actually, given Taibbi’s close relationship with Twitter these days, uh, yeah, he almost certainly could just call them up. But, most importantly, the claim about “the ordinary” person not being able to have non-consensual nude images taken off the site? That’s wrong.
You can. There’s a form for it right here. And I’ll admit that I’m not sure how well staffed Twitter’s trust & safety team is to handle those reports today, but it definitely used to have a team of people who would review those reports and take down non-consensual nude photos, just as they did with the Hunter Biden images.
As Hasan notes, Taibbi left out this crucial context to make his claims seem way more damning than they were. Taibbi’s response is… bizarre. Hasan asks him if he knew that the URLs were nudes of Hunter Biden and Taibbi admits that “of course” he did, but when Hasan asks him why he didn’t tell people that, Taibbi says “because I didn’t need to!”
Except, yeah, you kinda do. It’s vital context. Without it, the original Twitter Files thread implied that the Biden campaign (again, not the government) was trying to suppress political content or embarrassing content that would harm the campaign. The context that it’s Hunter’s dick pics is totally relevant and essential to understanding the story.
And this is exactly what the rest of Hasan’s interview (and what I’ve described above) lays out in great detail: Taibbi isn’t just sloppy with facts, which is problematic enough. He leaves out the very important context that highlights how the big conspiracy he’s reporting is… not big, not a conspiracy, and not even remotely problematic.
He presents it as a massive censorship operation, targeting 22 million tweets, with takedown demands from government players, seeking to silence the American public. When you look through the details, correcting Taibbi’s many errors, and putting it in context, you see that it was an academic operation to study information flows, who sent the more blatant issues they came across to Twitter with no suggestion that they do anything about them, and the vast majority of which Twitter ignored. In some minority of cases, Twitter applied its own speech to add more context to some of the tweets, and in a very small number of cases, where it found phishing attempts or people impersonating election officials (clear terms of service violations, and potentially actual crimes), it removed them.
There remains no there there. It’s less than a Potemkin village. There isn’t even a façade. This is the Emperor’s New Clothes for a modern era. Taibbi is pointing to a naked emperor and insisting that he’s clothed in all sorts of royal finery, whereas anyone who actually looks at the emperor sees he’s naked.
Filed Under: censorship, content moderation, eip, elections, matt taibbi, mehdi hasan, twitter files
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Mehdi Hasan Dismantles The Entire Foundation Of The Twitter Files As Matt Taibbi Stumbles To Defend It”
Remember: Don't feed the trolls...
Because this post is about Twitter, cue M. Bennett trolling in 3… 2… 1…
Re:
Prediction: He’ll continue to cite the non-proof he already has mentioned and simply double down because he’s incapable of admitting he’s been wrong about anything. Bonus points if he decides to go the conspiracy theory route and accuse CIS of getting it’s orders from the government.
Re: Re:
Yep, just like everyone else who buys into the conspiracy theory explanation for everything, he’s too invested to back out now.
He’s going to ride this right up to Musk unloading Twitter at a loss.
Re: Re: Re:
I now have a certain image from Dr. Strangelove in my head.
Re: Re: Re:2
I apologize for that, especially if it’s unpleasant.
Yee-haw!
Re: Re: Re:3
No problems here; it’s hilarious in this context. 😁
Re: Re: Re:2
You can’t just post links to TV Tropes without a warning. It’ll ruin your life, y’know.
😉
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
CIS is literally funded by DoD and DHS. You can google this in about 7 seconds.
Re: Re: Re:
So?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: MSNBC - The Leader in Conspiracy Theories
Of course Mehdi and his masters at MSNBC are pissed. Taibbi helped expose their fraud over Russiagate and now we know Mehdi and Maddow were two of the largest frauds behind it.
As for aptly named Anonymous Coward who is dominant on this sad little political blog posing as tech blog, yes I DO expect MSNBC to double down. That’s what partisan censorious corporate propagandists do. That’s the reason they exist at all.
Matt’s going to keep doing it until he and the people he hired as researchers and reviewers exhausts the data set he already has which may take a while. I guess the well known big tech biases and donations towards team blue is new to you but of course dismissing that as a “conspiracy theory” is a cheap and easy way to obfuscate that. Weak but common. And before you even start, I’m not team read. Still a Dem after 50 years. Maybe it’s time to re-think that if this is what Dems have become.
Sure would be cool if Anonymous Coward worked for them, too or was just named Mike.
Re: Re: Re:
Russiagate was so fraudulent that Manafort admitted giving sensitive campaign data to an agent of the Russian government…
Re: Re: Re:2
The campaign data was in the public domain.
Re: Re: Re:3
What a curious statement.
One that begs the question as to why they would go to Manafort to bring it to them, if it was ‘public.’.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Public domain” doesn’t mean “publicly known” or “available to the public”. “Public domain” just means that it can be published, copied, or derived from freely without infringing on copyright law, specifically, or having to resort to defenses like “fair use” or “no copyrightable elements/material were used” to disprove infringement. “Sensitive”, “confidential”, “secret”, “top secret”, or “classified” information (along with “trade secrets”) can be in the public domain without making the leaking of such info completely lawful, not a breach of privacy, confidentiality, or contract, or harmless. Indeed, pretty much all the government-created documents and information declared some variant of “classified” under the law is in the public domain by virtue of being a work product of the government (which is automatically considered to be in the public domain).
Even if the campaign data was in the public domain (which it probably wasn’t because I’m not sure it would even be covered by copyright to begin with, being just a bunch of factual data with little to no creativity being involved, and the public domain only covers things with that baseline creativity and originality necessary for it to be theoretically copyrightable if not for it being in the public domain, and if it was copyrightable, it likely wouldn’t be in the public domain because it was not a government work product and was created too recently for the copyright to expire), that doesn’t help Manafort’s case at all. A lack of copyright protection for the campaign data has nothing to do with what he’s accused of.
Assuming you meant “freely available to/known by the public” rather than “in the public domain” (which is at least coherent and relevant), why, then, would Russian agents have to go to Manafort for the campaign data in the first place? And why would Manafort hide it and lie about it?
Re: Re: Re:
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
You… do realize that “Anonymous Coward” is the default name for anyone posting anonymously here, right? Like, if you post while not logged in and don’t enter a name to post under, the site defaults the name to “Anonymous Coward”. You could be talking about quite a few people, and outside a few cases, we’d have no way of knowing which one you’re referring to (assuming you are referring to a specific AC and not erroneously assuming that all posts under the name “Anonymous Coward” were posted by the same person).
“Double down” on what, exactly? Russiagate? Much of it hasn’t exactly been falsified, so “double down” isn’t the right term to begin with, but they also haven’t really talked that much about it in a long time from what I can tell. If that’s your prediction, it appears to have been falsified. If you mean this stuff about Twitter, again, there is nothing that falsifies their coverage, so nothing to double down on.
“Keep doing” what, exactly? There’s no obvious antecedent for the pronoun “it”, and this entire sentence appears disconnected from what is immediately before and after it. I can only guess either reporting or researching based on the rest of the sentence and my knowledge of Matt Taibbi’s occupation, but I’m not sure which or even if my guess is correct to begin with.
I’m sorry, but without evidence that those biases have had any actual, measurable effect on the results, it’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory, undemonstrated assertions, and/or irrelevant data.
For the record, the Democratic Party is incredibly diverse in terms of political viewpoints, particularly compared to many other political parties. A lot of this comes from the fact that we basically have a two-party system and the Republican Party has been drifting so far to the right that the Democratic Party basically has had to include moderate centrists, extreme centrists, left-leaning centrists, right-leaning centrists, moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, more left-leaning liberals, far-left liberals, socialists, communists, and so on. It’s pretty much impossible to take the actions of a subset of Democrats and use them to draw conclusions on the entirety of the party.
Well, they aren’t Mike Masnick, but since I’m still not sure you’re even talking about a singular, specific AC rather than a group who you erroneously believe to be the same person, I can’t conclude much else about them.
Also, you really need to stop using pronouns with ambiguous antecedents. Who does “them” refer to? The Democratic Party? Big Tech companies? Donors for the Democratic Party? MSNBC? Like, the position of the sentence suggests the Democratic Party, but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense given the theme, which would suggest either Big Tech or donors, but it’s not all that clear.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Actually, you know what? I think you guys have earned it this time. I ate a big lunch so I’m taking the afternoon off. Have a nice Friday evening, Techdirters.
Re: Re:
You know what? I hope you have a pleasant evening as well, and a restful weekend.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks. It takes a lot of energy to epically pwn the libs.
Re: Re: Re:2
It does consume a lot of gas to gaslight.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, it doesn’t~.
Re: Re: Re:4
It does, when you are speaking through your arse.
Re: Re: Re:2
I look forwards to the day you finally manage that feat.
Re: Re: Re:
A reminder: Matthew N Bennett is a parody account of Matthew M Bennett.
That’s not the real Matthew.
And why someone thinks it’s a good idea to parody a troll, increasing the amount of trollish discussion here is beyond me. I wish everyone would stop.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I am the real Matthew. Matthew M Bennett is a bad faith troll who is attempting to libel me by associating my name with troll comments. I am currently subpoenaing all service providers that the troll uses in order to find out his real identity to bring him to justice in a proper court of law.
Re: Re: Re:2
For one, because it’s funny as fuck. For two, the same people who get ensnared by troll arguments are also the ones who get fooled by parodies. Make it sound like a troll is saying something completely ridiculous, you weed out more people from following them. The more is done to ensure that the only people who follow trolls are completely brain-dead, the better.
Re: Re:
Elmo’s still not gonna touch it.
Re:
At this point, and per HIS admission, it is a harassment campaign.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: CIS and its “independence”
Why did the author conveniently leave out that the totally independent and harmless nonprofit CIS actually gets its funding from DOD and DHS?
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-internet-security/
Seems to undermine his claim that “ Having CISA report tweets to Twitter was a key linchpin in the argument that the government was sending tweets for Twitter to remove. But it wasn’t the government, it was an independent non-profit.” If the non-profit is funded by the government.
Do these people think we are too dumb to google who finds these “independent non-profits”?
Re: Re:
You’re seriously thinking the US Government is capable of doing ANYTHING?
At least, not without generous political “donations” to their campaign funds, at least.
Re: Re: who are you?
Are you this John Gilligan?
https://www.cisecurity.org/about-us/leadership/john-m-gilligan
It's not censorship
The Government flagging posts thar may have issues for a Private company to review, and make their decision is not censorship, nor an issue. A government telling the private company to take something down is a problem.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
The government hired people to do their work in order to not get in conflict with first amendment. It’s obvious at this point. Sometimes the pressure that was put on them was even blatantly visible from the messages https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607383214452080647/photo/1
Re: Re:
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Oh, and before you point to your link as an example, that indicates, at most, government coercion, which is not the same as hiring someone else to do the work for them. And even that isn’t demonstrated. According to the messages, Twitter was able to explain the lack of action against Berenson to the satisfaction of the government and believed the government to be fair. That’s not the same thing as coercion, where there would be an “or else” stated or heavily and clearly implied (beyond simply “it’s the government asking”). Calling them “tough questions” appears to be more of a “difficult to answer” thing than a “putting pressure to act” thing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This appears to be
the stage of grieving in which the bereaved still has not accepted their loss and instead goes on long and extremely detailed explanations of why Elvis can’t possibly be dead.
Been there, done this. Time to step back and reappraise. Change IS going to come because Americans are not good Germans and too much is being done without consent or legal authority.
Enabling Deep State black shirts as the price for defeating Trump’s brown shirts is not a winning strategy for anyone but the shirts running this country.
Re:
Sir, this is the Culver’s drive-through.
Re:
I like it when people go on pompous speeches about lofty principles like this because it is an admission of defeat. Since there is no actual refutation of the argument presented, they have to fall back on a rhetorical non-sequitur in order to avoid conceding the point.
Re: Re:
Is your comment self-aware irony?
Re: Re: Re:
No it isn’t. If the comment doesn’t present an argument then there is no need to engage with the argument that isn’t there.
Re:
Don’t vote for brown shirts in the primaries. Don’t vote for black shirts in the primaries.
I’m going to vote for exposed six-packs.
There’s one major thing though that people need to be aware of in this too:
Conservative talking heads like Taibbi don’t care how often or thoroughly they’re debunked. They will keep straight up lying and there are far too many rubes who simply want to believe the lies for them to ever stop.
Re:
Lying from the GQP has become very profitable. Look how much money the orange turd king managed to snatch from his rubes by lying about the election.
Re: Re:
Politicians of all stripes run a grift to some degree. But modern-day Republicans run grifts to extraordinary degrees because they don’t have any actual policies other than “Democrats winning is a crime against humanity” and “we must own the libs at all costs”. Trump only ever taught them to stop feeling shame for doing it.
Re:
That, and at this point, I think it is safe to say that their goal is to harass anyone who doesn’t fall in line if they aren’t part of the choir already.
Taibbi and the kings of wishful thinking
1 Conservatives wanted to plaster Hunter Biden’s stolen dickpics all over social media,
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
You are still stuck at first batch of Twitter files, lol. And you are also misrepresenting that batch.
Clearly, you don’t have any sincere motivations here other than cheering for the security state.
Re: Re:
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
Re: Re:
No, we’re talking about others as well. This is just about the first batch because someone else brought it up.
It’s a nice thought, but I’m afraid the Venn diagram of people who believe the Twitter Files and people who change their beliefs based on evidence is two circles.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Even one tweet or post ‘flagged’ by any government official for deletion is too much.
Re:
This is a reminder that Twitter regularly refused to take action against individual tweets and entire accounts that were flagged by government institutions as potential TOS violators—a fact that was itself confirmed by the “Twitter Files”.
Re:
Not even fraud? Impersonation of an official account? The gov’t is not allowed to even ask that it be removed, who the site owner is free to ignore? That’s an absolutist stance that isn’t law and also makes no sense.
Re: Re:
It gets even funnier if you consider the extension of their argument. If the government isn’t allowed to tell social media that they have an account impersonating a government official, imagine the pure chaos that would ensue.
The simple fact is that social media and others are obligated to take down such content when the government tells them because of two federal laws that specifically deals with impersonating a government official or an election official, 18 U.S.C. 913 and 52 U.S. Code § 20511 (and probably other laws). And as we know, Section 230(e)(1) and 230(e)(3) explains why social media et al can’t refuse these takedowns.
Re:
Eh, honestly, I don’t have as much of a problem as long as it goes through the same review process as any other report. (Which, given how rarely Twitter acted on the flagging, it honestly sounds like it did.)
Re:
Absolutes can be tricky, you might want to be careful
Ah. see, I could accept your framing and discuss cases where such an absolute was invalid, but you’ve helpfully not understood the assignment, so I can simply point out we are thankfully discussing flagging tweets for review, not deletion. so its not even on topic.
Re: Re:
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Re: Re:
“Even one tweet or post ‘flagged’ by any government official”
You can measure the inadequacies of our house trolls’ arguments by the miniscule figleaf they clutch against them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No, he really didn't need to.
No, this is pure gaslighting FUD. He really didn’t need to. The point of the leaks was all the evidence of bribery and corruption. The pics of Hunter doing drugs and hookers while salacious, was useful for confirmation that it was his.
And legally, those pics weren’t Hunter’s anymore. There was nothing wrong with revealing them. You lying partisan hack.
Re:
Folks, never let anyone say that our trolls oppose revenge porn, for here is one who openly supports revenge porn in the context of “owning the libs”.
Re:
So you think Twitter’s policy, still supported by Musk, against sharing of non-consensual naked pictures (i.e., revenge porn) is a bad policy?
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/intimate-media
Re:
Why are you so obsessed with other people’s genitalia?
Re:
There was nothing wrong with revealing them.
OK groomer.
Beautiful!
While Hasan had a few points that I don’t think we’re relevant, watching him bring up the tweet where Taibi offered to come on the show to talk about the question he was refusing to ask was . . . chef’s kiss on an otherwise lousy week.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Hasan is a snake
It’s so obvious that Hasan was not even slightly interested in letting Taibbi properly field his questions. He just wanted to embarrass him. So, yes, he apparently found a few reporting mistakes which, given all the factual assertions in the multiple Twitter files and their inherently confusing provenance at times (like who IS that “OGA” if not the CIA?), is understandable. Taibbi isn’t perfect.
But he’s also not dishonest and that’s where Hasan failed big time. In trying to impugn Taibbi’s character, he just came across as the typical MSNBC hack he’s always been.
So funny, by the way, for him to sluff off the Russian disinformation campaign or the Biden laptop stories as not his problems. He also says he’s never discussed the latter but here’s a clip where he’s doing just that:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/12/02/mehdi_hasan_house_republicans_will_focus_on_right_wing_grievances_not_kitchen_table_issues.html
It’s too bad that he never let Taibbi, who isn’t a fast-talker like him, ever properly explain himself. That wasn’t the goal, was it?
Re:
BAAAAAAAAAHhahahahahahahaha
Re:
If he wants people to think he’s a credible journalist, making the kind of mistakes he made—mistakes that a journalist of good repute would avoid trying to make in the first place—isn’t helping his cause.
That it took him so long to make his correction on the CIS/CISA issue suggests otherwise.
Taibbi shouldn’t need to be a “fast talker” to properly defend himself and his work.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
What exactly is the difference if it’s an official government CISA making the request or a government funded CIS “independent nonprofit” making the request?
Do you people not notice the pattern of filtering propaganda through benign sounding “nonprofits” all of whom are funding by the government? Have you ever heard of a “shell company” in your life?
How did our esteemed author fail to mention that this “independent nonprofit” is funded by the Dod and DHS?
Do these people think we can’t spend 5 seconds googling the funding sources?
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, buddy, right after you admit that the Republicans have done it forever and a day ago.
Re: Re: Re:
That might be a problem if Twitter had acted on all that “propaganda” in every instance with the most severe punishments it could hand down. But as the “Twitter Files” themselves have made clear, Twitter didn’t do that. Whether CIS is truly “independent” is kind of irrelevant when Twitter refused to act on all of the CIS suggestions (and ostensibly refused to hand down suspensions/bans for every case it did act on).
Re:
Even if they’re understandable mistakes, they were also crucial to the narrative he’s trying to convey. On top of that, changing “CIS” to “CISS” is irresponsible.
Assuming “OGA” means “Official Government Agency”, there are many possible candidates. Why would you assume the CIA over literally every other government agency?
Arguable. I’d go with “incompetent” and “heavily biased” myself.
The Russian disinformation campaign was very real in that Russia was trying to spread disinformation, and Hasan did not work to assist in that campaign, so it really isn’t Hasan’s problem. As for the Biden laptop story, he only mentioned it once as something that the Republican Party was going to focus on (true), but not about whether the story itself was true or false. Even if the story is true, it would not be anywhere near as big of a deal as the Republicans make it out to be. It’s even worse than the Hillary email thing because at least there, the factually accurate part did directly involve Hillary’s volitional actions.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Techdirt is wrong
The 3000 tweets understatement were debunked.
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1644363110998786048?s=20
Techdirt is at this point straight-out propaganda outlet for the security state.
EIP was partnered with CISA too as shown here: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1644398283572363264?s=20
Re:
It’s “debunked” in the same sense that if you lie about what the author intended and have no ability to read, it can be whatever you want it to be. It’s either complete illiteracy or extremely bad faith. Probably both.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1644409421857005584
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1644411245049651209/photo/2
“platform action”, lol.
Get out.
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing about that means anything. Random things are highlighted as if they’re a smoking gun. It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what they’re saying, to claim every one of those were flagged (they were not) or once flagged acted upon (not by a long shot.)
Indeed, all you’ve got is supposition that “hey this is problematic because the machines can read sharpies just fine” resulted in some sort of mass action — when that didn’t happen.
It is also, you know, a lie. The machines do read Sharpies just fine. Twitter added a note saying as such and called it good.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“to claim every one of those were flagged (they were not) or once flagged acted upon (not by a long shot.)”
I don’t care about a random user on Techdirt, lol. He is “Former State Dept Cyber” and has at least credibility.
Re: Re: Re:3
It doesn’t matter if he was the King of Thailand, we can all read what he’s trying to pass off as “evidence” and find that it is at best a gross misunderstanding of what the author was communicating and at worst a cynical lie since there’s no support for anything he’s claiming. Gesturing broadly at the text, highlighting half of it and declaring it a conspiracy is not proof of anything.
Re: Re: Re:3
You do know that anyone can put anything in a Twitter bio, right? And now that verification officially means “paid for Twitter, or Musk still likes the user”, it’s not verified at all?
Re: Re: Re:3
Wow. I had to look that up to ensure you weren’t just fucking with us. You, uh, you realize that there’s no such thing as “a cyber”, right? That would be like saying I work for “The Transport”. Might want to be careful about where you put that credulity of yours.
Re: Re: Re:
Looking at those tweets, and it’s clear that Benz has no fucking clue what he’s looking at. They show an example where blatantly false information designed to undermine voting was being shared, and the only request anyone made was for the government to do more to correct the false information so that people would know it’s false. Not “censorship.”
Also, the images (which look like an example anyway) show that the platforms labeled the content, that is added their own speech, not delete it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
https://twitter.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1644411245049651209/photo/2
Techdirt, nice lies.
Re: Re: Re:
Did you even bother to read any of it? The only parts with numbers specifically said “analyzed” or “tracked”; nothing about reporting or anything to the platforms. Not to mention that they are still numbers well below what Taibbi was claiming.
The rest is stuff that no one ever disputed. None of it shows that the government reported more than a fraction of the 3000 tweets reported, none of it shows that more than 3000 tweets were reported, and none of it shows that Twitter deleted or downranked more than a fraction of what was reported.
Re:
Matt Taibbi? Is that you?
Welcome to Techdirt.com
Is Taibbi being paid by Musk to produce this series?
Re:
Possibly. But even if that isn’t the case, Taibbi being given the information in the “Twitter Files” (or access to said info) by Musk himself creates a clear conflict of interest where you can’t expect Taibbi to report on Musk and his running of Twitter with any kind of objectivity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: You're highlighting another way Hasan was ridiculously unfair
You raise great questions about the whole Twitter file enterprise. What exactly were (or ARE because they’re not done yet) the parameters and conditions for the journalists? I’ve seen that discussed in several interviews with Taibbi, Schellenberger, Weiss and the others and it’s an interesting and important discussion, both for explaining what happened here and the general issues of journalism it raises.
But Hasan wasn’t even slightly willing to go there. Why not? Because he already knew that Musk gave the reporters carte blanche to ask for and examine whatever they wanted in a classic audit sense. And, seeing as the material they were reviewing all preceded Musk’s ownership, I don’t see how he actually factors in much at all.
So conflict of interest? Hardly.
And what ABOUT MSNBC’s Russiagate apology? Matt stumbled a bit here and there under attack but that one shot he delivered in response hit far harder than all Hasan’s rabbit punches combined. He succeeded in raising an issue on MSNBC that looms so large but is otherwise verbotten. And Hasan’s dismissal said all one needs to know about his own journalistic integrity.
Re: Re: Re:
I do.
We know Musk offered Taibbi, Weiss, et al. access to the information that now makes up the “Twitter Files”. They all admitted as much. That makes Musk a source of information. I assume they want to keep their source happy and keep receiving that information. Criticizing him for how he runs Twitter does not strike me as a good way of keeping him happy.
One can’t expect Taibbi, Weiss, et al. to report on how Elon Musk runs Twitter with any sense of objectivity. Musk has become too important a source of information for them to treat him with anything but kid gloves. The conflict of interest lies in how they expect people to take their reporting on the “Twitter Files” seriously when their close connection to Elon Musk makes that nigh impossible. How can anyone assume they’re being fair towards Old Twitter when they all but refuse to criticize Elon for his mistakes so they won’t lose their information source?
Re: Re:
You’re right, and the term you’re looking for is “access journalism.”
Re:
Unless I’m mistaken, Musk stated publicly that he provided these files en masse to Weiss, Taibbi and Schellenberger with no strings attached and no offer of payment. I believe the three journalists have repeatedly confirmed this arrangement.
Obviously, for Taibbi and Weiss, who run reader-supported enterprises, having exclusivity on a story of this scope, and with such “legs,” offers an immediate, huge reader engagement opportunity. Presumably, this exposure directly equates into some more paying readers; indirectly, for all three of them, their centrality in this story surely helps book sales and (perhaps) future book advances.
Re: Re:
And as we all know, Melon Husk never lies.
(“No strings attached” strains credulity. II am however perfectly willing to believe he didn’t pay them and they did this to hype themselves. Plenty of outrage grift to go around.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Maybe you should have read this tweet before you published this...
https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1644392551066255361
Matty Inaccuracy
Matty D*ickpics, as Marcy Wheeler refers to him, has gotten so many facts wrong, I’m beginning to think he doesn’t even have a handle on his own name. Marcy will have to come up with a new sobriquet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: How much of the Twitter files have you actually read?
Let me guess ……
None?
Re: Re:
I read them all… and I can see with my own two eyes that most of the “gotchas” were taken out of context and sensationalized in order to maintain a narrative.
Just look at the incidence of the Hunter dick picks that were used as an example of the government demanding Twitter take content down.
The problems with that is that the Biden campaign was not the government, and “revenge porn” pics were clearly against Twitter’s ToS.
That he chose to label the Biden campaign as “the government” and purposely did not report that the content that the Biden campaign wanted removed were non-consensual dick pics of Hunter, that show a complete lack of ethical reporting of facts.
IOW, He purposely conflated the Biden campaign with the government and purposely left out the fact that it was Hunter dick pics that obviously violated Twitter ToS.
That you can’t see what is a plainly visible reality is a you problem, but then again, the types of people like you believe in Qanon, so par for the course I suppose.
Re: Re: Re:
And the photos those god fearing, anti-porn Conservatives were determined to share with the world violated revenge porn laws in California, where Twitter is based.
Re: Re:
They’re a bit hard to find now, since Musk is trying to censor them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
in re:
in re:
Yes. We were on the “trans task force” at twitter and that was all that ever happened whenever we tried getting action on anti-trans content: “Nothing” and “more speech”.
Re:
Was this “trans task force” part of EIP? If not, this doesn’t relate to the claim cited.
Looks like the Musk Taibbi honeymoon is over…
“After posting in a Substack Chat that disabling Substack links on Twitter “will likely make the platform unusable for me,” Taibbi sent an email to his subscribers announcing he was saying goodbye to Twitter.”
Re:
And the cherry on top is that Musk stopped following him after that tweet.
'Context would have killed the argument, of course I left it out!'
As Hasan notes, Taibbi left out this crucial context to make his claims seem way more damning than they were. Taibbi’s response is… bizarre. Hasan asks him if he knew that the URLs were nudes of Hunter Biden and Taibbi admits that “of course” he did, but when Hasan asks him why he didn’t tell people that, Taibbi says “because I didn’t need to!”
Yeah, anyone who knowingly tries to spin ‘a political campaign notified Twitter about non-consensually posted dick pics, something which is a TOS violation and has a form to get taken down’ as ‘the government demanded that Twitter censor information regarding Biden’s son!’ has shown themselves to not even remotely be operating in good faith.
Taibbi used to have a brain
But I think he left it in a bar somewhere. Maybe one of those Tile things would be in order.
Re:
Would that be in a Russian bar where he claimed to pick up girls?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike Bootlicking Masnick Again!
The government is not in business of censorship, as long as the government uses its friends in the private sector, and only makes implied threats to its targets.
As long as it just hires some public relations firms to push the narrative that the government didn’t do anything wrong, and everything was just a misunderstanding.
Re:
Can you provide an example of these “implied threats” in re: Twitter?
Re:
If there was any implied threat, what was the punishment to Twitter for the > 60% of requests where it did nothing?
Re: Re:
‘I will make them an offer that explicitly says they are allowed to refuse’ makes for a weird ‘threat’.
Re:
lol tough shit boy, should’ve actually put Hilary in jail and got the wall built when you had the chance
stay mad die mad
Re: Is this true???!!
Mike, do you actually lick your own boots??
Re:
Where are these implied threats? What are they?
I mean, the government can absolutely hire a firm to publish their narrative if it wants to, but I see no evidence that it has done so, let alone hire someone to coerce other private companies to abide by that narrative.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“I was taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public.
…
I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service.
…
Most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke or other so-called transatlantic organisations…once you’re connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you’re important. And one day one of them will ask you, “Will you do me this favor?”
…
We’re talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what’s really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets.
…
When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte’s newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets — but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of.”
-Udo Ulfkotte, German Journalist 2017, Now Dead
Re:
Does this have anything to do with Twitter or Facebook? If not, then it’s entirely irrelevant, especially since you’re talking about something happening in Germany, not the US, even if at the US’s direction.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
CIS versus CISA
“Another 16% came from CIS (contrary to Taibbi’s original claim, not government).”
Wasn’t CIS (an NGO) working as a contractor for the CISA (a government agency)?
Re:
No, no it wasn’t. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This article is a joke.
I don’t need Matt to show me Twitter Files, I witnessed the censorship from the libtards day after day as they destroy our country. Your trying to tell me what I saw with my own eyes wasn’t real? You are a propagandist liar.
Re:
…said nobody not admitting they’re hallucinating, ever.
Re:
libtards
Your trying to tell me
I so love to see the result of poor public education suggesting their political opponents are the ones that are somehow mentally defective, while still being unable to use spellcheck in 20 fucking 23.
It’s English you fucking moron. Get it right next time, dumbass. And while you’re at it, name one libtard who:
The only ‘tards’ in this conversation are you, dumbfuck.
Re:
You are likely a victim of confirmation bias. You see what you expect to see and forget/ignore anything that might contradict what you believe. It’s quite common, it’s largely subconscious behavior rather than intentional, and it doesn’t even necessarily indicate bad faith. (Assuming you’re even telling the truth.) It does, however, mean that humans tend to see patterns even where they don’t exist, and it’s hard to recognize it in ourselves.
On top of that, in order to show bias, disparate results is insufficient. You have to show that the disparate results aren’t the result of some confounding variable, like there being more conservative content that could be seen as violating the ToS than liberal content that does to begin with. That requires actual data, not just anecdotes. What you are observing is just some of the raw output of the moderation and maybe some context for a portion of those cases. What you aren’t observing (without the Twitter Files or more thorough research) is the process used to get those results or enough information to eliminate all confounding variables as plausible explanations. Heck, I doubt that you have even done any calculations to see whether you are even seeing apparently disparate outcomes or that you even have observed a sufficiently large dataset to come to any rational conclusions about wider trends over the entire platform, but even if you have, you have failed to eliminate other plausible explanations for any disparate outcomes that do exist.
Also, the question at issue here is whether this allegedly biased moderation is a result of unlawful government interference, not whether the bias exists at all. I could concede that Twitter is absolutely biased against conservatives and that this bias does, in fact, lead to unfair treatment in favor of liberals and/or against conservatives, but that would be irrelevant because that isn’t the issue being discussed here. Rather, this is about whether and to what extent the US government and/or other American state actors subject to the First Amendment played a role in these moderation decisions, and whether or not (and, if so, to what extent) such involvement is unlawful. Again, without the Twitter Files, the only thing you see with your own eyes is at most the outcomes of moderation, not what happens behind the scenes to create or influence those outcomes.
On top of that, this is entirely about Twitter’s moderation practices. Anything outside of Twitter which doesn’t concern moderation of content or users on Twitter is entirely irrelevant.
As such, I see no need to tell you that what you saw wasn’t real. It just doesn’t prove what you think it does, and even if it did, that is insufficient to prove or disprove the actual claims being discussed in this article, even ignoring the fact that what is specifically being discussed is the Twitter Files and you are talking about what you observe without them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Nothing you straight white scum claim to see is ever real. You’ve run this country into the fucking ground and we’re taking it back.
You can either pick up that pride flag or you can get the fuck out of our gene pool.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Degenerates like you will be the first who are liquidated.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Doing so is homophobia, which counts as terrorism.
You’re going to eat a dick and you’re going to fucking like it, you femboy.
Re: Re:
Well, speaking of conformation bias
Straight: well, sexuality is proven inconsistent. Hundreds of tests of eye gaze and stimulation etc show men look at cocks and women look at … women.
Everyone is partly omni.
White? Uh, albino. There are lighter and darker people, sure but the pigment genetics are partly in all people except albino.
Scum, is a weasel word. It’s indecisive. It generally refers either to Bacteria or a collecting of dirt and bio mater.
As for real? Well, about 3 billion people believe this life isn’t “real” in various ways. From the collective dream of particles to a matrix-like matrix of quantum mechanics. Good luck finding anyone giving a quality, qualified, answer as to what is “real”.
I mean, 80-some percent of the world believe there’s at least one cloud dude or dudette floating around above the skies. So sure, what’s real.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Who cares?
US Americans are so incredibly narcissistic, they think the whole world revolves around them. You know what, we don’t care! The vast, vast, VAST majority of the world is NOT white! We don’t give a shit about you whiteys and your issues.
Re:
America’s issues affect the entire world, you stupid fuck.
Wonder why a good chunk of the world is “simping” for CHina now? Blame Trump.
You can tell how deeply Mike’s facts struck a nerve by how much it gets the Musk stan(s) frothing at the mouth.
Re:
Mike could just title a post ‘Twitter’, and put nothing but ‘Twitter’ in the body, and they would froth at the mouth.
It’s Pavlovian at this point.
Taibbi has convinced liberals that "Russiagate" was all a hoax
He and Glen Greenwald have been peddling this BS for years now and they have (had) so much leftist cred that it’s conventional wisdom. Hasan should have him back on his show to discuss it.
Taibbi is a mouthpiece for Putin: Russian bot influence campaign peddling fake news never existed and they never helped Trump win. He claimed Russia wasn’t going to invade Ukraine and when it did he opposes aid for Ukraine. He claims Russian cyberwarfare like targeting the power grid is hysteria
Re:
So, you’re saying Taibbi is a 50center.
Because China is also shilling those things as well.
And Russia is officially a Chinese buffer state, just like North Korea.
Just noting here that the video is unavailable in Australia.
Hot take
Whether or not the censorship that Taibbi claimed to expose actually happened at any scale, the mainstream discourse that has followed seems to suggest that a significant percentage of the American public is okay with full fledged censorship.
Re:
Or that the Taibbi narrative failed to gain traction due to the marginal role it plays in most people’s lives, having greatly overestimating Twitter’s influence.
Or Taibbi’s narrative was terribly laid out for the format he chose, being a many-tweet thread that was confusing to follow.
Or that people who did persevere could read it and come to an opposite conclusion because his “research” was an atrocity and largely unsupported by his citations.
Or that he had no credibility on the matter given who gave him the data and the obvious axe he had to grind.
Or that plenty of other people picked his work apart from the first moment his tweets saw light and being more convincing than him, was the winner in the marketplace of ideas that people go on about.
Or the multiple ways he made a clown of himself in the aftermath of the Twitter files, including on a supposedly friendly House panel hearing.
No, it’s not the lack of factual basis or that Taibbi holds no influence outside the tight echo chamber he keeps around him, but apparently the rest of the world is just sheep is definitely the answer. The rest of us can’t read or think apparently.
Re:
“Hot take”==stupid take
There was no “full fledged censorship” to be okay with
Re:
Presumably you’re referring to conservatives’ efforts to ban books, history lessons, and entire topics of discussion that don’t hew to their particular political beliefs?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Gross mischaracterisation Matt Taibbi and Twitter Files
Analysis of the Medhi ‘Gish Gallop’ here – simple typos and honest mistakes do not change substantive elements Twitter Files.
https://rumble.com/v2he2bs-medhi-hasa-is-joe-bidens-personal-propagandist-matt-taibbi-interview-explai.html
Re:
It’s telling you don’t have a factual source to back up your illiterate narrative there.
Re: Re:
At this point, I assume these trolls are either Russian operatives or paid by Musk.
I just don’t get it!
What is it with people in this country that think this is some big deal? Being naked is how you are born.
Why are people so opposed to being seen naked in the first place. Prudes, all of them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike and the TD commentariat shamefully cheering on the slander of an independent journalist who’s critical of the regime’s narrative…color me surprised! 😮
Re:
If Taibbi had something useful or accurate to contribute, why is Musk now blocking him?
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Rebuttal or correction
It appears that perhaps Mehdi and you (Mike) may have over played your position here as both Matt and Lee Fang seemed to address in their respective posts:
Lee’s: https://open.substack.com/pub/leefang/p/msnbcs-mehdi-hasan-gets-basic-facts?r=fmgkw&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Matt’s: https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/house-democrats-have-lost-their-minds?r=fmgkw&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Perhaps, in the same way that Matt issued a correction for the one small item he made a mistake on (but not the overarching agency issue Mehdi & you seem to claim at length), it may be time for you to do the right thing and correct or rebuttal.
Re:
No. Both Matt and Lee are still wrong and still totally misunderstanding reality. I’m not going to do a full rebuttal, but they’re so clueless they have no idea what they’re looking at.
Mehdi was correct. My post is correct. Matt LITERALLY LIED and pretended that a private organization was a gov’t organization. The fact that the private organization has a gov’t contract is meaningless. Matt still lied and said the gov’t told Twitter to censor, and they did not.
More specifics: CISA hired CIS to build a system to allow election officials to flag election misinfo around polling places/times/techniques, so that people were aware of information that was potentially going viral in order to rebut that information. CIS simply acted as the middleman to allow that communication to happen.
That’s… a useful service? Election officials on the ground would know if false information that might effect elections was spreading, but had no place to report it, so CIS set that up, and then would pass on those reports to the EIP because the EIP was tracking that info also.
None of that involves the censorship regime that Lee and Matt want to insist was there.
They were wrong. They’re still wrong. They could easily have spoken to people involved in any of this and learned. But they just doubled down.
This articalsupports Tieibi’s claims. Maybe you could try some journalists to write for you who don’t have as obvious one sided view.
Re:
…said nobody literate, ever.
Can't have it both ways
Quite an interesting reading. There is a big contrast between the breadth Mike’s initial argument and the rather hurried way with which he glosses over Matt’s and Lee’s clarifications rushing to declare them wrong without engaging with their arguments. In particular, he seems unaware of the presence of a basic contradiction in his argument. One cannot claim in one breath that Matt made a substantial mistake by attributing to CISA censorship-type actions performed by CIS because the latter does not have any First Amendment constraint and in the next breath claim that CIS did not perform any censorship-type actions.
Finally, although I am not a constitutional scholar, I would consider a rather safe assumption that the founding fathers did not mean to forbid the government to interfere with freedom of speech, unless it did it through a contractor. I might be wrong, but I’m not a big believer in the constitutionality of the contractor loophole.
Cheers