Twitter Suspends Reporter For Reporting On Twitter Hack, Using Same Policy Old Twitter Used To Block NY Post Hunter Biden Story
from the ah,-it's-only-good-when-we-use-it dept
The nonsense never ends. As you’ll recall, there was a big kerfuffle (that still hasn’t fully ended) over a decision by Twitter in October of 2020 to block the sharing of a NY Post article about the contents of what was then alleged to be (and since mostly confirmed) Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop hard drive. What has since come out is that there was thorough debate within Twitter about whether or not this was a good idea, but the decision was made in an abundance of caution, as the provenance of the information was still unclear, and there were some questionable aspects to the information being released.
The policy used was Twitter’s “Hacked Materials” policy, which had been in place in March of 2019 and which we had highlighted as problematic a month before the NY Post kerfuffle, noting how it had already been used against journalistic activity by DDoSecrets after it published leaked police chat information and had its account banned.
In the wake of the NY Post story, Twitter admitted that the policy was a problem and changed the policy to no longer target journalists.
Except that was Twitter 1.0.
Now that we have Twitter 2.0, led by Elon Musk and trust & safety boss Ella Irwin, who have told us that they believe the NY Post banning was a mortal sin that should never be repeated… except that Musk/Irwin did also ban the NY Post’s account for a period of time just recently. And while they corrected that mistake, it’s still difficult to see how that was any different than Twitter 1.0.
But now we have the “Hacked Materials” policy showing up again, this time under Musk/Irwin’s control… and this time used in a manner I would argue is way, way, way more sketchy and problematic than earlier uses.
Specifically, Wired reporter Dell Cameron has had his account permanently suspended from Twitter as he revealed on Mastodon.
At issue? He just published a story at Wired about a hacker who got into culture war nonsense peddler Matt Walsh’s Twitter account and also his email account.
So why did Cameron’s account get suspended? Twitter claims he violated its “hacked materials” policy. You know, the same one that was used to block links to the NY Post story… and which Twitter had adjusted so as (in theory) not to target actual journalism.
I mean, it’s almost like content moderation is highly subjective and can be used in all sorts of ways.
But really, I can’t wait for all the people who had shit fits and ordered Congressional hearings over the whole NY Post / laptop story to twist themselves in pretzels to defend this banning of Cameron, who was reporting on a hack, but whose reporting did not reveal anything particularly sensitive or embarrassing. Oh yeah, who could forget this:
Of course, this should also remind journalists in particular that it is not safe to rely on Twitter for spreading your reporting. Musk and Irwin have made it clear that their only principle in handling trust & safety is to silence speech they find makes them look bad.
Filed Under: content moderation, dell cameron, ella irwin, elon musk, hacked materials, journalism, matt walsh, reporting
Companies: twitter, wired
Comments on “Twitter Suspends Reporter For Reporting On Twitter Hack, Using Same Policy Old Twitter Used To Block NY Post Hunter Biden Story”
'Terrible censorship is only okay when we do it.'
Arguably this is far worse than the last time since after that temporary ban of a link Twitter modified the rules so that it would no longer cover journalists, which means Elon’s Twitter not only banned a journalist for posting a link but they did so in direct contradiction of the rules that were modified so that this wouldn’t happen again.
“Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate.”
lol, what “hacked materials”?
Meh. “Elon Musk’s skin is so thin you can’t even see it with a scanning electron microscope and a bunch of raging hypocrites are raging hypocrites, news at 11.” I know it’s important to keep pounding on the hypocrites, but there’s no real surprise here anymore.
Musk = Trump?
Just as with TFG, Musk is tweeting tweets that seem to later criticize his own policies.
Something something accusation confession…
well, when your “trust and safety” department is just a list of accounts andy ngo says to ban for wokeness, you’re gonna get that!
“Suspending the account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate”
Hoisted by his own petard.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It’s unbelievable how deeply the Culture Wars nonsense has infected some people. This is the most petty form of revenge, like “lel not so fun when you’re the ones banned by this policy is it kek”. It’s refusing to believe that anyone ever tried to have principles, even if they sometimes made mistakes, and turn absolutely everything into a two-sided game where either your side is winning or it is losing, and literally everything is judged through that simplistic reductionist lens. The fact that there are reasonable people who think misuse of a policy like this is bad no matter who the target is gets conveniently ignored because Culture Wars spark outrage and get clicks. Truly the enshitification of public discourse down to gradeschool level bully pranks to get likes from braindead drones to feed your ego with addictive slop. I’m starting to believe social media was overall bad for humanity because apparently our brains are too easily addicted to having every casual thought and easily debunked conspiracy validated by meaningless positive feedback loops, and this drug is way better than reason or reality for a lot of people.
Re:
‘kay
Re:
It is not a culture war, it is fascism.
afaik, fascism is not considered to be cultural.
Re:
You’ve completely missed the point. First, we criticized it when the previous Twitter did it, too. Second, Mike explicitly noted that this is likely a mistake.
The point is that Musk (and others) tried to claim the removal of a link to the NY Post story on the laptop had to be partisan in nature and couldn’t have been a mistake, but now Musk is doing essentially the same thing. The only differences between the two are that 1) Musk’s ban goes against the rule, and—more importantly—2) Musk is being a hypocrite. The main point is that Musk assumed bad-faith, and this shows why that was unwarranted.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Dell Cameron solicited stolen documents. The NY Post didn’t solicit stolen documents (which weren’t stolen anyway)
Re:
quick, probably unrelated question: who wrote the byline for the ny post hunter biden laptop story?
Re:
“Dell Cameron solicited stolen documents.”
And you can prove that otherwise libellous statement, can you?
Re: Re:
This is what is being asserted as the basis for the suspension. Whether or not it should be is going to be subject to the usual motivated reasoning from both sides.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1648835966025465859
Re: Re: Re:
You’re using Andy Ngo as your source.
You’re a fucking idiot.
Re: Re: Re:2
Andy Ngo is showing a tweet from Dell Cameron where Cameron is asking for hacked material from Matt Walsh’s account. You are free to believe that this tweet is not real or that what it says is not sufficient grounds for the suspension. As I said, this is going to be subject to motivated reasoning by both sides.
Re: Re: Re:3
Citing Andy Ngo as your source conclusively proves only your dishonesty.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ngo is notorious for false claims and fake evidence, and how convenient for him that his best mate went and suspended the journalist’s account so no one can possibly cross check.
No one would use any statement or tweet from him if they were acting in good faith.
Re: Re: Re:4
Argument ad hominem, in this case argument common sensium.
Re: Re: Re:5
This is an argument from authority, so an attack on their credibility is fair game.
Re: Re: Re:5
Pointing out that the guy you’re relying on as a source is a proven liar is not an ad hominem, it’s just acknowledging reality.
Re: Re: Re:3 "both sides"
Which are the two “sides” you see at work here?
I see Andy Ngo, a known fabulist and fascist ally, versus anyone prepared to exercise even a modicum of skepticism about an unverified claim made by a pathological liar in defence of an ally and against someone he sees as belonging to an enemy group. As others have noted, it’s worth pointing out that what you see is not a tweet, it’s an alleged screenshot of a tweet.
Is that “motivated reasoning” or is it just reasoning?
Skepticism aside, even if we assume it’s real, Ngo’s best effort at a post-hoc rationalisation doesn’t qualify for a ban according to Musk, his fanbots, and the purported principles of the free speech crowd.
Re: Re: Re:
Here’s an archive of most of Dell Cameron’s last tweets.
https://archive.is/Cgr8b
Indeed, you can draw your own conclusion, but hopefully no one will lie to their self about it.
My conclusion is that Andy Ngo faked the second image, of the supposed “they got into everything!” thread.
Additionally, in contradiction to what Andy Ngo suggests, Dell Cameron didn’t post a redacted screenshot of Matt Walsh’s message inbox. That image (or rather, a non-doctored version of it) was a Tweet from Matt Walsh’s account while the hacker was fooling around. There was little reason for Dell Cameron to redact information when [the tweet Cameron reposted didn’t redact it either].
It’s okay to draw conclusions from evidence. Based on the Andy Ngo tweet that the previous commenter linked to, I draw the conclusion that I should not give the benefit of the doubt to anything that comes first from Andy Ngo.
Re: Re: Re:2
Link fail due to my own stupidity. I meant to link the bracketed text in my previous comment to the following:
https://twitter.com/YZYPrints/status/1648485905391570950
The link would’ve been like so:
There was little reason for Dell Cameron to redact information when the tweet Cameron reposted didn’t redact it either.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m forgetful as usual. To clarify, I wasn’t claiming that Dell Cameron didn’t ask to look at hacked materials. I was simply explaining why I don’t believe Andy Ngo’s supposed evidence that Cameron sought hacked materials in a flippant, nonchalant way.
In order to report on the news, of course Cameron had to look at a minimal amount of the hacked materials to determine whether they were authentic. What matters is whether Cameron sought hacked materials beyond the purpose of reporting on the breach. I haven’t seen evidence of such yet.
Re: Re: Re:2 Of course Ngo would make this look worse
Makes sense that he’d say the hacker has validated the source of his claimed materials. That’s a journalist’s job.
Of course Ngo wouldn’t recognise that, and see it as something malicious, and decide to make up some lies to persuade his gullible audience of his own conclusions.
Of course this is all about bending over backwards to use tools they condemn against their own enemies in a way they have previously decried.
Of course there are people here trying to justify that as everybody else’s hypocrisy.
When the projection gets to third-order, I tend to switch off. Fascists be fashing.
Re:
..said nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Red herring
The ban was for “sharing hacked materials” which did not happen.
It would still be against Elmo’s supposed freeze peach principles even if it had happened, which it did not.
I appreciate how freeze peach turdblossoms make sure to show the entirety of both cheeks of their whole unwashed ass every opportunity they get.
I chrcked the Wired story and there’s no picture of Hunter Biden’s penis, so obviously there is no public interest defence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Once upon a time, USENET ruled, and people rejected its free speech for censored environments.
If we wanted free speech, we would still have it.
Re:
USENET has always been able to be censored, in fact, I would censor the CSAM bin groups for obvious reasons.
Re:
And then the spammers, scammers and trolls moved in, and people left for forums which reduced those menaces to tolerable measure.
Re: Free speech
We do still have it.
Re:
And I’m still not paying access to a BBS.
If I wanted that I’d just pay ten bucks to whoever is running the SomethingAwful Forums.
Re:
Nice try, John Smith.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike Masnick lies by ommission again
The problem is that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn’t “hacked” in the first place, given that there was a chain of custody from Mac Isaac, which led to twitter being sued by Mac Isaac for defamation, which was dismissed on the basis that they never mentioned Mac Isaac by name.
Re:
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
What happened in the real wotld is that the files were hacked and stolen from Burisma and being circulated online for a good while before Giuliani got copies of them from his GRU handler and came up with a laughably cover story.
Re:
A biased source who could alter the contents of the laptop easily.
Moreover, that’s not the first link in the actual chain of custody. The first link was whoever gave him the laptop in the first place, and we don’t know who that is. We also don’t know that it was Hunter’s laptop with certainty.
Yeah, which means that, even if Mac Isaac didn’t hack the laptop, it still wouldn’t be a defamatory statement about him. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t hack the laptop, and it certainly doesn’t prove that whoever gave him the laptop didn’t hack it first to modify the files or something. In other words, this makes no difference at all.
Re: Re:
“A biased source who could alter the contents of the laptop easily.”
The Washington Post report on this by their experts said there was plenty of evidence that material had been added to and moved around on the hard drive, and verification of some material was impossible. Their conclusion was that it was hopelessly compromised and the chain of custody was nonexistent.
The damn hard drive(s) have been knocking about for years, and in multiple hands, who’ve been messing around with intent. No court in the country would admit it as evidence, except of evidence that people were treating it as a chewtoy.
Re: Re: Re:
But ~~her emails~~ his son’s penis!
Re: Re: Re:
True. For the record, I said “could” rather than “did” because, due to the lack of a chain of custody, it’s plausible that the alterations happened before Mac even got the laptop (assuming his claim that it was given to him for repairs is true, of course), since not even he asserts that it was even likely Hunter himself who turned over the laptop to him.
Re: Re:
I want to say something important about that last part: When a claim gets dismissed because it fails to meet the standards for the law at issue (in this case, defamation), that says exactly nothing about whether the claims in the complaint are true or false (or, in a defamation case, whether the complained-of statements are true or false).
On a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded facts in the operative complaint are assumed to be true. Other than certain things that can be taken judicial notice of (mostly laws, pleadings in other cases, and court rulings) or things incorporated by reference in the complaint (like an article that is accused of being defamatory in the complaint or the operative agreement in a contract or licensing dispute), nothing that isn’t in the complaint itself can be referenced, and unless there is a contradiction within the complaint (or between the complaint and things taken judicial notice of and/or incorporated by reference). There are essentially no determinations of fact or on the validity of the assertions in the complaint.
What a motion of dismiss generally says is that, “Even if every fact in the complaint is true, that doesn’t mean that I [the defendant] did anything illegal or unlawful, so we don’t need to do any discovery, weighing of the evidence, or go to trial; there is no way they could win based solely on their own complaint.” In other words, it’s like saying, “Even if I did what you said, so what?” It gets granted if the complaint, taken as true, would not lead to liability for the defendant. It doesn’t mean that the court has found that any of the facts in the complaint are true, nor is it an admission of anything by the defendant.
In this particular case, a complaint based on an allegation of defamation was dismissed because, even if the complained-of statement was false and/or would be false if it pertained to the plaintiff, it isn’t necessarily of or concerning the plaintiff, which is a necessary element for a defamation claim (you can’t sue for defamation if you weren’t mentioned in the statement). Because the allegations in the complaint fail to support a defamation claim, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. It does not mean that the court ruled that Mac Isaac did not hack anyone or that the material wasn’t hacked, nor does it mean that Twitter admitted that Mac Isaac didn’t do any hacking or that the material wasn’t hacked. It just means that whether or not one or both of those are true is irrelevant to the case because the complaint fails either way.
Re:
chain of custody from Mac Isaac
‘Chain of custody’ in this sentence meaning ‘that blind idiot held the drive in his hand while he and other people fucked around with it’ as opposed to any legal equivalent of the term.
Mac Isaac fucked this golden opportunity for you morons the very moment he put his incompetent little hands on that laptop and decided to turn it on. Not being satisfied turning it over to the FBI, he curiously hands a copy he made of it to Rudi the cousin-fucker, and his band of ‘cyber rangers’ presumably for ‘something’ because the copies that circulated afterward were different than the copy that the FBI had. Imagine that! You know what would have prevented that?
A chain of custody worth a fuck!
A copy handed over to some idiot with hair dye coming out of his ass isn’t a chain of custody any more than putting your head up your ass is keeping it there for safe storage. Unsurprisingly, along come you fools to pile on this like horny rednecks at a family gathering. Every. single. time.
No bullshit is too ridiculous, is it? You just don’t care that more than half the population is laughing at you, do you?
Re: derp
The problem for Twitter was they had no way to verify that at the time, and every reason to doubt the veracity of the NY Post’s shoddy reportage.
This is literally the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from the “Twitter Files” – that when placed in a difficult crunch situation, Twitter made a bad call that they then rapidly reversed.