Elon Fires Half Of ExTwitter’s Election Integrity Team, Because A Manager Liked A Tweet Calling Him A Fucking Dipshit
from the elon's-fragile-ego-is-more-important-than-election-integrity dept
There is no doubt that it’s not always easy to figure out what social media websites should do about election disinformation. There are those who believe that websites need to very actively remove such content, but there’s little evidence that straight removal does very much productive, which is why it wasn’t that surprising that YouTube (for example) has stopped policing lies about the 2020 election (the last Presidential election, which doesn’t mean they won’t pay attention to upcoming election).
That said, even if you think that removing content (even election disinformation) is counterproductive, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a clear role for election integrity teams at various platforms. Remember, the main way that old Twitter handled election misinformation in 2020 was to focus on providing more information (that is, adding to the marketplace of ideas) which some people, very wrongly, called “censorship.” Adding more information is not censorship, it’s enabling the so-called marketplace of ideas to function better.
Indeed, reports show that the only times Twitter was actually removing information regarding elections was in the most extreme circumstances, such as cases where you had people impersonating election officials on Twitter in an attempt to mislead voters into not voting (such as by telling them the election was on a different day), or where there were out and out frauds.
That kind of thing is still really important.
But apparently not to Elon Musk. Earlier this week it was reported that exTwitter had disabled the feature that let users “report” election misinformation as part of its reporting tools. That already got some people worried about how a Musk-run exTwitter would handle many upcoming elections.
As if to confirm this was absolutely intentional, that same day, the Information revealed that Elon fired half of the remaining “Election Integrity Team” at exTwitter. This is despite him recently promising to expand that effort. Rolling Stone has way more info on all of this, including details about what likely happened here and it’s dumber than you could have imagined.
It began, as so much nonsense does these days, with gullible Elon falling for complete and utter nonsense peddlers on his own site. A month ago, Aaron Rodericks, who worked on the “threat disruption” team, and is a holdover from pre-Elon Twitter, announced that he was hiring 8 new people for civic integrity and elections work:

Again, this work is not about “censoring,” but about actually understanding various threats to actual elections (not just garden variety political misinfo) and figuring out ways to counter them.
But the nonsense peddlers on exTwitter that have Elon’s ear convinced him that it was a sneaky plot behind Elon’s back… supported with “evidence” that Aaron had, at times, liked some tweets that mocked Elon and Linda Yaccarino. From the Rolling Stone piece:
In a quote tweet, Benz replied to Raichik’s sarcastic question: “No, it’s being run by Yoel Roth’s former colleague, who still somehow works at X despite appearing to think Musk is a ‘f*cking dipshit’ — His name is Aaron Rodericks.” In the post, Benz shared screenshots of his many recent criticisms of Rodericks on the platform. In those tweets, Benz called Rodericks one of CEO Linda Yaccarino’s “censorship shills” and noted that Rodericks had apparently liked another user’s tweet using the aforementioned epithet to describe Musk.
Again, remember that for all of Elon’s talk about “free speech” on his platform, and a promise to fund any lawsuit for someone fired for their activities on exTwitter, he has a thing where he is very quick to fire any employee who even hints at not wanting to lick his boots. And thus he fired Roderick and many of his team despite having approved expanding his team, almost certainly because someone called his attention to Rodericks once liking a tweet that called Musk a fucking dipshit.
Rodericks was then suspended. Since he’s based in Ireland, he went to court to try to block further disciplinary action:
Aaron Rodericks, who is the co-lead of Threat Disruption at X, the social media formerly known as Twitter secured the order against his employer.
He claims that he is being subjected to a process that is “a complete sham” over allegations that he “demonstrated hostility” to the company for allegedly liking tweets by third parties that are critical of X, Mr Musk and the firm’s CEO Linda Yaccarine.
That RTE article notes, correctly, that Rodericks feels unfairly targeted for using the platform that he’s been told stands for free speech:
Shortly afterwards he claims he was the subject of a meetings and a disciplinary process that has seen him suspended from his job for allegedly liking disparaging posts about X, Mr Musk, and Ms Yaccarino.
He said that he was very surprised over the allegations, as the company had adopted a strong position on the freedom of speech on the platform, and is not aware of any requirement the precludes employees from liking material posted on X.
Rodericks should, you know, share this tweet, and ask Elon to pay for his lawyers.

No limit!
Anyhoo, Elon can’t now publicly admit that he fired Rodericks for like a tweet calling him a fucking dipshit, so he’s now trying to retcon in some fucking nonsense that Rodericks was undermining election integrity. Which is nonsense, based on nothing but the say-so of a known political operative with a history of nonsense.

It seems pretty clear that Musk was embarrassed by Rodericks’ liking of a tweet and fired him, and then likely fired a few remaining employees in the department who were there from pre-Elon days.
Hours later, when asked about all of this at the Code Conference, CEO-in-name-only Linda Yaccarino lied through her teeth and said that the election integrity team was “growing.” On stage she claimed that “It’s an issue we take very seriously. And contrary to the comments that were made, there is a robust and growing team at X that is wrapping their arms around election integrity.”
It’s not growing when you fire half the team for recognizing the emperor has no clothes.
Filed Under: aaron rodericks, election integrity, elon musk, free speech, linda yaccarino, trust and safety
Companies: twitter, x
Comments on “Elon Fires Half Of ExTwitter’s Election Integrity Team, Because A Manager Liked A Tweet Calling Him A Fucking Dipshit”
How’s that a lie? It shrunk; past tense. Now it kind of needs to grow. I imagine the number of job openings will only increase as Elon gets more angry and erratic, and hiring gets more difficult.
Re:
Just a FYI, “needs to grow” isn’t the same as “growing”. The first is the third-person singular simple present indicative form, and the latter is the present progressive plural form.
Thinking they are the same can lead to things like having your car repossessed since the need to pay the bills doesn’t actually pay the bills.
Re: Re:
Yes, I wondered whether I should mention that, but it seemed like the start of a pedantic rabbit-hole. How would a company ever be literally “growing” or “shrinking” in the present tense? Each incident of growth or shrinkage is a durationless event that already happened or is expected to happen.
Yaccarino’s statement is arguably meaningless, which makes the prospect of calling it a “lie” all the more dubious; “bullshit” would be more accurate. To have meaning, it would’ve had to have been something like “the team has grown over the week”, or “based on outstanding job offers, we expect the team will grow over the next month”.
Re: Re: Re:
Whether it was bullshit or a lie, it was certainly in the realm of dishonesty.
The icing on the cake? The “CEO” said that department is growing, after the firings. https://www.businessinsider.com/linda-yaccarino-denies-x-is-disbanding-its-election-integrity-team-2023-9
Re:
Sorry for the repeat of the last paragraph. My comprehension skills aren’t up to snuff.
Re: 'The site is doing great', they said from the smoking rubble
Awww, Elon got his own Baghdad Bob.
Missing body part
“…there is a robust and growing team at X that is wrapping their arms around election integrity.”
And this is the problem, they’re using their arms where brains are needed.
Re:
Technically a chokehold is wrapping your arms around…
Re:
You use what you have. Be glad it is the arms.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
"election integrity"
is this the same team that Time magazine said “fortified the election” by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story that anyone with any common sense knew wasn’t Russian disinformation?
Yeah, exactly.
Re:
First, the election integrity teams isn’t the same the trust and safety team although there is an overlap.
Secondly, how do we know about Hunter’s laptop if it was “censored”?
I guess we can assume your use of the word “censored” is as relevant as me saying that you have a towering intellect.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It’s similar to how Canada news sites get blocked on FB and Google. You can still go directly to those news sites, but relatively few people will do that. So if the platforms don’t carry the story, then the vast majority of folks were unaware at the time.
Re: Re: Re:
Twitter wasn’t, isn’t, will never be, and should never be responsible for someone educating themselves.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It actually absolutely WAS where a whole lot of journalists got their “news” from. Just an echo chamber of liberals cribbing notes of each other.
It’s a big part of why the very partisan censorship prior to Musk was so destructive. Liberal arts folks tend to be, well, liberal, and that’s nearly all journalists. But the the censors were perhaps even more Lefty, and so it just became an echo chamber where the . Overton Window just drifted (or sprinted) a little further left each day.
Re: Re: Re:3
Twitter wasn’t, isn’t, will never be, and shouldn’t ever be responsible for the decisions of other people.
Sure, Jan. 🙄
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I have no idea where you think anyone claimed that.
But while we’re at it: Speech is not violence, and censorship can’t make you “safe”.
Re: Re: Re:5
Go tell that to the right-wingers who are waging their own culture war on books by/about queer people and people of color. See how far that gets you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Porn. You mean porn in schools. Also not censorship, because it’s the government CHOOSING not make a certain type of content, not banning someone else. Both the legislature and the school are part of government.
If you want to show porn to YOUR children I think you should be able to, though that obviously isn’t very healthy.
Re: Re: Re:7
Are you okay? Do you have brain damage? I mean, I know those words, but the combination in which you’ve put them makes no sense.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Wrong C&P obviously.
Porn, you just mean porn. In schools.
Re: Re: Re:9
Please show me where I have ever said “I believe schools should stock explicit hardcore pornography”. I’ll wait.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Basically every time we discuss this subject, cuz you keep on protesting laws whose only purpose is to remove porn from schools and libraries.
If you don’t want to support porn in libraries, stop arguing for porn in libraries I guess.
Re: Re: Re:11
My protests are about the removal of books that are often targeted by right-wing jackoffs for being written by/about queer people or people of color. Any complaints about sexual content may be legit but are often a smokescreen. Besides, you can’t cite a single comment where I have supported the idea of any library stocking explicit hardcore pornography—because no such comment exists.
Re: Re: Re:12 When anything but 'straight and white' is 'porn'
‘The laws are only meant to get porn out of schools/libraries’ is true only if you extend the porn label to cover ‘any book with non-heterosexual characters/themes that isn’t condemning them’, and since that does seem to be the definition being used by those pushing for such book bans…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
100% incorrect. Maybe you are lying, maybe you were lied to, doesn’t seem to matter.
You are protesting about porn being removed. That’s it.
Re: Re: Re:13
I’m not, and repeating the lie doesn’t make it any more true—especially since you have no evidence to back it up.
Re: Re: Re:13
Name a book that was actual “porn” that was removed.
I’ve seen many examples where sexuality is explored, or where someone expresses interest in a same sex relationship, but I’m not sure where “porn” was actually addressed.
It’s not like copies of the Kama Sutra are being given to 8 year olds, but I’ve seen a lot of examples of books where equality is mentioned getting canned.
Also, I’d re-read some older books if I were you. It might be that the language used by Shakespeare and the Bible made you forget the sex in those things, but believe me they’re there.
Re: Re: Re:13
Would you stop fucking lying for once in your goddamn fucking life? Jesus fucking CHRIST if you weren’t actively malicious you’d just look like a guy who couldn’t tell his ass from the fucking sun.
Re: Re: Re:11
Yea, no… That excuse doesn’t work.
There are now entire school districts in Florida using the Law to ban any book that merely has LGBTQ+ characters. Doesn’t matter if there are no Explicit scenes, the existence of such a character is enough to ban a book. It doesn’t even matter if said character is only a side character, it is still enough to ban the book.
This has been outright stated in official meetings and related memos.
Please stop Pretending that anything LGBTQ+ related is automatically porn.
Not only does it paint your argument in a bad light, but Asexuals are also in this category… Meaning you are literally declaring that having no sexual attraction is automatically pornographic, which is arguably heretical (for Christianity at least) given you are demonizing the Virtue of chastity. You are also arguably Rejecting the Virtue of charity (Love thy neighbor is all inclusive, even to people who don’t share your beliefs. This is explicitly stated in the first book of Peter.)
Re: Re: Re:12
It’s not a virtue to have no desire to start with. Christian morality threads a pretty thin line to virtue: indulging in unsavory thoughts is already a sin even if you don’t act on them, but being alien to desire is not good for credit either: you have to reject it. This is not Buddhism.
Re: Re: Re:13
So, basically, under Nazi Christianity, being born an ace is automatically a sin.
How nice.
Re: Re: Re:14
And you get hereditary sin as a catchall.
Re: Re: Re:13
I care to disagree. The idea of a virtue is to display what is a moral ideal. And this notably causes overlap.
Kindness requires diligence, as things that may be kind in one situation may not be in another. Likewise Kindness invokes humility (expectation to be kind even without praise or reward) and is required by the virtue of charity (love thy neighbor doesn’t exactly work without the love part).
Under this logic, chastity requires temperance, invokes humility, and is required by patience.
Asexuality still fall under the virtue of chastity given that logic due to the self restraint caused by not falling into the status quo of the otherwise hypersexual world around them (temperance) while coexisting with said status quo knowing it will stay that way (patience).
Re: Re: Re:13
“If you’re happy and you know it, that’s a sin!”
-The Simpsons
Re: Re: Re:11
[Asserts laws not in exisistence]
Re: Re: Re:11 Not Pornography
Pornography is a specific genre dedicated to entertaining solely by presenting sex. Literary works that contain sex scenes as part of their narrative or works that educate about the mechanics of sex are not pornography.
Re: Re: Re:7
Hello Mr. Bennett!
I see you’re actively doing your best for the Party!
If you keep this up you’ll actually earn a pardon for your insurrection charge! Keep at it!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Says the team that’s trying to censor us away from children.
Your kind will NOT stop us from teaching girls to kiss girls and boys to kiss boys.
We are INEVITABLE.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
So you’re a groomer? I mean, we knew that.
Re: Re: Re:7
Unsurprising the Nazis are also groomers as well.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
You WISH you could be HALF the fabulous we are.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, I see. So there were no information about Hunters laptop available on any social media then? Funny that, I distinctly remember how it was impossible not to trip over people discussing it…
Re: Re: Re:
I just got a phone call from a village. They miss you and want you to come home. No one’s gotten their head stuck in a gate or fallen for an extended warranty scam since you left.
Re: Re: Re:
You can still go directly to those news sites, but relatively few people will do that.
So blind faith, absent a working hyperlink? Tell me you’re the dumbest fucking person alive without explicitly saying so.
Like that would make a difference to a bunch of simpletons who can barely read at a 4th grade level? Allowing access to a link isn’t curing some deficiency when the whole premise is bullshit.
Idiots like that just assume they’re getting some kind of ‘inside information’ that the ‘corrupt MSM’ is choosing not to carry. When in reality, the ‘corrupt MSM’ is less inclined to publish bullshit. Just ask Fox News about their foray into that arena and how it worked out with Dominion. Or for that matter, ask Rudy Giuliani (if he still has phone service due to his self-inflicted ‘financial problems’).
It’s not that the MSM is lying to you. It’s you choosing to believe shit you read on social media, regardless of the source. It’s people like that who keep the Chinese scam sites on social media in business, because you think you’re smart for getting your $2000 sofa for $150, and actually believing that it’s going to arrive. It’s people like that that should be thankful for spam filters, otherwise you’d have a whole lot more dumbfucks waiting for their Nigerian barrista to sort out the check bouncing.
Stop trying to excuse stupidity.
Re: Re: Re:2
Under the same theory, loads of fuckwits claimed that the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment wasn’t getting coverage / was being buried.
Same ppl fail to also realize there are about 2.5 derailments every day and think nothing of it when told.
They just need the particulars for their personal faith, no more, no less.
But sure, they can blame Twitter for briefly moderating a nothingburger.
Re: Re: Re:
Your wildly overblown theory has no evidence to support it. If FB and Google actually were that influential in the news space they’d be far more interested in staying in it.
Re: Re: Re:
“It’s similar to how Canada news sites get blocked on FB and Google”
Not unless you’re really stupid and think that an attempt to extort Google for money relating to traffic they already send to news sites is the same as an outlandish fiction being presented as fact by the agents for the party who would benefit.
“if the platforms don’t carry the story, then the vast majority of folks were unaware at the time”
Yeah, less people being unaware of fabrications intended to swing an election toward the liars is sort of the point.
What’s fun is that you are the poster boy for the arguments here. Honest discourse could use less people swayed by obvious fictions such as yourself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
That’s not what that word means. “Censorship” does not mean you could not talk about it anywhere. Being banned on just one platform (and it was several, actually) is absolutely still censorship.
I cannot stand liberal attempts to redefine this word, simply because you like the censorship that’s occurring.
Re: Re: Re:
Elmo’s never gonna let you touch his dick bro.
Re: Re: Re:
It isn’t, though. The Hunter Biden laptop story being unavailable on Twitter—which is a bullshit assertion in and of itself, since the story was all over Twitter on the day it broke thanks to Twitter’s own dumbassery—doesn’t mean the story was unavailable through other outlets, including the website through which the story broke. You want so hard for this to be “censorship” that I’m honestly waiting for you to claim that a pro-queer Mastodon instance refusing to host anti-queer propaganda is “censoring” the same anti-queer voices that have Substacks and Twitter accounts and probably even six-figure speaking deals in the UK.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It is, tho.
I’m sorry, this is fucking stupid, the word has a meaning, it’s not what you want it to be. It was censored on Twitter, FB and several sites, there is not standard that censorship must be total and comprehensive just to be censorship.
That is literally just a dumbshit thing you people made up to pretend that what you’re doing isn’t censorship.
Yes, that is technically censorship. I really don’t know why you are having so much trouble with the fact that words have definitions, and that those definitions don’t change just because you want them to. But wow, what a good job both being hyperbolic and playing the victim card! It’s still censorship when you approve of it, dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:3
Calling moderation censorship is you and your friends insisting that you can force your way into all conversations.
Re: Re: Re:3
And you’re doing everything you can to water down that meaning such that “a voluntary refusal to host speech” eventually means the same thing as “being forced to take down speech”. Deep down, that’s what really grinds your gears about all this: Twitter voluntarily decided (for a few hours) that it didn’t want to host a specific bit of legally protected speech that you just so happened to think was “good”.
The owner of a pro-queer Masto instance deciding not to host anti-queer propaganda isn’t “censorship” any more than Twitter’s (short-lived) decision to not host one specific link because of the content therein is “censorship”. But please, tell me again how voluntary decisions to not host speech that is/can be hosted elsewhere is “censorship”. You still have another foot you can shoot, after all.
Re: Re: Re:3
So refusing to host some kind of speech is censorship. Gotcha.
It’s nice of you to finally admit your attitudes, Matthew, what with your support for censorship in public libraries.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ok then, for the sake of argument let’s agree it is technically, by your definition, censorship. Can we agree instead that the “censorship” of the Hunter laptop story was wildly ineffective because it was always freely available to anyone who wanted to read it, plus it got Streisanded off the fricking scale? And if we can agree on that, can you concede that maybe the full-on tantrum about said “censorship” was far more performative than genuine? Or is that a little too much self-reflection for you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:3
Mr. Hyman Rosen.
50 cents have been deposited into your account.
Xi jinping thanks you for your continued service to the Chinese communist Party.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes, yes, you believe that a voluntary refusal to host certain kinds of speech is the exact same thing as being forced by either law, violence, or the threat of either to take down speech. We get it. Do you have an actual argument, or do you only have warmed-over stale-ass copypasta?
Re: Re: Re:3
So you admit there’s no censorship going on.
Re: Re: Re:
The only ones who are redefining the word “censorship” are chucklefucks like you and all those other stupid snowflakes bleating how they were “censored” on social media because it was their god given right to ignore the TOS without consequence while spewing hate, racism, misogyni, anti-semitism, election lies and very very dubious “health advices”. Oh, plus all the “think of the children” political crisis performers who are banning books they don’t like.
Every time you and someone else from the stupid-army mentions Hunters fucking laptop you declare yourself to be stupid fuckers who lack any kind of faculty for reasoning. You can’t even fathom why it is so fucking stupid to call it censorship even though it has been explained to you and your ilk on many occasions.
Your time would be better spent slamming your head into a wall than posting inane shit on the internet because at least then people won’t have to stumble onto and read any more of it.
Talk about being human waste.
Re: Re: Re:
…said nobody literate, ever.
Re:
Your 50 cents has been deposited into your account.
You’re gonna need at least 100 more posts to be eligible for parole. Yes, it can be used for your insurrection charge.
Re:
You bringing in a sad ass no true Scotsman in here? Son you just slathered yourself in bbq sauce and ran through the lions den.
I’d like to point out, that Musk is not just inventing nonsense, he does it in a way that proliferates conspiracy theories. This, I’m sure, is not unintentional.
Re:
In other words, he’s trying to emulate Donald Trump.
Re: Re:
“We won’t see as much election interference if we don’t have a huge team dedicated to finding election interference” does have big “the virus will go away if we stop testing” energy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Sometimes, y’know, there’s literally a conspiracy. Quite frequently actually.
Re: Re:
“Sometimes, y’know, there’s literally a conspiracy. Quite frequently actually.”
Like Trump trying to overturn the election? (Remember his lawyers being sanctioned by a judge for lawsuits regarding the election? You have to pull some real assholery to get sanctioned.)
Like “Conservatives” claiming they are silenced? (Unfortunately, I can still hear the complaints, and almost wish they were censored)
Like a bunch of “I’m going to protect the Constitution” assholes trying to aid in overturning a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected free and fair election?
There definitely are some conspiracies, I just don’t hold much stock in claims of conspiracy by the conservative side of things. They have repeatedly cried wolf, and only idiots are still listening.
Re: Re: Re: I want to say something: Anonymus × Files
Let me explain what really happened as I have been watching this go down for weeks. Kristen Ruby first reported this. Mike Benz then STOLE her reporting which he has done all year to the point where she blocked him. He then sensationalized her reporting so much that it was an entirely different story. He constantly sensationalizes things so much that even she had to distance herself from him as many others on the right are too. This man exists nowhere online. Yet he fed the twitter files writers testimony under oath. So who is this person anyway. Why is it that David sacks and Elon musk are now both following him? He is unknown to anyone in the trump administration. Not a single person on the right or left can confirm ever knowing him or that he existed before ten months ago. Mike Benz then rallied to get Roderick’s fired. Ruby witnessed this going on and was appalled so much that she issued a statement earlier today denouncing Benz without naming him. She showed integrity. he shows absolutely none. Elon is a complete fucking moron for trusting this Intel agent. Has anyone ever worked w this man? Why does he have no EIN? Who funds his foundation? Why is he so obsessed with Renee? Did they date? He has a sick obsession with her and it’s creepy af. Benz has caused a lot of infighting. He comes across like a raging sociopathic narcissist who dreams of attention and the spotlight. He’s constantly ripping off rubys work and then pretending he wrote it. In general he’s a joke. Only one he is fooling is Elon.
Re: Re:
Oh yes, my favourite was Trumps minions trying to overthrow the election by trying to find bamboo fibres in Arizona ballots.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You're lying and have zero evidence, again.
There’s no reason to think this has anything to do with a Tweet, you (and Rolling Stone) are just making that up.
Musk probably fired him because like Roth he was likely a bad, partisan actor who had made Twitter the dystopian 1984 machine it was. That’s probably true of the whole “Election Integrity” team, (I’m sure it was all over any claims about 2020, but thinks Stacey Abrams claiming she’s the duly elected governor of GA is just fine) but the optics would look bad (to you, cuz you’re a partisan). The entire thing could be replaced with “community notes” which has turned out quite well, actually (not that you would ever mention that).
Nope, you are just straight lying here. Censoring (no need for quotes) is basically the only option they can take. Their specific role is to suppress supposed “misnformation” about elections, which in practice means just about any statements by their political opponents about elections. There’s nothing to “understand”, and if they did “understand” something their only action to take would be to suppress, shadowban, or delete, i.e. Censorship.
You’re a partisan and you’re mad that the the partisan censorship is being dismantled. That’s the whole story.
Re:
Musk doesn’t know or care who you are, son. Kissing his ass like you’re making out with a supermodel ain’t a good look for you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Make an argument next time.
And I’m probably older than you, “son”.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you’re more mature, though. I mean, you come in here to troll a site you hate and get into arguments with people you despise, probably out of some inner desire to be acknowledged and possibly even liked by people who are smarter, wittier, and…well, just plain better than you (and you know it).
Re: Re: Re:
“Make an argument next time.”
Why? You didn’t… boy.
Re: Re: Re:
Listen kid – if you’re the idiot who believes anything he sees on social media, well, that’s a ‘you’re a fucking dumbass’ problem. Be thankful for spam filters or you’d be depositing checks from a Nigerian barrista that you think will actually clear.
If you believe something on social media more because there’s a possibility some social media suppressed it, then you’re beyond fucking hope – because you don’t find that suspicious. If I advertise a $2000 sofa for $150 on Shitter and you don’t see it on Facebook, I’m almost guaranteed to rope in a fucking moron like you. Because everything’s a conspiracy when paranoid schizophernia takes hold.
Get some fucking meds little man – because you’re not right.
Re:
From the linked RTE article:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
That’s basically meaninglessness. It’s just a stay, not a reversal, and based on one sided accusations based on the employee in essentially socialist EU.
The “evidence” here that is based on a tweet is based solely on testimony from an employee seeking to overturn his firing. That’s literally it. Which OF COURSE he wouldn’t say that. People being fired make up all kinds of shit.
Re: Re: Re:
“People being fired make up all kinds of shit.”
Spoken from much experience no doubt.
Re:
“You’re lying and have zero evidence, again.”
There’s telling on yourself, and there’s telling on yourself in the fucking headline.
Re:
Strong “leave Britney alone!” vibes here.
It’s richly ironic that you would accuse Mike of making things up and this write this nonsense:
There seems to be a lot of “making up” going on in there. You’re basically pulling it straight out of your ass.
Re: Re:
Of course he pulled it straight out of his ass, anyone who have the facts on their side doesn’t say things like “probably”, “likely”, “could”, “I’m sure”.
It’s a worse form of mansplaining, it’s idiotsplaining, it works as well on people who can think like mansplaining does on women.
Bratty Matty has a track-record of making shit up, even a kid who uses “the dog ate my homework” excuse is more convincing.
Re: Re: Re:
Technically, it would just be “weasel wording”(except maybe that last one), which fits nicely with the source.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’d say the last one is a form of weasel-wording. If they were truly sure of their claims, they would just link to the evidence instead of insisting their claim is legit and essentially saying “trust me, bro”.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s a fair point, though if I remember correctly, the point of weasel words is to be able to walk it back if someone counters or disproves what you said.
It’s hard to walk back an argument that contains “I’m sure”.
Then again, Matthew never walks back anything. He just doubles down/moves the goalposts/imagines new evidence/starts yelling.
Re:
I know you’re ignorant as fuck, but maybe learn a little. Here’s 61 pages of alternatives to removing information.
https://www.mttlr.org/wp-content/journal/voltwentyeight/goldman.pdf
Not that you’ll understand it.
That was literally not their role at all. The entire operation was about making sure that accurate information was available in response to false information, and as the data (where’s your data, by the way?) showed, the only cases where Twitter suppressed information was in the most extreme cases (telling people that the election was on a different day or a different place). There are literally no examples of them removing “statements by political opponents.” Because that would be fucking stupid and would immediately blow up in their faces.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yeah man, 61 pages trying to explain away censorship. Still censorship though.
Spilling tons of ink to tell a lie doesn’t make it true, I really thought you would have learned that lesson by now. (but you won’t)
I sorta don’t believe you, but Musk’s “community notes” does an excellent job of doing just that, so need for this group at all, right?
What are you smoking? You haven’t shown any data.
SO that’s a literal lie because twitter did that quite a bit actually. Maybe you’re claiming this particular group didn’t do that, but considering how prevalent “visibility filtering” (i.e. shadow banning) was at twitter I pretty much refuse to believe that they flagged “misnformation” and then didn’t try to keep it from spreading.
But again, community notes does this better and much more democratically.
You mean like piss off a billionaire enough to buy them out and fire everyone? Yes, funny that.
Buddy, they absolutely did exactly that, and took government orders to censor people besides. And that will remain true no matter how much you gaslight over it or call me names.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s literally not. The whole point of the paper is to explain why removing content (which still isn’t censorship) is not the only way that trust & safety is handled BECAUSE fucking idiots like you keep insisting that trust & safety is just about content removals, when that’s a very small part of it.
But, as predicted, you’ll NEVER admit that you’re full of shit.
You never do, which is why everyone here laughs at you. Your ability to be the opposite of correct EVERY SINGLE time is impressive.
I sorta don’t believe you, but Musk’s “community notes” does an excellent job of doing just that, so need for this group at all, right?
Community Notes is not a Musk product. It predated him. And, yeah, I actually like it, and it’s another example of a good trust & safety offering that is not content removals. Funny how you’re cool with in this context, but when I point out that trust & safety includes lots of things like that, you freak out and tell me it’s an excuse for censorship. It’s literally not. It’s literally stuff like Community Notes.
I hope that other platforms start doing something similar as well.
But as for it’s effectiveness, recent studies have called that into question, though I’m not sure I buy their methodology. I think it’s a good product that is very useful in the trust & safety context, but the research highlights some of its limitations.
Give me an example of someone who had content removed because of political opposition.
So, you must really hate Elon’s approach of “speech not reach,” in which he and Linda keep bragging that as they allow more speech, they actively suppress it so it doesn’t spread?
Or… no? Is it cool when Elon does it (and he’s admitted he does it way more than old Twitter did).
Again, all the evidence says you’re wrong. Until you can present some to the contrary, I’m sorry that the truth upsets your snowflakey feels. The truth is that Twitter did not engage in “political censorship.” It worked hard to come up with alternative approaches to avoid taking things down, including “birdwatch” which became Community Notes, or things like additional information.
It’s also true that Elon has embraced what you call “shadowbanning” and has used it extensively, way more than old Twitter did, and brags about it.
On top of that, data shows that Elon succumbs to government requests to take down data way more often, especially in response to authoritarian governments, such as Turkey and India, but last week it came out that he’s also taking down way more content based on gov’t complaints in Germany as well.
But, do we hear a peep out of Matthew on that? Nope. Of course not. Elon can do no wrong…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
MM, don’t forget that, just 11 days ago, a George Polk Award-winning investigative journalist described you as “one of the worst, most dishonest liberals in media, who constantly defends Big Tech…” 😳
You’re not a reliable source! You’re just an operative for a political party and a stooge for the very people you blog about. “Lügenpresse,” if you will!
Re: Re: Re:3
Who the fuck cares about a journalist has-been that went off the deep end and fell down into the conspiracy-swamp?
The answer is other conspiracy nuts, like you.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s telling you don’t have a single reputable, fact-backed source for your deranged claim.
Re: Re: Re:3
So what?
Re: Re: Re:3
First, there’s no record of that anywhere. So either put up or shut up.
Second, so what?
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s on youtube so you won’t find it by googling. It’s a small channel catering to the typical fact-averse conservative.
I do wonder what kind of needy and weak-minded individual hangs onto the words of a has-been journalist like it was the gospel of god.
Re: Re: Re:5
So it is another conservative voice being censored by Google, because if it wasn’t being censored every body would know about it.
/s just in case conservatives fall for the censored bit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
source: SYSTEM UPDATE ep. #149 “New Russell Brand Accusations Deserve Scrutiny & Due Process; Yoel Roth Wails Over Censorship-Regime Backlash; & 4 Republicans Demand Insane Ukraine Escalation”
timestamp: 1:27:39
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
direct url if MM doesn’t block/delete it again: https://rumble.com/v3it6bs-system-update-149.html?start=5260
Re: Re: Re:5
“Russell Brand Accusations Deserve Scrutiny & Due Process”
They do. However, nobody should be forced to do business with him, especially in the face of the fact that the activity was a well-known “open secret” for years before the investigations were made public (for which the venues reporting will face consequences if they turn out to be false).
I’ll happily retract my ideas about Brand if he turns out to be an innocent victim a la Craig Charles, but I doubt it, and your attempt to cite a timestamp of… something,,, with … whatever credibility doesn’t change my impression that he’s an abuser whose time has finally come, and we should judge him by his defenders. Which, it a cross-section of the scum of the Earth from what I can tell.
Re: Re: Re:6
Or, Gleen Greenwald has become another Goebbels.
And Mike should wear Greenwald’s accusation with a lot of pride. I hear that’s what people who do a lot of debunking do…
Re: Re: Re:
We will call you names and gaslight you until you blow up like a wet fart on an open flame because your kind competes with us for access to women and men who have not yet had their minds opened to dating people of the same gender.
You have overstayed your welcome on this planet and are the main thing holding us back from being a progressive species.
All it took was for a billionaire asshole to show the world your true colors. Sucks doesn’t it bratty matty?
Shake your fists and scream at the sky, it won’t help you anymore.
Re: Re: Re:
And how great that worked out for that idiot, huh? You dumb fuck!
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, Musk spending $44bn and then throwing ~66% of that value out the window in the following 10 months is quite funny.
Re: Re: Re:2
And then fellating every authcap leader and dictator by o eying their orders to remove anything they wanted removed.
Oh, and writing puff pieces for the CCP.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Man, you may fool the silly billies who fish for Insightful ratings and reddit-tier pwnage in this comments section like it’s crack, but not me. You didn’t even include the “M” in the middle of the name. Get out of here.
Re:
Times Matthew Bennet has demonstrated understanding of what the concept of “evidence” means:
0
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
What evidence, Toom? Unless you mean “some guy is commenting anonymously under Bennett’s name” which isn’t evidence, it’s just some guy. That could be literally anyone — it could be Stephen pretending to be Bennett for all you know.
You people are so desperate to fish for le epic ownage against the evil fascist trolls you don’t even realize how even low-brow trolls whip this comment section up into a frenzy because you’re so desperate to prove you’re better than the guy who obviously doesn’t care and is taking the piss.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t need to sockpuppet or imitate trolls. You, on the other hand…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I am once again very sorry to hear you’ve been unable to please your goat, Mr. Stone. May I suggest trying foreplay?
Re: Re: Re:3
Are you really so stupid that you think trying to make an oblique Rule of Goats reference that misses the entire point of the “rule” itself is funny?
wait, I forgot who I was talking to, of course you are
Re: Re: Re:
And I don’t feel the need to take a known Nazi harasser’s name and then start arguing like said asshole to score points.
If anything, it makes you the tiresome asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your comment proves my point.
Re: Re: Re:3
It doesn’t, but you keep telling yourself that.
Re: Re: Re:
Every accusation is a confession for you bubbo.
Their ultimate move. The chokehold.
Re:
I wonder if it’s a rear naked choke or a katahajime.
Re: Re:
Maybe like this? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alex-jones-martial-arts-choke-unconscious-b2420871.html
In day to day, we call negative acceleration deceleration. In physics, negative acceleration is still acceleration.
As such, negative growth is still growth, right? That’s how this works?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
As someone with a physics degree: no.
Re: Re:
Shit, I never knew Trump University offered physics degrees.
Re: Re:
A degree from PragerU doesn’t count, sport.
Re: Re:
I’d ask for a refund, because you are wrong.
If the shoe fits
afaik, Elon is a fucking dipshit .. who fires you for not being a good zombie employee.
wait, that’s not fair to zombies, zombies want brains.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Countrr Threats
Why exactly should a generic speech platform be in the businesses of countering threats? Isn’t that the job of law enforcement? The natural suspicion is that you want X to counter viewpoints that you oppose, including those urging people to vote against the things and people you like.
Re:
lmao go away Hyman
Re:
Why exactly should a generic speech platform be in the businesses of countering threats? Isn’t that the job of law enforcement?
You mean like having the FBI contact said platform? I thought you people lost your collective shits over that suspicion?
The natural suspicion is that you want X to counter viewpoints that you oppose, including those urging people to vote against the things and people you like.
Oh nice. More stupid…
Logistically, would law enforcement counter threats made on a certain platform without the participation of said platform? Or is this some other dumbass idea that you didn’t bother to think about before pressing Post Comment? Because that sounds strangely similar to the concept of the FBI/DOJ working with Twitter, which caused the fracas with you simps in the first place.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Countering threats to actual elections is not the same thing as silencing speech with which you disagree under the guise of stopping misinformation.
If law enforcement believes that threats are being made that do not fall under permitted freedom of speech, they are welcome to get a warrant and ask the platform for information about the speaker.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, but law enforcement just telling a platform “Hey, there’s this guy spouting pro-nazi nonsense, and it violates your terms of service” isn’t the same as a search. There’s no probable cause. Just a note to the platform that, yeah, that content violates the ToS of the platform, and the platform should probably investigate it. In other words: it’s the same stuff you or I do. And yet that’s somehow a problem if law enforcement does it, but not a problem if normal civilians do it…..
Re: Re: Re:2
Somehow? We have a little thing called the 1st Amendment that treats efforts of speech suppression by the government, including law enforcement, differently than the same efforts by private citizens.
Re: Re: Re:3
Informing key stakeholders about security breaches, Day 0 exploits, foreign disinfo campaigns and related NATIONAL SEXURITY ISSUES isn’t a 1A violation.
A waste of taxpayer money? You definite could weakly argue for that.
But censorship? Some of us DO know what it looks like, wumao.
And the Dems clearly AREN’T going full China here. Yet.
Re: Re: Re:3
Last time I checked, the FBI contacting facebook to tell them that they had a security vulnerability that they should be aware of, or using the very same tools that Facebook provides to ordinary individuals to report content, wasn’t a violation of the first amendment. Can you definitively prove that the use of those tools by law enforcement officials, in any way, implies that should the content not be removed, legal threats will follow? Oh, wait, people like you never actually can prove that….
Re: Re: Re:3
State Action doctrine and the Constitution both say that there’s no difference between the government’s effors and other private efforts.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Make mo laws” is not “you can’t notify about terms of service violations and misinformation”
Re: Re: Re:
Countering threats to actual elections is not the same thing as silencing speech with which you disagree under the guise of stopping misinformation.
Classifying speech I don’t agree with as ‘misinformation’ assumes that the speech in question isn’t actually bullshit (or an ‘alternative fact’) to soothe the MAGA snowflake who can’t cope with reality.
So if I disagree with when/where an election is being held and decide to post what I think is the right location, there’s no problem when a bunch of magtards go to the fake location because freedum uf speech?
Careful what you wish for. MAGA folks tend to be significantly more gullible and susceptible to taking bullshit as truth. Look how many of them lost money because they wanted to privately build a wall, despite the promise of Mexico paying for it? All you got for that was a pardon for Bannon and the gimp who started it in jail.
Re: Re: Re:
…didn’t happen out here in the real world, you half-baked potato.
Re: Re: Re:
True, they are not the same! As in the former actually happened, that letter not so much.
Re:
So you don’t want private parties doing it (literal free speech), you want government censorship instead. Can you clowns please be consistent on this?!
Re:
Because, unlike you, some people believe in free and fair elections?
No. I don’t want platforms to promote or support any candidates or push against others. And Twitter’s election integrity team never did that.
Elon, on the other hand, literally encouraged people to vote for certain parties and candidates. I’m sure you can point to where you spoke out against that?
Re: Re:
Some people are incapable of understanding the difference between having an opinion on what platforms should or shouldn’t do and an opinion on what they can actually do. They don’t seem to understand the nuance and this is isn’t even particularly nuanced to begin with.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
not democrats
Re: Re: Re:
Remind me, which political party openly opposed the results of a free and fair election to the point where members of its voting base, including members of a violent white supremacist group, stormed a citadel of American democracy specifically to disrupt one of the most important functions of American democracy (and potentially harm lawmakers along the way)?
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, wumao.
Dems may want to have as much influence as the Rewumaolican Party, but they’re not the one engaging in actual voter fraud and disrupting the democratic process.
Don’t worry, you’ll be c9nscripted i to a forever war soon. Hope you like assaulting an urban environment, because the USAF sure as fuck doesn’t.
Re:
aka what twitter is not, never has been, and never will be.
Re:
Because the free market, bitch. I thought you Republicans were all for it. But as soon as a guy starts kissing another guy you all start screaming for big Daddy Trump to rape you up the ass enough so you can forget gay people exist.
Your kind is NOTHING. You spent your time on this earth destroying it for millennia, and we are FINALLY going to wrest back control.
Post CSAM? Not a problem. Call Elon mean names? OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!
Elon: I took over this company to protect free speech, and by that I mean speech I agree with and nothing else!
What Elon does and does not consider grounds to remove someone from interacting with Twitter continues to demonstrate an endlessly horrifying set of priorities and standards for behavior.
“…but there’s little evidence that straight removal does very much productive, which is why it wasn’t that surprising that YouTube (for example) has stopped policing lies about the 2020 election”
Uh, bullshit. Google doesn’t want to pay people to do things if they don’t absolutely have to, that’s the reason. Why are you lying to us about something this obvious?
Re:
If they don’t want to pay people to do things they don’t absolutely have to, why’d they start the initiative in the first place and enforce it for 2½ years? They didn’t have to.
You can’t possibly expect us to believe that social media companies are cheaping out on countering information becasue it doesn’t matter, and not just becasue they don’t care. What is the point of lying this obviously?
Re:
You can believe whatever you want, sport. Make claims? Evidence, please.
Doesn’t matter why any company does a thing, fact still is that removing disinfo has no effect or negative effect.
Re:
You tell us, chief.
So he is, in fact, a fucking dipshit?
A boss once had to call on an employee for a place to crash overnight as his flight was delayed. The employee made up a bed filled with eiderdowns almost to the ceiling, and at the bottom, put one tiny mushy pea.
The boss was hospitalized with massive internal injuries, and the employee was arrested and charged with assault, grievous bodily harm, and whatnot.
Tha judge told him, “You should’ve known how thin bosses’ skins are by now …”
Is it really that much of an issue that the emperor has no clothes when he’s as dickless and ballless as a Ken doll?
Re:
When the Emperor isn’t gonna learn like Kuzco, yes.