Apparently Suing Non-Profits That Highlight Terrible Shit On ExTwitter Isn’t Scaring Off More Non-Profits From Reporting On Terrible Shit On ExTwitter
from the gosh-having-a-trust-and-safety-team-sure-would-have-been-handy dept
Last summer Elon Musk sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) over its report about a rise in hate speech on ExTwitter. A few months ago, he sued Media Matters for their report about how ads can appear next to neoNazi content on the site. If he thought those two SLAPP suits would intimidate other groups pointing out the sketchiness of ExTwitter these days, it appears he was mistaken.
As I’ve highlighted in the past I’m not a huge fan of CCDH (or, really, Media Matters), as I think they both tend to exaggerate and remove context. CCDH’s research can be downright shoddy. But that doesn’t mean they should be sued for their speech. Of course, the intent was to scare off researchers from looking too closely at ExTwitter.
It doesn’t appear to be working, as the Tech Transparency Project (TTP — another non-profit I find to be pretty awful, and which falsely calls us a Google shill because Google sponsored a few of our events years ago, even as we regularly call out Google for being awful) has now released a report that highlights that ExTwitter may have violated US anti-terrorism laws in doing business with US-sanctioned entities, in that it found multiple paid for “verified” accounts on ExTwitter associated with terrorist-designated or sanctioned entities.
The accounts identified by TTP include two that apparently belong to the top leaders of Lebanon-based Hezbollah and others belonging to Iranian and Russian state-run media. The fact that X requires users to pay a monthly or annual fee for premium service suggests that X is engaging in financial transactions with these accounts, a potential violation of U.S. sanctions.
A blue checkmark account that bears the name and profile image of Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, also indicates it is “ID verified,” a service that X offers to premium subscribers as a way to prevent impersonation. X requires users to submit a government-issued ID and a selfie to get verified in this way, though it is unclear if Nasrallah did so. X says these accounts get “prioritized support.”
Two other accounts for U.S.-sanctioned entities, Iran’s Press TV and Russia’s Tinkoff Bank, had gold checkmarks. A gold checkmark indicates the account is a “Verified Organization,” and at the time of TTP’s research, cost $1,000 per month. (X has since introduced a Basic tier that costs $200 per month.) Gold checkmark accounts get all the benefits of X’s Premium+ tier plus a $1,000 ad credit per month.
Yikes? Yikes!
There isn’t much of a way to twist this one. Even as I have my issues with TTP, this one seems pretty straightforward. It sure looks like ExTwitter conducted financial transactions with sanctioned entities. And, also, kudos to TTP for not being chilled by Musk’s bogus lawsuits against those other orgs.
This is the kind of thing that a functioning trust & safety team prevents. Maybe Elon shouldn’t have fired all of them.
Anyway, ExTwitter tried to defend this by… removing the checkmarks from the individuals (though not the $1000/month media orgs) and trying to insist there was nothing to see here:
If you can’t see that, it says:
X has a robust and secure approach in place for our monetization features, adhering to legal obligations, along with independent screening by our payments providers. Several of the accounts listed in the Tech Transparency Report are not directly named on sanction lists, while some others may have visible account check marks without receiving any services that would be subject to sanctions. Our teams have reviewed the report and will take action if necessary. We’re always committed to ensuring that we maintain a safe, secure and compliant platform.
Yeah, but if they weren’t named on sanction lists, why did you now suddenly take away their checks after they were called out? TTP also pointed out in response that it’s not at all clear what the claim that “some others may have visible account check marks without receiving any services that would be subject to sanctions” even means, given that since nearly a year ago, to get a checkmark, ExTwitter now requires you to purchase a subscription, which would be a transaction that is likely barred by the sanctions. TTP also points out that some of the orgs are clearly listed as sanctioned by OFAC.
I mean, all of this could have been avoided, as tons of experts had suggested early on, if Elon didn’t mix up verification (which means a specific thing) with premium subscriptions, which are very different. But, of course, Elon didn’t bother listening to any experts. Instead he fired them.
There’s a separate issue in all of this as well. As you may recall, just a year ago, the Supreme Court heard a case that dated back to pre-Elon Twitter, about claims that Twitter should be held liable under anti-terrorism laws for providing accounts to those associated with terrorists, and filed by the family of a victim of terrorist attacks. As the Supreme Court correctly found last May, this was clearly way too attenuated a connection. The ruling, written by Clarence Thomas is pretty clear why simply having an account isn’t enough to trigger liability.
But… also, it leaves open the possibility that doing more could very much trigger liability under anti-terrorism laws.
Because plaintiffs’ complaint rests so heavily on defendants’ failure to act, their claims might have more purchase if they could identify some independent duty in tort that would have required defendants to remove ISIS’ content. See Woodward, 522 F. 2d, at 97, 100. But plaintiffs identify no duty that would require defendants or other communication-providing services to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends. See Doe, 347 F. 3d, at 659; People v. Brophy, 49 Cal. App. 2d 15, 33–34 (1942).14 To be sure, there may be situations where some such duty exists, and we need not resolve the issue today.
It seems pretty easy to read that paragraph to read the laws against engaging in economic transactions with sanctioned entities as triggering just that sort of duty…
You see, sometimes, trust & safety isn’t just about stopping idiots from harassing people on your site. Sometimes it’s there to help you avoid violating laws about aiding terrorists.
Filed Under: iran, ofac, russia, sanctions, terrorists, verified accounts
Companies: tech transparency project, twitter, x
Comments on “Apparently Suing Non-Profits That Highlight Terrible Shit On ExTwitter Isn’t Scaring Off More Non-Profits From Reporting On Terrible Shit On ExTwitter”
Say goodbye to plausible deniability
X has a robust and secure approach in place for our monetization features, adhering to legal obligations, along with independent screening by our payments providers.
‘We didn’t unwittingly give sanctioned people and groups the Twitter stamp of approval, we vetted them first’ is not the defense he seems to think it is.
Related: Elon Musk demands you no longer call ExTwitter “Twitter.”
[…]
(King was referring to the TTP report referenced earlier in this article.)
Well, Mr. Sooper Geenyus®️©️™️, you keep deadnaming your own child, and not respecting their transition, so why should you be extended that courtesy?
Re:
In some dialects, X is pronounced like sh.
So I’m in favor of Xitter as it’s name. You can figure out the pronunciation yourself. Thomas Crapper might object though.
Re:
The fact that basically every major news outlet still refers to Twitter as “X (formerly known as Twitter)” on first mention—the phrasing may differ, but the point remains the same—tells me that Elon’s rebrand was not the genius move he thought it would be. Also, I’d be interested in knowing how much traffic x.com gets compared to twitter.com, because I can’t imagine the difference would be small.
Re: Re:
If someone slapped the back of Elon’s head every time someone in the media said “I read a tweet, or whatever they’re called these days…”, he’d have CTE by now.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I dont know about you, but my parents chose my name at birth, and got to control that name until I turned 18. Moreover there is no such thing as a “transition” its called genital mutilation, and it was wrong when the abrahamics did it, and its wrong when the trans allies do it.
Re: Re:
Ah yes. The view that until 18 a kid is property that should be treated as less than human.
You done making yourself look like a walking pos?
Re: Re:
jay the transphobe is speaking oh no what should i ever do?/s
Re: Re:
Your parents didn’t even let you pick your own nickname? The only thing they should control is your legal name.
Given that many who transition never get any form of surgery, this is demonstrably, objectively false no matter how you look at it. It doesn’t even require hormones. It could literally just involve changing the way you dress, which restroom you use, your preferred name, your preferred pronouns, etc.
So yes, there absolutely is such a thing as “transitioning” that doesn’t necessarily involve anything that could be called “genital mutilation”.
Almost no transgender people get genital surgery before age 18, making it easily distinguishable from circumcision and other forms of genital mutilation that are performed on children or infants. There is nothing wrong about an adult choosing entirely of their own free will and without coercion to get surgeries like SRS.
Now, on those rare cases SRS is performed on children, I’d agree it’s wrong. So would virtually all transgender people and their allies. It’s also an extremely low proportion of all SRSs that get performed, and those are rare compared to the number of transgender and non-binary people, who are also a small minority. You’re taking something that only occurs a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the time and applying it to the whole group.
The vast majority of cases don’t have the element that make it wrong for religious groups, and many transgender people don’t even get that particular treatment anyways.
Re: Re: Re:
Voted insightful but I think we need a “You’re wasting your time on this asshole” button.
Re: Re:
Don’t worry, someday somebody will touch your genitals and you’ll cease being a virgin.
Re: Re: Re:
And they regretted it so much they divorced him.
Three guesses why Jay’s called the revenge porn guy…
It’s going to continued to be called Xitter, exTwitter or whatever because calling your company X, by itself, is a particularly nonsensical, hard to pronounce, name.
Like X Æ A-Xii. Nobody is going to say that, nicknames will be used instead.
Really feel for that kid. Giving a crappy name to a child is a particularly shitty thing to do.
Re:
If he’s really going to throw a fit about it I suggest that a precedent from the musical field be used:
‘The Site Formerly Known As Twitter’
Re: Re:
exTwitter for short
https://ofac.treasury.gov/
For what it’s worth, dealing with these rules seems like a bureaucratic nightmare.
Re: Compliance
That’s why it’s so important to have a team, maybe call them Trust & Safety or Compliance to keep you out of this sort of trouble!
Re:
It can’t be that bad, most of the business world seems to get it right, most of the time. There are dozens of automated tools to do the bulk of the work.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
That doesn’t change the nature of the constitution, the fact that there are “automated tools”, doesn’t change the fact that the government can’t burden speech.
Re: Re: Re:
Burden what speech?
You seem to be confusing taking money from a terrorist with speech.
Re: Re: Re:
Foreigners in other countries do not have constitutional rights in America.
Re: Re: Re:
To clarify, are you arguing for the rights of terrorist groups to have paid-for exTwitter accounts?
Maybe Elon and terrorists have the same definition of “free speech”: all for me, nothing for the others
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike Masnick gaslighting again
He claims that he supports free speech, as long as its not the free speech of a “sanctioned entity”.
The freedom of speech includes the freedom to listen, and I should be the one who gets to choose if I want to listen to Vladmir Putin on twitter, rather than the government.
Re:
Ironically nothing in the article says that sanctioned entities can’t have an account. It’s just pointing out that the account engaging in a financial transactions (which btw isn’t needed to have an account) is almost certainly a violation of the sanction. Sanctions, which I will note, that Masnick (and the rest of techdirt) did not create and do not control.
Maybe Tailor you trolling to be a bit more like what’s actually said?
Re: Money isn't speech
Did you even read the article? At no point did Mike suggest that the speech of sanctioned entities should be suppressed.
There’s a difference between allowing a sanctioned entity to post on your social media platform (which is as far as I can tell completely legal) and accepting money from them in exchange for some form of service (which is very much against the law).
You’re welcome to listen to anyone on any social media of your choosing (provided that they’re willing to host them). What isn’t permitted is financial transactions with sanctioned foreign entities – that tends to get you into trouble.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Okay, and what is twitters “service” if not speech, you’re literally arguing that its illegal for the New York Times to sell a news subscription to Vladmir Putin, because its a “service”.
Leftists and their mental gymnastics.
Re: Re: Re:
Um…
Are you fucking brain dead?
You do not have to pay to speak on twitter.
Your issue though appears to be with evil democrats named Trump, and George W Bush. Maybe you should ask why they hate speech so much that they didn’t want American companies making money off of literal terrorists.
Re: Re: Re:
Twitter’s service is “social media platform”. Within that service is a additional subscription service that gives subscribers perks such as longer posts, basic text formatting, and the “blue check” verification icon. A sanctioned entity can use Twitter without paying for the subscription subservice; that sanctioned entities had been paying for that subservice presents a problem for the current owner of Twitter, who I assume wants to stay on the right side of the law. Also: Yes, if Vladimir Putin was a sanctioned entity covered by the laws that Twitter has run afoul of, the New York Times absolutely could not sell him a subscription without violating U.S. law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
So all you need to do to bypass the first amendment, is make laws regulating “services”, because the first amendment doesn’t protect services?
Re: Re: Re:3
You’re like the idiots who think they’re smart enough to tell the Supreme Court that they’re wrong because of their moronic understanding of what its words mean in their limited minds conveniently ignoring centuries of jurisprudence establishing what words actually mean. You’re the person carrying out mental gymnastics to take a basic concept like speaking and somehow equating it with spending money and thus if you cannot spend money then your free speech is being violated. Next you can tell us how incessant gun violence is keeping us safe, straight white men are the most oppressed group in America and your mom loves you.
Re: Re: Re:3
The United States has laws against doing business with certain sanctioned entities to prevent U.S. citizens from giving aid to those entities. Whether such laws run afoul of the First Amendment is a matter for the courts. That said: I see no problem with Twitter being unable to sell its subscription subservice (or the New York Times being unable to sell a subscription) to a sanctioned entity.
Re: Re: Re:3
It heavily depends on what those services are, and what the restriction is. There are an extremely wide variety of services that have fuck all to do with speech or expression, and so the First Amendment has nothing to do with those whatsoever.
The services rendered by exTwitter to those who buy its premium packages include quite a few that have nothing to do with speech or expression.
Whether those are something the government should be able to say “you can’t” too is a separate discussion from any First Amendment thing.
Re:
Old man yells at clouds
Re: Re: Actual old man...
Actual old man takes offense at the comparison. I yell at clouds only when there isn’t an obviously responsible (?) dumbass available to yell at.
And in this case, I’d say it’s pretty obvious who the dumbass is in this case.
Re:
How is anything you typed, other than the title, related at all to gaslighting?
You get to chose what now?
Re: Re:
Simple: the comment itself is gaslighting.
Re:
I revenge porn dude. Fuck off.
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
There’s a whole world of difference between Putin being silenced by the American government and Elon accepting money from organizations America has marked as terrorists.
Speaking of…
Why are YOU supporting a man who accepts money from a foreign nation?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Ex-Twitter is better than ever, and it’s a glorious time to be part of the movement there to shift the Overton window on a variety of controversial topics, including the evils of the LGBTQ+ agenda, the undesirability of unchecked illegal border crossings by poor, brown people, and the inherent inferiority of some races compared to our Founding Fathers.
Re:
Usually Twitter’s defender’s are smart enough to understand why they shouldn’t try to explain why they consider it ‘better than ever’, so points for being an honest bigot I suppose?
Re:
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or satirical.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I’m as serious as a heart attack in a sea anemone!!
Re: Re: Re:
So not at all.
Re: Re: Re:
Given that sea anemones don’t even have hearts… I guess that either you aren’t serious at all, or you fail at biology.
Re:
So you supported 9/11?
Re:
It’s so glorious why are you “deadnaming it” like Musk claims people are doing by not calling it X? You must really hate free speech to not respect somebody’s chosen name. Call it X like your master tells you to or you hate free speech, Jesus and like to kick puppies and kittens.
Re: Re:
It’s either Poe’s law in action, or they actually do, in fact, hate both of those things you mentioned.
The kicking of puppies and kittens may or may not be true; some bigots are weirdly fond of small cute animals.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Shut up, you stupid, nasty (& cowardly) tranny c^nt!
Re: Re: Re:
Said A Coward who can’t even force himself to write cunt.
Oops on all counts.
The change shows Mike may be right in his assessment of the bull spewing org’s assessment.
That said, if, and how, sanctions work at the sub-government level is still a legal grey area here.
For instance, private U.S. citizens very much can visit sanctioned countries. And pay for goods and services there. You can’t get there directly, and you can’t bring anything back, but you technically can. Though it’s generally a stupid idea to do so.
As for commercial dealings… I’m not sure anyone knows for sure. The general idea in play is a company’s independent assets (eg WOS etc) may do business in these locals as long as the U.S. portion of the company never profits directly from it.
The case here, which may be a foreign transaction conducted in foreign banking, is if a US company can conduct business externally of the US and bring such payments in house. I don’t believe that’s been tested in the SCOTUS. One to watch here.