When talking about content moderation, it’s easy to focus entirely on centralized platforms. But now, with the rise of more federated and decentralized systems like ActivityPub and Bluesky (and many others), it’s becoming more and more important to talk about how content moderation works in a decentralized space. This week we’re joined by Yoel Roth, the former head of Trust & Safety at Twitter and now a Tech Policy Fellow at UC Berkeley, to discuss the new and different content moderation challenges that decentralized platforms face.
We’re hard at work on a very cool new project that will be released very soon, so I didn’t have time to record a podcast this week. However, there were two recent (much more well known) podcast episodes that I heard that Techdirt readers might really like. Rather than do longer posts about each, I figured I’d just lump them together in this post with a short summary, and if they sound interesting, you should go check them out.
Radiolab recently had a fantastic podcast talking about Sci-Hub and its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, called “The Library of Alexandra.” We’ve written about Sci-Hub and Elbakyan many times in the past, but there’s often a lot of mystery surrounding her and her rationale for building Sci-Hub. The entire Radiolab episode is fascinating, and includes a reporter actually going to Kaszkhstan and meeting up with Elbakyan. Definitely worth listening to.
This American Life is always very good, but on the latest episode, the second act is Platformer’s Casey Newton interviewing former Twitter trust & safety boss Yoel Roth, talking about some aspects of how trust & safety actually works, what happened with the labeling of Donald Trump’s tweets, and what it was like to head trust & safety for a few weeks after Elon took over. It’s really, really good, and provides a lot of insight into trust & safety issues.
We’ll be back soon with more podcasts episodes. Hopefully next week, but it may be a bit longer.
I wrote last week about the bizarrely bad House Oversight hearing that was supposed to expose how Twitter, the deep state, and the, um “Biden Crime Family” conspired to suppress the NY Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Of course, wishful thinking does not make facts, and we already know that story is totally false. The hearing not only reconfirmed that the GOP’s fantasy scenario never happened, instead it revealed that the Trump White House actually demanded tweets that insulted the President get taken down and that Twitter bent over backwards to give Trump more leeway, even after he broke clear rules. It was something of a disaster hearing for the GOP.
But, one of the craziest bits of the hearing came from new Congressional Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who worked for Turning Point USA and PragerU before being elected. Her five minutes has garnered some extra attention for being even crazier than either Reps. Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene, both of whom had pretty crazy rants.
In particular, Rep. Luna (who has been facing some interesting news reporting of late) made some claims about there being a conspiracy between Twitter and the government to communicate via “the private cloud server”… Jira.
Of course, as anyone with even the slightest bit of understanding about, well, anything, would tell you, it’s that Jira is an issue and project tracking software, normally used for things like bug tracking. Luna claimed this was a violation of the 1st Amendment, because she apparently hasn’t the slightest clue how the 1st Amendment actually works.
From the transcript (helpfully provided by Tech Policy Press, though we’ve corrected it based on the video), you can see former Twitter exec Yoel Roth’s confusion over all this. For anyone who understands this, you can recognize Roth’s confusion because he recognizes that she’s completely misconstruing Jira and what it does. But, to Rep. Luna, she seems to think she’s caught Roth out in a giant conspiracy.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Mr. Roth. Mr. Roth, have you communicated with government officials ever on a platform called Jira? Yes or no? Real quick answer, we’re on the clock, yes or no?
Yoel Roth:
Not to the best of my recollection.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Not to your recollection. Great. Have, if you did in the event, communicate who would’ve had access to this platform.
Yoel Roth:
That’s the nature of my confusion. JIRA’s…
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Okay. Did you ever speak to government officials on Jira regarding taking down social media posts?
Yoel Roth:
Again, not to the best of my recollection.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Can you explain to me why the federal government would ever have interest in communicating through Jira? Mind you, a private cloud server with social media companies without oversight to censor American voices? I wanna let you know that this is a violation of the First Amendment and the federal government is colluding with social media companies to censor Americans. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to submit these graphics into record. And Mr. Roth, I’m gonna refresh your memory for you this flow chart.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY):
Without objection so ordered.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Thank you chair. This flow chart shows the following Federal agency’s social media companies, Twitter, leftist, nonprofits, and organizations communicating regarding their version of misinformation using Jira, a private cloud server. On this chart, I wanna annotate that the Department of Homeland Security, which has a following branches, cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, also known as CISA Countering Foreign Intelligence Task Force, now known as the Misinfo, Disinfo and Mal-information, MDM, this was again, used against the American people. The Election Partnership Institute or Election Integrity Partnership, EIP, which includes the following, Stanford Internet Observatory, University of Washington Center for Informed Public, Graphika and Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. And potentially according to what we found on the final report by EIP, the DNC, the Center for Internet Security, CIS- a nonprofit funded by DHS, the National Association of Secretaries of State, also known as NASS and the National Association of State Election Directors, NASED.
And in this case, because there are other social media companies involved, Twitter, what do all of these groups though, have in common? And I’m going to refresh your memory. They were all communicating on a private cloud server known as Jira. Now, the screenshot behind me, which is an example of one of thousands shows on November 3rd, 2020, that you, Mr. Roth, a Twitter employee, were exchanging communications on Jira, a private cloud server with CISA, NASS, NASED, and Alex Stamos, who now works at Stanford and is a former security of security officer at Facebook to remove a posting. Do you now remember communicating on a private cloud server to remove a posting? Yes or no?
Yoel Roth:
I wouldn’t agree with the characteristics.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
I don’t care if you agree. Do you, this is, this is your stuff, yes or no? Did you communicate with a private entity, the government agency on a private cloud server? Yes or no?
Yoel Roth:
The question was, if I…
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Yes or no? Yeah, I’m on time. Yes or no?
Yoel Roth:
Ma’am, I don’t believe I can give you a yes or no.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Well, I’m gonna tell you right now that you did and we have proof of it. This ladies and gentlemen, is joint action between the federal government and a private company to censor and violate the First Amendment. This is also known, and I’m so glad that there’s many attorneys on this panel, joint state actors, it’s highly illegal. You are all engaged in this action, and I want you to know that you will be all held accountable. Ms. Gadde, are you still on CISA’s Cybersecurity Advisory Council? Yes or no?
Vijaya Gadde:
Yes, I am.
Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):
Okay. For those who have said that this is a pointless hearing, and I just wanna let you guys all know, we found that Twitter was indeed communicating with the federal government to censor Americans. I’d like to remind you that this was all in place before January 6th. So, to say that these mechanisms weren’t in place, and to make it about January 6th, I wanna let you know that you guys were actually in control of all of the content and clearly have proof of that. Now, if you don’t think that this is important to your constituents and the American people from those saying that this was a pointless hearing, I suggest you find other jobs. Chairman, I yield my time.
If you actually want to watch all this play out, it’s at 5 hours and 31 minutes in this video (the link should take you to that point). You can see how proud Luna is of herself as she thinks she’s proven “joint state action” and found the secret “Jira private cloud server” where social media and government actors colluded to censor people.
The problem, of course, is that none of this is even remotely true. Whether Luna knows it’s not true, has very stupid staffers who told her something false, or if they just don’t care because it sounds good… I don’t know. I do know that Luna has continued to take a victory lap on this nonsense, including claiming on Steve Bannon’s podcast that she caught Roth “lying” under oath to a member of Congress, and she insisted that the panelist’s stunned faces were not because they were realizing just how confused Luna was about all this, but (she said) because they all wanted to immediately text their lawyers about how in trouble they were.
So, let’s debunk all of this nonsense. And, I won’t even bother digging into the fact that at the time of this supposed smoking gun, Trump was in office, and his hand appointed director ran CISA. There’s so much other dumb stuff, I don’t even have time to spend any more time on that.
Now, once again, Jira is a ticketing system, and a widely used one. It is not a “private cloud server” for “communicating.”
All of the details of what’s going on here were totally public already. The Election Integrity Partnership, which was a private project run by the Stanford Internet Observatory, UW Center for an Informed Public, Graphika, and the Digital Forensic Research Lab, have been quite open and public about what they did to try to track and monitor election mis- and dis-information.
They released a big report, called The Long Fuse in 2021 that details how they used Jira to track possible election disinfo vectors. They used it internally, but they were also able to “tag” in different organizations if they thought it was necessary. This is described pretty clearly and publicly in the report on page 18 and 19:
To illustrate the scope of collaboration types discussed above, the following case
study documents the value derived from the multistakeholder model that the
EIP facilitated. On October 13, 2020, a civil society partner submitted a tip via
their submission portal about well-intentioned but misleading information in a
Facebook post. The post contained a screenshot (See Figure 1.4).
In their comments, the partner stated, “In some states, a mark is intended
to denote a follow-up: this advice does not apply to every locality, and may
confuse people. A local board of elections has responded, but the meme is
being copy/pasted all over Facebook from various sources.” A Tier 1 analyst
investigated the report, answering a set of standardized research questions,
archiving the content, and appending their findings to the ticket. The analyst
identified that the text content of the message had been copied and pasted
verbatim by other users and on other platforms. The Tier 1 analyst routed
the ticket to Tier 2, where the advanced analyst tagged the platform partners
Facebook and Twitter, so that these teams were aware of the content and could
independently evaluate the post against their policies. Recognizing the potential
for this narrative to spread to multiple jurisdictions, the manager added in the
CIS partner as well to provide visibility on this growing narrative and share the
information on spread with their election official partners. The manager then
routed the ticket to ongoing monitoring. A Tier 1 analyst tracked the ticket until
all platform partners had responded, and then closed the ticket as resolved.
According to two different people I spoke to at the EIP, this Tier 2 setup, where companies got tagged in happened rarely. Instead, these tickets were mostly just used internally for EIP’s own research efforts. But, either way, note the issue. This is not government employees telling social media to take down posts. This is the EIP, basically a bunch of disinformation researchers, conducting research, and escalating issues to companies to be “independently evaluated against their policies.”
Now, as for the “smoking gun” which Luna showed where she claimed she’s proven “state action,” it’s very blurry and impossible to see in the C-SPAN video, and she didn’t tweet it either. Perhaps because it kinda debunks her entire argument.
The screenshot also isn’t anything secret. It was part of EIP’s own presentation explaining how the EIP worked! In this 12 minute video, Stanford’s Alex Stamos explains the whole process, and at 4 minutes and 14 seconds, he shows a specific example, which appears to be the blurry example that Luna claimed was her smoking gun. Except when you look at it, you see it’s actually an item that (1) EIP found and highlighted (not government officials) of actual election disinfo (someone claiming to be a poll worker burning ballots for anyone who voted for Trump). (2) They tagged in Yoel Roth from Twitter, who rather than just take it down, actually pushed back saying “Is there any evidence establishing that this was a hoax.” (3) EIP then reached out to the relevant election board to see if they had any proof that it was a hoax, and (4) them getting back a press release from the Election Board saying it was a hoax.
That is… not the government colluding to censor Americans. Nor is it Yoel Roth communicating with government officials. It’s EIP (not a gov’t org) raising a potential issue that clearly violates Twitter’s policies, but rather than immediately taking it down, Roth wants actual evidence. That then causes EIP to reach out to other orgs who can speak to the government officials and find out if there’s any further evidence.
In other words, nothing shown in the screenshot is Yoel communicating with government officials (only with EIP). Nothing shown is government officials demanding Twitter censor anyone. Instead, it shows private actors flagging some potentially consequential election disinfo. Finally, nothing in it shows that Twitter is quick to censor content based on these requests, rather it shows Yoel’s sole communication in the chain pushing back on what seems to be pretty clear disinfo, but demanding actual evidence that it’s false before he is willing to take action. Also, none of it was secret! EIP literally posted it themselves to brag about how their system worked to share useful information about election disinfo.
Once again, America, I beg you: elect better people.
I have a confession. While yesterday the House Oversight Committee took up six hours (sorta, as there was a big power outage in the middle) wasting everyone’s time with a hearing on “Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story,” I chose not to watch it in real-time. Instead, afterwards I went back and watched the video at 3x speed (and skipped over the giant power outage part), meaning I was able to watch the whole thing in less than two hours. If you, too, wish to subject yourself to this abject nonsense, I highly recommend doing something similar. Though, a better option would be just not to waste your time.
Unfortunately, the panelists — four former Twitter employees — had neither option at hand and had to sit through all of the craziness. By this point, I’m kind of used to absolutely ridiculous hearings in Congress trying to “grill” tech execs over things. They have a familiar pattern. The elected officials engage in pure grandstanding, ironically deliberately designed to try to make clips of them go viral on the very social media they’re criticizing. But this one was even worse. Honestly, the four witnesses — former deputy general counsel James Baker, former legal chief Vijaya Gadde, former head of trust & safety Yoel Roth, and a former member of the safety policy team, Anika Collier Navaroli — barely had time to say anything. Almost all of the politicians used up most of their own 5 minutes on their own grandstanding.
To the extent that they asked any questions (and this was, tragically, mostly true on both sides of the aisle, with only a few limited exceptions), they asked misleading, confused questions, and when any of the witnesses tried to clarify, or to express anything even remotely approaching nuance, the elected officials would steamroll over them and move on.
Nothing in the hearing was about finding out anything.
Nothing in the hearing was about exploring the actual issues and tradeoffs around content moderation.
Many of the Republicans wanted to just complain that their own tweets weren’t given enough prominence on Twitter. It was embarrassing. On the Democratic side, many of the Representatives (rightly) called out that the whole hearing was stupid nonsense, but that didn’t stop a few of them from pushing their own questionable theories, including the suggestion from Rep. Raskin (whose comments were mostly good, including calling out how obviously ridiculous the same panel would be if they called Fox News to explain its editorial choices) that Twitter’s failure to stop January 6th from happening was illegal or Rep. Bush’s suggestion that social media should be nationalized. On the GOP side, you had Rep. Boebert suggest that the panelists had broken the law in exercising their 1st Amendment rights, and multiple other Reps. insist over and over again — even as the panelists highlighted the contention was blatantly false — that Twitter deliberately suppressed the Biden laptop story.
Of course, if you’ve read Techdirt, you already know what the Twitter files actually showed, which was that the decision to block the links to that one story for one day was a mistake, but had nothing to do with politics, or pressure from Joe Biden or the FBI. But the hearing was extremely short on facts from the Representatives, who just kept repeating false claim after false claim.
But… the biggest reveal was actually that the Donald Trump White House demanded that Twitter remove a tweet from Chrissy Tiegen which Trump felt insulted by. Remember, in the original Twitter Files, Matt Taibbi had insisted that the Trump White House sent takedown demands to Twitter, but in all of the Twitter files since then, no one (not Taibbi or any of the others who got access) have said anything about what Trump wanted taken down. Instead, it was Navaroli who talked about how the Trump White House had complained about this tweet, and demanded Twitter take it down.
That tweet was in response to Trump whining that after he signed a Criminal Justice Reform bill he didn’t get enough credit. In the short four tweet rant, Trump mentions “musician @johnlegend, and his filthy mouthed wife, are talking now about how great it is – but I didn’t see them around when we needed help getting it passed.” Tiegen then responded as seen above.
And it actually sounds like Twitter did the same thing it does with every note from anyone — government official or other — and reviewed the tweet against its policies. Apparently, there was some sort of policy that would take down tweets if there were three insults in a tweet, and so they had to analyze if “pussy ass bitch” was three insults or one giant insult (or two? I dunno). Either way, it was determined that it didn’t meet the three insult threshold and remained on the site.
Still, this certainly raises the question: in all of the “Twitter Files,” where is the release of the details about Trump getting his panties in a bunch and demanding that Tiegen’s tweet get taken down?
Now, I’m expecting that all the people in our comments who have insisted that the FBI highlighting tweets that might violate actual policies is a Constitutional violation will now admit that the former President they worship also violated the Constitution under their understanding of it… or, nah?
Speaking of the former President, Navaroli also revealed yet another way in which Twitter bent over backwards to protect Trump and other Republicans. She relayed the discussion over a tweet by Trump, in which he suggested that Congressional Representatives of color, with whom he had policy disagreements should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”
At the time, Twitter’s policies had a rule against attacking immigrants, and even called out the specific phrase “go back to where you came from,” as violating that policy. Navaroli discussed how she flagged that tweet as violating the policy, but was overruled by people higher up on the team. And, soon after that, the policy was changed to remove that phrase as an example of a violation.
Now, there are arguments that could be made for why that particular tweet, in context, might not have truly violated the policy. There are also pretty strong arguments for why it did. Reasonable people can disagree, and I would imagine that there was some level of debate within Twitter. But to make that call and then soon after delete the phrase from the policy certainly suggests going the extra step not to “censor conservatives” but to give them extra leeway even as they violated the site’s policies repeatedly.
The whole thing was as parade of nonsense, and I even heard from a Republican Congressional staffer afterwards complaining about how the whole thing completely backfired on Republicans. They set out to “prove” that Twitter conspired with the US deep state to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. And, in the end, the witnesses quite effectively debunked each point of that, while instead the key takeaway was that Trump demanded a tweet insulting himself be taken down, and Twitter explicitly changed its rules to protect Trump after he violated the rules.
Look, I fucking warned Elon that this is exactly how it would go. It’s how it always goes.
Remember Parler? They promised that they would moderate “based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States” (a nonsensical statement for a variety of reasons, including that the FCC does not regulate websites). Then, as soon as people started abusing that on the site, they suddenly came out with, um, new rules, including no “posting pictures of your fecal matter.”
Or how about Gettr? Founded by a former Trump spokesperson, and funded by a sketchy Chinese billionaire, it promised to be a “free speech” haven. Then it had to ban a bunch of white nationalists for, you know, doing white nationalist shit. Then, suddenly, it started banning anyone who mentioned that the sketchy billionaire funder might actually be a Chinese spy.
And then there’s Truth Social. It’s also supposed to be all about free speech, right? That’s what its pitch man, Donald Trump, keeps insisting. Except, an actual study that compared its content moderation to other sites found that Truth Social’s moderation was far more aggressive and arbitrary than any other site. Among the forbidden things to “truth” about on Truth Social? Any talk of the Congressional hearings on January 6th. Much freedom. Very speech.
So, look, it’s no surprise that Musk was never actually going to be able to live up to his notoriously fickle word regarding “free speech” on Twitter. I mean, we wrote many, many articles highlighting all of this.
But, really, it would be nice if he didn’t then insult everyone’s intelligence about this and pretend that he’s still taking some principled righteous stand. It would be nice if he admitted that “oh shit, maybe content moderation is trickier than I thought” and maybe, just maybe, “Twitter actually had a really strong and thoughtful trust & safety team that actually worked extremely hard to be as permissive as possible, while still maintaining a website that users and advertisers liked.” But that would require an actual ability to look inward and recognize mistakes, which is not one of Elon’s strongsuits.
“Without commenting on any specific user accounts, I can confirm that we will suspend any accounts that violate our privacy policies and put other users at risk,” Irwin said. “We don’t make exceptions to this policy for journalists or any other accounts.”
Yeah… that’s not what people are complaining about. They weren’t saying journalists should get special treatment for breaking the rules. They’re asking how the fuck did what these journalists posted break the rules?
Eventually Musk jumped on Twitter, of course, and like Irwin, tried to pretend that they were just making sure the rules applied equally to journalists as to everyone else. Except… that was always the case? The issue was that yesterday, they created new laughably stupid rules to ban an account tweeting publicly available information regarding Elon Musk’s jet. Then Musk took it further and claimed that this (again) publicly available information was “assassination coordinates.”
Well, except for a few minor details. First, he just fucking changed the terms of service to shut down the jet tracker, and made them so broad and vague that tons of tweets would violate the rule — including anyone using Twitter’s built-in location indicator to tweet a photo of someone else. Second, the location of his plane is public information. It’s not “assassination coordinates.” If Musk is worried about getting assassinated, hiding this account isn’t going to help, because the assassin will just go straight to the ADS-B source and get the data anyway. Third, I get that Musk claims his child was in a car that was attacked the other night, but there remain some open questions about that story. For example, the location where it occurred, as deduced by BellingCat, was not close to any airport.
Given that, it’s not at all clear how this is connected to the jet tracking service.
Furthermore, the LAPD put out a statement on this:
LAPD’s Threat Management Unit (TMU) is aware of the situation and tweet by Elon Musk and is in contact with his representatives and security team. No crime reports have been filed yet.
Which, you know, seems notable. Because if a stalker actually went after him, you’d think that rather than just posting about it on social media, he might contact the police?
But, most importantly, none of the journalists in question actually posted “real time” assassination coordinates for Musk. They had posted about this whole story having to do with content moderation decisions made by Musk. Hell, one of the journalists, Donie Sullivan, got banned for tweeting that LAPD statement.
So, yeah, it’s not about “equal treatment” for journalists. It’s about coming up with bullshit arbitrary rules that just so happen to ban the journalists who have been calling out all the dumb shit Elon has been doing. Which, you know, was the kinda thing Elon insisted was the big problem under the last regime, and insisted he was brought in to solve.
From there it got even worse. A bunch of journalists, including a few of those who were banned (who, for unclear reasons were still able to log into Twitter Spaces, the real-time audio chat feature of Twitter) began discussing all of this, and Elon Musk showed up to… well… not quite defend himself? But, uh, to do whatever this was:
It starts with (banned) Washington Post journalist Drew Harwell asking a pretty good journalistic question:
One, I don’t think anyone in this room supports stalking. I’m sorry to hear about what happened with your family. Do you have evidence connecting the incident in LA with this flight tracking data? And separately, if this is an important enough issue to you, why not enact the rule change on Twitter and give accounts like Jack Sweeney’s, time to respond to, like you said, a slight delay in providing the data? Why say last month that you would support keeping his account online for free speech and then immediately suspend not just his account, but journalists reporting on it?
Unfortunately, before Elon could say anything, another reporter, Katie Notopoulos from Buzzfeed (who started the Twitter Space) jumped in with, perhaps, a less well composed question (this isn’t criticism — coming up with questions on the spot is difficult — but I do wonder what would have happened if Musk had been allowed to respond directly to Drew’s question).
Elon, thank you for joining, I am hoping that you can give a little more context about what has happened in the last few hours with a handful of journalists being banned?
Elon then says a lot of nonsense, basically just that “doxing is bad and anyone who has been threatened should agree with this policy.”
Well, as I’m sure everyone who’s been doxed would agree, showing real-time information about somebody’s location is inappropriate. And I think everyone would not like that to be done to them. And there’s not going to be any distinction in the future between so-called journalists and regular people. Everyone is going to be treated the same—no special treatment. You dox, you get suspended. End of story.
And ban evasion or trying to be clever about it, like “Oh, I posted a link — to the real-time information,” that’s obviously something trying to evade the meaning, that’s no different from actually showing real-time information.
I mean, a lot of this is kind of infuriating. Because many of the bans that happened in the last regime, and which Musk got so mad about, were also about putting people in danger. And Musk seems singularly concerned only when he’s the target. Over the weekend, he posted some incredibly misleading bullshit about his former head of trust & safety, Yoel Roth, taking an old tweet and a clip from his dissertation and acting as if both said the literal opposite of what Roth was saying in them (in both cases, Yoel was actually highlighting issues regarding keeping children safe from predators, and Elon and legions of his fans pretended he was doing the opposite, which is just trash). Following that, a large news organization that I will not name posted a very clear description of Yoel’s home, and tweeted out a link with those details. That tweet still is on Twitter today, and Yoel and his family had to flee their home after receiving very credible threats.
Again, I repeat, the tweet that identified his home is still on Twitter today. And Elon has done nothing about it.
So spare me the claim that this is about “inappropriate” sharing of information. None of the information the journalists shared was inappropriate, and Musk himself has contributed to threats on people’s lives.
As for the whole ban evasion thing, well, that’s also nonsense, but there’s more. Notopoulos asked another question:
When you’re saying, ‘posting a link to it,’ I mean, some of the people like Drew and Ryan Mac from The New York Times, who were banned, they were reporting on it in the course of pretty normal journalistic endeavors. You consider that like a tricky attempted ban evasion?
To which Musk responded:
You show the link to the real-time information – ban evasion, obviously.
So, again, that’s not at all what “ban evasion” means. The ban was on the information. Not a link to an account. Or a reporter talking about an article that links to an account. Or a reporter talking about a police report that very loosely kinda connects to the account.
And, again, banning links to the media was the thing that I thought Musk and his fans were completely up in arms about regarding the ban on the link to the NY Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Remember? It was like a week ago that it was a “huge reveal” by Elon Musk and his handpicked reporters, who apparently revealed what was the crime of the century and possibly treason when Twitter banned a link over worries of harm. Drew Harwell, finally getting a chance to ask a question, got into this slightly awkward exchange where the two seem to be talking about different things, but Drew is making the point comparing it to the NY Post thing:
Drew: You’re suggesting that we’re sharing your address, which is not true. I never posted your address.
Elon: You posted a link to the address.
Drew:In the course of reporting about ElonJet, we posted links to ElonJet, which are now banned on Twitter.Twitter also marks even the Instagram and Mastodon accounts of ElonJet as harmful. We have to acknowledge, using the exact same link-blocking technique that you have criticized as part of the Hunter Biden-New York Post story in 2020. So what is different here?
Elon: It’s not more acceptable for you than it is for me. It’s the same thing.
Drew: So it’s unacceptable what you’re doing?
Elon: No. You doxx, you get suspended. End of story. That’s it.
And with that “end of story” he left the chat abruptly, even as others started asking more questions.
So that whole exchange makes no sense. They’re clearly talking past each other, and Elon is so focused on the “journalists doxing!” that he can’t even seem to comprehend what Drew is actually asking him there, which is comparing it to the NY Post thing.
And, of course, it also seems relevant to the January 6th/Donald Trump decision, which Musk has also roundly criticized. One of Musk’s buddies, Jason Calacanis, was also in the space defending Musk, and I only heard bits and pieces of it because (1) Twitter Spaces kept kicking me out and (2) before the Space ended, Twitter took all of Spaces offline, meaning that the recording isn’t available (Musk is claiming on Twitter that it’s a newly discovered bug, though tons of people are assuming, as people will do, that Musk pulled the plug to get the journalists to stop talking about him).
However, on Twitter, Calacanis tweeted what he insisted was a simple message:
It’s just so obvious to everyone: don’t dox or stalk anyone.
Someone will get hurt or worse.
💕Be good to each other💕
If you are splitting hairs on the definition of these words, or claiming it’s public information, you’re missing the basic human concept here: people’s safety.
But, again, this brings us right back around to the top of the story. “It’s just so obvious” is a traditional part of this content moderation learning curve. It always seems so obvious that, “sure, this speech is legal, but man, it seems so bad, we gotta take it down.” In this case, it’s “don’t stalk the billionaire CEO” (which, yeah, don’t do that shit).
But this is how content moderation works. There’s a reason the role is called “Trust & Safety” because you’re trying to weigh different tradeoffs to make things trustworthy and safe. But Musk hasn’t been doing that. He seems only focused on his own safety.
And Calacanis’s claim that people are “missing the basic human concept here: people’s safety” well… that brings me to January 6th and Twitter’s decision to ban Trump. Because, you know, as Twitter explained publicly at the time and was re-revealed recently in Musk’s “Twitter Files,” this was exactly the debate that went on inside Twitter among its executives and trust & safety bosses.
They looked at the riot at the Capitol where people literally died, and which the then President seemed reluctant to call off, realized that there was no guarantee he wouldn’t organize a follow up, decided that “people’s safety” mattered here, and made the hard call to ban Trump. To protect people’s safety.
Now, you can criticize that decision. You can offer alternative arguments for it. But there was a rationale for it, and it’s the exact same one Musk and his team are now using to justify these bans. But we’re not seeing the screaming and gnashing about how this is “against free speech” or whatever from Musk and his supporters. We’re not likely to see Musk have Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss do a breathless expose on his internal DMs while all this went down.
That’s what’s hypocritical here.
(And we won’t even get into Musk going back on his other promise that they wouldn’t do suspensions any more, just decreased “reach” for the “bad or negative” tweets).
Every website that has third party content has to do moderation. Every one. It’s how it works. And every website has the right to moderate how they want. That’s part of their editorial discretion.
Musk absolutely can make bad decisions. Just like the previous Twitter could (and did). But it would be nice if they fucking realized that they’re doing the same damn thing, but on a much flimsier basis, and backed by utter and complete nonsense.
I asked Calacanis about the “public safety” issue and the Trump decision on Twitter, and got… a strange response.
In response he says:
I am a fan of using the blocking and mute tools for almost everything you don’t like at this joint.
Which, when you think about it, is a weird fucking response. After all, he was just going on and on about how it was righteous to ban a bunch of journalists because of “people’s safety.” But also that these problems can be solved by muting and blocking? So either he thinks Musk should have just muted and blocked all these reporters… or… what? It also does not actually respond to the question.
And, once again, we’re back to the same damn thing with content moderation at scale. Every decision has tons of tradeoffs. People are always going to be upset. But there are principled ways of doing it, and non-principled ways of doing it. And Elon/Jason are showing their lack of principles. They’re only trying to protect themselves, and seem to feel everyone else should just use “mute” and “block.”
Oh, and finally….
This post went on way longer than I initially intended it to, but there is an important postscript here. Last night, when we wrote about the banning of the @JoinMastodon account on Twitter, I actually downplayed the idea that it was about Team Musk being scared of a rapidly growing competitor. I was pretty sure it was because of the link to the @ElonJet account that was now working on Mastodon. And, that’s certainly the excuse that Musk and friends are still giving.
Buuuuut… there are reasons to believe it’s a bit more than that. Because as the evening wore on, Twitter basically started banning all links to any Mastodon server they could find. A bunch of people started posting examples. Some screenshots:
Those were just a few of many, many examples that can be found on both Twitter and Mastodon of Twitter effectively blocking any links to more high profile Mastodon servers (it appears that smaller or individual instances are still making it through).
Even more ridiculous, they’re banning people from updating their profiles with Mastodon addresses.
See that screenshot? It says “Account update failed: Description is considered malware.”
So, yeah, they’re now saying that if you put your Mastodon bio in your profile, it’s malware. Given that, it’s a little difficult to believe that this is all just about “public safety” regarding Elon stalkers, and not, perhaps, a little anti-competitive behavior on the part of an increasingly desperate Elon Musk.
Hello! Someone has referred you to this post because you’ve said something quite wrong about Twitter and how it handled something to do with Hunter Biden’s laptop. If you’re new here, you may not know that I’ve written a similar post for people who are wrong about Section 230. If you’re being wrong about Twitter and the Hunter Biden laptop, there’s a decent chance that you’re also wrong about Section 230, so you might want to read that too! Also, these posts are using a format blatantly swiped from lawyer Ken “Popehat” White, who wrote one about the 1st Amendment. Honestly, you should probably read that one too, because there’s some overlap.
Now, to be clear, I’ve explained many times before, in other posts, why people who freaked out about how Twitter handled the Hunter Biden laptop story are getting confused, but it’s usually been a bit buried. I had already started a version of this post last week, since people keep bringing up Twitter and the laptop, but then on Friday, Elon (sorta) helped me out by giving a bunch of documents to reporter Matt Taibbi.
So, let’s review some basics before we respond to the various wrong statements people have been making. Since 2016, there have been concerns raised about how foreign nation states might seek to interfere with elections, often via the release of hacked or faked materials. It’s no secret that websites have been warned to be on the lookout for such content in the leadup to the election — not with demands to suppress it, but just to consider how to handle it.
Partly in response to that, social media companies put in place various policies on how they were going to handle such material. Facebook set up a policy to limit certain content from trending in its algorithm until it had been reviewed by fact-checkers. Twitter put in place a “hacked materials” policy, which forbade the sharing of leaked or hacked materials. There were — clearly! — some potential issues with that policy. In fact, in September of 2020 (a month before the NY Post story) we highlighted the problems of this very policy, including somewhat presciently noting the fear that it would be used to block the sharing of content in the public interest and could be used against journalistic organizations (indeed, that case study highlights how the policy was enforced to ban DDOSecrets for leaking police chat logs).
The morning the NY Post story came out there was a lot of concern about the validity of the story. Other news organizations, including Fox News, had refused to touch it. NY Post reporters refused to put their name on it. There were other oddities, including the provenance of the hard drive data, which apparently had been in Rudy Giuliani’s hands for months. There were concerns about how the data was presented (specifically how the emails were converted into images and PDFs, losing their header info and metadata).
The fact that, much later on, many elements of the laptops history and provenance were confirmed as legitimate (with some open questions) is important, but does not change the simple fact that the morning the NY Post story came out, it was extremely unclear (in either direction) except to extreme partisans in both camps.
Based on that, both Twitter and Facebook reacted somewhat quickly. Twitter implemented its hacked materials policy in exactly the manner that we had warned might happen a month earlier: blocking the sharing of the NY Post link. Facebook implemented other protocols, “reducing its distribution” until it had gone through a fact check. Facebook didn’t ban the sharing of the link (like Twitter did), but rather limited the ability for it to “trend” and get recommended by the algorithm until fact checkers had reviewed it.
To be clear, the decision by Twitter to do this was, in our estimation, pretty stupid. It was exactly what we had warned about just a month earlier regarding this exact policy. But this is the nature of trust & safety. People need to make very rapid decisions with very incomplete information. That’s why I’ve argued ever since then that while the policy was stupid, it was no giant scandal that it happened, and given everything, it was not a stretch to understand how it played out.
Also, importantly, the very next day Twitter realized it fucked up, admitted so publicly, and changed the hacked materials policy saying that it would no longer block links to news sources based on this policy (though it might add a label to such stories). The next month, Jack Dorsey, in testifying before Congress, was pretty transparent about how all of this went down.
All of this seemed pretty typical for any kind of trust & safety operation. As I’ve explained for years, mistakes in content moderation (especially at scale) are inevitable. And, often, the biggest reason for those mistakes is the lack of context. That was certainly true here.
Yet, for some reason, the story has persisted for years now that Twitter did something nefarious, engaging in election interference that was possibly at the behest of “the deep state” or the Biden campaign. For years, as I’ve reported on this, I’ve noted that there was literally zero evidence to back any of that up. So, my ears certainly perked up last Friday when Elon Musk said that he was about to reveal “what really happened with the Hunter Biden story suppression.”
Certainly, if there was evidence of something nefarious behind closed doors, that would be important and worth covering. If it was true that through discussions I’ve had with dozens of Twitter employees over the past few years every single one of them lied about what happened, well, that would also be useful for me to know.
And then Taibbi revealed… basically nothing of interest. He revealed a few internal communications that… simply confirmed everything that was already public in statements made by Twitter, Jack Dorsey’s Congressional testimony, and in declarations made as part of a Federal Elections Commission investigation into Twitter’s actions. There were general concerns about foreign state influence campaigns, including “hack and leak” in the lead up to the election, and there were questions about the provenance of this particular data, so Twitter made a quick (cautious) judgment call and implemented a (bad) policy. Then it admitted it fucked up and changed things a day later. That’s… basically it.
And, yet, the story has persisted over and over and over again. Incredibly, even after the details of Taibbi’s Twitter thread revealed nothing new, many people started pretending that it had revealed something major, with even Elon Musk insisting that this was proof of some massive 1st Amendment violation:
Now, apparently more files are going to be published, so something may change, but so far it’s been a whole lot of utter nonsense. But when I say that both here on Techdirt and on Twitter, I keep seeing a few very, very wrong arguments being made. So, let’s get to the debunking:
1. If you said Twitter’s decision to block links to the NY Post was election interference…
You’re wrong. Very much so. First off, there was, in fact, a complaint to the FEC about this very point, and the FEC investigated and found no election interference at all. It didn’t even find evidence of it being an “in-kind” contribution. It found no evidence that Twitter engaged in politically motivated decision making, but rather handled this in a non-partisan manner consistent with its business objectives:
Twitter acknowledges that, following the October 2020 publication of the New York Post
articles at issue, Twitter blocked users from sharing links to the articles. But Twitter states that
this was because its Site Integrity Team assessed that the New York Post articles likely contained
hacked and personal information, the sharing of which violated both Twitter’s Distribution of
Hacked Materials and Private Information Policies. Twitter points out that although sharing
links to the articles was blocked, users were still permitted to otherwise discuss the content of the
New York Post articles because doing so did not directly involve spreading any hacked or
personal information. Based on the information available to Twitter at the time, these actions
appear to reflect Twitter’s stated commercial purpose of removing misinformation and other
abusive content from its platform, not a purpose of influencing an election
All of this is actually confirmed by the Twitter Files from Taibbi/Musk, even as both seem to pretend otherwise. Taibbi revealed some internal emails in which various employees (going increasingly up the chain) discussed how to handle the story. Not once does anyone in what Taibbi revealed suggest anything even remotely politically motivated. There was legitimate concern internally about whether or not it was correct to block the NY Post story, which makes sense, because they were (correctly) concerned about making a decision that went too far. I mean, honestly, the discussion is not only without political motive, but shows that the trust & safety apparatus at Twitter was concerned with getting this correct, including employees questioning whether or not these were legitimately “hacked materials” and questioning whether other news stories on the hard drive should get the same treatment.
There are more discussions of this nature, with people questioning whether or not the material was really “hacked” and initially deciding on taking the more cautious approach until they knew more. Twitter’s Yoel Roth notes that “this is an emerging situation where the facts remain unclear. Given the SEVERE risks here and lessons of 2016, we’re erring on the side of including a warning and preventing this content from being amplified.”
Again, exactly as has been noted, given the lack of clarity Twitter reasonably decided to pump the brakes until more was known. There was some useful back-and-forth among employees — the kind that happens in any company regarding major trust & safety decisions, in which Twitter’s then VP of comms questioned whether or not this was the right decision. This shows a productive discussion — not anything along the lines of pushing for any sort of politically motivated outcome.
And then deputy General Counsel Jim Baker (more on him later, trust me…) chimes in to again highlight exactly what everyone has been saying: that this is a rapidly evolving situation, and it makes sense to be cautious until more is known. Baker’s message is important:
I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked. At this stage, however, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted. There are some facts that indicate that the materials may have been hacked, while there are others indicating that the computer was either abandoned and/or the owner consented to allow the repair shop to access it for at least some purposes. We simply need more information.
Again, all of this is… exactly what everyone has said ever since the day after it happened. This was an emerging story. The provenance was unclear. There were some sketchy things about it, and so Twitter enacted the policy because they just weren’t sure and didn’t have enough info yet. It turned out to be a bad call, but in content moderation, you’re going to make some bad calls.
What is missing entirely is any evidence that politics entered this discussion at all. Not even once.
2. But Twitter’s decision to “suppress” the story was a big deal and may have swung the election to Biden!
I’m sorry, but there remains no evidence to support that silly claim either. First off, Twitter’s decision actually seemed to get the story a hell of a lot more attention. Again, as noted above, Twitter did nothing to stop discussion of the story. It only blocked links to one story in the NY Post, and only for that one day. And the very fact that Twitter did this (and Facebook took other action) caused a bit of a Streisand Effect (hey!) which got the underlying story a lot more attention because of the decisions by those two companies.
The reality, though, is that the story just wasn’t that big of a deal for voters. Hunter Biden wasn’t the candidate. His father was. Everyone already pretty much knew that Hunter is a bit of a fuckup and clearly personally profiting off of the situation, but there was no actual big story in the revelations (I mean, yeah, there are still some people who insist there are, but they’re the same people who misunderstood the things we’re debunking here today). And, if we’re going to talk about kids of Presidents profiting off of their last name, well, there’s a pretty long list to go down….
But don’t take my word for it, let’s look at the evidence. As reporter Philip Bump recently noted, there’s actual evidence in Google search trends that Twitter and Facebook’s decision really did generate a lot more interest in the story. It was well after both companies took action that searches on Google for Hunter Biden shot upward:
Also, soon after, Twitter reversed its policy, and there was widespread discussion of the laptop in the next three weeks leading up to the election. The brief blip in time in which Twitter and Facebook limited the story seemed to have only fueled much more interest in it, rather than “suppressing” it.
Indeed, another document in the “Twitter Files” highlights how a Democratic member of the House, Ro Khanna, actually reached out to Twitter to point this out and to question Twitter’s decision (if this was really a big Democratic conspiracy, you’d think he’d be supportive of the move, rather than critical of it, but the reverse was true.) Rep. Khanna’s email to Twitter noted:
I say this as a total Biden partisan and convinced he didn’t do anything wrong. But the story has now become more about censorship than relatively innocuous emails and it’s become a bigger deal than it would have been.
So again, the evidence actually suggests that the story wasn’t suppressed at all. It got more attention. It didn’t swing the election, because most people didn’t find the story particularly revealing.
3. The government pressured Twitter/Facebook to block this story, and that’s a huge 1st Amendment violation / treason / crime of the century / etc.
Yeah, so, that’s just not true. I’ve spent years calling out government pressure on speech, from Democrats (and more Democrats) to Republicans (and more Republicans). So I’m pretty focused on watching when the government goes over the line — and quick to call it out. And there remains no evidence at all of that happening here. At all. Taibbi admits this flat out:
Incredibly, I keep seeing people on Twitter claim that Taibbi said the exact opposite. And you have people like Glenn Greenwald who insist that Taibbi only meant “foreign” governments here, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If he had found evidence that there was US government pressure here… why didn’t he post it? The answer: because it almost certainly does not exist.
Some people point to Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance over the summer on Joe Rogan’s podcast as “proof” that the FBI directed both companies to suppress the story, but that’s not at all what Zuckerberg said if you listened to his actual comments. Zuckerberg admits that they make mistakes, and that it feels terrible when they do. He goes into a pretty detailed explanation of some of how trust & safety works in determining whether or not a user is authentic. Then Rogan asks about the laptop story, and Zuckerberg says:
So, basically, the background here, is the FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, and were like “just so you know, you should be on high alert, we thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice, basically, that there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant.”
This does not say that the FBI came to Facebook and said “suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.” It was just a general warning that the FBI had intelligence that there might be some foreign influence operations, and to “be vigilant.”
This is nearly identical to what Twitter’s then head of “site integrity,” Yoel Roth, noted in his declaration in the FEC case discussed above:
“[F]ederal
law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected ‘hack-and-leak operations’ by state actors might occur
in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election . . . . I also learned in these meetings that there were
rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.”
Basically the FBI is saying, in general, they have some intelligence that this kind of attack may happen, so be careful. It did not say to censor the info. It didn’t involve any threats. It wasn’t specifically about the laptop story.
And, in fact, as of earlier this week, we now have the FBI’s version of these events as well! That’s because of the somewhat silly lawsuit that Missouri and Louisiana filed against the Biden administration over Twitter’s decision to block the NY Post story. Just this week, Missouri released the deposition of FBI agent, Elvis Chan, who is often found at the center of conspiracy theories regarding “government censorship.”
And Chan tells basically the same story with a few slight differences, mostly in terms of framing. Specifically, Chan says that he never told the companies to “expect” a hack and leak attack, but rather to be aware of the possibility, slightly contradicting Roth’s declaration:
Yeah, I don’t know what Mr. Roth meant or meant, but what I’m letting you know is that from my recollection — I don’t believe we would have worded it so strongly to say that we expected there to be hacks. I would have worded it to say that there was the potential for hacks, and I believe that is how anyone from our side would have framed the comment.
And the reason I believe that is because I and the FBI, for that matter the U.S. intelligence community, was not aware of any successful hacks against political organizations or political campaigns.
You don’t think that intelligence officials described it in the way that Mr. Roth does here in this sentence in the affidavit?
Yeah, I would not have — I do not believe that the intelligence community would have expected it. I said that they would have been concerned about the potential for it.
In the deposition, Chan repeats (many, many times) that he wouldn’t have used the language saying such an effort would be “expected” but that it was something to look out for.
He also doesn’t recall Hunter Biden’s name even coming up, though he does say they warned them to be on the lookout for discussions on “hot button” issues, and notes that the companies themselves would often ask about certain scenarios:
So from my recollection, the social media companies, who include Twitter, would regularly ask us, “Hey, what kind of content do you think the nation state actors, the Russians would post,” and then they would provide examples. Like, “Would it be X” or “Would it be Y” or “Would it be Z.” And then we — I and then the other FBI officials would say, “We believe that the Russians will take advantage of any hot-button issue.” And we — I do not remember us specifically saying “Hunter Biden” in any meeting with Twitter.
Later on he says:
Yeah, in my estimation, we never discussed Hunter Biden specifically with Twitter. And so the way I read that is that there are hack-and-leak operations, and then at the time — at the time I believe he flagged one of the
potential current events that were happening ahead of the elections.
You believe that he, Yoel Roth, flagged Hunter Biden in one of these meetings?
No. I believe — I don’t believe he flagged it during one of the meetings. I just think that — so I don’t know. I cannot read his mind, but my assessment is because I don’t remember discussing Hunter Biden at any of the meetings with Twitter, that we didn’t discuss it.
So this would have been something that he would have just thought of as a hot-button issue on his own that happened in October.
He goes into great detail about meeting with tons of companies, but notes that mostly he’d talk to them about cybersecurity threats, not disinformation. He talks a bit about Russian disinformation campaigns, highlighting the well known Internet Research Agency, which specialized in pushing divisive messaging on US social media platforms. However, he basically confirms that he never discussed the laptop with anyone at any of these companies, and the deposition makes it pretty clear that if anyone at the FBI would have done so, it either would have been Chan himself or done with Chan’s knowledge.
As for the NY Post story, and the laptop itself, he notes he found out about it through the media, just like everyone else. And then he says that he didn’t talk with anyone at Twitter or Facebook about it, despite being their main contact on these kinds of issues.
Q. It’s your testimony that those news articles are the first time that you became aware that — you became aware of Hunter Biden’s laptop in any connection?
Yes. I don’t remember if it was a New York Post article or if it was another media outlet, but it was on multiple media outlets, and I can’t remember which article I read.
And before that day, October 14th, 2020, were you aware — were you aware of Hunter Biden — had anyone ever mentioned Hunter Biden’s laptop to you?
No.
[….]
Do you know if anyone at Twitter reached out to anyone at the FBI to check or verify anything about the Hunter Biden story?
I am not aware of any communications between Yoel Roth and the FBI about this topic.
Are you aware of any communications between anyone at Twitter and anyone in the federal government about the decision to suppress content relating to the Hunter Biden laptop story once the story had broken?
I am not aware of Mr. Roth’s discussions with any other federal agency. As I mentioned, I am not aware of any discussions with any FBI employees about this topic as well. But I only know who I know. So I don’t — he may have had these conversations, but I was not aware of it.
You mentioned Mr. Roth. How about anyone else at Twitter, did anyone else at Twitter reach out, to your knowledge, to anyone else in the federal government?
So I can only answer for the FBI. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any Twitter employee reaching out to any FBI employee regarding this topic.
/
How about Facebook, other than that meeting you referred to where an analyst asked the FBI to comment on the Hunter Biden investigation, are you aware of any communications between anyone at Facebook and anyone at the FBI related to the Hunter Biden laptop story?
No.
How about any other social media platform?
No.
How about Apple or Microsoft?
No.
Basically, the exact same story emerges no matter how you look at it. The FBI, along with CISA, would have various meetings with internet companies mainly to warn them about cybersecurity (i.e., hacking) threats, but also generally mentioned the possibility of hack and leak attempts with a general warning to be on the lookout for such things, and that they may touch on “hot button” social and news topics. Nowhere is there any indication of pressure or attempts to tell the companies what to do, or how they should handle it. Just straight up information sharing.
When you look at all three statements — Zuckerberg’s, Roth’s, and Chan’s — basically the same not-very-interesting story emerges. The US government had some general meetings that happen with lots of big companies to warn them about various potential cybersecurity threats, and the issue of hack-and-leak campaigns as a general possibility came up with no real specifics and no warnings.
And no one communicated with the companies directly about the NY Post story.
Given all that, I honestly don’t see how there’s any reasonable concern here. There’s certainly no clear 1st Amendment concern. There appears to be zero in the way of government involvement or pressure. There’s no coercion or even implied threats. There’s literally nothing at all (no matter how Missouri’s Attorney General completely misrepresents it).
Indeed, the only thing revealed so far that might be concerning regarding the 1st Amendment is that Taibbi claimed that the Trump administration allegedly made demands of Twitter.
If the Trump administration actually had sent requests to “remove” tweets (as Taibbi claims in an earlier tweet) that would most likely be a 1st Amendment issue. However, Taibbi reveals no such requests, which is really quite remarkable. It is also possible that Taibbi is overselling these claims, because this is a part of a discussion that we’ll get to in the next section, regarding Twitter’s flagging tools, which anyone (including you or me) can use to flag content for Twitter to review to see if it violates the company’s terms of service. While there are certainly some concerns about the government’s use of such tools, unless there’s some sort of threat or coercion, and as long as Twitter is free to judge the content for itself and determine how to handle it under its own terms, there’s probably no 1st Amendment issue.
Indeed, some people have highlighted the fact that the government gets “special treatment” in having its flags reviewed. But, from people I’ve spoken to, that actually goes against the “1st Amendment violation!” argument, because many social media companies set up special systems for government agents not to enable “moar censorship!” but because they know they have to be extra vigilant in reviewing those requests so as not to take down content mistakenly based on a government request.
So, sorry, so far there appears to be no government intrusion, and certainly no 1st Amendment violation.
4. The Biden campaign / Democrats demanded Twitter censor the NY Post! And that’s a 1st Amendment violation / treason / the crime of the century / etc.
So, again, the only way that there’s a 1st Amendment violation is if the government issued the demand. And in October of 2020, the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee… were not the government. The 1st Amendment does not restrict their ability, as private citizens (even while campaigning for public office) to flag content for Twitter to review against its policies. Hilariously, Elon Musk seems kinda confused about how time works. That tweet that we screenshotted about about the “1st Amendment” violation is in response to an internal email that Taibbi revealed about what Taibbi (misleadingly) says are “requests from connected actors to delete tweets” followed by a screenshot of Twitter employees listing out some tweets saying “more to review from the Biden team” and someone responding “handled these.”
There was then the next tweet which was a similar set of two tweets sent over from the Democratic National Committee (as compared to the Biden campaign in the first one). This includes a tweet from the actor James Woods, which the Twitter team calls special attention to for being “high profile.”
Except, as a few enterprising folks discovered when looking up those tweets listed, they were… basically Hunter Biden nude images that were found on the laptop hard drive, which clearly violated Twitter’s terms of service (and likely violated multiple state laws regarding the sharing of nonconsensual nude images). This includes the James Woods tweet, which included a fake Biden campaign ad that showed a naked picture of Hunter Biden lying on a bed with his (only slightly blurred) penis quite visible. I’m not going to share a link to the image.
A good investigative reporter might have looked up what was in those tweets before posting a conspiratorial post implying that these were attempts by the campaign to remove the NY Post story or some other important information. But Taibbi did not. Nor has he commented on it since.
On top of that, while Taibbi claims that these were “requests to delete,” as the Twitter email quite clearly says, these are for Twitter to “review.” In other words, these were flagged for Twitter to review if they violate Twitter’s policies as the naked images clearly do.
So, there’s clearly no 1st Amendment concern here because, despite Musk’s understanding of the space-time continuum, the Biden administration was not in the White House in October of 2020. Second, even if we’re concerned about political campaigns asking for content to be deleted, flagging content for companies to review to see if they violate policies is not (in any way) the same as demanding it be deleted. Anyone can flag content. And then the company reviews it and makes a determination.
Even more importantly, nothing revealed so far suggests that the campaign had anything to say to Twitter regarding the NY Post story or any story regarding the laptop. Literally the only concerns raised were about the naked pictures.
Finally, as noted above, the only other Democrat mentioned so far in the Twitter files is Rep. Ro Khanna who told Twitter it was wrong to stop the links to the NY Post article, and urged them to rescind the decision in the name of free speech. That does not sounds like the Democrats secretly pressuring the company to block the story. It kinda sounds like the exact opposite.
So despite what everyone keeps yelling on Twitter (including Elon Musk) this still doesn’t appear to be evidence of “censorship” or even “suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.” It’s just focused on the nonconsensual sharing of Hunter’s naked images.
As a side note, Woods has now said he’s going to sue over this, though for the life of me I have no idea what sort of claim he thinks he has, or how it’s going to go over in court when he claims his rights were violated when he was unable to share Hunter’s dick pic.
5. But Jim Baker! He worked for the FBI! And he was in charge of the Twitter files! Clearly he’s covering up stuff!
Here we are ripping from the stupidity headlines. This one came out just last night as Taibbi added a “supplement” to the Twitter files, again seemingly confused about how basically anything works. According to Taibbi in a very unclear and awkwardly worded thread, he and Bari Weiss (another opinion columnist who Musk has decided to share the files with) were having some sort of “complication” in accessing the files. Taibbi claims that Twitter’s Deputy General Counsel, Jim Baker, was reviewing the files, and somehow this was as problem (he does not explain why or how, though there’s a lot of conjecture).
Baker is, in fact, the former General Counsel at the FBI. It made news when he was hired.
Baker was subject to a bunch of conspiracy theory stuff a few years ago regarding the FBI and some of the sillier theories regarding the Trump campaign, including the Steele Dossier and the even sillier “Alfa Bank” story (which had always been silly and lots of people, including us, had mocked when it came out).
But despite all that, there’s really little evidence that Baker has done anything particularly noteworthy here. The stuff about his actions while at the FBI is totally overblown partisan hackery. People talk about the so-called “criminal investigation” he faced for his work looking into Russian interference in the 2020 election, but that appears to be something mostly cooked up by extreme Trumpists in the House and appears to have gone nowhere. And, yes, he was a witness at the Michael Sussman trial, which was sorta connected to the Alfa Bank stuff, but his testimony supported John Durham, not Michael Sussman, in that he claimed that Sussman made a false statement to him, which the entire case hinged on (and, for what it’s worth, the trial ended in acquittal).
In other words, almost all of the FBI-related accusations against Baker are entirely “guilt by association” type claims, with nothing at all legitimate to back them up.
As for Twitter, we already highlighted Baker’s email that Taibbi revealed, which shows a normal, thoughtful, cautious discussion of a normal trust & safety debate, with nothing even remotely political.
The latest claims from Taibbi and Weiss also don’t make much sense. Elon Musk has told his company to hand over a bunch of internal documents to reporters. Any corporate lawyer would naturally do a fairly standard document review before doing so to make sure that they’re not handing over any private information or something else that might create legal issues for Musk. And since a large chunk of the legal team has left the company, it wouldn’t be all that surprising if the task ended up on Baker’s desk.
Now, you can argue (as Taibbi and others now imply) that there’s some massive conflict of interest here, but, uh… that’s not at all clear, and not really how conflict of interest works. And, again, there’s little indication that Baker had a major role here at all, beyond being one of many who weighed in on this matter (and did so in a perfectly reasonable manner).
Honestly, Baker not reviewing the documents first would have potentially put him in legal jeopardy for not doing the very basic function of his job in making sure the company he worked for didn’t put itself in serious legal jeopardy by revealing things that might create huge liabilities for Musk and the company.
Either way, late Tuesday, Musk announced that Baker had “exited” from the company, and when asked by a random Twitter user if he had been “asked to explain himself first” Musk claimed that Baker’s “explanation was… unconvincing.”
And perhaps there’s something more here that will be revealed by Weiss now that the shackles have been removed. But, based on what’s been stated so far, a perfectly plausible explanation is that Musk confronted Baker wanting to know why he was holding back the files and what his role was in “suppressing” the NY Post story. And Baker told him, truthfully, that his role was exactly as was revealed in the email (giving his general thoughts on the proper approach to handling the story) and that he was reviewing documents because that’s his job, and Musk got mad and fired him.
Somewhat incredibly, Musk also seemed to imply he only learned of Baker’s involvement on Sunday.
Some people are claiming that Musk is saying he only discovered that Baker worked for him on Sunday, which is possible but seems unlikely. Conspiracy theorists had pointed out Baker’s role at the company to Musk as far back as April. A more charitable explanation is that Musk only discovered that Baker was handling the document review on Sunday. And I guess that’s plausible but, again, really only reflects extremely poorly on Musk.
If he’s going to reveal internal documents to reporters, especially ones that Musk himself keeps claiming implicate him in potential criminal liability (yes, it happened before his time, but Musk purchased the liabilities of the company as well), it’s not just perfectly normal, but kinda necessary to have lawyers do some document review. Again, as a more charitable explanation, perhaps Musk just wanted a different lawyer to do the review, and my only answer there is maybe he shouldn’t have gotten rid of so many lawyers from the legal team. Might have helped.
So, look, there could be a possible issue here, but given how much has been totally misrepresented throughout this whole process, without any actual evidence to support the “Jim Baker mastermind” theory, it’s difficult to take it even remotely seriously when there’s a perfectly normal, non-nefarious explanation to how all of this went down.
The absence of evidence is not evidence that there’s a coverup. It might just be evidence that you’re prone to believing in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, though.
6. Still, all this proved that Twitter is “illegally” biased towards Democrats!
Taibbi made a big deal out of the fact that Twitter employees overwhelmingly donated to Democrats in their political contributions, which is not exactly new or surprising. Musk commented on this as well, suggesting sarcastically it was proof of bias at Twitter, but left out that among the companies in the chart he was commenting on… was also Tesla, where over 90% of employee donations went to Democrats.
But, more importantly, it’s not surprising in the least. Employees of many companies lean left. Executives (who donate way more money) tend to lean right. I mean, you can look at a similar chart of executive donations that shows they overwhelmingly go to Republicans. Neither is illegal, or even a problem. It’s just reality.
And companies making editorial decisions are… in fact… allowed to have bias in their political viewpoints. I would bet that if you looked at donations by employees at the NY Post or Fox News, they would generally favor Republicans. Indeed, imagine what would happen if someone took over Fox News and suddenly started revealing (1) communications between Fox News execs and Republican politicians and campaigns and (2) internal editorial meeting notes regarding what to promote. Don’t you think it would be way more biased than what the Twitter files revealed?
Here’s the important point on that: Fox News’ clear bias is not illegal either. And, indeed, if Democrats in Congress held hearings on “Fox News’ bias” and demanded that its top executives appear and explain their editorial decision making in promoting GOP talking points, people should be outraged over the clear intimidation factor, which would obviously be problematic from a 1st Amendment angle. Yet I don’t expect people to get all that worked up about the same thing happening to Twitter, even though it’s actually the same issue.
Companies are allowed to be biased. But the amazing thing revealed in the Twitter files is just how little evidence there is that any bias was a part of the debate on how to handle this stuff. Everything appeared to be about perfectly reasonable business decisions.
And… that’s it. I fear that this story is going to live on for years and years and years. And the narrative full of nonsense is already taking shape. However, I like to work off of actual facts and evidence, rather than fever dreams and misinterpretations. And I hope that you’ll read this and start doing the same.
There are a variety of myths about how the world works that get people really screwed up when they make big bets on trying to “fix” things. I think Elon Musk has fallen prey to a few of them in how he’s trying to run Twitter. First, he falsely believes (as was the widespread myth among many, especially in right wing circles) that Twitter’s content moderation/trust & safety efforts were driven mainly by extreme “woke” employees who were seeking to silence opinions and viewpoints they disagreed with. As we’ve discussed repeatedly, that’s never been the case. Twitter had a far more free speech-supporting position than any other site, and the trust & safety decisions were made based on what they believed was actually best for the site, which means trying to minimize hate and harassment as that drives both users and advertisers away.
A second big myth that Musk seems to have bought into is the idea that this is all a technical, rather than human, problem. And that he can just “hardcore” nerd harder his way through these challenges. But, that’s not true either. Yes, Twitter actually had some pretty sophisticated technology, which was mainly around scaling a massive many-to-many messaging system. But the real “product” innovation at Twitter was the human element, and the community that built up around it. And it was often that the community required the kind of moderation policies that Twitter put in place, otherwise the site would not have been nearly as useful or valuable to so many.
The key point in both of these things, though, is that the moderation policies are not being driven by ideological viewpoints of the employees of the company, but what actually worked best for Twitter. It’s unclear if Musk is realizing this as he speedruns the content moderation learning curve (such as by announcing his first big “innovation” in content moderation is “shadowbanning” — one of the main things his fans were sure he’d get rid of).
Either way, there’s a much larger point here. Elon bought Twitter because he felt that the current management was doing a terrible job with content moderation (among other things) and he thought it was obvious to him how to do it better. But he’s quickly learning that there are reasons that fences are put where they are, and you might not want to tear them down so quickly.
Anyway, for the first two weeks of his reign, Musk came to rely on Yoel Roth, a long time Twitter employee who was running trust & safety. Yoel knows the challenges of trust & safety better than just about anyone, and it seemed like a good thing that Musk appeared to trust him. However, Roth resigned, and has now published an op-ed in the NY Times that does an interesting job highlighting how you can’t actually just show up and run a website like Twitter the way you want and expect to stay in business. As Roth notes:
The truth is that even Elon Musk’s brand of radical transformation has unavoidable limits.
Roth then highlights three major outside forces that are well beyond Musk’s ability to control, even as he controls Twitter itself: advertisers, governments, and app store operators (i.e., Google and Apple). Each one has some interesting elements to them. We may not like the fact that any of these outside forces have so much power over Twitter (and I could make arguments for why all three are problematic), but the actual reality is that they do.
Advertisers (at least for now) remain critical to the business:
Advertisers have played the most direct role thus far in moderating Mr. Musk’s free speech ambitions. As long as 90 percent of the company’s revenue comes from ads (as was the case when Mr. Musk bought the company), Twitter has little choice but to operate in a way that won’t imperil the revenue streams that keep the lights on. This has already proved to be challenging.
Almost immediately upon the acquisition’s close, a wave of racist and antisemitic trolling emerged on Twitter. Wary marketers, including those at General Mills, Audi and Pfizer, slowed down or paused ad spending on the platform, kicking off a crisis within the company to protect precious ad revenue.
While Musk has whined about “activists” causing the advertisers to leave, and even implied in tweets that he might file lawsuits against the activists or “name and shame” the advertisers, this is simply the free market (and free speech!) at work. Businesses want to avoid brand risk, and especially when the returns from advertising on Twitter are low, why bother?
The reality of most social media is that this business (not social) reality has driven much of the decision making behind trust & safety teams and how they operate. And, I should be clear that it is rarely that advertisers are directly pressuring trust & safety teams to moderate content. In hours upon hours of interviews I’ve done with trust & safety professionals, there are very, very, very few examples where there was any direct pressure from the advertisers to make changes. But there’s a natural (and common sense) understanding that for advertisers to want to put their money into your site, they have to feel that the site is trustworthy and they won’t get burned.
Next up: regulators. We’ve been writing a bit about this of late as well. And Roth highlights the realities at play:
But even if Mr. Musk is able to free Twitter from the influence of powerful advertisers, his path to unfettered speech is still not clear. Twitter remains bound by the laws and regulations of the countries in which it operates. Amid the spike in racial slurs on Twitter in the days after the acquisition, the European Union’s chief platform regulator took to the site to remind Mr. Musk that, in Europe, an unmoderated free-for-all won’t fly. In the United States, members of Congress and the Federal Trade Commission have raised concerns about the company’s recent actions. And outside of the United States and the European Union, the situation becomes even more complex: Mr. Musk’s principle of keying Twitter’s policies on local laws could push the company to censor speech it has been loath to restrict in the past, including political dissent.
Regulators have significant tools at their disposal to enforce their will on Twitter and on Mr. Musk. Penalties for noncompliance with Europe’s Digital Services Act could total as much as 6 percent of the company’s annual revenue. In the United States, the F.T.C. has shown an increasing willingness to exact significant fines for noncompliance with their orders (like a blockbuster $5 billion fine imposed on Facebook in 2019). In other key markets for Twitter, such as India, in-country staff work with the looming threat of personal intimidation and arrest if their employers fail to comply with local directives. Even a Musk-led Twitter will struggle to shrug off these constraints.
While I think I’ve been pretty clear that I’m not at all comfortable with much of this regulatory oversight, especially when it touches on editorial discretion and speech issues (and when it appears to be about retaliation), it is a reality now. And Musk can’t just wish it away. Especially over in the EU, where they’ve built this entirely ridiculous structure for regulating content moderation issues online.
Finally, perhaps just as problematic is the power of Apple and Google as the gatekeepers to get on phones:
There is one more source of power on the web — one that most people don’t think much about, but which may be the most significant check on unrestrained speech on the mainstream internet: the app stores operated by Google and Apple.
While Twitter has been publicly tight-lipped about how many people use the company’s mobile apps (rather than visiting Twitter.com on a browser), the company’s 2021 annual report didn’t mince words: “Our release of new products … is dependent upon and can be impacted by digital storefront operators” that decide the guidelines and enforce them, it reads in part. “Such review processes can be difficult to predict and certain decisions may harm our business.”
“May harm our business” is an understatement. Failure to adhere to Apple and Google’s guidelines would be catastrophic, risking Twitter’s expulsion from their app stores and making it more difficult for billions of potential users to access Twitter’s services. This gives Apple and Google enormous power to shape the decisions Twitter makes.
Roth notes that Apple and Google take this role seriously, even if in patently ridiculous ways:
In my time at Twitter, representatives of the app stores regularly raised concerns about content available on our platform. On one occasion, a member of an app review team contacted Twitter, saying with consternation that he had searched for “#boobs” in the Twitter app and was presented with … exactly what you’d expect. Another time, on the eve of a major feature release, a reviewer sent screenshots of several days-old tweets containing an English-language racial slur, asking Twitter representatives whether they should be permitted to appear on the service.
Just as an aside, um, who the fuck searches for “#boobs” and what is wrong with them?
Anyway, much of this makes me… uncomfortable. We had some discussion about this when Parler was yanked from the app stores. It’s more troubling for Apple/iOS than Google, because Android does allow sideloading, even if it keeps making it more difficult. But, in the end, even if you’re not in the app store, you can access the services via the web (even on mobile). It would be nice if mobile app stores were more open, and there were more competition.
But, again, this is a current market reality.
All three of these outside forces could change over time. And Musk could take steps to help change them. But none will change quickly, and many of Musk’s actions over the last couple of weeks actually make it more difficult to avoid these issues, rather than less.
There are, of course, other outside forces at play as well, including a big one: users. If you don’t make your website welcoming, people will go elsewhere. No one signs on to a website looking to be harassed, abused, and yelled at.
Roth notes that a key reason he left Twitter was that Musk’s view of trust & safety did not seem to be driven by principles or carefully developed policies. Rather, it seemed focused on Musk’s whims of the day:
It’s this very lack of legitimacy that Mr. Musk, correctly, points to when he calls for greater free speech, and for the establishment of a “content moderation council” to guide the company’s policies — an idea Google and Apple would be right to borrow for the governance of their app stores. But even as he criticizes the capriciousness of platform policies, he perpetuates this same lack of legitimacy through his impulsive changes and tweet-length pronouncements about Twitter’s rules. In appointing himself “Chief Twit,” Mr. Musk has made clear that at the end of the day, he’ll be the one calling the shots.
It was for this reason that I ultimately chose to leave the company: A Twitter whose policies are defined by unilateral edict has little need for a trust and safety function dedicated to its principled development.
Of course, there’s quite a lot of irony here. One of the reasons Musk insisted he needed to take over was the false belief that the earlier trust & safety policies were driven by ideology, and that he needed to come in and set forth some basic principles to make it “fairer.” Yet the reality, as we see it, is that the old system was driven by thought-out policies with processes to enforce them. Not always policies you or I might agree with, and not always enforced all that well, in part because it’s impossible to do it well, but there were policies and there were processes.
And now Musk is basically doing it all by edict… or random polls.
Thus, we’re in this funny(ish) state whereby everything that Musk and his fans insisted was true was not… but now that Musk is in charge, he’s implementing things in exactly the way he thought they were implemented before and railed about.
Oh, and on that note, Roth drops this little tidbit in the middle of the article:
In response, Mr. Musk empowered my team to move more aggressively to remove hate speech across the platform — censoring more content, not less.
Huh. Look at that. Meanwhile, people are still yelling at me when I point out that the previous regime was more supportive of free speech than anyone realizes.
