Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Edge-]

I don't think that was an improper suspension. It wasn't that he posted the picture, it was that he made the picture his profile picture. Twitter has very strict rules about what you can put in your profile pic and header (no porn and no graphic violence) because that picture will show up to everyone you tweet replies to. It's possible that they can convince twitter that the image isn't graphic ENOUGH to warrant a suspension, but if they want to say they don't want dead animals in profile pictures, that seems reasonable to me.

I wouldn't even count that as "graphic" in general, at most you see an amount of blood that you'd bleed after a papercut.

Either way, I'm mostly just enjoying watching the same Republicans that Elon has been appealing to showing that they give zero fucks about his efforts to make Twitter more of a Republican safe-space shit on him publicly as if this too was directed by him. Who could have ever imagined they'd have no qualms turning on him on the dime.

[Breccia]

It's possible that they can convince twitter that the image isn't graphic ENOUGH to warrant a suspension, but if they want to say they don't want dead animals in profile pictures, that seems reasonable to me.

I think that's what it's going to boil down to. It's hard to argue that the picture doesn't specifically show death. The question, then, is "gory".

Ted Cruz isn't doing his friend any favors, however, when he says his friend was aiming for the balloon and missed. If he's not taking it seriously, why should Twitter care enough to reverse the ban?

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't even count that as "graphic" in general

Twitter spelled out the rules in the ban notification. Graphic violence = death + gory, in one example at least. And that deer is 100% dead.

- - - Updated - - -

The ban has been reversed on Musk's direct say-so.

Wait, that was after Ted Cruz asked, right? That sounds like direct government pressure! Quick, @tehdang denounce this!

[Edge-]

The ban has been reversed on Musk's direct say-so.

Wait, that was after Ted Cruz asked, right? That sounds like direct government pressure! Quick, @tehdang denounce this!

https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/st...82310688698368

How dare political actors pressure a private entity to cave to their demands by publicly shaming and targeting them. Clearly this is gross government overreach and should be thoroughly investigated as we cannot be certain there was not additoinal behind-the-scenes pressures here.

That political staff or politicians are making requests of Twitter and Twitter is GRANTING THEM and CHANGING THEIR POLICY as a result is a clear abuse of power and should worry anyone who cares about the First Amendment.

If we're to take the posts of some here at face-value.

Because personally, /whatever.

[Jastall]

I consider it chilling to the culture of free speech and the civil rights of individuals for FBI agents to pressure social media companies to ban and censor users. I'll note that such activities aren't countered or met by questioning what actions were taken or whether there was literal compulsion. The FBI has no business doing this. It's overreach and it's a shame this wasn't exposed by the previous management of Twitter--to give Americans an idea of what their tax dollars were funding. A grandmother with 17 followers is posting a joke about the election day online, so it's up to her government to contact the social media company to very kindly think about removing the speech from their platform. Thank you FBI agents for your vigilance in counteracting disinformation online, but be vigilant because there's a teen with incorrect opinions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine that will post in mere minutes! Twitter must be notified!

I've read utter rejection of this entire argument. Just dismissed out of hand. Civil liberties were never concerned and the FBI is an innocent actor in all this. They're empowered to just send agents to the country's newspapers and magazines to tell them what's truth and disinformation, in this line of argument.

So I'm not exactly going to waste time digging deeper into tangential questions when the whole controversy simply doesn't exist in your mind and the minds of others. It's sort of like telling the Supreme Court that its rulings on the chilling of speech are silly since no speech was actually banned or prosecuted in many cases, and then questioning the Supreme Court on why the bad actors are actually bad and why openness in documentation is a key factor. Alright, we disagree, but much of what you're going on about doesn't matter much because you rejected or otherwise dismissed the core contention.

You'll have opportunity to ask me my opinion for what's on your mind, and this time choosing not to drop in the daddy Musk angle to poison the discussion. If you think this is all about sycophancy, then go right on believing it without my input.

It's almost like you forgot the history of governments using law enforcement to correct their citizen's speech. The people have squandered the confidence of the government to engage in proper speech. Would it not in that case be simpler for them to dissolve the people and elect another?

You'll have to explain to me how said pressure was anything close to significant given that, again, most requests were denied or just explained away by a glorified "look at our ToS". If the big news is that some FBI agents were potentially slightly overzealous about a few tweets and get rebuffed, yeah I won't faint at the idea. Sorry but not really sorry. You got far bigger problems RE your surveillance state.

And as others have said, I do expect you to also clutch those pearls of yours at the mere idea of Twitter changing their decision because Cruz -as government as it gets- asked them to and the head honcho said OK. Surely the end of the First Amendment is nigh if such intolerable overreach is allowed.

[Kathranis]

It's almost like you forgot the history of governments using law enforcement to correct their citizen's speech.

You say this and yet you're mum on Republicans constantly trying to block freedom of expression, ban books, ban lesson plans in schools -- even in universities.

Twitter fact checking and blocking people who consistently and maliciously spread harmful lies is not government overreach.

You're really just an incredibly disingenuous person, aren't you?

[Endus]

I consider it chilling to the culture of free speech and the civil rights of individuals for FBI agents to pressure social media companies to ban and censor users.

It might be, if this had happened, but it didn't, and nothing in the Twitter files suggests it had. You're imagining up a fake conspiracy out of cobwebs and delusion.

I've read utter rejection of this entire argument. Just dismissed out of hand. Civil liberties were never concerned and the FBI is an innocent actor in all this. They're empowered to just send agents to the country's newspapers and magazines to tell them what's truth and disinformation, in this line of argument.

The "utter rejection" is that you're making all this shit up. Literally no evidence of any "sending of agents" or even any pressure applied to push a message.

So I'm not exactly going to waste time digging deeper into tangential questions when the whole controversy simply doesn't exist in your mind and the minds of others.

It isn't about what's in our minds. It's about what's factually evidential. That's where your claims fall apart completely.

- - - Updated - - -

You'll have to explain to me how said pressure was anything close to significant given that, again, most requests were denied or just explained away by a glorified "look at our ToS".

Specifically, for there to be "pressure", there has to be at least an implication of some action that will be taken in response if the target doesn't comply. Without that implication (or overt threat), it's just an open request, not "pressure" in any useful sense.

Unless literally all reports of misconduct by all private citizens also count as "pressuring Twitter", which is an incredibly useless and objectively stupid use of the word.

[Edge-]

What's more patently hilarious about this is this presumes that the FBI is either controlled by, or doing the bidding of liberals/Democrats.

Which, given well documented history of where law enforcement, including federal law enforcement, usually falls on the political spectrum is fairly easily debunked without any evidence to the contrary.

Also, examples like this where the FBI pay violent former felons to infiltrate racial justice movements: https://theintercept.com/2023/02/07/...sts-informant/

Like, yeah bros, they're some big lefty organization packed with leftists that are all out there doing leftist bidding and controlling private companies. This is absolute brainworms shit that's wholly detached from the mountains of evidence to the contrary that exist in objective reality.

[Mekh]

I'll note that such activities aren't countered or met by questioning what actions were taken or whether there was literal compulsion.

If there had been compulsion, don't you think the twitter files had contained -that- instead of the completely milquetoast "evidence" you keep riding until you're raw?

[Dontrike]

The FBI has no business doing this.

The FBI doesn't have any business trying to make sure terrorists and more don't harm others........well that was a dumb fucking thing to say, especially when you realize that they weren't doing anything illegal, immoral, or anything worth noting.

[Cynical Asshole]

The FBI doesn't have any business trying to make sure terrorists and more don't harm others........well that was a dumb fucking thing to say, especially when you realize that they weren't doing anything illegal, immoral, or anything worth noting.

You sound like one of those Republicans from 20 years ago telling people that all government surveillance and intrusion in private lives is ok because there are terrorists and pedophiles everywhere and people must be protected, so everything and anything is justified. Except now the "terrorists" and "pedophiles" have been replaced with people with the wrong political opinions. The Narrative stayed the same.

[Dontrike]

You sound like one of those Republicans from 20 years ago telling people that all government surveillance and intrusion in private lives is ok because there are terrorists and pedophiles everywhere and people must be protected, so everything and anything is justified. Except now the "terrorists" and "pedophiles" have been replaced with people with the wrong political opinions. The Narrative stayed the same.

That's one way to look at what I said, not a correct one, but definitely a choice.

[Shadowferal]

...ouch. wrong thread..

[Endus]

You sound like one of those Republicans from 20 years ago telling people that all government surveillance and intrusion in private lives is ok because there are terrorists and pedophiles everywhere and people must be protected, so everything and anything is justified. Except now the "terrorists" and "pedophiles" have been replaced with people with the wrong political opinions. The Narrative stayed the same.

We're talking about polite reports of posts the agents in question thought violated Twitter's TOS. Literally anyone can get the same results by hitting the "report post" button and filing a report, it's just being processed via direct e-mail rather than through that automated system. If you're kneejerking over this, it's because you're irrational and so wildly partisan that you've lost touch with reality.

[Cthulhu 2020]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1623337349097697281

House Republicans reveal their plan to combat inflation:

"We return not to focus on advancing this robust agenda of progress, but instead, to take up an authentically trivial pursuit, all based on the obsessive victimology of right-wing politics" -- Raskin begins by pointing out what a huge waste of time a hearing Hunter's laptop is

"Rather than conspiring to suppress right-wing MAGA speech, as my colleagues astonishingly claim, Twitter and other media companies knowingly facilitated Trump's spread of disinformation" -- Raskin

Oopsie

Former Twitter exec Yoel Roth explains that the Hunter Biden laptop stuff at first glance bore a lot of similarities to the 2016 Russia hack and dump operation

Former Twitter official Anika Collier Navaroli says "if we're here to talk social media &the govt, we need to talk about Twitter's failure to act before J6. I'm here to tell you that doing nothing is not an option. If we continue to do nothing, violence is going to happen again"

Navaroli: "In January 2020, after the US assassinated an Iranian general and the US president decided to justify it on Twitter, management literally instructed me and my team to make sure that World War 3 did not start on the platform."

RASKIN: Did I hear you say there were hundreds of thousands of counterfeit Twitter accounts set up by Russian propaganda and disinformation?

ROTH: That's right. Those accounts are still active on social media today.

RASKIN: Well, we should be having a hearing about that

It's almost as if the Hunter Biden story and Twitter consorship stories are massive nothingburgers that play into the GOP's eternal victimhood complex of political showmanship.

Raskin guides Navaroli through explaining how in the months leading up to January 6, Twitter actually bent over backward to accommodate right-wing MAGA hate speech

It's a really great thread full of sound bites of Republicans getting owned then crying a bunch.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1623351648532692992

Wow, so Elon's targeting of Yoel Roth for harassment resulted in him being forced to sell his house and move to flee the harassment?

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1623356152435118080

Gym Jordan has to acknowledge that Twitter is not, in fact, bound by the First Amendment BUT...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1623357067061780489

Woah now, Trump, as POTUS, was PUBLICLY PRESSURING TWITTER TO CHANGE POLICIES?! That seems way more serious and nefarious than the FBI reaching out to flag a few potential accounts for ToS violations!

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1623362616054759425

Greene again pushing the $900K in donations is bigger than it actually is in the context of elections that cost upwards of $12B. Also, doesn't realize that according to the SCOTUS, these donations are protected First Amendment speech.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1623363025615917062

And thinks Twitter broke the law in suspending her.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1623363397105459200

Oh look, and calls Yoel Roth a pedo, as if he hasn't already been harassed out of his home of these kinds of right wing attacks.

What a fuckin joke of a clown show. Republicans are genuinely terrible, stupid, dishonest people apparently, or at least those in this hearing.

[Breccia]

Gym Jordan has to acknowledge that Twitter is not, in fact, bound by the First Amendment

Wait, was this from a hearing where the Republican Party was publicly grilling Twitter? That sounds like the government forcing a private company into certain actions. I'd love to hear @tehdang give his opinion about that, but we all know he won't, because it would either prove he's a hypocrite, or he'd have to admit his own party is doing things he repeatedly insisted was wrong.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-twi...ource=web_push

The Virginia lawmaker then brought up a 2020 tweet in which Trump threatened to “strongly regulate” or “close” Twitter “down” in retaliation for allegedly “silenc[ing] conservatives.” He then turned to Navaroli to ask about a 2019 Trump tweet heckling Teigen and her husband John Legend, both outspoken critics of the former president.

Navaroli confirmed that after Trump blasting the couple via tweet, he immediately contacted the social-media giant to demand Teigen’s tweet calling him a “pussy ass bitch” be deleted from the site.

“What I was privy to was my supervisors letting us know that we had received something along those lines, or something of a request,” Navoroli replied. “In that instance, I do remember hearing that we had received a request from the White House to make sure that we evaluated this tweet and that they wanted it to come down because it was a derogatory statement towards the president.”

Connolly, dripping with sarcasm, remarked that he “thought that was inappropriate action by a government official,” adding that it “wasn’t Joe Biden about his son’s laptop” but rather “Trump because he didn’t like what Chrissy Teigen has to say about him.”

Intent on using his line of questioning to prove Trump engaged in the exact behavior Republicans accuse the Biden administration of doing, the congressman then questioned the other former executives on the current president’s contacts with Twitter.

Both Roth and Gadde told Connolly they were “not aware” and “did not recall” any evidence of Biden having urged Twitter to remove content. Baker, for his part, insisted he didn’t know the answer to that question.

Oh shit, so there WERE attempts to actually coerce Twitter into removing content by the government.

The Republican government. Under Trump. Who didn't just request a review on certain accounts or the removal of revenge porn posted in specific tweets, but specifically requested that Twitter censor users for being mean to Trump and otherwise not violating their rules.

Once again, color literally everyone surprised that Republicans are actually guilty of the very things they accuse Democrats of, rofl.

[unfilteredJW]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-twi...ource=web_push



Oh shit, so there WERE attempts to actually coerce Twitter into removing content by the government.

The Republican government. Under Trump. Who didn't just request a review on certain accounts or the removal of revenge porn posted in specific tweets, but specifically requested that Twitter censor users for being mean to Trump and otherwise not violating their rules.

Once again, color literally everyone surprised that Republicans are actually guilty of the very things they accuse Democrats of, rofl.

“I’m terrible and do terrible things so my political opponents must be as awful” is a weird bit of party policy but it runs deep in the Repub spheres.

[Breccia]

The Republican government. Under Trump. Who didn't just request a review on certain accounts or the removal of revenge porn posted in specific tweets, but specifically requested that Twitter censor users for being mean to Trump and otherwise not violating their rules.

I follow three people on Twitter. One is Teigen. I'll remind those of you who forgot that:

Lolllllll no one likes you

That tweet went to court. Why? Trump blocked her...and because Trump himself claimed that Twitter was his public office official word, due to his public office, he couldn't do that.

Trump can't block users from his Twitter feed, federal judge rules
-- May 23, 2018

The ruling was basically a plain text printout of the First Amendment, circled in Sharpee so Trump could find it.

Near as I can tell, the case was appealed unsuccessfully in 2019, and SCOTUS refused to hear it on the grounds of (a) Trump was kicked off Twitter and (b) Trump was kicked out of the White House and (c) fuck you fatty, we're set for life.

*ahem*

But.

You cited something from 2020. Which means, it had already been ruled on, and already lost its appeal. Not only was Trump trying to use his government and massive fatass weight on Twitter, he was trying to do so despite having lost multiple court cases on the grounds that what he was doing was unConstitutional.

There is no parallel with the Hunter Biden case. Which, again, was Trump's DoJ.

Now, I believe every response to @tehdang from now on should be to ask him about this very specific issue. It won't matter if I do it, he's too much of a coward to face me in the ring, but maybe if literally everyone else asks he'll either be forced to respond, or scuttle into the shadows like Gollum.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ip-1234675969/

In interviews with former Twitter personnel, onetime Trump administration officials, and other people familiar with the matter, each source recalled what could be described as a “hotline,” “tipline,” or large Twitter “database” of moderation and removal requests that was frequently pinged by the offices of powerful Democrats and Republicans alike.

Weird that none of these requests from Republicans were a part of the Twitter Files?

Boy, today seems like a major self-own for the Republicans on the committee who thought this was going to be disastrous for Democrats and Twitter. Just about every narrative they've been spinning since Elon and Taibbi started their misinformation campaign was thoroughly debunked. All the while evidence and examples of Republicans engaging in the very behavior they claimed Democrats and the FBI were engaged in were repeatedly shared.

This is a very familiar position for Republicans, to have their entire narrative blow up in their faces in a monumental own-goal, and similar to past instances we see that they're happy to reject reality and continue to push their dishonest narratives and misinformation. It really does help when you have a media ecosystem that's happy to create and support an alternate reality for you.

But real, if anyone is still buying into the "Twitter Files" bullshit at this point it's purely because they agree with the conclusions, not because they've actually reviewed any of the evidence.