Anybody considering leaving Twitter?

[Todd]

Another remarkable thing is that Musk now seems to be supporting Republicans. Does he think those carbon credits would continue to be available if Republicans had their way?

He could be targeting continued subsidies for EVs, or expanded government contracts for his other ventures, or a continuation of credits as a quid pro quo of sorts (which makes it seem as though US politics is corrupt, which everyone knows is not true in any way).  Or maybe he's just a Republican.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/03/elon-musk-and-matt-taibbi-release-twitter-docs-hunter-biden-tapes/10826408002/
Elon Musk's 'Twitter files': Emails reveal internal struggle on handling of Hunter Biden laptop
"... According to Taibbi, Twitter blocked tweets from former Trump administration officials publicizing the article prompting them to contact and admonish the company for its actions. Meanwhile, members of Biden's campaign reported specific tweets to Twitter and requested they be blocked..."

Pfft, the laptop is Russian disinformation.  Everyone knows that.

[SimonNZ]

It was such a relief to see trump lose. However, did Twitter play dirty in the run up and was that fair? Twitter can do whatever it wants, of course. It can even lie about it, I suppose. I don't know that there's any law against that, although there might be.

Please read:

No, You Do Not Have a Constitutional Right to Post Hunter Biden's Dick Pic on Twitter
Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi's First Amendment follies.

[JBS]

It was such a relief to see trump lose. However, did Twitter play dirty in the run up and was that fair? Twitter can do whatever it wants, of course. It can even lie about it, I suppose. I don't know that there's any law against that, although there might be.

Three things should be noted:

The Biden campaign was requesting removal of tweets which violated Twitter's policies (showing pictures of Hunter's organ without his consent). In other words doing what anyone who "reports a tweet" does. (The main difference: Twitter didn't reply a week later that the tweet broke no rules.)

Blocking the story about the laptop was done by Twitter on its own initiative, and was reversed the next day.

Taibbi mentions that members of Trump's White House staff also requested various tweets be removed, and their requests acceded to. But he seems to think those requests are not important, since he gives no other information about them

[milk]

Three things should be noted:

The Biden campaign was requesting removal of tweets which violated Twitter's policies (showing pictures of Hunter's organ without his consent). In other words doing what anyone who "reports a tweet" does. (The main difference: Twitter didn't reply a week later that the tweet broke no rules.)

Blocking the story about the laptop was done by Twitter on its own initiative, and was reversed the next day.

Taibbi mentions that members of Trump's White House staff also requested various tweets be removed, and their requests acceded to. But he seems to think those requests are not important, since he gives no other information about them

I'm still reading and I'm skeptical that this is going to be the tag on this story. You're right that Musk has the wrong takeaway but the article seems less fair to Taibbi's reporting itself. I'll post more what I think as I read more about it but I definitely don't trust Musk any more than I trust pre-Musk Twitter execs or Hunter Biden. Musk is in deep with China. I'll read more and see what I think of this story.

ETA: * "The Tulsi Gabbard of Substack"
Yes, I see what this person wants to emphasize. 1. That it's "old news" that Twitter "throttled" the story. Oh! Well, the bitchy language of this article really helps me see that because we already knew Twitter messed this up, the real story is how Taibbi is such a dork compared Tim Miller. It's so weird to me how a Republican like Tim Miller, former Jen Bush aid, gets to slam Matt Taibbi - a person who literally wrote the book about how the fat cats robbed the country the last time the U.S. hit the economic gutter. But I know, it's neither here nor there when it comes to this story. Either Twitter had a bias or didn't. Again, I'll have to read more. Again, I'm glad the laptop story didn't re-elect trump but not glad that three or four big companies basically decide what gets put out there before an election. Oh and #2 was what? That Musk is wrong that this is about the first amendment. Yeah, this is a total red herring that I wish I'd never have to hear about again. Twitter, Facebook, instagram, etc, they have a perfect right under American law to tell you what you can and can't say. There probably are restrictions on what they can do in terms of elections and taking sides but I think this is more about biases anyway and they probably have a right to their biases whatever they are. These are global companies anyway. Do their/should their interests really align with those of the American public.
Wasn't McLuhan so right? Who cares about elections anyway? We already behave differently, or at least the kids do. These drone wars and drone elections are just the beginning.

[milk]

So, my point was that big companies like Twitter can choose to "throttle" anything they want to, whether or not there are electoral consequences. Another thing I notice right away is how many left wing news outlets are on the same narrative about Taibbi and Twitter and there's another really annoying lie at the center of this (and I'll just say again that I've never voted for a Republican in my life BTW): that Taibbi taking all these docs from the dreaded NAZI Musk is some sort of nefarious thing because Musk has an obvious political axe to grind. Well every one of these people has done the same thing and many in a less honest way.

[SimonNZ]

I have no idea what you mean by any of that.

Could you please unpack those three confusing sentences.

[milk]

I have no idea what you mean by any of that.

Could you please unpack those three confusing sentences.

There's a big kerfuffle now about twitter and Matt Taibbi being fed documents by Elon Musk about how Twitter dealt with the Hunter Biden laptop story right before the last election. I should confess that I'm not on twitter and I'm personally happy Trump lost that election. There are numerous voices, the NYTimes, MSNBC, the BULWARK article linked above, and many more on the left, all accusing Taibbi of being quite terrible for running with what they consider to be a non-story about how twitter dealt with the Hunter Biden laptop story in the runup to the 2016 election. Incidentally, there've been unhinged rightwing reactions to this same story. This is all very team politics. At the very least, the way twitter dealt with the Hunter Biden (NYPost) story was incompetent and it's worth looking into how media-giants that have huge impacts on politics make these decisions. All of the journalists, every single one, criticizing Taibbi for working with information given to him by someone (Musk) with an agenda have themselves obtained information from politicians, political staff and officials with agendas. They've all done it and added their own contexts, spin, commentary, reporting to it. To me, the real issue, or the most important issue these days, is how we get information and how a handful of private companies shape what we know. Questions about the first amendment aren't very relevant really. These ARE private companies. Some may say it's always been this way. However, I think social media is a different animal and I think understanding how these companies decide what and how information gets disseminated is in the public interest - at the very least. The team politics being played over these stories make it seem like the issue is something else. I'm saying I think there's a problem here that goes beyond left/right but you wouldn't know it from reading the news lately.   

[Todd]

The Biden campaign was requesting removal of tweets which violated Twitter's policies (showing pictures of Hunter's organ without his consent). In other words doing what anyone who "reports a tweet" does.

The immediate question here is whether the White House should act as anyone else who reports a tweet, or anything else. That people reflexively defend such actions from such a source is troubling.

[Todd]

So, my point was that big companies like Twitter can choose to "throttle" anything they want to, whether or not there are electoral consequences.

In general, they can, but such behavior should be troubling in a purportedly open society, especially if said company supposedly fosters communication.  Twitter most certainly was not about free and open communication.  It was ideologically curated.  Maybe that changes.

As this forum now demonstrates, many people favor speech suppression.  Fortunately, there are other outlets online that can and will publish such information.

[milk]

In general, they can, but such behavior should be troubling in a purportedly open society, especially if said company supposedly fosters communication.  Twitter most certainly was not about free and open communication.  It was ideologically curated.  Maybe that changes.

As this forum now demonstrates, many people favor speech suppression.  Fortunately, there are other outlets online that can and will publish such information.

right. Free speech used to be a liberal principle and, once upon a time, liberals would have argued that a communication platform should err on the side of free speech. Ro Khanna is (the?)one democratic congressman who actually told Twitter as much at the time.

[Todd]

right. Free speech used to be a liberal principle and, once upon a time, liberals would have argued that a communication platform should err on the side of free speech. Ro Khanna is (the?)one democratic congressman who actually told Twitter as much at the time.

The ACLU used to defend free speech.  It even defended Nazis (immortalized for posterity in The Blues Brothers).  The ACLU no longer defends free speech.  Ira Glasser now strongly criticizes the ACLU for its ideological rather than principled stand on speech.

The inversion of ideological defense of speech began around 2010 and intensified in 2015.  Ultimately, in the US, both parties have and will support suppression of different forms of speech.  Corporations dependent on government contracts or eager to defend their ill-gotten monopoly or oligopoly rents will comply with requested speech restrictions.  There is a name for the general condition where the state and corporate interests coincide and they act in unison. 

[JBS]

The immediate question here is whether the White House should act as anyone else who reports a tweet, or anything else. That people reflexively defend such actions from such a source is troubling.

In 2020 the Biden campaign was not the White House, which at that time was occupied by a man named Trump, whose staff also reported tweets--but Taibbi has (at least not yet) seen fit to give any details about those incidents.

[Todd]

In 2020 the Biden campaign was not the White House, which at that time was occupied by a man named Trump, whose staff also reported tweets--but Taibbi has (at least not yet) seen fit to give any details about those incidents.

My bad.  Let me reword it:

The immediate question here is whether the White House, a presidential campaign, any elected official, any campaign for any public office, or any appointed office holder should act as anyone else who reports a tweet, or anything else. That people reflexively defend such actions from such sources is troubling.

[SimonNZ]

There's a big kerfuffle now about twitter and Matt Taibbi being fed documents by Elon Musk about how Twitter dealt with the Hunter Biden laptop story right before the last election. I should confess that I'm not on twitter and I'm personally happy Trump lost that election. There are numerous voices, the NYTimes, MSNBC, the BULWARK article linked above, and many more on the left, all accusing Taibbi of being quite terrible for running with what they consider to be a non-story about how twitter dealt with the Hunter Biden laptop story in the runup to the 2016 election. Incidentally, there've been unhinged rightwing reactions to this same story. This is all very team politics. At the very least, the way twitter dealt with the Hunter Biden (NYPost) story was incompetent and it's worth looking into how media-giants that have huge impacts on politics make these decisions. All of the journalists, every single one, criticizing Taibbi for working with information given to him by someone (Musk) with an agenda have themselves obtained information from politicians, political staff and officials with agendas. They've all done it and added their own contexts, spin, commentary, reporting to it. To me, the real issue, or the most important issue these days, is how we get information and how a handful of private companies shape what we know. Questions about the first amendment aren't very relevant really. These ARE private companies. Some may say it's always been this way. However, I think social media is a different animal and I think understanding how these companies decide what and how information gets disseminated is in the public interest - at the very least. The team politics being played over these stories make it seem like the issue is something else. I'm saying I think there's a problem here that goes beyond left/right but you wouldn't know it from reading the news lately.   

Okay, thanks. Those are all legitimate concerns in the abstract.

But once again you, and Todd, have avoided the fact that we are talking here  about dick picks, and dick picks of someone who isn't even a politician.

Is revenge porn, even political revenge porn, a free speech issue? I think you could both find worthier examples of political bias in the media to be shining a light on

[milk]

Okay, thanks. Those are all legitimate concerns in the abstract.

But once again you, and Todd, have avoided the fact that we are talking here  about dick picks, and dick picks of someone who isn't even a politician.

Is revenge porn, even political revenge porn, a free speech issue? I think you could both find worthier examples of political bias in the media to be shining a light on

no. It's about the Post story. Dem. Rep. Ro Khanna did not scold Twitter about dick pics. ETA Khanna was right, actually, to worry that a backlash could (and did?) come in the other direction too. By fiddling with the initial Post story, Twitter ignited (or added to) a shit-show that we are stuck with to this day. Instead of defending Twitter, people should be more critical of these companies and more interested in what goes on under their proverbial hoods. Meanwhile, Biden stabs the left (or working people) in the back anyway. I was wondering if people have noticed...

[Karl Henning]

Okay, thanks. Those are all legitimate concerns in the abstract.

But once again you, and Todd, have avoided the fact that we are talking here  about dick picks, and dick picks of someone who isn't even a politician.

Is revenge porn, even political revenge porn, a free speech issue? I think you could both find worthier examples of political bias in the media to be shining a light on

Tangentially:

Why the Right Needs Hunter Biden
They think his story assuages their guilt, but it doesn't.

[Todd]

no. It's about the Post story. Dem. Rep. Ro Khanna did not scold Twitter about dick pics. ETA Khanna was right, actually, to worry that a backlash could (and did?) come in the other direction too. By fiddling with the initial Post story, Twitter ignited (or added to) a shit-show that we are stuck with to this day.

The fact that people are discussing the propriety of public figures pressuring private entities regarding content should be cause for alarm.  This of course applies in the US.  Countries with weak and/or ineffective speech protections may very well censor with abandon. 

[SimonNZ]

no. It's about the Post story. Dem. Rep. Ro Khanna did not scold Twitter about dick pics. ETA Khanna was right, actually, to worry that a backlash could (and did?) come in the other direction too. By fiddling with the initial Post story, Twitter ignited (or added to) a shit-show that we are stuck with to this day. Instead of defending Twitter, people should be more critical of these companies and more interested in what goes on under their proverbial hoods. Meanwhile, Biden stabs the left (or working people) in the back anyway. I was wondering if people have noticed...

But you are the one defending Musk-era Twitter and being uncritical of his motives in this story.

I'm fine with flagging toxic misinformation and think they should have done way more of it way sooner.

When you hear "Hunter Biden Laptop" what does that mean to you? Does the content even matter? Or is it a case of "no smoke without fire"?

[milk]

But you are the one defending Musk-era Twitter and being uncritical of his motives in this story.

I'm fine with flagging toxic misinformation and think they should have done way more of it way sooner.

When you hear "Hunter Biden Laptop" what does that mean to you? Does the content even matter? Or is it a case of "no smoke without fire"?

where did I defend "Musk-era Twitter"? You're making that up. The left and right have their own blind spots and sensitivities when it comes to such politically sensitive stories. One might compare this to the Steele Dossier. I'm certainly interested in the details but I think this is more about how Twitter decides what to block and who it listens to. Did Twitter pay more attention to the wishes of one team in this instance? You always have to ask yourself how you'd like this if it were happening in the opposite direction. What's the principle of the behavior?

[Todd]

What's the principle of the behavior?

Principles do not govern speech suppression.  Ideology does.