Twitter Censorship Denial At The WASHINGTON POST
Print Friendly and PDF

Earlier: The Twitter Files (1): Know Your Spooks

In my talk at the Berkeley Springs Castle, I said

I am amazed, by the way, by Elon Musk’s discovering that in Twitter’s code, which no one told him about when he took it over, there was indeed shadow banning—which we had been told was a myth. At, we’d already written about shadow banning. People were saying, ”Conservatives aren’t shadow banned, that’s a myth”—except that, of course, they think conservatives should be explicitly banned.

On Substack, Mike Solana of Pirate Wires writes

Nothing to see here. Friday morning, in a bombshell report from the Washington Post, journalist Drew Harwell revealed political censorship has never existed at Twitter, and there is absolutely nothing here to see. Long story short, the Post ‘broke’ details in which something we already knew was further evidenced: leading up to January 6th, Twitter leadership was concerned about violence and misinformation, but the team was divided on the question of how aggressively they should police speech. On one hand, many employees wanted draconian censorship of Trump supporters regardless of the company’s Terms of Service. On the other, many thought it prudent to wait for some actual violation of the rules. That the company chose to wait for an actual violation is proof Twitter was never really censorious, argues the Post concerning events that led directly to the historic deplatforming of a sitting president. Then, more importantly, this also proves the present owner of Twitter, who allowed many journalists to read and then accurately report on real emails that were really written by employees of the company, is full of it!

“Elon Musk,” Harwell writes, “commissioned a series of reports intended to reveal how the company had previously sought to squelch conservative speech.”

Then, a little later: “But the video and other newly obtained internal Twitter records show that, far from working to censor pro-Trump sentiment in the days before the Capitol riot, the company’s leaders were intent on leaving it up—despite internal warnings that trouble was brewing.”

The first quote above is—and I’m choosing my words carefully here—a lie. Elon didn’t “commission” anything. He allowed several journalists to petition a legal team for company emails. The emails were promptly delivered, and journalists chose what to write about. I know this to be true, because several of the journalists hit me up looking for advice on what dates and subjects to target.

The Post’s latest example of censorship denialism, a dangerous conspiracy theory growing in popularity among journalists, is especially interesting in light of another recent piece from their anti-tech team. Mark Zuckerberg is devolving into a second Elon Musk, argues Nitasha Tiku and Naomi Nix. The gist of this fresh, steaming pile... [Read the whole thing: Panic at the Washington Post, June 27, 2023]

Looking at Drew Harwell’s piece, he’s basing it on evidence he wasn’t supposed to see, and that he can’t and won’t show us:

None of the records obtained by The Washington Post—including the 32-minute video, a five-page retrospective memo outlining the suspension discussions, and a 114-page agenda document detailing the safety policy team’s meetings and conversations—show any contacts with federal officials pushing the company to take any action involving Trump’s account.

The records were part of a large set of Slack messages, policy documents and other files given to the House Jan. 6 committee in preparation for its landmark hearings, though the committee never made them public. The Post obtained the records from a person connected to the investigation, and their authenticity was confirmed by another person with knowledge of their contents.

The Jan. 6 committee released its final report last year, marking the culmination of an 18-month investigation into the violent insurrection. Read The Post’s analysis about the committee’s new findings and conclusions.

The Post is not naming employees cited in the records because of the sensitivity of the matter. The Post was able to view the full video, the existence of which, along with a partial description of its contents, was first reported by Rolling Stone.

Okay... you can believe that if you want, but it’s not evidence, it’s just one man’s testimony of what he’s seen from something leaked by an unknown person for undisclosed motives.

Instead of being evidence of ”no Deep State Conspiracy against Trump” it’s more like evidence that the Washington Post is (not for the first time) participating in one.


Print Friendly and PDF