{"id":9757,"date":"2023-01-15T03:13:56","date_gmt":"2023-01-15T03:13:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=9757"},"modified":"2023-01-15T03:13:56","modified_gmt":"2023-01-15T03:13:56","slug":"why-the-twitter-files-actually-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=9757","title":{"rendered":"Why the Twitter Files actually matter"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“One clue is in a message<\/a> by Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth, who alludes to \u201cthe SEVERE risks here and lessons of 2016.\u201d In 2016, there was an effort by the Russian government to interfere with the general election in a way that would hurt Hillary Clinton and Democrats\u2019 prospects. As later documented in the Mueller report<\/a>, this effort involved both a \u201ctroll farm\u201d of Russian accounts masquerading as Americans to spread false or inflammatory information, and the \u201chack-and-leak\u201d campaign in which leading Democrats\u2019 emails were stolen and provided to WikiLeaks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After Trump won, many leading figures in politics, tech, media, and law enforcement concluded that major social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook should have done more to stop this Russian interference effort and the spread of \u201cmisinformation\u201d more generally (with some arguing that this was a problem regardless of electoral impact, and others claiming that this helped or even caused Trump\u2019s victory). Law enforcement officials argued the Russian campaign was illegal and indicted<\/a> about two dozen Russians believed to be involved in it. Social media companies began to take a more aggressive approach to curbing what they saw as misinformation, and as the 2020 election approached, they met regularly with FBI and other government officials to discuss the dangers of potential new foreign interference campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But several issues are being conflated here. Misinformation is (in theory) false information. Foreign propaganda is not necessarily false, but it is being spread by a foreign government with malicious intent (for example, to inflame America\u2019s divisions<\/a>). Hacked material, though, is tricker in part because it often isn\u2019t misinformation \u2014 its power comes from its accuracy. Now, it is theoretically possible that false information could be mixed in with true information as part of a hacked document dump, so it\u2019s important to authenticate it to the extent possible. And even authentic information can often be ripped out of context to appear more damning than it really is. Still, Twitter was putting itself in the awkward position where it would be resolving to suppress information that could well be accurate, for the greater good of preventing foreign interference in an election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More broadly, a blanket ban on hacked material doesn\u2019t seem particularly well thought through, since a fair amount of journalism is based on material that is illicitly obtained in some way (such as the Pentagon Papers<\/a>). Every major media source wrote about the DNC<\/a> and Podesta<\/a> email leaks, as well as the leaked State Department cables<\/a>, while entertainment journalists wrote about the Sony hack<\/a>. Should all those stories be banned like the Post\u2019s was? A standard that Twitter won\u2019t host any sexual images of someone posted without their consent, or any personal information like someone\u2019s address, is a neutral one. Beyond that, determining what stolen or hacked information is newsworthy is inherently subjective. Should that judgment be left to social media companies?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there\u2019s the problem that Twitter jumped to the conclusion that this was a hack in the first place. I can see why they did \u2014 recent high-profile examples of mass personal info dumps like this were generally hacks. So if you had been anticipating a chance to \u201cdo over\u201d 2016\u2019s hack scandal, here it seemed to be. But it was jumping to a conclusion. Additionally, the apparent belief of some employees that proactively censoring the story until there was more information about whether it was hacked info was a way to express \u201ccaution<\/a>\u201d seems dubious \u2014 fully banning a link to a media outlet from the platform was a sweeping measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So to me this seems a pretty clear case of overreach by Twitter. This wasn\u2019t a \u201crigging\u201d of the election (again, the ban was only in place for a little over a day). But the decision \u2014 born out of a blinkered focus on avoiding a repeat of 2016, rather than taking speech or press freedom or the different details of this situation into account \u2014 was the wrong call, in my view. “<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“it should be noted that the phenomenon of controversial Twitter bannings occurring at top executives\u2019 whims has not been solved under the Musk regime. Musk has already decided to suspend Kanye West\u2019s account<\/a>, keep a preexisting ban<\/a> on Infowars host Alex Jones in place, and ban an account<\/a> tracking flight information for Musk\u2019s private jet (even though he said<\/a>..his \u201ccommitment to free speech\u201d was so strong he would allow that account to keep posting).”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“When the Covid-19 pandemic broke out, Twitter again grappled with the topic of \u201cmisinformation.\u201d As with Trump (and with hate speech), Twitter executives likely believed lives could well hinge on their decisions. So by May 2020, the company announced<\/a> it would remove or label tweets that \u201cdirectly pose a risk to someone\u2019s health or well-being,\u201d such as encouragements that people disregard social distancing guidelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the company essentially defined \u201cmisinformation\u201d as whatever went against the public health establishment\u2019s current conventional wisdom. And as time passed, Covid quickly became another issue where conservatives and some journalists came to deeply distrust that establishment, viewing it as making mistakes<\/a> and giving politically slanted guidance<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The situation took another turn when President Biden took office. By the summer of 2021, his administration was trying to encourage widespread vaccine adoption in the hope the pandemic could be ended entirely. (The omicron variant, which sufficiently evaded vaccines to end that hope, was not yet circulating.) Toward that end, administration officials publicly<\/a> demanded social companies do more to fight misinformation, and poured private pressure on the companies to delete certain specific accounts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of those accounts belonged to commentator Alex Berenson, who \u201chas mischaracterized just about every detail regarding the vaccines to make the dubious case that most people would be better off avoiding them,\u201d according to the Atlantic\u2019s Derek Thompson<\/a>. After Berenson was eventually banned, he sued and obtained records<\/a> showing the White House had specifically asked Twitter why he hadn\u2019t been kicked off the platform yet. Another lawsuit against the administration, from Republican state attorneys general and other people who believed their speech was suppressed (including Bhattacharya), is also pending<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All that is to say that there is a thorny question here about whether the government should be trying to get individual people who have violated no laws banned from social media. And from the standpoint of 2022, when the US has adopted a return-to-normal policy without universal vaccination or the virus being suppressed, and when there\u2019s increased attention on whether school lockdowns harmed children<\/a>, some reflection may be called for about what constitutes misinformation and what constitutes opinions people may have about policy in a free society.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/policy-and-politics\/2022\/12\/15\/23505370\/twitter-files-elon-musk-taibbi-weiss-covid<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“One clue is in a message by Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth, who alludes to \u201cthe SEVERE risks here and lessons of 2016.\u201d In 2016, there was an effort by the Russian government to interfere with the general election in a way that would hurt Hillary Clinton and Democrats\u2019 prospects. As later documented in the Mueller report, this effort involved both a \u201ctroll farm\u201d of Russian accounts masquerading as Americans to spread false or inflammatory information, and the \u201chack-and-leak\u201d campaign in which leading Democrats\u2019 emails were stolen and provided to WikiLeaks.
\nAfter Trump won, many leading figures in politics, tech, media, and law enforcement concluded that major social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook should have done more to stop this Russian interference effort and the spread of \u201cmisinformation\u201d more generally (with some arguing that this was a problem regardless of electoral impact, and others claiming that this helped or even caused Trump\u2019s victory). Law enforcement officials argued the Russian campaign was illegal and indicted about two dozen Russians believed to be involved in it. Social media companies began to take a more aggressive approach to curbing what they saw as misinformation, and as the 2020 election approached, they met regularly with FBI and other government officials to discuss the dangers of potential new foreign interference campaigns.<\/p>\n

But several issues are being conflated here. Misinformation is (in theory) false information. Foreign propaganda is not necessarily false, but it is being spread by a foreign government with malicious intent (for example, to inflame America\u2019s divisions). Hacked material, though, is tricker in part because it often isn\u2019t misinformation \u2014 its power comes from its accuracy. Now, it is theoretically possible that false information could be mixed in with true information as part of a hacked document dump, so it\u2019s important to authenticate it to the extent possible. And even authentic information can often be ripped out of context to appear more damning than it really is. Still, Twitter was putting itself in the awkward position where it would be resolving to suppress information that could well be accurate, for the greater good of preventing foreign interference in an election.<\/p>\n

More broadly, a blanket ban on hacked material doesn\u2019t seem particularly well thought through, since a fair amount of journalism is based on material that is illicitly obtained in some way (such as the Pentagon Papers). Every major media source wrote about the DNC and Podesta email leaks, as well as the leaked State Department cables, while entertainment journalists wrote about the Sony hack. Should all those stories be banned like the Post\u2019s was? A standard that Twitter won\u2019t host any sexual images of someone posted without their consent, or any personal information like someone\u2019s address, is a neutral one. Beyond that, determining what stolen or hacked information is newsworthy is inherently subjective. Should that judgment be left to social media companies?<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s the problem that Twitter jumped to the conclusion that this was a hack in the first place. I can see why they did \u2014 recent high-profile examples of mass personal info dumps like this were generally hacks. So if you had been anticipating a chance to \u201cdo over\u201d 2016\u2019s hack scandal, here it seemed to be. But it was jumping to a conclusion. Additionally, the apparent belief of some employees that proactively censoring the story until there was more information about whether it was hacked info was a way to express \u201ccaution\u201d seems dubious \u2014 fully banning a link to a media outlet from the platform was a sweeping measure.<\/p>\n

So to me this seems a pretty clear case of overreach by Twitter. This wasn\u2019t a \u201crigging\u201d of the election (again, the ban was only in place for a little over a day). But the decision \u2014 born out of a blinkered focus on avoiding a repeat of 2016, rather than taking speech or press freedom or the different details of this situation into account \u2014 was the wrong call, in my view. ”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“it should be noted that the phenomenon of controversial Twitter bannings occurring at top executives\u2019 whims has not been solved under the Musk regime. Musk has already decided to suspend Kanye West\u2019s account, keep a preexisting ban on Infowars host Alex Jones in place, and ban an account tracking flight information for Musk\u2019s private jet (even though he said..his \u201ccommitment to free speech\u201d was so strong he would allow that account to keep posting).”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“When the Covid-19 pandemic broke out, Twitter again grappled with the topic of \u201cmisinformation.\u201d As with Trump (and with hate speech), Twitter executives likely believed lives could well hinge on their decisions. So by May 2020, the company announced it would remove or label tweets that \u201cdirectly pose a risk to someone\u2019s health or well-being,\u201d such as encouragements that people disregard social distancing guidelines.<\/p>\n

But the company essentially defined \u201cmisinformation\u201d as whatever went against the public health establishment\u2019s current conventional wisdom. And as time passed, Covid quickly became another issue where conservatives and some journalists came to deeply distrust that establishment, viewing it as making mistakes and giving politically slanted guidance.<\/p>\n

The situation took another turn when President Biden took office. By the summer of 2021, his administration was trying to encourage widespread vaccine adoption in the hope the pandemic could be ended entirely. (The omicron variant, which sufficiently evaded vaccines to end that hope, was not yet circulating.) Toward that end, administration officials publicly demanded social companies do more to fight misinformation, and poured private pressure on the companies to delete certain specific accounts.<\/p>\n

One of those accounts belonged to commentator Alex Berenson, who \u201chas mischaracterized just about every detail regarding the vaccines to make the dubious case that most people would be better off avoiding them,\u201d according to the Atlantic\u2019s Derek Thompson. After Berenson was eventually banned, he sued and obtained records showing the White House had specifically asked Twitter why he hadn\u2019t been kicked off the platform yet. Another lawsuit against the administration, from Republican state attorneys general and other people who believed their speech was suppressed (including Bhattacharya), is also pending.<\/p>\n

All that is to say that there is a thorny question here about whether the government should be trying to get individual people who have violated no laws banned from social media. And from the standpoint of 2022, when the US has adopted a return-to-normal policy without universal vaccination or the virus being suppressed, and when there\u2019s increased attention on whether school lockdowns harmed children, some reflection may be called for about what constitutes misinformation and what constitutes opinions people may have about policy in a free society.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[675,327],"class_list":["post-9757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-social-security","tag-twitter"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9757"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9757\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9758,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9757\/revisions\/9758"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}