> Project Veritas (James O'Keefe) is known to be a unreputable source, with numerous judgements against them going back years, and members may not want to use

> Project Veritas (James O'Keefe) is known to be a unreputable source, with numerous judgements against them going back years, and members may not want to use this as a starting point of discussion for an already highly contentious discussion. O'Keefe is a scumbag, and you have to very carefully evaluate the content of his "undercover" videos. I was considering also submitting the video, but decided against it because so much of the questioning is framed in a way that is clearly designed to make Twitter look bad. At the same time, there are some pretty damning quotes, regardless of framing. It seems clear that the accusations that Twitter targets conservatives should carry some weight based on the statements of some of the engineers and the content reviewers, and at the very least Twitter is not doing a good job of communicating their policies to the content review team. But unfortunately, as you say, O'Keefe is fundamentally toxic. I would expect a lot of flags for this reason alone. The video also doesn't lend itself to careful analysis - there's a lot of editing, and there's conclusions you're definitely supposed to draw. I think that's unfortunate, because I think the larger story of the role tech companies are playing in politics (in terms of their influence on people's speech) is one of the most important stories of the decade.