21 ms·

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 Biden team asking Twitter to "handle" tweets they

• ryanbrunner 4y ago
  "Handle" could be "take down tweets on request of the Biden team without review" or "handle this request by the Biden team by considering our current policies and making an independent decision". Neither would be terribly surprising to me, although for sure the first is more damning. But Taibbi hasn't yet provided enough detail to know one way or another. If it is just "prioritize this support request by a VIP" it's not particularly damning or even scandalous, I would assume that would be the case at any social media company.
  • ytpete 4y ago
    > Taibbi hasn't yet provided enough detail to know one way or another The tweets in that citation are mostly available on the Wayback Machine, and 100% of those accessible ones contained frontal nudity: https://twitter.com/Schneider_CM/status/1598829964454858752 https://twitter.com/Schneider_CM/status/1598829964454858752. So they would have been taken down as a clear ToS violation no matter what.
• cwkoss 4y ago
  Yeah, the rest of the thread was mostly uninteresting documentation of what everyone already knew. I want to know more about what 'handling' tweets means, whether all 'handle' requests were accepted or in which instances did twitter push back, etc.
  • toofy 4y ago
    i'd have to go back again and reread, but was the term "handle" used at all? i remember them asking to "review" some tweets and to measure them against the tos. i very easily could have missed them asking to "handle" it though... i think those semantics matter, which is why i ask.
    • andreyk 4y ago
      They did not ask to handle it, the person from Twitter replied "handled" (to another person at Twitter, for the record). It's in the screenshot of the email with the request.
      • toofy 4y ago
        yeah, that’s what i thought i read, thanks. no outside person asked twitter to “handle” anything. they asked them to review it.
    • cwkoss 4y ago
      All Twitter users have the power to report tweets. It seems like at minimum they are bypassing the reported tweet queue. It feels likely that these report judgements disproportionately had the outcome desired by the requester. If not all requested tweets got taken down/suspended until deleted that will look a lot better than if this channel effectively allowed unchecked censorship.
      • mfost 4y ago
        > It feels likely that these report judgements disproportionately had the outcome desired by the requester It's not a hard outcome to achieve. Only report things blatantly violating the ToS and you get that outcome.
• rufusroflpunch 4y ago
  I think it's a blatant first amendment violation. Twitter are acting as agents to state to silence individuals. The federal government cannot pick and choose who gets to speak.
  • shagie 4y ago
    What federal government was in the office in October of 2020?
    • rufusroflpunch 4y ago
      Joe Biden was a lifelong U.S. Senator, Vice President and a Presidential candidate. They were providing lists of people to silence, just weeks before he was elected as President. And you're arguing that because he was TECHNICALLY a private citizen at the time while the highest levels of Twitter was working at his campaign's behest to make sure he got elected President, that is somehow NOT a first amendment violation? I would not be surprised to find out sometime that there are judges who might disagree with you on that point.
      • sseagull 4y ago
        > he was TECHNICALLY a private citizen The 1st amendment prohibits the government from interfering with speech. You just admitted he was not part of the government. Therefore it’s not a 1st amendment violation. It may be morally wrong, or violating “free speech”, but I don’t see a 1st amendment violation.
        • anoonmoose 4y ago
          Dunno why you're being downvoted here. "The Law" under "The US Constitution" is not a "technicality" here- it is the guiding document dictating how this conversation should be directed. Biden's role as a private citizen in 2020 is clear, in that light.
          • GauntletWizard 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• eschulz 4y ago
  I agree, and to me this seems to be describing something very inappropriate. I of course would like more info on this subject.
• anoonmoose 4y ago
  1- Biden wasn't in government, he was running for office. Private citizen at the time. 2- They weren't telling, they were asking, and if Twitter feels like they were told, they can sue the government for violating their First Amendment rights.
  • yourealldumb 4y ago
  • laborcontract 4y ago
    picking apart semantics is not sufficient to allay concerns expressed in parent
    • anoonmoose 4y ago
      There are people up and down this thread claiming this is a 1A violation. Parent's sentiment may just be a conceptual one but I am much more concerned with the legal aspect, and everyone understanding that correctly.
    • dd36 4y ago
      Can political campaigns not lobby the media? Do you think that’s something new?
    • jshen 4y ago
      Pointing of the most critical fact, that he was not in government at the time, is not “picking apart semantics”.
    • s3p 4y ago
      Please elaborate on the semantics you're referring to. The comment above seems to make a point about the context in which the tweets were removed. They do seem to allay those concerns you mention.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • 4y ago
• avemg 4y ago
  It should please you to hear that the Biden team was not the government at the time.
  • copenja 4y ago
    Was he not a US Senator?
    • avemg 4y ago
      He left the Senate in 2009 when he became vice president. He left the VP office in 2016 after Obama's second term ended. He was private citizen when this was happening. Powerful person? Sure. An agent of the government? No.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • agripa2 4y ago
      Nope. He was a private citizen at this point in time.
    • freejazz 4y ago
      No, hasn't been since he was elected to VP in 2008.
  • andrew_ 4y ago
    The Biden Team had the entire DNC behind them, which also means a vast majority of sitting Democrats. I'm confused by the effort to separate Biden's election team from the appendages of the government that were aligned by party and committee.
  • stale2002 4y ago
    This is a distinction with little difference. They can just as much suppress speech, by using the implied threat of future government action. And this is basically just as bad.
    • 4y ago
• andreyk 4y ago
  What was asked was "More to review from the Biden team". I suppose having some sort of access to request reviews of specific tweets is concerning, but this alone does not demonstrate the degree of influence they had over Twitter's moderation decisions to me. But, it's telling that more damning emails weren't shared... So ok, there was some new information (from which it's hard to confidently extrapolate much, I would say). But mostly it's a rehash of a known story, right?
• fzeroracer 4y ago
  Did you bother looking over the content of those tweets? You can go to archive.org right now and see what was 'censored', but I recommend not doing so at work. Or you can look at my prior posts instead for an explanation. It should come at no surprise that high profile users of twitter (government, celebs etc) can make requests to have content that clearly violates the twitter ToS removed and are served with higher priority.
  • hgfdhgdfhgdf 4y ago
    Why aren't the Taliban banned? They used Twitter to take control of Afghanistan [1] [1] https://ischool.umd.edu/news/how-taliban-used-twitter-to-take-over-afghanistan/ https://ischool.umd.edu/news/how-taliban-used-twitter-to-tak...
    • djur 4y ago
      Is the Taliban posting nude pictures of people without their consent?
      • vuln 4y ago
        Nah, they just post death to America, recruitment videos, torture, beheadings. Ya know. The chill stuff that twitter doesn't seem to think is as big of a deal as some blurred nudes.
        • djur 4y ago
          That kind of material is also taken down.
• freejazz 4y ago
  What about Trump's team doing the exact same thing while he was in office?
• zzzeek 4y ago
  Funny story, Biden was not "in the government" at that time. You're thinking of Trump. That's who was president in 2020. Does it still rub you the wrong way that Trump was "the government" telling Twitter to remove speech?
  • rhaksw 4y ago
    I like all of these comments because they each contain a grain of truth. Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government. "Handle" is an okay word to describe the scenario via an internet comment, yet also not a literal quote. I wish we could get back to trusted parties coming to reasonable conclusions while citing sources. It seems we're stuck in a cycle of gaming SEO and piecemeal info via social media. I guess us "citizen journalists" are learning just how challenging it can be to relate a story accurately and with minimal bias.
    • halpmeh 4y ago
      It's actually quite easy to analyze a story with minimal bias. People simply aren't interested in doing it, however.
      • rhaksw 4y ago
        Resisting temptation to insert bias is rare/hard when you can acquire 1,000 more clicks/followers for tweaking the story or headline just a bit. People have bills to pay and not every story sells. Journalism isn't just about knowing how to write and investigate, you also need to know how to get your stuff out there, otherwise you're dead in the water.
    • jshen 4y ago
      “Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government.” What in the world are you saying here? What exactly is a “figure of influence in government“, and how does that matter?
      • 4y ago
• romellem 4y ago
  Did you read your own source? The Biden team never asked Twitter staff to “handle” anything. They forwarded tweets that [violated twitter’s ToS][1], a Twitter staff member forwarded them for review, and at that point the reviewer said they “handled these.” That’s what content moderation is supposed to do! [1]: https://twitter.com/parkebench/status/1598841731763810304 https://twitter.com/parkebench/status/1598841731763810304
  • newZWhoDis 4y ago
    • mmastrac 4y ago
      If they refused to handle Tony's problem, what happened? If twitter refused to handle the problem, what happens? The analogy falls flat.
      • newZWhoDis 4y ago
        > If twitter refused to handle the problem, what happens? 230
        • labster 4y ago
          If only America had a constitutional system that could protect the little guys like Twitter from the mean ol’ government.
          • newZWhoDis 4y ago
            With today’s revelations, Twitter was acting as the government, under the direction of government employees, fulfilling traditionally government-roles, often for particular political wings of said government
            • comte7092 4y ago
• ajross 4y ago
  > This rubs me the wrong way, nobody in government should be telling Twitter to remove speech. Uh... Biden wasn't in government. It's so weird seeing all the posters in this thread arguing simultaneously that The Real Problem here is government control over the media and citing as evidence the fact that Twitter bent to the whims of someone not in government. I mean, why is government control such a big deal when private citizens (like the Biden campaign, or this other guy who seems to have a lot of control over Twitter all of a sudden) can get the same favors? Either it matters or it doesn't, right?
  • hgfdhgdfhgdf 4y ago
    It's weirder to use the false equivalence to equate Biden with a typical private citizen. The typical private citizen does not have the same power to suppress stories on Twitter.
    • eggnet 4y ago
      Because the first amendment covers congress's limitations on lawmaking. Thereby indirectly limiting executive and judicial actions in the same way. It doesn't cover someone (regardless of influence or position) asking a company to review content against their own terms of service and policies.
    • misnome 4y ago
      The typical private citizen can click the “Report” button. They just can’t email a list of tweets to report directly to the review team. Apparently this private citizen could do that, as could the sitting president.
      • bentlegen 4y ago
        Do people here not believe that it’s normal for powerful, connected people to have “red phone” access to people high-up in corporations, media, etc? There are entire industries that exist to get you that access (if you don’t have it). e.g. I believe Tim Cook could probably contact someone at Twitter and get an answer. Do we really believe he would go in the same queue as a “regular” citizen? To me this is a shocking revelation to anyone who doesn’t actually understand how the world works. Which, to be fair, I didn’t either for a good while, and empathize.
• chris222 4y ago
  What are those links? Is it bad stuff that should have been taken down to to terms of service? This is lazy reporting and seems like a nothing burger.
  • rockinghigh 4y ago
    The first link shared multiple pictures including Hunter Biden nude and engaging in sexual activity. Another picture shows a bag white powder. Twitter took it down because it violated their hacked material policy. Sharing nude pictures without the person's consent is also against Twitter policy.
• Dudelander 4y ago
  Why not though? I don't see an issue if they use the same tools as everyone else does. Police departments do it all the time, as does the CDC.
• _8j50 4y ago
  Why not? It was a request not a demand. After 2016, I really hope politicians are asking social media companies to review dangerous bullshit, twitter is free to look at the content and deny politician's requests. And I mean for any country's politicians. Civil wars and genocides have started and happened on and as a result of twitter and fb's lack of moderation relating to political content.
• geocar 4y ago
  > Biden team asking Twitter to "handle" tweets they don't like. This rubs me the wrong way, nobody in government should be telling Twitter to remove speech. Nonsense. First of all, "government" is not an "in" or an "out". They represent their constituency; those are people, and in this case, they are the representatives of the workers at twitter (judging by the donations). Secondly: Twitter is not "speech" but a newspaper that prints nothing but personals[1]. All day long. The owners make a decision every day to keep printing that newspaper with everything that's in it[2]. With that firmly in mind, let me tell you a story: Once upon a time, the people working at that newspaper saw the people working at another newspaper do something to their estimation illegal and unethical[3], and decided to use the tool at their disposal to stop it. And management backed them. It happens. Then a rich person who thought to their estimation it wasn't, bought the newspaper and set policy that the people working at the newspaper were not allowed to use their estimation of legality or ethics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_advertisement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_advertisement [2]: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/144/991.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/1... [3]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/130/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/130/
  • astrange 4y ago
    > Secondly: Twitter is not "speech" but a newspaper that prints nothing but personals[1]. All day long. The owners make a decision every day to keep printing that newspaper with everything that's in it[2]. Third, that wasn't the government because Biden wasn't president at the time. Presidential campaigns are not the government. …And fourth, all the posts they reported were Hunter's nudes, meaning the posts they were getting taken down were likely illegal already (under revenge porn laws) and certainly against ToS.
  • Karunamon 4y ago
    Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts is irrelevant in the case of an entity like Twitter due to the CDA. 47 USC section 230 C1: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
• LightG 4y ago
  My first impression is I strongly agree with you. And then I remember the number of people around me who got jobs because they "knew" someone. I'm not even nearly shocked by this. And if you are, you don't recognize human nature. Should it happen? No. But it's a private company. They can do wtf they like. Just like Elon is doing now. Should it be regulated? Maybe.
• RavingGoat 4y ago
  Fun fact : they were all private citizens not part of government
• roland35 4y ago
  Biden wasn't in the government at the time though. Presidential candidate, sure but just a private citizen
• throw0101c 4y ago
  > This rubs me the wrong way, nobody in government should be telling Twitter to remove speech. Quoted email: "Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:28 PM" You: "government" You may wish do double-check who was "in government", because checking my notes, it was not Biden. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_elections * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_Joe_Biden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_Joe_Biden
• s3p 4y ago
  To clarify, Biden was not in gov't at the time of the emails being sent to Twitter.