4 ms·

I don't think they even have access to the dashboard. I assumed they were given the prepared data. An earlier tweet by Musk or a journalist mentioned lawyers wo

by _a9 4y ago

I don't think they even have access to the dashboard. I assumed they were given the prepared data. An earlier tweet by Musk or a journalist mentioned lawyers would deliver the data to them direct from Twitter. Even if they did it's clear that whoever made the screenshot in the libsoftiktok screen doesn't even have access to see their email. Like all other tech admin panels, there are access controls. Just because the 'delete website' button is visible to you doesn't mean your account has permission to use it.

anigbrowl 4y ago
Weiss's co-author @abagailshrier commented: 'Our team was given extensive, unfiltered access to Twitter's internal communication and systems.' I'm gonna take this at face value pending clarification. Just because the 'delete website' button is visible to you doesn't mean your account has permission to use it. Well, nothing looks greyed out. Again, I'm going to assume they had access unless there's specific information to the contrary.
- rideontime 4y ago
  Now the head of Trust & Safety is admitting the screenshots were "requested" from her[0]. This was hardly a balanced investigation. [0] https://twitter.com/ellagirwin/status/1601084794288640000 https://twitter.com/ellagirwin/status/1601084794288640000
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    It's a bit of a mess really. Musk fired the deputy general counsel the other day, commenting shortly afterward that he had only learned about the man's previous stint in a similar role at the FBI on Sunday. People quickly pointed out that Musk had actually commented on the tweets about that person and his FBI connections last April. I feel that what we're seeing is largely investigation theater designed to validate a particular outcome rather than a real inquiry. If you consider this from an information/hybrid warfare point of view and think of Twitter as territory, then it's reminiscent of highly engineered plebiscites that precede or follow invasions to give them an aura of legitimacy.
    - rideontime 4y ago
      That's exactly what it is, and I'm beginning to believe that the only winning move is not to play.

by _a9 4y ago

anigbrowl 4y ago

Weiss's co-author @abagailshrier commented: 'Our team was given extensive, unfiltered access to Twitter's internal communication and systems.' I'm gonna take this at face value pending clarification. Just because the 'delete website' button is visible to you doesn't mean your account has permission to use it. Well, nothing looks greyed out. Again, I'm going to assume they had access unless there's specific information to the contrary.

rideontime 4y ago
Now the head of Trust & Safety is admitting the screenshots were "requested" from her[0]. This was hardly a balanced investigation. [0] https://twitter.com/ellagirwin/status/1601084794288640000 https://twitter.com/ellagirwin/status/1601084794288640000
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  It's a bit of a mess really. Musk fired the deputy general counsel the other day, commenting shortly afterward that he had only learned about the man's previous stint in a similar role at the FBI on Sunday. People quickly pointed out that Musk had actually commented on the tweets about that person and his FBI connections last April. I feel that what we're seeing is largely investigation theater designed to validate a particular outcome rather than a real inquiry. If you consider this from an information/hybrid warfare point of view and think of Twitter as territory, then it's reminiscent of highly engineered plebiscites that precede or follow invasions to give them an aura of legitimacy.
  - rideontime 4y ago
    That's exactly what it is, and I'm beginning to believe that the only winning move is not to play.