Can someone give me a sanity check here? It seems that Taibbi often describes communications much differently than I understand them. For example: > Taibbi[0]:

Can someone give me a sanity check here? It seems that Taibbi often describes communications much differently than I understand them. For example: > Taibbi[0]: "...They prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses – perhaps even Joe Biden. The “new administration,” says one exec, “will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.” > Screenshot[0]: "...if it is clear that another account is being used for the purposes of evading a ban, it is also subject to suspension. For government accounts, such as @POTUS and @WhiteHouse, we will not suspend those accounts but will take action to limit their use. However, these accounts will be transitioned over to the new administration in due course and will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary to alleviate real-world harm." Taibbi's description is completely different than my reading. I understand this as 'government accounts are exempt from the typical ban evasion rules unless they meet further criteria for real world harm'. I see nothing in this screenshot that talks about Biden not being suspended?? His selective quoting seems incredibly disingenuous. Another example: > Taibbi[1]: "Even the hashtag #StealOurVotes...is approved by Twitter brass, because it’s “understandable” and a “reference to… a US Supreme Court decision." > Screenshot[1] (red name): "perfect thanks yoeir and pconlon I was wondering about this part *Trump and his new #AmyConeyBarrett #SCOTUS will try to #StealOurVotes," > Screenshot[1] (green name): "Ah, that's understandable (red name) believe that it's a reference to the a US Supreme Court decision on processing mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day." I read this as (green name) saying "ah, that's understandable" in response to (red name) specifying the section they asked for a review on after Yoel and (green name) responded in confusion and to another section of the Tweet. I do not see how Taibbi can read this 'understandable' response as an endorsement of the hashtag at all. In another example, Taibbi claims[2] "...senior execs didn’t appear to have a particular violation..." after Trump tweets "Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd." However, Taibbi's previous posts have multiple examples of them taking action on mail-in voting misinformation. Additionally, the chat links to external files a couple of times in contexts that suggest the document contains information about their action or rationale for taking action (Yoel responds "agree with the recommendation"). Am I misreading the screenshots? If not, is this accidental or deliberate? It really feels like this report is about supporting a narrative rather than being transparent. [0]: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601355779474620416?s=20 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601355779474620416?s=20 (#6) [1]: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601375333319868416?s=20 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601375333319868416?s=20 (#42) [2]: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601371334503968768?s=20 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601371334503968768?s=20 (#36)