Elon vs Twitter update: Elon helped America win , Tesla stock through the roof

And what are you going to do once you get the smoking gun?

That’s right..nothing.

 

I actually just did something...expanded my ignore list. Bye.

 

Can you express the corruption here in your own words?

 

Lol it's so sad that there are posters so old here that they probably lived during Rod Sterling being alive and probably cherished corporate decisions that shut down many of Rod Sterling's more progressive creative works. Like the dude had to replace Black people with aliens because corporations thought it was to blatant what the message was about (oppression of the minority group) so he had to dance around censorship with those creative ways.


How many of you **** sticks cares then? No you didn't? That's why we think you are fascist. One way street fight for freedom of speech.

Just like this guy:

 

Have we found out if Paul Pelosi is gay yet?

 

We just asking questions okay?!?

 

Word on The Street is that Paul is still diligently working on it.

 

Musk doesn’t want America to turn into just another snowflake Euro trash country or South Africa.

I don’t have a problem with that.

 

Musk preparing bid to take over Facebook to make sure Trump gets reinstated!

 

1. THREAD:

THE TWITTER FILES: HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE

– By censoring info that was true but inconvenient to U.S. govt. policy
– By discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed
– By suppressing ordinary users, including some sharing the CDC’s *own data*

2. So far the Twitter Files have focused on evidence of Twitter’s secret blacklists; how the company functioned as a kind of subsidiary of the FBI; and how execs rewrote the platform’s rules to accommodate their own political desires.

3. What we have yet to cover is Covid. This reporting, for The Free Press, @thefp, is one piece of that important story.

4. The United States government pressured Twitter and other social media platforms to elevate certain content and suppress other content about Covid-19.

5. Internal files at Twitter that I viewed while on assignment for @thefp showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s pandemic content according to their wishes.

6. At the onset of the pandemic, according to meeting notes, the Trump admin was especially concerned about panic buying. They came looking for “help from the tech companies to combat misinformation” about “runs on grocery stores.” But . . . there were runs on grocery stores.


7. It wasn’t just Twitter. The meetings with the Trump White House were also attended by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others.


8. When the Biden admin took over, one of their first meeting requests with Twitter executives was on Covid. The focus was on “anti-vaxxer accounts.” Especially Alex Berenson:


9. In the summer of 2021, president Biden said social media companies were “killing people” for allowing vaccine misinformation. Berenson was suspended hours after Biden’s comments, and kicked off the platform the following month.

10. Berenson sued (and then settled with) Twitter. In the legal process Twitter was compelled to release certain internal communications, which showed direct White House pressure on the company to take action on Berenson.
https://t.co/CHt0s7ZqfQ


11. A December 2022 summary of meetings with the White House by Lauren Culbertson, Twitter’s Head of U.S. Public Policy, adds new evidence of the White House’s pressure campaign, and cements that it repeatedly attempted to directly influence the platform.

12. Culbertson wrote that the Biden team was “very angry” that Twitter had not been more aggressive in deplatforming multiple accounts. They wanted Twitter to do more.


13. Twitter executives did not fully capitulate to the Biden team’s wishes. An extensive review of internal communications at the company revealed employees often debating moderation cases in great detail, and with more care than was shown by the government toward free speech.

14. But Twitter did suppress views—many from doctors and scientific experts—that conflicted with the official positions of the White House. As a result, legitimate findings and questions that would have expanded the public debate went missing.

15. There were three serious problems with Twitter’s process:

First, much of the content moderation was conducted by bots, trained on machine learning and AI – impressive in their engineering, yet still too crude for such nuanced work.

16. Second, contractors, in places like the Philippines, also moderated content. They were given decision trees to aid in the process, but tasking non experts to adjudicate tweets on complex topics like myocarditis and mask efficacy data was destined for a significant error rate.


17 Third, most importantly, the buck stopped with higher level employees at Twitter who chose the inputs for the bots and decision trees, and subjectively decided escalated cases and suspensions. As it is with all people and institutions, there was individual and collective bias

18. With Covid, this bias bent heavily toward establishment dogmas.

19. Inevitably, dissident yet legitimate content was labeled as misinformation, and the accounts of doctors and others were suspended both for tweeting opinions and demonstrably true information.

20. Exhibit A: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, tweeted views at odds with US public health authorities and the American left, the political affiliation of nearly the entire staff at Twitter.


21. Internal emails show an “intent to action” by a moderator, saying Kulldorff’s tweet violated the company’s Covid-19 misinformation policy and claimed he shared “false information.”


22. But Kulldorff’s statement was an expert’s opinion—one which also happened to be in line with vaccine policies in numerous other countries. Yet it was deemed “false information” by Twitter moderators merely because it differed from CDC guidelines.

23. After Twitter took action, Kulldorff’s tweet was slapped with a “Misleading” label and all replies and likes were shut off, throttling the tweet’s ability to be seen and shared by many people, the ostensible core function of the platform:

 

24. In my review of internal files, I found countless instances of tweets labeled as “misleading” or taken down entirely, sometimes triggering account suspensions, simply because they veered from CDC guidance or differed from establishment views.

25. A tweet by @KelleyKga, a self-proclaimed public health fact checker, with 18K followers, was flagged as “Misleading,” and replies and likes disabled, even though it displayed the CDC’s *own data.*


26. Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, and that it received many “tattles” (what the system amusingly called reports from users). That triggered a manual review by a human who– despite the tweet showing actual CDC data–nevertheless labeled it “Misleading”

27. Tellingly, the tweet by @KelleyKga that was labeled “Misleading” was a reply to a tweet that contained actual misinformation.

Covid has never been the leading cause of death from disease in children. Yet that tweet remains on the platform, and without a “misleading” label.


28. Whether by humans or algorithms, content that was contrarian but true was still subject to getting flagged or suppressed.

This tweet was labeled “Misleading,” even though the owner of this account, @_euzebiusz_, a physician, was referring to the results of a published study.


29. Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended from Twitter after receiving multiple strikes for misinformation. One of his strikes was for a tweet referring to the results from a peer reviewed study on mRNA vaccines.


30. A review of Twitter log files revealed that an internal audit, conducted after Bostom’s attorney contacted Twitter, found that only 1 of Bostom’s 5 violations were valid.


31. The one Bostom tweet found to still be in violation cited data that was legitimate but inconvenient to the public health establishment’s narrative about the risks of flu versus Covid in children.


32. That this tweet was not only flagged by a bot, but its violation manually affirmed by a staff member is telling of both the algorithmic and human bias at play. Bostom’s account was suspended for months and was finally restored on Christmas Day.

33. Another example of human bias run amok was the reaction to this tweet by Trump. Many Trump tweets led to extensive internal debates, and this one was no different.


34. In a surreal exchange, Jim Baker, at the time Twitter’s Deputy General Counsel, asks why telling people to not be afraid wasn’t a violation of Twitter’s Covid-19 misinformation policy.


35. Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of Trust & Safety, had to explain that optimism wasn’t misinformation.


36. Remember @KelleyKga with the CDC data tweet? Twitter’s response to her is clarifying: “we will prioritize review and labeling of content that could lead to increased exposure or transmission.”


37. Twitter made a decision, via the political leanings of senior staff, and govt pressure, that the public health authorities’ approach to the pandemic – prioritizing mitigation over other concerns – was “The Science” . . .

38. Information that challenged that view, such as showing harms of vaccines, or that could be perceived as downplaying the risks of Covid, especially to children, was subject to moderation, and even suppression. No matter whether such views were correct or adopted abroad.

39. What might this pandemic and its aftermath have looked like if there had been a more open debate on Twitter and other social media platforms—not to mention the mainstream press—about the origins of Covid, about lockdowns, about the true risks of Covid in kids, and much more?

40. Thanks to @ShellenbergerMD, @lwoodhouse, @lhfang and the team @thefp for their help reporting this story.

 

If I select all and copy and paste in a search engine, who's content would I find you just copy and pasted from?

What's funny is you probably haven't even read the entirety of what you posted and your brain simply thinks "a lot of paragraphs means something real!"

 

I am not all that impressed by reporters (or whatever these people call themselves) that selectively probe the internal debates that occur within an organization, hunting for organizational bias.

 

It should be noted the nature of the intent of Musk by which two "journalists" he chose (Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss)


It's the wackos who still can't distinguish between sincerity and grifting when it comes to media and journalism that are most adamant about the altruistic nature of the freedom fighters fighting for the freedom to misgender.


Activist journalists do exist. They are passionate. Doesn't mean they can't be misguided but it's obvious when there is sincerity vs grifting. One of the key signs is sincere activist journalists often spend a large brunt of their time discussing topics that don't really work well with modern algorithms such as organizational efforts for activism or actual ground work stuff to help local homeless people. Journalists who spend a lot of their time not on topics that are the "hot topic of the week" is a good sign of sincerity.

People like Barri Weiss and Matt Taibbi aren't that. They don't touch topics outside the topics that they know have the most engagement.

 

The big picture story I get from all these Twitter files is that Twitter was having internal debates about how to enforce policies on vague and new issues coming up in real-time - kind of like a good company should do. The complaining seems to be that the decisions were arbitrary, I guess - which is weird since the new hero of these people has made arbitary decision making into standard policy, and they seem to love it now.

 

None of this is new, all of it was very wrong. The government violated people's first amendment rights by making private companies into agents of selective free speech violations.

 

I appreciate a German trying to explain the First Amendment. Classic. There is no First Amendment violation here.

 

I have an American Master of Laws degree and got admitted to the New York Bar.

What do you have to offer in terms of expertise?

 

I am not a lawyer but my lawyer “friends” are all JDs. What’s an American Master of Laws?

 

It's a postgraduate degree for which you have to already have a JD (or JD equivalent from another country).

https://www.law.uh.edu/llm/

https://www.law.uh.edu/llm/foreign-scholars.asp