Twitter’s Trust Bust: New Documents Show How “Trust” Executives Misled Congress and the Public

Twitter LogoBelow is my column in the New York Post on the second release of the “Twitter Files.” The new material exposes the company’s system of censorship and suppression of disfavored views.  The documents shatter prior statements of Twitter, including statements made to Congress. As discussed below, there could be legal as well as political ramifications as the House moves forward with the long-delayed investigation of these social media companies.

For years, the “Trust” professionals have insisted that the public should “trust us, we’re Twitter.” Now the public has direct evidence that the company not only engaged in raw, biased censorship but misled them on how Twitter was manipulating the discussion of political issues. Ernest Hemingway said that “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.” That trust in Twitter was clearly misplaced.

Here is the column:

“1984” author George Orwell warned that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” That line has never been more relevant than in the aftermath of the second release of Twitter documents this week.

Many liberals had denied the social-media giant was engaging in censorship by using the more pleasant term “content modification.” Now, documents show Twitter executives burying “disfavored” views as “visibility filtering” and “amplification” limits.

Calling executives the “Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust” (Vijaya Gadde) and the “Global Head of Trust & Safety” (Yoel Roth) doesn’t alter their status as some of the greatest censors in history.

Yet the license for this massive system clearly came from Twitter’s very top. Shadow banning and “visibility filtering” are consistent with the policies of ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, who pledged the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the Internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

So we now know that Twitter was not only banning dissenting voices on subjects ranging from COVID to climate change but was throttling or suppressing the traffic for disfavored writers.

Among those targeted was Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who wrote about how COVID lockdowns would harm children. He and others have been vindicated in flagging those worries, but Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist” to prevent his tweets from trending. It’s a telling list because it reflects an acknowledgment that such tweets would trend with users if the company didn’t suppress them.

Some of us have been raising concerns over Twitter’s massive censorship system for years, including what I called the emergence of a “shadow state” where corporations carry out censorship the Constitution bars the government from doing.

What’s striking is leading Democrats have been open about precisely this type of corporate manipulation of political speech on social media. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called upon these companies to use enlightened algorithms to protect users from their own bad reading choices.

Even President Joe Biden called for such regulation of speech and discussions by wise editors. Without such censorship and manipulation, Biden asked, “How do people know the truth?

It is still early to determine possible legal implications of these files, but there are some areas likely to be of immediate concern for counsel.

First, Elon Musk has suggested that some material may have been intentionally hidden or destroyed despite inquiries from Congress. Twitter was told to expect a congressional investigation into these areas.

It’s not clear if this was material allegedly deleted as part of a regular process or a specific effort to destroy evidence of censorship or throttling. Such obstruction cases, however, can be difficult to bring absent clear evidence. In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s conviction for its destruction of documents under a standard record-management system.

Second, destruction of documents could also prove relevant as part of an investigation into whether false statements were given under oath. Twitter executives denied such secret suppression efforts both in public and before Congress. Indeed, a recent federal filing revealed a 2021 email between Twitter executives and Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s digital media chief. Crawford wanted to censor “unapproved opinions” on social media; Twitter replied that “with our CEO testifying before Congress this week [it] is tricky.”

At that hearing, social-media companies were asked about my prior testimony on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment. In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.” Dorsey also expressly denied under oath that there was “shadow banning” based on political ideology.

Likewise, in 2018, Gadde and Head of Product Kayvon Beykpour expressly declared, “We do not shadow ban. And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”

It turns out you don’t need a “department” if the entire company was acting as a massive censorship and suppression machine. Moreover, one “department” Dorsey did not mention was the Strategic Response Team – Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET, that operated above what journalist Bari Weiss described as “official ticketing.” That group reportedly included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust Vijaya Gadde, Global Head of Trust & Safety Yoel Roth, subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal and others.

Third, there’s the growing question of censorship by surrogate. The new documents suggest the effort to control political speech went far beyond the banning or suspending of particular figures. Those highly publicized controversies like banning LibsofTikTok now appear to be the tip of a censorship iceberg with secret efforts to blacklist, throttle and suppress disfavored viewpoints.

There were even “search blacklists” to make it difficult for people to link to disfavored views. Those blacklisted may revive lawsuits alleging Twitter was acting as an agent of the government in manipulating public debates and discussions.

Of course, legal ramifications will continue to be blunted by a media and administration that have overwhelmingly supported censorship. Liberal writers and officials have surrendered much in the last few years in supporting censorship and pushing blacklists of conservative figures, including Supreme Court justices.

Musk has forced citizens to take sides on the free-speech fight. He has both the public and free speech on his side. Not only are users signing up in record numbers, but a recent poll shows a majority of Americans “support Elon Musk’s ongoing efforts to change Twitter to a more free and transparent platform.”

The public is simply not buying the liberal narrative. What media figures once called “a canard” and a “conspiracy theory” is being exposed to full public view.

All the Orwellian euphemisms and cheery titles will no longer disguise Twitter’s raw censorship. Once empowered by Agrawal to determine “who can be heard,” Twitter executives showed how censorship can become an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Sitting in the San Francisco headquarters, the “Trust” officials found an array of conservative views unworthy to be heard. The “filtering” of free speech quickly became a choice on what views are worthy of attention.

After all, if you cannot trust “Trust” professionals, who can you trust?

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

394 thoughts on “Twitter’s Trust Bust: New Documents Show How “Trust” Executives Misled Congress and the Public”

  1. Donald Trump is reviled for claiming that the 2020 Presidential election was “stolen” Isn’t it fair to say that he is correct if we consider that the gatekeepers of information were keeping conservative viewpoints from reaching the eyes and ears of millions of voters?

    1. No, because social media was not the only source trump relied on to peddle his claims. He had Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, newspapers, etc. he lost because he didn’t get the required number of votes to win. Countless investigations and audits and recounts didn’t prove the election was stolen. It proved he lost.

        1. Twitter is not the government. But if he used literally the government to order media to censor then obviously anyone would be opposed to it, except trump and his supporters.

      1. The proper term is “Rigged”. The election may not have been “stolen” but it most definitely was rigged. Big Tech banding together to keep about 40 percent of the electorate in the dark is “rigging the election”. George Soros placing people in secretary of state jobs, where they are bound to pursue “progressive ideas about voting” and to ignore state laws that are clear and unambiguous is “rigging the election” Use of mail in ballots, which Jimmy Carter said were inherently fraudulent, is “rigging the election”.
        Even if you hate Trump, you should be in favor of elections which are not rigged, are not biased, and where no one can bend the system in their favor. This is the essence of being an American. If you prefer to ignore all the distortions in our election system, you are merely advocating for the destruction of the United States as we have always known it.

  2. There were plenty of false stories that were repeated on Twitter. Cohen to Prague, RussiaGate, Alpha Bank and the laptop being put out by the Russians to mention just a few. Why didn’t Twitter censor this disinformation? The answer. Because the Democratic Party said if you know what’s good for you you’ll allow the posts that we want you to post and censor the posts that we want you to censor. Not that much coercion was required. If your memory serves you well you’ll remember that your the one who called on me to call on you to have your bidding done.

  3. Poor Elon is like the dog who caught the bus: I doubt that Elon was expecting what has subsequently been discovered when he offered to purchase the company. What a mess! This will be in litigation for years. Thank you for sharing it with us!

    Shareholders were lied to by the company officers and directors. By helping some candidates, Twitter gave in-kind donations to favored candidates, violating FEC laws. Those benefiting also violated FEC laws. Because the opponents to favored candidates were not treated equally, they were harmed.

    Management lied to congress and everyone else. Hopefully Twitter has good data backups or we may never know the full story of Twitter’s actions.

    We all know that Facebook (meta) and Google (alphabet) and others did the same or similar. I’m not sure exactly what the role of all of the media companies is if they’re obfuscating the truth, working with favored government actors to censor information and determine what information they will allow; they are not fulfilling their role and as such should not be given constitutional protections.

    The list of those harmed by Twitter’s (and other companies’) actions is nearly endless.

    And the companies/individuals/government actors who have pulled ads and resigned because they don’t want the truth to be told — what can we say about them?

    This has also brought to the forefront improvements that need to be made in Section 230 and constitutional protections for the press, removing most of the FBI management, campaign contribution reforms, term limits and age limits for our government (many of our “leaders” don’t have the technical acumen to really be on top of this). There are at least 3 elections that were affected and at least one impeachment that should not have taken place had the FBI not withheld the laptop. Again, reform Congress and the FBI, and probably others.

  4. Dear Prof Turley,

    There is only one degree of separation between James Baker, the FBI and over 50 Top national security Intelligence officials + team Biden.

    Neither Twitter, nor the ‘media’, could have known The Laptop was Russian disinformation (seeking to undermine American democracy two weeks before the election), and thus worthy of extreme prejudice, without say so from these esteemed and time-honored authorities on national security and Intelligence. + team Biden

    Evidently, that’s the story and they’re sticking with it.

    *the FBI is investigating

    1. There is no degree of separation between these entities.

      It’s a ruse by way of obfuscation.

      They are all part and parcel of the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) party in America.

      From the horse’s mouth:
      ___________________

      “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

      – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

  5. “ Many liberals had denied the social-media giant was engaging in censorship by using the more pleasant term “content modification.”

    Uh, no they didn’t. They acknowledged the simple fact that social media was not bound by the restrictions of the 1st amendment. That they could run their platforms according to their own rules, just as Elon does now.

    Turley is simply upset about the fact that social media is not voluntarily following the principles of the 1st amendment. He wants everyone to do so. Problem is corporation and people have the ability to choose not to.

    Liberals also pointed out the inconvenient fact that many people stupidly agreed to the terms of those platforms which include “content moderation”. Turley’s own blog has similar terms and conditions.

    Notice that Turley’s twitter account does not have a blue check mark? Is he not verified ?

    1. So you’re admitting that, while the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) lie and prevaricate, lying and prevaricating is fully constitutional under the 1st Amendment.

      Great! Liars who admit their lies! I LIKE it.

      You’re correct; the 1st Amendment does not require that speech be factual and truthful.

      Thankfully, an American billionaire finally discovered a market solution to the lies, propaganda, indoctrination and censorship by communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) who have no defense against facts and truth.

      Buy the rope from them to hang them.

    2. Actually, his main point is that they lied about what they were doing. If they would have been honest, just come out say ‘hey, we don’t like what you are saying and we won’t allow it on our platform’. End of discussion. However, they chose to be dishonest about it.

        1. However, that’s not what they said in public when confronted. They did not say ‘read or tos’. They said we that we don’t do it. I believe that is the definition of being dishonest.

        2. Where in the TOS does it say that they would be working with the FBI and DHS and NIH to select what would be banned and what would be allowed?

        3. Not only are you wrong – but the twitter files demonstrate that you are wrong.
          They were CONSTANTLY supressing stories and people while noting that their TOS was NOT being violated.
          I would also note that Alex Bernstein WON his lawsuit with Twitter for being banned for spreading misinformation because the misinformation he was banned for spreading was from the CDC.

          Sorry Svelaz, they were making it up as they went along.
          They were communicating with each other about the fact that they were making it up as they went along
          They were debating with each other how to chaing their internal and published guidelines to match the actions that they were performing – and they never did.

          1. “Sorry Svelaz, they were making it up as they went along.”

            Yes, and that is what Svelaz does. He makes things up as he goes along.

        1. If their TOS specifically said it and those signing up AGREED to it in order to use THEIR platform then yes I approve of it because people had a choice. They weren’t coerced or forced to sign up. They volunteered to give up their right for the privilege of being able to post on twitter. All completely legal of course.

          1. Svelaz Twitter did not follow the TOS, they did not follow their published policies, they did not follow their internal policies.
            This is not me saying that – this is those in twitter saying this as they were violating the TOS, public policies, and internal policies.

            Twitter was not following any rules at all. They were just silencing voices based on their own personal politics.

            1. “Twitter was not following any rules at all.”

              Neither does Svelaz, but people at Twitter knew the facts they wanted to hide. Svelaz lacked that knowledge but wanted to talk and have his nonsense be heard.

          2. “All completely legal of course.”

            I hate to break it to you, but defrauding your customers (and your advertisers) is *illegal*.

              1. Rules: Safety (just a few)

                “Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies.

                Terrorism/violent extremism: You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism. Learn more.

                Child sexual exploitation: We have zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation on Twitter. Learn more.

                Abuse/harassment: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm. Learn more.

                Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Learn more.

                Perpetrators of violent attacks: We will remove any accounts maintained by individual perpetrators of terrorist, violent extremist, or mass violent attacks, and may also remove Tweets disseminating manifestos or other content produced by perpetrators. Learn more. “

                Authenticity:

                “Platform manipulation and spam: You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter. Learn more.

                Civic Integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process. Learn more.

                Misleading and Deceptive Identities: You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations to mislead, confuse, or deceive others, nor use a fake identity in a manner that disrupts the experience of others on Twitter. Learn more.

                Synthetic and manipulated media: You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm. In addition, we may label Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context. Learn more.”

                https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

                Policy and enforcement:

                “Twitter is reflective of real conversations happening in the world and that sometimes includes perspectives that may be offensive, controversial, and/or bigoted to others. While we welcome everyone to express themselves on our service, we will not tolerate behavior that harasses, threatens, or uses fear to silence the voices of others.”

                https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/enforcement-philosophy

                Twitter permitted the violation of all those rules repeatedly. You link but obviously don’t know what you are linking to. I think some on the board and elsewhere of the original Twitter went far out of bounds and are liable for monetary damages. I think they should also be criminally liable.

    3. Svelaz is wrong once again. Jack Dorsey said there was no shadow banning goin on at Twitter. He made this statement under oath before congress. People working at Twitter and the CEO of the firm said it wasn’t happening. Their statements were echoed by MSM. In Dorsey’ statement he made no comment concerning the rights of a private enterprise to censor. This is only your excuse. Once the FBI got involved with the censorship on Twitter the private entity argument fell apart. When this happened Twitter became an information arm of the Federal Government and was no longer just a private business. One would think that with this knowledge available you would rethink your private business narrative. One would think that you would recognize the danger of the federal government trying to control what you see and hear. Instead you make lame excuses due to a lack of your grasp on reality.

        1. UpstateFarmer, I appreciate your response. However, I will have to admit that is it not to difficult to point out the juvenile flaws in Svelaz’s argument. Though not too difficult it is necessary to expose his thinking because sadly it is far to prevalent.

          1. TiT, your only argument is the FBI got involved and claim that they were telling twitter what to censor without evidence. That is not an argument. That’s just making assumptions on lack of evidence.

      1. TiT,

        “ Svelaz is wrong once again. Jack Dorsey said there was no shadow banning goin on at Twitter. He made this statement under oath before congress.”

        So what if they lied to congress about not shadow banning? It isn’t illegal or criminal and making that statement under oath does mean much if the action isn’t criminal or illegal.

        The rest of your argument is flawed for one simple reason. You assume the FBI was dictating to Twitter what should be banned without evidence. Hearsay is not evidence that can be used in court. Many conservatives too deeply invested in that conspiracy theory are conflating the FBI’s warning to twitter about certain information may not be credible to dictating to them or order them to censor it. it is not illegal for the government to suggest or point out to twitter that some information may be the work of foreign actors. The final decision is twitter’s to make, and if they choose to believe what the government says it is well within their right to act on it or not. Twitter’s right to censor content it deemed in violation of their policies was always intact.
        Unless Elon or anyone else has direct proof that the FBI specifically told twitter or facebook to censor certain content they did nothing wrong. Making accusations is one thing. PROVING them is another. All everyone has is speculation, rumors, and assumptions. All assumed to be true because the suspicion is enough to say it is true. No court would find that argument valid without direct proof.

    4. No, your entire comment is wrong. First, Musk is now operating Twitter as a free speech platform, whereas before it was a Democratic Party only platform. While it is legal to have a Democratic Party only platform, it is highly immoral, especially when you pretend it is open to all types of speech. Twitter always lied – even to Congress – and pretended that it was open to all. That was a lie.
      So firstly, Musk is letting everyone speak and have their say. That of course is the way it should be. Now that Big Tech controls a HUGE percentage of all the speech that is viewed by Americans, it is fundamental to the continuation of democracy that all points of view are able to be heard.
      Second, Twitter never really enforced its terms of service. They lied and just kicked people off for being conservatives, or for spreading the TRUTH about a situation. They would then be kicked off Twitter for supposed “hate speech” or “misinformation” or “hateful conduct” But as the LibsofTikTok revelations today show, Twitter would kick you off because they did not agree with what you said, NOT because you violated Terms of Service that you agreed to.

  6. When is Johnathan going to come to the conclusion that they didn’t come close to stopping at MSM and High Tech censorship and FBI CIA DOJ putting their hands on the scales to win in 20 and hold Senate in 22. When are you going to do a real column on 2000 Burrows in a few jursidictions that was really 100,000 donkeys across America. I realize that is a bridge too far for even Rupert. You think they stopped with the usual suspects your not dealing with reality. In regards to 2000 burrows they asked Billy Barr what he thought of the movie and the allegations. He laughed and said a person dring by a ballot box 5 times was a nothing burger and went on giggling. 2000 M was about Geo tracking the same tech used by FBI to round up folks at the Capital on Jan 6th. Same technology used by law enforement not only to help convict folks with crimes in 10’s of thousands of cases. The mule had to have gone from the DNC office to the ballot box and back again 10 times. They had to have not went anywhere near the ballot box area before election and after. The small amount of election folks who actually followed the law and had cameras and kept the feed for 23 monhs and handed it over thru FOIA act the video lined up perfectly with the ballots being stuffed. Couple of loons in 20 even headed down to Georgia for the run off to work their magic. We now find out just in one Senate race. Warnock received 10’s of millions of donations from thousands all around America. When contacted folks had no idea about the donation and of course would not have got a receipt. Also we find out Zip Codes were flipped for short period of times. Someone is in charge of orchestrating all this stuff or a group. I imagine folks from top of food chain at DOJ Dems Big Tech and of course MSM.
    Quite a Klan with no robes though

  7. OT

    Abandon an American United States Marine in the bowels of archenemy Russia, and trade a heinous and hostile “Merchant of Death” for a vacuous and insignificant African lesbian?
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “Keep your eye on the ball.”

    – Ford Frick

    1. For a person ready to kill countless Americans and others. Blame those deaths on Biden and his supporters.

  8. Turley said, “First, Elon Musk has suggested that some material may have been intentionally hidden or destroyed despite inquiries from Congress. Twitter was told to expect a congressional investigation into these areas.

    It’s not clear if this was material allegedly deleted as part of a regular process or a specific effort to destroy evidence of censorship or throttling. Such obstruction cases, however, can be difficult to bring absent clear evidence. In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s conviction for its destruction of documents under a standard record-management system.”

    We’ve seen this many times before. Hillary Clinton deleted emails, took hammers to her Blackberries and laptops, and wiped her illegal server clean with BleachBit. She faced no legal consequences for destroying evidence.

    Why would any company or individual turn over incriminating evidence when there does not seem to be any consequences to destroying it?

  9. Turley the hypocrite is at it again. He practices shadow banning on his blog. The one anonymous poster whose threads disappears is a clear indication that the individual is on a “banned” list. Turley also engages in content modification as he “enforceds” civility rules. Just like twitter.

    Turley conveniently leaves out the fact that every person who signs up on twitter was required to agree to THEIR terms before having the privilege of posting on THEIR platform. Elon has the same right to require every person signing up to AGREE to the terms and conditions and it’s very likely the majority of those people signing up never read the TOS.

    Turley is deliberately making unproven insinuations that Twitter deleted files to hide damning information without proof, but he is nevertheless making strong insinuations that they did that.

    Twitter was still able to legally do all of what Turley accuses it of. They are NOT violating people’s rights when everyone of them GAVE THEM away the moment they agreed to the terms and conditions.

    1. “The one anonymous poster whose threads disappears is a clear indication that the individual is on a “banned” list.”

      Svelaz is a fool with a short memory. I proved ATS was intermittently using a banned email account that caused his posts to be removed. In one blog Predicted which postings would be deleted and they were. Anyone can tell based on the lack of randomness in the banning. You are also a liar because you knew this was happening and you have stated that links were’t provided when they were several times. One link accusing you of this BS is below. All one has to do is look around that link within the thread and see that you are a liar.

      You are also stupid as you blame Turley for things that have been explained. Turley lets you and the banned anonymous post on a regular basis if the banned addresses aren’t used.

      https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325

      1. S. Meyer, who banned the email account? If an email account is banned it means there is a list of email accounts that are banned by Turley. Why are they still banned, or better yet, why is there a list? That’s shadow banning.

        “ Turley lets you and the banned anonymous post on a regular basis if the banned addresses aren’t used.”

        Why ban the address at all if he allows the same user to post? It makes no sense other than a shadow ban.

        Squeaky Fromm, was banned for her offensive racist posts but just because they are offensive and racist the poster shouldn’t have been banned Turley is a free speech absolutist. According to his claim squeaky shouldn’t have been banned at all.

        1. Turley bans people that are warned and remain out of line. That email address was banned but ATS wasn’t banned for life. He is hear with a different email address.

          You are ignorant because you cannot read nor understand. We have seen people suspended and banned. They are not shadow banned.

          “Why ban the address at all if he allows the same user to post? It makes no sense other than a shadow ban.”

          Get yourself a dictionary.

          Under his present address(s) ATS is not banned. Though he is not a nice person why would you ban him?

          I don’t know that Squeeky was permanently banned. I remember her being banned for something that appeared in a major magazine. I don’t know that she should have been banned, but that is not my decision.

          For the most part the blog is quite liberal and isn’t banning people for political comments. That is the most important issue. The blog doesn’t even ban chronic liars. If it did you would be banned.

          “Turley is a free speech absolutist”

          Turley may have coined that phrase. It doesn’t matter for Turley has defined what it means many times. Your problem is a short memory span.

          1. S. Meyer, pay attention why ban an email address if the person behind it is allowed to post, but is only banned because they use a certain email address. Obviously there’s a list of email addresses that are STILL banned. Why?

            I thought censorship was taboo on this freedom of speech blog. Banning email addresses is censorship.

            1. This is a site that does not have every option available. It probably is free. Therefore the ability to ban alternate email addresses might be limited. We have some who are banned that return and others that returned under different email addresses. If you have a relationship with Peter Hill then you know at one time he was using multiple email addresses at the same time. ATS has done that as well. To mention a few, ATS was the short lived green anonymous and an anonymous named Jonathan.

              Turley is banning the most outlandish and is not banning political speech. Go back to you elementary school textbook and learn about political speech and why it is so important.

              You want to complain because without complaining and lying you have nothing to say. It’s not OK to push grooming on this blog. You will probably be thrown off, if you haven’t already been warned.

              1. “lol If you knew just half of what you think you know…” Deleted by Anonymous the Stupid.

                I may only know half of the technicalities of blog management, but that is enough to know someone needed to label you Anonymous the Stupid. Only then could one put your bits and pieces of slime together and see the bigger picture.

                Now the opportunity exists for you to tell us about these things and explain why you are a liar and a trickster who hides as an anonymous figure when an alias is available. You tried before, but things didn’t work because your venom showed through disclosing your identity.

    2. The problem with your analysis is that no matter what the TOS says that you sign, the media company cannot take sides and place their thumb on the scale to promote one view over another. That should be for their editorial page only, not actively censoring one side of a public discourse. If the company does this, they can be in violation of section 230 of the Internet Decency Act. If they choose to do this and are willing to give up immunity, that is certainly ok, except they want their cake and eat it too. Even if you sign your rights away, they still have to follow the law. arguing that you should have protections while censoring one view half the country believes is not going to fly.

      1. “ The problem with your analysis is that no matter what the TOS says that you sign, the media company cannot take sides and place their thumb on the scale to promote one view over another.”

        Sure they can. Section 230 is an immunity from being sued over the content. Not what they choose to let their users post or what users say. The TOS is a legal document. If twitter chose to post only conservative content they can do that without running afoul of section 230.

    3. There should be NO anonymous accounts.

      At a minimum, an immutable nom de plume must be required upon the private, secure registration of an e-mail address.

    4. “[E]very person who signs up on twitter was required to agree to THEIR terms . . .”

      Please do point out where in that ToS it stated: If you become a Twitter user, you agree to be shadowbanned, blacklisted . . .

      Please do point out where Twitter announced that policy to the general public and to its advertisers.

      Besides the obvious suppression of dissent, what Twitter did is textbook fraud.

      1. I take it that you haven’t tried reading the TOS. As a start, it says “We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you.”

        Hard for them to be more explicit about what you ask.

        1. What all too many forget is that the TOS is a contract of adhesion and can be struck down.

          Using a contract of adhesion for your basis to protect the interests you wish to protect is foolish. It is even more foolish when the contract wasn’t followed by Twitter.

  10. TREASON

    All of the Twitter, Google, MSM, etc., segments and employees involved in the conspiracy to deceive and censor Americans are direct and mortal enemies of America who have been caught in the act of treason, “…in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    There can be not a shadow of doubt that America’s enemies, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea et al., benefit substantially from the acts of Twitter, Google, MSM, etc., to disparage and diminish American freedom of speech, thought, assembly and to stifle the global revelation of truth.

    “Adhering to [America’s] enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” is precisely what Twitter, Google, MSM, etc., are doing in order to advance global communism.

    Treason by direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

  11. I’m not sure that JCH read the same article as I did. He seems to place all the censorship stats on Twitter on their algorithms when this article tells us that the real censorship occurred at levels well above the algorithms through various levels of higher management and “trust” departments, ie. They carried their algorithm in their head right next to their built in liberal-progressive biases. Professor Turley’s take is also supported by the 2 journalists that Mr. Musk selected to receive the “Twitter dumps”. It’s sort of like choosing to invoke the lesser jihad when the greater jihad is far more important and personal.
    When the Washington Post decided to use the moniker “Democracy Dies in Darkness” I took that as meaning that the Post was putting all it’s readers in a cold, dark room and shoveling excrement on them and hoping that the readers would turn into mushrooms (with similar lack of thought).
    Also from George Orwell “Some animals are more equal than others”. We know now who the more equal ones are.

    1. The Hill is reporting today that Anthony Fauci stated on the BBC

      “These people who troll about, they harass my wife and my children because they can figure out where they live and what their phone number is,” the immunologist told BBC’s “Americast” podcast….. He told the BBC that the U.S. was taken over by a “tsunami of misinformation and disinformation” during the pandemic, which he says still persists.

      Irony aside given how the Left has firebombed Pro-Life centers, either planned to assassinate, stalked, doxxed and/or threatened SCOTUS Justices and their children, including by Democrat US Senators, I can not understand Fauci’s absolutist edicts. He of all people should know better since he made egregious errors with AIDS precisely because of his present reductionist, absolutist mindset. Im presently authoring a manuscript on atherosclerosis. To see the recent and trending scientific literature pivot away from the “lipid storage disease” paradigm to the now more recent paradigm of inflammatory processes is long overdue. Yet, the opinions in these evolving paradigms are vast and extremely far apart. Such disagreements stimulates further investigations. Yet no medical groups or research centers are excommunicating and denouncing each other, and this from cardiac disease being the number one killer worldwide.

      The notion that science or any discussion in the public space today (Twitter, Politics, etc) are welcoming of vigorous, spirited and authentic debate is no longer the case. For all of the Left’s persecution complex in previous times re: the Roman Catholic Church being intolerant, judgmental and condemnatory, that is now completely superseded by the Left making Tomás de Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition look like an amateur. I’ve said it many times: it is not that the Left objected to Catholic theology. Rather they were the ones who wanted to wear the Papal Tiara and proclaim anathema sit. They do it today 24/7, and God help you if you are their target, e.g. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, etc. It was always and is now more than ever about raw power.

  12. Will the Twitter Files stop Democrat gaslighting Republicans? The trend is for Democrats to just deny that they abuse positions of authority in government, social media companies, the public education system, and academia, to censor not only conservatives, but any viewpoint contrary to the party line. J K Rowling has learned that being a Leftist does not protect one from the Leftist mob. A beloved philanthropist and feminist author can still be crucified for daring to voice her opinion on how to define her own gender.

    Democrats, consider the Golden Rule. How would you feel if conservatives owned all social media, and if they suddenly reversed themselves on free speech and censored you? If you wouldn’t like it if the other side did it, then you’re doing wrong.

    The support of free speech is one of many reasons why I became a conservative. Only conservatives and libertarians will fight for your individual, Constitutional rights. Democrats will judge you based on race, gender, sexual identity, and sexuality, and will persecute you in school, work, and in general.

    Now, some Democrats will claim to fight for Constitutional rights, giving as their example the belief that Roe v Wade was a Constitutional right. They would simply skip the Constitutional Amendment and general legislative processes, and simply declare that a right they wanted was implied by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned. Likewise, nowhere are the rights of the unborn mentioned. This is why this is a legislative matter. Conservatives and Libertarians fight to preserve actual Constitutional rights.

    There is no free speech in America if the digital public square colludes with the federal government and the Democrat Party to censor opposing views.

    1. Karen S: you are NOT a conservative–you are a disciple of alt-right media, and there is a vast difference. True conservatives are people like Bill Kristol, George F. Will, Rick Wilson and others who founded the Lincoln Project, and they abhor the Big Lie, the endless lies put out by the alt-right media you rely on for your daily affirmation, and the gullibility of people like you who have been “gaslighted” into believing that you are a proponent of “free speech”, that Trump is a victim of the “deep state”, or that he ever had any validity
      after cheating his way into office with the help of Russian hackers. True conservatives are first and foremost patriots who respect the rule of law, marriage vows, honoring your valid debts and contractual obligations, and respect for others–concepts foreign to the orange person you worship, a draft-dodger who called people who served in the military “suckers”, who trashed John McCain, a true American patriot, who has been sued thousands of times for not paying his debts, and who is on his third marriage. He has cheated on his current spouse, too. You simply cannot be a “conservative” and a Trump supporter–the concepts are inapposite.

      The First Amendment does not apply to any person or entity other than the government. There is no law requiring Twitter to post anything or preventing it from refusing to post anything. Turley knows that, but he’s paid to keep stirring the pot–to keep disciples like you believing in the cause after the trouncing Republicans just got. If there was a law that REQUIRED Twitter to post anything and everything, Turley would cite it–but there isn’t, and he knows it. He even reluctantly admits there’s no legal grounds to go after Twitter: “Such obstruction cases, however, can be difficult to bring absent clear evidence. In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s conviction for its destruction of documents under a standard record-management system.” Twitter did have a system in place, which it used, but, the lack of any law requiring Twitter to post everything wasn’t the purpose of today’s paid piece: it was to dole out more red meat to the disciples and feed into yet another manufactured conspiracy theory: “Some of us have been raising concerns over Twitter’s massive censorship system for years, including what I called the emergence of a “shadow state” where corporations carry out censorship the Constitution bars the government from doing.” Yet another “deep state”–all calculated to get gullible people to believe there’s some deep conspiracy in which Democrats are controlling what people see, hear and read, just like, I suppose, the “deep state” that was out to get Trump. Hogwash! If this were true, Democrats would have shut down InfoWars, Breitbart, NewsMax, Fox and other alt-right media a long time ago. You have “Truth Social”, too–why not just rely on it? If you don’t trust Twitter, then don’t use it.

      I will repeat once again the fact that for about 50 years the SCOTUS held that a woman’s right to choose abortion prior to the age of fetal viability is protected under the Constitution. This right was recognized as being covered under the rights of liberty and privacy and was affirmed multiple times after Roe was issued–that is, until a certain orange loser cheated his way into office and appointed 3 radical right wingers who were first vetted by the Federalist Society, each of whom lied to Senators about their views on stare decisis and whether they would overturn Roe v. Wade. Then, there was McConnell, who denied Obama the right to appoint a justice, and that’s how the right to abortion was taken away by a small group of far-right believers, contrary to the will of the majority of Americans. The Constitution doesn’t mention police searches of automobiles, tapping telephones or hacking into computers, either–but the right of privacy extends to these devices, too, but your alt-right media never explains that to you.

      You claim that Democrats “judge” people “based on race, gender, sexual identity, and sexuality, and will persecute you in school, work, and in general.” Uh, Karen S., you have it exactly backwards: Democrats are the ones who are protecting LGBTQ rights–Republicans are the ones stirring the culture wars–“don’t say gay” laws, banning books, trying to prevent transsexuals from participating in sports or using the bathroom of their gender identity. And where did you get the idea that “Democrats” are “persecuting” people “in general”?

    2. Someone keeps removing my responses to Karen S.’s posts. How ironic, given the fact that today’s little piece purports to criticize censorship and feed into the conspiracy theory of a “deep state” controlling social media. I pointed out that Karen S., who believes herself to be a “conservative” is not because one cannot be a “conservative” and Trumpster for the simple reason that true conservatives embrace values foreign to Trump, like: 1. patriotism (Trump, a draft-dodger, called people who volunteer for military service “suckers”, and he criticized John McCain, a true American patriot and hero because he refused to go along with dumping Obamacare); 2. like paying valid debts (Trump has been sued thousands of times for refusing to pay his bills); 3. like honoring marriage vows (Trump has cheated on all 3 of his wives); 4. like honesty and integrity (need I go into details here?).

      I pointed out that there is NO law requiring Twitter to post anything and everything submitted, that there are terms of service that users agree to which includes “content moderation”, and that even Turley admtted that there’s probably no law violation here: “Such obstruction cases, however, can be difficult to bring absent clear evidence. In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s conviction for its destruction of documents under a standard record-management system.”

      I pointed out that Roe v. Wade was the law for 50 years and withstood multiple court challenges until Trump, who cheated to get into office, appointed 3 ultra right-wingers who were first vetted by the Federalist Society, and who lied about their views on overturning Roe v. Wade and respect for stare decisis. Karen S. bought into the alt-right narrative that since the word “abortion ” isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution, it therefore isn’t a right guaranteed under the Constitutional provisions protecting freedom and liberty. Well, tapping your phone, hacking your computer and searching your automobile aren’t specifically listed, either, but the government can’t do these things, because the Constitution protects your right of privacy. Whether an undeveloped fertilized egg is an “unborn person”, and therefore, has Constitutional rights, is a matter of personal belief. The rights conferred by the Constitution do not depend on your address. The majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal up to the age of fetal viability.

      I also pointed out that if Democrats are “controlling” media and censoring everything, you wouldn’t have Fox, News Max, “Truth Social”, OAN, Breitbart or News Max. Democrats dow not “own” all media.

      1. NUTCHACHACHA, are you saying that your affirmative action privilege does not prevail in the case of your Einsteinian critiques of Karen S.?

        Oh, my. Aren’t you abused.

      2. “Someone keeps removing my responses to Karen S.’s posts.”
        Then I would suggest looking at your content before you post,
        There are only a few reasons that a post can get blocked here.
        And I have seen no evidence that Darren is deviating from those well known rules.

        “How ironic, given the fact that today’s little piece purports to criticize censorship and feed into the conspiracy theory of a “deep state” controlling social media. ”

        Not ironic at all.

        Grow up
        Look at the FACTS

        What we know from the Twitter files:

        Twitter HEAVILY engaged in POLITICAL censorship – almost exclusively of US republicans, conservatives and libertarians.
        That censorship was arbitrary and had nothing to do with twitters rules or published terms of service.
        That censorship was driven both internally
        and externally by
        Government
        The Biden campaign
        The DNC
        Left leaning organizations.

        So YES a VAST LEFT wing conspiracy is PROVEN.

        While this specifically is not proof of a deep state conspiracy – it certainly makes that easier to beleive

        1. Twitter didn’t engage in political censorship arbitrarily. The problem is that because conservatives and libertarians tend to share a lot of that misinformation among themselves far more than the left they are getting flagged for review or censored more often. It’s not because they are conservative or libertarian. It’s because they are sharing more content and posts that are contrary to their policies than liberals. It gives the appearance that they are being targeted more because of who they are rather than what they are posting.

          Their algorithms look for the content not who the posters are. Twitter has no idea who is conservative or liberal, but it’s the content that they regulate.

          “ So YES a VAST LEFT wing conspiracy is PROVEN.

          While this specifically is not proof of a deep state conspiracy – it certainly makes that easier to beleive”

          It’s easier to believe because you. WANT to believe it’s true.. There is no “vast left wing conspiracy”. It’s just the simple fact that conservatives and libertarians are sharing and spreading information that twitter deems in violation of their policies. They share a lot more than liberals and that is why they are being disproportionally more affected by this “censorship”.

          Conservatives essentially are creating a self fulfilling prophesy without knowing it and are falling victim to their own behavior and blaming others for it.

          1. Please not this stupid misinformation trope.
            The FONT of misinformation is the left.
            Was the Hunter Biden laptop Hacked ?
            Was it Russian Disinformation ?
            Who is it that actually colluded with Russia ?
            Was the Steele Dossier Truth ?
            Was the Alpha Bank story True ?
            How many people have died of Covid under Biden with Vaccines ?
            Did lockdowns work ?
            Did keeping kids out of school work ?
            Do Masks work ?
            ….

            Is there anything that those on the left have said about anything been true ?

            The list of people that were censored over Covid is a whose who of some of the greatest medical experts and epidemiologists and scientists in the world.

            Their “misinformation ? Disagreeing with Faucci – who BTW is now trying to argue that he is NOT an expert lest he be held responsible for the carnage he inflicted.

            1. John, conservatives sharing in larger numbers posts or information deemed fake or false by twitter is what’s causing the perception that they are being targeted more for censorship or suspension. Algorithms look for words or rhetoric that matches posts or links to things that violate their TOS.

              Algorithms don’t know whether a person is conservative or libertarian or liberal. It just flags certain key words, links, or even IP addresses that are known for content that violates their TOS.

              People were censored for spreading misinformation about covid. It was their policy that such information was not deemed credible. It’s their platform. People could still post their COVID misinformation on other sites friendlier to their views.

              1. “Algorithms don’t know whether a person is conservative or libertarian or liberal.”

                Svelaz, you need to look up the word algorithm in your dictionary and encyclopedia as well as all the other words. Algorithms are very good at determining the leanings of an individual tweet. It sounds like you don’t know anything about anything.

                Let us know what TOS were violated by the Great Barrington Declaration.

                1. Or how the TOS were not violated by killing the NY Post story.

                  The fact that is obvious to everyone but left wing nuts in self denial is that The entirety of social media, and the MSM was just busy killing whatever they wanted, paying no more than lip service to terms of service, morality, truth.
                  It is like some science fiction world where having gained substantial control over what information is available to the public, they censored whatever they wanted and whoever they wanted without regard for any rules or morality or pretty much anything – except left good, right evil.

              2. “John, conservatives sharing in larger numbers posts or information deemed fake or false by twitter is what’s causing the perception that they are being targeted more for censorship or suspension.”
                Correct – and that is error.

                If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

                -John Stuart Mill

                “Algorithms look for words or rhetoric that matches posts or links to things that violate their TOS.”
                This is both incorrect – self evident from the twitter files is that none of this is driven by algorithms and that those censoring conservatives completely ignored Twitters TOS and made no secret (internally) that they did not give a schiff about the TOS.

                Separately what is true and what is not, can not be determined algorithmically.
                And experience makes it clear that empowering anyone or any group to determine what is fake or false will end in error and very badly.

                We have thoroughly botch Covid specifically BECAUSE if The lefts powerful ability to decide what is false and to suppress it.
                The result – obvious to all but apparently those on the left is that almost every single one of those decisions was made WRONG.
                The most important point is NOT that masks do not work, that lock downs do not work, that the vaccine is NOT effective at eradicating COVID and likely has caused COVID to become endemic rather than fading like every other epidemic ever.
                The most important point is that if any group gets the power to short circuit the process by which we discover the truth, and takes control of what is true and what is false for all of us, they will inevitably do more harm than good.
                Which is precisely what we have seen – not just with covid but overall.

                The left is unusually bad at determining what is true and what is not. Possibly because the modern left is exceptionally trusting of those with power and authority. But I would not give the right or libertarians the power that the left exercised at twitter and still does throughout social media and the MSM.

                You get facts and truth and law wrong almost always. I get them right almost always.
                I would not trust me to decide what should be True for everyone.
                I would not give me the power those in “trust and Safety” had at Twitter.
                Even I would make enough mistakes that the world would be worse off on net.
                But those of you on the left have thoroughly botched this.
                Which was inevitable. Because deciding what is true and what is false is a task that NO ONE can legitimately perform for others.
                Doing so will ALWAYS do more harm than good.

                Even if the smartest 10% of the world decided what was true and what was false and imposed that by force ONLY on the dumbest 10% of the world – on NET we would be worse off – not better.

                “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

                ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

                It is not possible to find the truth unless ALL are free to argue whatever they beleive to be the truth.

                That SHOULD be the lesson of Covid – though clearly you have not learned it.

                It is not that those experts in power were wrong and those silenced were right – though the extent to which that ultimately proved true is incredible. It is that there are many requirements for finding Truth, the most important of which is freedom.

                “Algorithms don’t know whether a person is conservative or libertarian or liberal. It just flags certain key words, links, or even IP addresses that are known for content that violates their TOS.”
                This is both a stupid argument, and a wrong argument.
                Algorithms contain whatever biases their authors put in them.
                I can significantly reduce the speech of those on the left even using relatively simple algorithms – especially if I can hide the algorithm itself.
                Next, you are not paying attention – not only are you wrong – algorithms can easily be politically biased, but that is not what was done, the censorship of the right was not driven by algorithm. It was driven by demands to censor originating from those on the left.

                There is BTW no question at this point that conservatives were censored 99.99 to 1.
                Regardless of what process was used it was OBVIOUSLY politically biased.

                “People were censored for spreading misinformation about covid. It was their policy that such information was not deemed credible. It’s their platform. People could still post their COVID misinformation on other sites friendlier to their views.”
                Correct – and as a result information that was FALSE was widespread, and information that turned out to be true was not,
                and very bad decisions were made, with significant negative consequences.

                We have high inflation right now, because of bad covid decisions. We are in recession and it is likely to get much worse – because of covid decisions. Covid remains with us today – because of covid decisions. The spike in suicides, the spike in drug addiction some of the spike in crime is due to covid decisions. The economic destruction of myriads of small businesses is because of covid decisions. The damage to our kids education – is because of covid decisions.

                Using Covid as an example of why these choices were made is a self refuting argument.

                We are were not only harmed by the supression of “misinformation” but that harm is ongoing and will last a generation.

      3. Gigi,

        The WordPress Spam Filter trapped the penultimate comment you made. I restored that comment. It was not removed by any person.

      4. Many many many people served this country both during the vietnam war and at other times.
        Regardless of the political and government decisions regarding those conflicts – we owe respect to those who have served, Many with distinction.
        Trump’s attacks on people who did serve are disturbing and one of the reasons that I have not voted for him.

        But the overwhelming majority of us did NOT. Clinton avoided service, Bush served, but did not go to vietnam, Obama did not serve, Trump did not serve, Biden did not serve.

        People can still be a patriot without serving.

        Obama care is an expensive and useless disaster and McCain’s failure to dump it was error.

        ” like paying valid debts (Trump has been sued thousands of times for refusing to pay his bills);”
        If that were correct those people suing him would have all won.

        “like honoring marriage vows (Trump has cheated on all 3 of his wives)”
        I agree with Ross Perot that is important, and why I could not vote for Clinton and did not vote for Trump.

        But those are my values, those are conservative values, those do not appear to be your values or those of any on the left.
        Why is it your business how I or Karen factor such values into our decisions ?

        “4. like honesty and integrity (need I go into details here?).”
        Yes, you do need to go into detail – because it is increasingly evident to everyone that there is absolutely no honesty or integrity among democrats or the left.

        “I pointed out that there is NO law requiring Twitter to post anything and everything submitted,”
        But that was not your standard above, when you were telling all the rest of us how to make decisions and what was right and what was wrong ?

        Is your standard of morality – “But no laws were broken” ?
        Or “But violations would be hard to prove in court ” ?

        Is your standard of morality “Anything that I can get away with” ?

        Grow up Gigi – the conduct of Twitter and the Biden campaign, and the DNC and the Democrats and the Left was IMMORAL.

        There is no defense.

        “that there are terms of service that users agree to which includes “content moderation””
        And we KNOW from the twitter files that those doing the censoring did not follow the Terms of Service, or their own rules, and they KNEW that they were not following them.

        What we are seeing – outside of government is “The rule of man, not law”
        And that is why Trust is being damaged.

        “and that even Turley admtted that there’s probably no law violation here”
        Is that your standard of morality – “Probably not a crime” ?

        “Such obstruction cases, however, can be difficult to bring absent clear evidence.”
        Is that your standard of morality ? “Hard to prove” ?

        “In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s conviction for its destruction of documents under a standard record-management system.”

        Is that your standard of morality – conviction overturned ?

        “I pointed out that Roe v. Wade was the law for 50 years and withstood multiple court challenges”
        Both irrelevant and false.

        Dredd Scott was not overturned for a long time,
        Plessy was not overturned for far longer than Roe.

        Technically Casey Overturned Roe, and Dobbs overturned Casey.

        “Trump, who cheated to get into office”
        Except that what we KNOW is that Trump did not cheat.
        Clinton Cheated – and STILL Lost.
        Biden Cheated multiple different ways and managed to win by the skin of his teeth.

        But neither Trump nor Republicans actually cheated – but YOU Did.

        There was not collusion delusion, there was no alpha bank connection.
        The only candidates with corrupt ties to foreign powers were democrats,
        the only candidates who benefited from actual foreign election interferance were democrats.

        An excellent rule is whatever democrats are accusing republicans of, that is what they are doing themselves.

        1. “Biden asked, “How do people know the truth?”’

          By assuming anything said by a democrat is the opposite of the truth.

      5. You are correct that many things that are not enumerated in the constitution are protected by the constitution.

        And that is how it should be. In fact the protection of our rights should be far broader than SCOTUS has allowed.
        The 9th amendment protects all rights – not just those enumerated under the constitution

        But abortion is not and never was a right.

        Nothing that requires others to act is a right.

        I have no interest in dwelling on abortion – since your position is bat$hit crazy.

        The overwhelming majority of americans are not happy with no ability to get an abortion under any circumetances.
        The overwhelming majority of americans are not happy with almost all late term abortions.

        Resolving where in the middle the law should fall is NOT the role of the constitution – and therefore the courts.

      6. Why are you still here ?
        Why would anyone want to hear what you have to say about anything ?

        You have been lying, you have been and still are defending those who not just lied, not just suppressed the truth but silenced those trying to speak the truth.

        I can not think of an anything that was not also a crime that would be more immoral.

        You Biden, DNC, Democrats, the media, Social media have burned your credibility to the ground.

        You are not merely liars you are destroyers of the truth, and destroyers of those who tell the truth.

        Why should anyone trust you about anything ?

        Why should anyone beleive you about anything ?

        Why should you be beleived about election fraud ? About J6 ? About MAL ?

        Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
        Falsus in omnibus, falsus in omnibus

  13. Seriously: what did anyone expect? This has been common knowledge for some time outside of the echo chambers, though I’m glad it’s finally verified. The modern Dem party is a Marxist party, period. If you vote for it, you are effectively voting for Marxism in America, period. Silicon Valley millennials might very well be the most unethical and ignorant generation that has ever walked the earth. Drop the unicorn bull**** – the people in question are not well, they are not geniuses, they are not innovators, they aren’t even unique, with their insistence on their sheep or lemming (take your pick) mentality. That is a lie that was sold to you, and if we have any hope of moving forward, that notion needs to go right out the window. I say it all the time, I’m sure it annoys, but it would have been nice when those of us that crowed about this a decade and a half ago had been taken seriously. This is your future, people. Land mines in the ground are going to explode when someone steps on them. We should have spent more time weeding out those mines when it actually mattered. Here we are. Start. Paying. Attention. With the growth of independent media, if you don’t, you are GOING to be left behind, clinging to your dreams of the 1960s.

    By all accounts the Twitter personnel in question decided to go rogue and act without consent just like the children they are eating marshmallows because they can’t even microwave a Marie Callender without adult supervision (mom and dad are out of town – PARTY!). You all address this stuff as though you are dealing with emotionally, experientially mature adults with a working understanding of life concepts, let alone Constitutional law – you aren’t. At some point this has GOT to be accepted. Those of us over the age of forty-five do NOT get to retire if we aren’t okay with the direction we are headed; we will bear this burden to the end whether we participated in creating it or not.

    To Dems that are in the dark and haven’t paid attention to much since the 90s and still think Obama was some kind of astral ingenue of JFK or MLK – what in actual hell is your excuse? Are you really that privileged and insulated? Did the recession of 2008 and all of its fallout not impact you due to said privilege? If not, are you really that, frankly, stupid? i really, really hope not. this is not about party or partisanship. It’s about the continuing survival of our society, and I have to believe at least dome of you actually care about your children and what the hey they will do when you are gone. This ain’t gonna cut it.

    1. Sorry for typos. The perils of hasty posting. We have multiple generations on our hands that might very well never be what we would term ‘functional adults’, and that IS what it comes down to. Verbiage, thoroughness, and intricacy be damned, because that just doesn’t matter to them. Embrace this idea that all a certain segment of our society cares about is personal comfort. The letter of the law, the studiousness, the very well reasoned polemic does. Not. Matter.

      Elon had to spend a *whole* lot of money to reform this tiny sector, and I doubt anyone else will bother. Pray for the ascent of the alternative media that is brewing. if you want to give money to someone, give it to them. Who knows? Perhaps someday that will result in universities that actually teach things.

      You, those of you who are participation trophy parents could have done this in the high chair with a proverbial spanking. You didn’t, and ALL of us are paying the price.

      1. James,
        Well said.
        For Christmas, give a subscription to Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Glenn Greenwald or other alt-media journalists.

        I got an email announcement from Weiss last night. She is launching a new media company called The Free Press on Substack.

  14. A few thoughts on Twitter Files 2:

    1. Musk seems to have been protecting Dorsey before but may no longer be doing so. Weiss named Dorsey as a member of SIP-PES, the highest body with censorship duties.

    2. It is unclear from the File when these practices began. Dorsey testified before Congress in 2018. Was SIP-PES in being back then? Were these practices taking place back then? Without a chronology we simply do not know.

    3. This revealed nothing of how the two censorship bodies chose their targets. For example, Jay Bhattacharya joined Twitter only in summer 2021, roughly nine months after he co-authored the GBD. Yet his tweets were not allowed to trend. Who suggested that and when and why? Generally speaking, this File continues the practice of the first in completely ignoring any communications from Government officials.

    4. The full extent of the censorship now needs to be revealed to see how public debate on Twitter was distorted.

    Musk is doing heroic work here.

    1. “Musk is doing heroic work here.”

      Musk may be doing heroic work but doing so in the Adam Smith way of benefitting himself while looking at those facing him and seeing what they want. It is amazing how a functioning marketplace provides sunshine and satisfies both sides at the bargaining table. This agreement infuriates the socialists/fascists. They want only one side, and they don’t have a man with a gun that is as big as Musks.

  15. The lying apparently started with Jack Dorsey (who is now trying to give Musk advice on how to run Twitter) and went down to mid level liars.

    So we now know for certain that Twitter employees were liars.

    We now need to determine whether government employees were part of that censorship (1st Amendment).

    Subjective but critical.

    How much did these people corrupt the electoral process?

    No exaggeration to say that our democracy is at risk.

  16. Governments function is to defend the constitution and guarantee our rights. There should be no question as to whether or not they are mandated by the constitution to cause ANY entity, private or government to adhere to our rights.

    1. JCH busy moving the goal posts.

      This is not about algorithms. These are the top brass of the company handling up to 200 accounts in a single day, deciding how much if any visibility certain accounts would be allowed

  17. You can hear the shredders working overtime at Google and Facebook. Check out the Rogan interview of Zuckerberg. He looked really uncomfortable answering the FBI questions.

  18. Because the censorship that was at the old Twitter and still is at the other Big Tech companies; i.e., Google (therefore YouTube), Facebook (therefore Instagram), Microsoft (therefore LinkedIn), and even Amazon (many great books were blocked from publication and distribution) is encouraged by Big Illiberal Government, it is well to remember John Locke’s caution that has proven applicable throughout history since: Tyranny exists when the governing body dispenses with the law and makes its will the rule; when its actions are not directed to the preservation of persons’ rights, but the satisfaction of its own ambitions; and when public good is secondary to private advantage.

    It is also worthy of us to appreciate the wisdom of Ludwig von Mises: “Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards de­struction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.”

      1. From his 1922 book “Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis” 6th Edition. It is the definitive refutation of nearly every type of socialism ever devised in which Mises presents a wide-ranging analysis of society, comparing the results of socialist planning with those of free-market capitalism in all areas of life.

    1. If I up-vote you, then I am conceding defeat. Not yet, I still cling to the hope that some sort of revolution will dismantle the leviathan created way back when the Trancendentalists first began dismantling the culture that created this nation and continues, unabaited, within our media/education industries today. All facilitated by misguided democrats. I hope foe demographics to have not rendered this impossible.

Leave a Reply