d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > The Twitter Files (censorship Scandal)
Prev11011121314Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 53,548
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 7,908.33
Dec 8 2022 10:43pm
TWITTER FILES: PART TWO

https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600

1. A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users.
2. Twitter once had a mission “to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.” Along the way, barriers nevertheless were erected.
3. Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.
4. Or consider the popular right-wing talk show host, Dan Bongino (@dbongino), who at one point was slapped with a “Search Blacklist.”
5. Twitter set the account of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) to “Do Not Amplify.”




6. Twitter denied that it does such things. In 2018, Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said: “We do not shadow ban.” They added: “And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
7. What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning.
8. “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool,” one senior Twitter employee told us.
9. “VF” refers to Twitter’s control over user visibility. It used VF to block searches of individual users; to limit the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; to block select users’ posts from ever appearing on the “trending” page; and from inclusion in hashtag searches.
10. All without users’ knowledge.
11. “We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do,” one Twitter engineer told us. Two additional Twitter employees confirmed.
12. The group that decided whether to limit the reach of certain users was the Strategic Response Team - Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET. It often handled up to 200 "cases" a day.
13. But there existed a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the rank-and-file moderators following the company’s policy on paper. That is the “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support,” known as “SIP-PES.”
14. This secret group included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust (Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust & Safety (Yoel Roth), subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.
15. This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made. “Think high follower account, controversial,” another Twitter employee told us. For these “there would be no ticket or anything.”
16. One of the accounts that rose to this level of scrutiny was @libsoftiktok—an account that was on the “Trends Blacklist” and was designated as “Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES.”
17. The account—which Chaya Raichik began in November 2020 and now boasts over 1.4 million followers—was subjected to six suspensions in 2022 alone, Raichik says. Each time, Raichik was blocked from posting for as long as a week.
18. Twitter repeatedly informed Raichik that she had been suspended for violating Twitter’s policy against “hateful conduct.”
19. But in an internal SIP-PES memo from October 2022, after her seventh suspension, the committee acknowledged that “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy."
See here:


20. The committee justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of “hospitals and medical providers” by insinuating “that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.”
21. Compare this to what happened when Raichik herself was doxxed on November 21, 2022. A photo of her home with her address was posted in a tweet that has garnered more than 10,000 likes.
22. When Raichik told Twitter that her address had been disseminated she says Twitter Support responded with this message: "We reviewed the reported content, and didn't find it to be in violation of the Twitter rules." No action was taken. The doxxing tweet is still up.
23. In internal Slack messages, Twitter employees spoke of using technicalities to restrict the visibility of tweets and subjects. Here’s Yoel Roth, Twitter’s then Global Head of Trust & Safety, in a direct message to a colleague in early 2021:
24. Six days later, in a direct message with an employee on the Health, Misinformation, Privacy, and Identity research team, Roth requested more research to support expanding “non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagements and deamplification/visibility filtering.”


25. Roth wrote: “The hypothesis underlying much of what we’ve implemented is that if exposure to, e.g., misinformation directly causes harm, we should use remediations that reduce exposure, and limiting the spread/virality of content is a good way to do that.”
26. He added: “We got Jack on board with implementing this for civic integrity in the near term, but we’re going to need to make a more robust case to get this into our repertoire of policy remediations – especially for other policy domains.”

Watch @mtaibbi for the next installment.
Member
Posts: 22,264
Joined: Aug 17 2021
Gold: 1,546.83
Warn: 30%
Dec 8 2022 10:47pm
Quote (cambovenzi @ Dec 8 2022 08:43pm)
TWITTER FILES: PART TWO

https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600

1. A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users.
2. Twitter once had a mission “to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.” Along the way, barriers nevertheless were erected.
3. Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.
4. Or consider the popular right-wing talk show host, Dan Bongino (@dbongino), who at one point was slapped with a “Search Blacklist.”
5. Twitter set the account of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) to “Do Not Amplify.”

https://i.imgur.com/2zyl5CW.png


6. Twitter denied that it does such things. In 2018, Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said: “We do not shadow ban.” They added: “And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
7. What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning.
8. “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool,” one senior Twitter employee told us.
9. “VF” refers to Twitter’s control over user visibility. It used VF to block searches of individual users; to limit the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; to block select users’ posts from ever appearing on the “trending” page; and from inclusion in hashtag searches.
10. All without users’ knowledge.
11. “We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do,” one Twitter engineer told us. Two additional Twitter employees confirmed.
12. The group that decided whether to limit the reach of certain users was the Strategic Response Team - Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET. It often handled up to 200 "cases" a day.
13. But there existed a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the rank-and-file moderators following the company’s policy on paper. That is the “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support,” known as “SIP-PES.”
14. This secret group included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust (Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust & Safety (Yoel Roth), subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.
15. This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made. “Think high follower account, controversial,” another Twitter employee told us. For these “there would be no ticket or anything.”
16. One of the accounts that rose to this level of scrutiny was @libsoftiktok—an account that was on the “Trends Blacklist” and was designated as “Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES.”
17. The account—which Chaya Raichik began in November 2020 and now boasts over 1.4 million followers—was subjected to six suspensions in 2022 alone, Raichik says. Each time, Raichik was blocked from posting for as long as a week.
18. Twitter repeatedly informed Raichik that she had been suspended for violating Twitter’s policy against “hateful conduct.”
19. But in an internal SIP-PES memo from October 2022, after her seventh suspension, the committee acknowledged that “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy."
See here:
https://i.imgur.com/1N73F73.png

20. The committee justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of “hospitals and medical providers” by insinuating “that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.”
21. Compare this to what happened when Raichik herself was doxxed on November 21, 2022. A photo of her home with her address was posted in a tweet that has garnered more than 10,000 likes.
22. When Raichik told Twitter that her address had been disseminated she says Twitter Support responded with this message: "We reviewed the reported content, and didn't find it to be in violation of the Twitter rules." No action was taken. The doxxing tweet is still up.
23. In internal Slack messages, Twitter employees spoke of using technicalities to restrict the visibility of tweets and subjects. Here’s Yoel Roth, Twitter’s then Global Head of Trust & Safety, in a direct message to a colleague in early 2021:
24. Six days later, in a direct message with an employee on the Health, Misinformation, Privacy, and Identity research team, Roth requested more research to support expanding “non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagements and deamplification/visibility filtering.”
https://i.imgur.com/o5fgIMt.png

25. Roth wrote: “The hypothesis underlying much of what we’ve implemented is that if exposure to, e.g., misinformation directly causes harm, we should use remediations that reduce exposure, and limiting the spread/virality of content is a good way to do that.”
26. He added: “We got Jack on board with implementing this for civic integrity in the near term, but we’re going to need to make a more robust case to get this into our repertoire of policy remediations – especially for other policy domains.”

Watch @mtaibbi for the next installment.


Thanks for opening our eyes, cambo. And this is some truly sickening stuff that Twitter engages in.

Question: what can we do about it?
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Dec 9 2022 10:15am
A couple points:

Twitter has been open about the fact that they reduce some people's visibility for specific reasons:
https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1601019961224241153

Elon Musk endorsed the same sort of policy:
https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1601020232994201601

So the question is whether popular right-wing figures are having their visibility reduced for certain behavior, but popular left-wing figures who do the same things are not. And because Musk, Weiss, and Taibbi are all aligned with the right, if(and when) they claim that to be the case, it's going to be hard to believe them. Elon should give this information to a credible journalist.
Member
Posts: 92,959
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Dec 9 2022 10:22am
Quote (IceMage @ Dec 9 2022 10:15am)
A couple points:

Twitter has been open about the fact that they reduce some people's visibility for specific reasons:
https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1601019961224241153

Elon Musk endorsed the same sort of policy:
https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1601020232994201601

So the question is whether popular right-wing figures are having their visibility reduced for certain behavior, but popular left-wing figures who do the same things are not. And because Musk, Weiss, and Taibbi are all aligned with the right, if(and when) they claim that to be the case, it's going to be hard to believe them. Elon should give this information to a credible journalist.


I don't have much if any distrust in Taibbi , any specific reason you do?
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Dec 9 2022 10:37am
Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 9 2022 10:22am)
I don't have much if any distrust in Taibbi , any specific reason you do?


From his own memoir:

Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Dec 9 2022 10:40am
Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 9 2022 11:22am)
I don't have much if any distrust in Taibbi , any specific reason you do?


Because he's part of the anti-anti-Trump, rabidly anti-establishment cohort. I'm not saying he has no credibility, just that he has a clear agenda and often advocates for that agenda with his journalism. The former Twitter bosses censoring the right(and not the left) falls neatly into his priors, so expecting objectivity from him is not reasonable.
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Dec 9 2022 10:45am
Oh, and when we're weighing Twitter's handling of both sides, it also needs to be considered that the right-wing probably violates Twitter's list of reasons for getting visibility reduced more than the left-wing.

It's similar to the endless griping about the MSM being super critical of Trump but not Obama. Yes, they were, because he behaves differently(in a bad way) than other presidents. Both sides are not equally bad.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 9 2022 10:45am
Member
Posts: 92,959
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Dec 9 2022 10:57am
Quote (Surfpunk @ Dec 9 2022 10:37am)


jesus lol wtf

Quote (IceMage @ Dec 9 2022 10:40am)
Because he's part of the anti-anti-Trump, rabidly anti-establishment cohort. I'm not saying he has no credibility, just that he has a clear agenda and often advocates for that agenda with his journalism. The former Twitter bosses censoring the right(and not the left) falls neatly into his priors, so expecting objectivity from him is not reasonable.


gotcha makes sense ty
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Dec 9 2022 10:57am
Quote (IceMage @ Dec 9 2022 10:40am)
Because he's part of the anti-anti-Trump, rabidly anti-establishment cohort. I'm not saying he has no credibility, just that he has a clear agenda and often advocates for that agenda with his journalism. The former Twitter bosses censoring the right(and not the left) falls neatly into his priors, so expecting objectivity from him is not reasonable.


It doesn't help that he's posting Twitter inside information, spoon-fed to him with conditions by Twitter insiders, on Twitter itself. He's basically acting as a journalist FOR Twitter. There's nothing objective about it.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev11011121314Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll