Jump to content

Talk:Twitter Files

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:56a:78b5:3000:ad14:9efd:996e:2066 (talk) at 17:37, 3 April 2023 (→If it wasn't a pic of Hunter Biden, then it wasn't against any law: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Are Twitter Files About First Amendment/Censorship or Politics?

Interesting, but irrelevant for Wikipedia. Just document what RS say.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have approached editing the "Twitter Files" as a First Amendment/Censorship issue, not a political issue. Would appreciate good faith discussion. --Kathleen Kmccook (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can only speculate about why Musk is doing this and what the full conversations state. But, we don't do that here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitively NOT a first amendment issue, as has been explained, because the 1st amendment does not ensure "free speech" on privately owned and operated internet platforms. Nor is it at all a censorship issue as nothing was censored by the government or its agents - all the information is and was available. Content moderation, yes, and regulating what a private website wants posted on a private platform. It is most definitively a political issue. Andre🚐 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To characterize it as a First Amendment/Censorship issue is itself a political issue. So, no. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If unknown censors--government agency employees--pre-screened what was allowed on the Twitter platform and users of the Twitter platform did not know what was removed at the government agencies' behest because they thought Twitter was a public square, then it is a First amendment issue. --Kathleen Kmccook (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The first amendment doesn't protect private social media sites. That is not a public square. Twitter voluntarily worked with intelligence agencies and they were even compensated for that. Andre🚐 17:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the government censored Twitter. Government intelligence agencies warned Twitter about foreign propaganda aimed at affecting our elections and the government health agencies warned about Covid misinformation, estimated to have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Twitter decided what to do with that info. The FBI also made requests for info regarding foreign agencies for which Twitter expenses were reimbursed as per US law. As for the First Amendment, here is the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In any case, it is not up to us to make such judgements. It is up to reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, we don't actually quote the Bill of Rights often enough on Wikipedia, but it's a primary source. Here is a secondary source description: The First Amendment of the US Constitution limits the government—not private entities—from restricting free expression. This is why companies like Facebook and Twitter can moderate content—and also why they could suspend then-President Trump’s accounts during his last weeks in office [1] Andre🚐 17:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can something be a first amendment issue without being political? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Perón used legal action against once privately owned newspapers and created a state-dominated media. This was in Argentina before the Internet. (James Cane. The Fourth Enemy Journalism and Power in the Making of Peronist Argentina, 1930-1955. Penn State University Press, 2012). Currently some states in the U.S. are passing laws about what books can be included in school libraries. Publishers will go back to what they did in Texas with a conservative school board making curricular decisions--publish what governments pre-approve. Private companies can segue to state domination. Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are approaching this as a political issue, why did you say you weren't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a legal issue. Censorship is a tool used by people in power regardless of their political identification. Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, ok, but it's an issue around politics and the controversies associated with politics. Many issues are legal issues and social issues and political or economic issues as well. However, returning to the point, I think Hiawatha Bray is not an expert on any of this. Andre🚐 18:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laws are political, there isn't a separation there. Do you mean partisan instead of political? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Released"

The article uses the word "released" quite a few times. Is this the word RSs use? It seems a little misleading to me. What was "released" exactly, by whom and to whom? For example, we say "The third installment was released by Matt Taibbi on December 9". But what Taibbi did on December 9 was post a Twitter thread and maybe then publish that on his Substack or whatever. As far as I can see, he didn't release files, but rather files (documents? emails? screenshots of emails?) were released to him which he then screenshot and reported on (or, rather, tweeted about). Is that right? I feel we should use more precise language. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published might be better English. Slywriter (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

Today I added a link to the C-SPAN video of the March 9, 2023 Hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government where two Twitter Files contributors testified. It was removed. Regardless of editors' opinion of the event or the Chair, this was an event that happened, and the Hearings will be part of the Judiciary Committee records. I did not make any subjective observation about the Hearing--just that it happened and is now on C-SPAN. It will be available with all testimony, submitted documents and discussion at Gov.info. at the site for Hearings of the 118th Congress. Kmccook (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a clear justification for removal. A committee meeting would generally be due. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary sources. We would need secondary sources that put this testimony and opening statements in perspective. Even then, we should wait for the hearings to conclude. We must avoid raw assertions. Opening statements, in particular, are political and are often littered with misinformation. The McCarthy hearings were an important historical event. But, an encyclopedia should not have included allegations made therein during the hearings either. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only wikipedia do you need live unfiltered video to be carried by CNN to be an knowledge artifact. All the newsreels of WWII would be non linkable because the studio and screens were bought and paid for by the goverement.
C-SPAN is a consortium so it is secondary source, and it has editors that ensure the video is not delivered by anything other than the house cameras. C-SPAN is a reliable source, stop promoting POV flat media view. 2601:248:C000:3F:6CB5:C1DB:DBAF:A9D6 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link simply shows a video without any commentary. The video is a primary source. The committee is controlled by one party. They control who testifies, who is subpoenaed, what is released, and much of the private interview contents. I don't think we should link to any videos no matter what party is in control without secondary sources. And, I am not promoting anything and have no idea what "POV flat media view" means. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The complete video of the hearing is now posted at C-SPAN. I understand about the lede, but the citation is useful an external link to the proceedings. Kmccook (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very name of the committee is a conspiracy theory. And, it is NOT the complete hearings as the hearings haven't ended. We are better than that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're not using it as a citation, seems fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's substantial coverage of Taibbi's ham-fisted and seemingly disingenuous and unsure testimony. Some of that assessment and some detail surely will end up in the article text with secondary and tertiary sources. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same characteristics could apply to the questioning. At times, it sounds like a conspiracy convention. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For our meatless or vegan readers, we might substitute "muffin-mouthed". SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, this is a congressional committee. I don't see any good reason not to include C-SPAN links for it. We should also include relevant secondary sourced coverage to provide context. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we may have two years worth of links to unfiltered, politically motivated conspiracy theories on C-SPAN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taibbi's coverage today is that of a mainstream media zero, it is almost certain by the editors who participate in this article that he will be near perfect in his reporting over the past year. 2601:248:C000:3F:6CB5:C1DB:DBAF:A9D6 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is mainstream media zero? Taibbi's "reporting" is slanted, without context, and incomplete. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Taibbi is that we continue to call him a "journalist" because he started his career that way. He's a writer, but not a journalist by our definition or the narratives of RS concerning his recent actions and statements. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I used MOS:SCAREQUOTES. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guess time to deprecate NYT then since they refer to him as a journalist. Or maybe someone should just close this WP:NOTFORUM thread. Slywriter (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virality Project

The 19th installment of the Twitter Files reports on the Virality Project at Stanford. I cited a NewsNation item and it was deleted. Twitter Files #19 reports on the use of JIRA software to create a monitoring plan for Covid-related content. This deserves a section. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1636729166631432195 Why would this news report not be considered reliable as coverage of the release? https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/tech/twitter-files-virality-project/Kmccook (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's ask User:ValarianB why they don't consider NewsNation a RS for this. I was tempted to just revert them as their edit summary didn't seem reasonable. NewsNation (and Dan Abrams) seems like a relatively neutral source (at least for this purpose) and is not mentioned at WP:RSP, IOW its reliability has not been questioned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sparse article looks like it was written in one minute. It also includes a strange conclusion that censorship is causing mistrust in the CDC when it seems more likely that accusations of censorship are the cause. If we are going to list all of these cherry picked releases created by someone with an obvious personal interest (dissing previous management), oughtn't an encyclopedia find better sources capable of documenting with appropriate context? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section about the Virality release of Twitter Files #19 is not providing an opinion. I was seeking a source that would be acceptable. There has been extensive coverage by [[Chris Hedges]] and Christian Britschgi from Reason. I'll re-add with the Britschgi citation.Kmccook (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive? Mainly to the small number of people who are Muskies, Taibbitubbies, or who for some other reason take an undue interest in Republican right talking points and fabrications. This is way too low a bar for NPOV and Verification. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Extensive" coverage is not required. Notability does not apply to content in prose articles like this. We just need to document the existence and topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The addition did more than that. The nineteenth installment of the Twitter Files, released March 17, 2023, raises questions about the government and social media censorship. The text suggests that government censorship is a given. There are continuing attempts to state that these cherry picked releases from documents mainstream sources have not been able to see have specific meanings. We do not know the context. Presumably, that's why the major reliable sources are avoiding the subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Chris Hedges Report | Substack has covered this. He has a large readership. Isn't it a norm of the collective intelligence process of Wikipedia that we be respectful of each other? and not belittle other editors? Kmccook (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored your NewsNation source as it is a RS. Chris Hedges' Substack account is not a RS for anything other than himself. Per WP:ABOUTSELF it could be used on his own biography here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Hedges is a quite interesting fellow. However, I don’t think we’d consider him a journalist for the last couple decades and many would say his views verge on the extreme. We need better sources for extraordinary, accusatory claims. One must consider that if you need to go to highly biased sources because the cream of the crop are not publishing a thing, there’s likely a reason for this. I also strongly disagree with restoring this, particularly with text that looks like we are saying this raises questions of censorship in WikiVoice. The source of the source is terrible; which is likely why unbiased sources aren't covering this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about Hedges. I also tend to agree about the opinion statements, which should be attributed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
O, I would not cite Chris Hedges here but was using him as an example of a source where many people are reading about the Twitter Files, so all the more reason to cover here in an objective way.Kmccook (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Reason, or any other source taking this info at face value, is that they cannot know what is true. Unless I've missed something, no journalists have seen the documents in context. It's like Kevin McCarthy handing cherry picked videos to Tucker Carlson, and Carlson showing them to his viewers saying this is proof that people now in prison were just tourists taking selfies. The NYT and WaPo are long time champions of freedom of speech and government transparency. Yet, they are spending little time on this. The NYT refered to the "so-called Twitter Files"[2]. NPR said: "Elon Musk is using the Twitter Files to discredit foes and push conspiracy theories"[3]. These are top sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We agree about Musk, Taibbi, et al, and their mission, but if that's your argument for whether we include or exclude content, then you are violating NPOV and "verifiability, not truth". You're saying that because it's "not truth" or misleading we should not cover it. No, we document all notable shit here. That it is shit makes no difference, only whether it's notable. We document the existence of shit and describe what it is, without taking sides (as you are doing), but do not advocate it. We publish the debunking and criticism from RS. Thus we are doing the public a service.
Between us, of course we take sides with facts and RS, and we might express our opinions here, but we don't do it within articles or allow our opinions to affect whether or not we include content. If it's notable, then it's part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to cover here. "If someone comes here and doesn't find it, we have failed." (paraphrase of Baseball Bugs). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. This is not between truth and veracity. There is no veracity and therefore no known truth. I gave quotes from NYT and NPR. Our article looks like it is giving credence to something that the best RS are ridiculing when they bother at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, I agree with O3000 here. Google may be the sum of everything. Wikipedia is the sum of significant facts and views. Also, you may be confusing less experienced editors by fuzzying the distinction between "notable" and "noteworthy" in our process. One or two marginal sources for what-all was said by somebody or other last week is not our standard for NPOV weight and therefore article inclusion. As 3000 has said the thrust of RS mainstream narrative on the title topic of this page is that the whole mess is a bumbling attempt at political and personal aggrandizement by a teetering twittering Musk and his allies of convenience on the Republican stage. So we don't need to repeat every detail that has not received DUE coverage in the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make assumptions about motivation of editors; this seems to me a pre-judgment that erases good faith efforts to expand the narrative as if your opinions and your motivations are the only truth. I am not a Republican, but if I were you observation indicates that no one who would identify as a Republican would be permitted to participate. I am a registered Democrat. Kmccook (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying to address one or more editors about recent article or talk page edits, it would be helpful to state your concern with specificity and detail. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O3000, our article certainly should not look "like it is giving credence to something that the best RS are ridiculing when they bother at all." We can agree on that, so the solution is to fix the wording, not delete the whole thing.

We are dealing with a fringe topic, so we are to document its existence by appealing to "parity of sources" because that's the way Wikipedia tells us to act when we are faced with few RS. The topic is notable enough for an article, so we just need to document the existence of each release and then fill the article with what RS say about them. We should not defend or otherwise give credence to such a subject. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, we do look "like it is giving credence to something that the best RS are ridiculing when they bother at all." And, one of the editors keeps adding biased sources because she apparently believes this and, not surprisingly, can't find good enough sources for exceptional claims. Indeed, extremist accusations against various officials have resulted in calls, for example, for the execution of Dr. Fauci by a member of Congress. And, RS say very little about this because the WP:sky is blue. We live in strange times. We must be careful about our part in these times. Yes, we must document. But, thinking back to the McCarthy hearings mentioned by her, we cannot be a part of the large number of people who had to exile themselves to avoid the consequences of those congressional hearings. (And, a municipal DA is about to feel the wrath of such.) Frankly, I think this article should be AfD'ed until the dust has settled for a host of obvious guidelines. As that would fail, let us document that this exists (although it would be better in articles about Taibbi and Musk). Let us not act as a detailed repository of accusations against living persons, without foundation, used by Congressfolk to call for the dissolution of the CDC, IRS, and FBI, that trace back to one person who lost billions in a flawed takeover. This is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of seeing what's left after the appropriate content is placed in the Musk and Taibbi articles. As I've said before we should not even be describing Taibbi as a journalist here without clearly differentiating his non-journalist role in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing coverage here

We are starting to have holes in the list of episodes, as the previous section about the deletion of the Virality Project section shows. That is the 19th installment.

We are missing 11-14 and 18.

Here is a complete list:

There have been 19 episodes so far and we should mention each one.

We also need to make the numbers more prominent, possibly by bolding or by inclusion in the heading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This has grown to be an important set of releases and people will come here for an overview.Kmccook (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth is important about this? It is important to those who believe conspiracy theories. The most reliable sources are ignoring it because the actual full files are kept secret by Musk who is pushing conspiracy theories. Actual RS are saying something very different than what this aberrant article is pushing. Why are we acting as tools for this one man? This is an encyclopedia, not InfoWars. WP:NOTNEWS WP:10YT WP:SOAPBOX WP:RS WP:LETSNOTEMBARASSOURSELVES. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where did you learn all of that? 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter Files #18 was a tweeted version of Matt Taibbi's Testimony to Congress on March 9, 2023.. Michael Shellenberger also tweeted his testimony to Congress the same day. Tabbi's version is the Twitter File #18. I referenced them both but maybe Shellenberger's should not be included. Also added an article about this. Kmccook (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This all fails NPOV. We dont just create a repository of propaganda and polemic. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a report on testimony before a Congressional Committee. The House Un-American Activities Committee hearings are referenced in Wikipedia and while I well-know one example is not support for using Hearings as a source, it does seem relevant to reference the Twitter Files #18 as they are a summary of the testimony submitted. In addition to the coverage at Reason, there has been reporting at "Forbes Breaking News" on YouTube: 'Censorship Industrial Complex': Twitter Files Journalist Michael Shellenberger Issues Dire Warning Kmccook (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Find some sources for the missing ones and add them. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kmccook, don't worry. It's a bit early to find many sources. With time, they will show up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. I was hoping to fill in some of the missing files and was off work today so maybe got over-eager.Kmccook (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You tried and got some helpful advice and criticism. Next time will be better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying this was only condemned by the right implies that the rest of the world supports this censorship.

its not hard to see a strong basis for Musk's claims in the article. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence

What is clear is that Yoel Roth, Twitter's former head of trust and safety, meet weekly with the FBI, DHS as well as the office of the DNI throughout the 2020 election.

How is that "no evidence"?! 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a pic of Hunter Biden, then it wasn't against any law

As far as we know those pictures were released consensually. Did Biden deny having released pictures he won't admit are of him, cause that sounds like having it both ways. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:AD14:9EFD:996E:2066 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter_Files&oldid=1148034319"