"... complicated in that their tone is often propagandistic and their evidence frustratingly partial but interesting in that they show how various political actors sought to influence a period in global politics.... After a careful read of the Twitter Files, I don’t think that the evidence suggests a coherent political agenda. It is certainly true that Twitter executives donated, overwhelmingly, to Democratic candidates for public office, and it seems equally true that they expressed mostly progressive views on social media.... Even if you believe—and I don’t—that Musk took a progressive thumb off the scale when he acquired the company, all he has done since is stick his own thumb—bigger and clumsier—on it. Musk could have made different choices. He could have opened the files to more journalists, with broader perspectives, rather than a group that largely shared his view.... The choices Musk did make suggest another aim—not neutrality, but counterbalance. If progressive ideas had been too amplified, he would now amplify conservative ones. Everything in the Twitter Files has had this see-saw quality...In this way, the Twitter Files have been trapped in the style of Twitter itself."
From "What the Twitter Files Reveal About Free Speech and Social Media/The company’s internal documents were supposed to prove a progressive agenda—mostly, they have exposed the limitations of the platform and its new owner" by Benjamin Wallace-Wells (The New Yorker).
পোস্টগুলি
৬০টি মন্তব্য:
"After a careful read of the Twitter Files, I don’t think that the evidence suggests a coherent political agenda"
--
Well no. Democrats don't have one of those. Harmful, yes. Coherent, no.
And who, pray tell, is Benjamin Wallace-Wells, that we are supposed to swallow whole his very special opinion on What It All Means? How do we know what his real interests are, what competence he claims?
The New Yorker, one of the most obnoxious liars in fabricating the Russia collusion hoax, has investigated itself and found itself innocent.
And, Taibbi and Weis and Greenwald are now right wingers.
The New Yorker is obviously a tool of the CIA/FBI.
This is idiocy. Matt Taibbi is a conservative voice? Bari Weiss is a conservative voice?
In summary, it is sad that all of this could not be hidden. Elon Musk is the devil for exposing it.
The choices Musk did make suggest another aim—not neutrality, but counterbalance.
Some might call it accountability by the company Musk had just acquired to put it on the road to neutrality.
Among them were Matt Taibbi, the gonzo political writer, formerly of Rolling Stone; Bari Weiss, the ex-Times Opinion writer; the environmental-policy wonk Michael Shellenberger, who made his name by opposing the climate left; and the investigative reporter Lee Fang, of the Intercept...
He could have opened the files to more journalists, with broader perspectives, rather than a group that largely shared his view...
What's he talking about? At minimum, both Taibbi and Weiss are left of center.
So, a writer for a progressive media outlet "[doesn't] think that the evidence suggests a coherent political agenda." Nothing to see here, move along. Certainly no collusion between one political party and social media platforms. Nope, no evidence at all. Move along, I say!
The platform was atwitter and flying high, until the new owner changed nothing technical and cleared the diversity hurdles. Why the porker from New Yorker, now? It's because he's African-American, a person of color, a peach American, right? JournoLists.
"If progressive ideas had been too amplified, he would now amplify conservative ones."
Since conservative voices were actively reduced, obviously introducing greater freedom would "amplify" them. Freedom counterbalances prog hegemony. Can't have that.
"Everything in the Twitter Files has had this see-saw quality...In this way, the Twitter Files have been trapped in the style of Twitter itself."
Not at all. Musk is creating a different playing field, not a see-saw. Nor are the Twitter Files trapped in any way. Beyond exposing prog shenanigans, they reveal deep-state malfeasance. Since that now serves prog interests, it is telling that progs ignore it. They like the Man because they are the Man.
I like Musk's clumsy finger.
LOL, "complicated" means that they are guilty as hell, but "it's better if you don't tire out your little brain thinking about this complicated stuff, We in the MSM have looked into it, and we are not corrupted by the security state. "
"Everybody go back to believing whatever we tell you, and if we don't tell you something, it's for your own good, and you should think about things as if the stuff we didn't tell you never happened. Oh yeah, and when we lie to you about Russian disinformation, for example, we tell you that the #ReleaseTheMemo hash tag was pushed by the Russians, when it wasn't, it's better for America if you simply ignore that we are lying and believe that it was Russian disinformation."
"Oh yeah, and war with Russia is good for America, and is really about peace, and those people who tell you that endless war is the point are just repeating Russian talking points."
Our country is rotting in the same way the Soviet Union rotted, and our media is as big a joke as Pravda ever was.
What complete and utter self-serving bullshit from the media clerisy. If this overt gaslighting is meant to get me to trust journalists or Silicon Valley more, it is a complete failure.
Complicated. They don't advance the narrative.
More drivel from The New Yorker.
Bari Weiss is far from conservative.
Having given up reading the New Yorker 40 years ago I don't plan to start for this. Just the quote tells me that the article is doing its best to avoid the painful truth that Twitter was forced to collude with the government to suppress the Hunter story, to limit debate about Covid treatment, shadow ban conservative commentary, and outright ban authors who had done nothing to violate Twitter's terms of service other than have divergent opinions. Musk has done the world a real favor by exposing the dangers of social media coercion by the government.
If progressive ideas had been too amplified, he would now amplify conservative ones.
If you are used to conservatives having a forced silence, any noise seems like amplification. Although, I will agree that Musk didn't take a progressive thumb off the scale. That's because Musk is progressive, just not as much as some would like.
It bothered me that he says the Twitter files are from the "Trump era". I think it would be better called the anti-Trump era.
Musk could have made different choices. He could have opened the files to more journalists, with broader perspectives, rather than a group that largely shared his view.
I think Musk made good choices here. No one I would consider to be conservative, but all ones I trust to be honest. Opening the files up to everyone would just open the possibilities of a few loud voices pushing half-truths. Like every other news story. I did not read every word of the article, so maybe I missed it, but I don't know what his objection to the chosen journalists is other than they "shared Musk's view". (What view? That Twitter was corrupt? Was it not?) Without more specific objections, it just looks like envy.
Disagree with almost everything here. Musk, Taibbi, Weiss,& Greenwald are hardly conservatives. The people against Musk here do have an objective-power. Perhaps Wallace-Wells could recommend some objective journalists, if there are any beyond those 3.
Wallace-Wells seems to contradict himself when he writes that he doesn't "think that the evidence suggests a coherent political agenda" yet goes on to write about progressives in Twitter and conservative bias in the opposition.
Matt Taibbi is a conservative viewpoint? So predictable. So very predictable.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells is full shit.
You can tell how devastating the files are when even a self-fellating moron like Wallace-Wells is forced to acknowledge that conservatives were being censored by Twitter unfairly, but is forced fall back on "What about Musk". Note that the journalists Musk gave the files to are, without exception center-left in their poltics- they aren't conservatives at all. Musk picked these particular journalists because they had the honesty and integrity to admit that the censorship rules were being applied with an obvious bias, and that the government itself was involved in the process.
Translation: Don't pay any attention to the man with the truth.
Complicated.
We're not sure how we can fit this story in the narrative.
He read it all so that New Yorker readers don't have to.
“ After a careful read of the Twitter Files, I don’t think that the evidence suggests a coherent political agenda.”
I guess that’s a take. Maybe coherent is the weasel word here. More of a what ever I feel like political agenda.
Oh, I very much disagree. These files exposed many of the people on the Left - some holding office, while others were likeminded media or Democrat bureaucrats - using whatever influence they had to silence the opposition. Anything that did not agree with their narrative/marching orders from Authoritarian Central. And finding willing colluders in Twitter employees, now former employees.
A not very well thought-out piece of writing from the Yew Norker.
Anyone who calls Weiss and Taibbi conservative is looking at the world through a reality distortion field.
I evaluated the prejudice and snooty air of superiority in the excerpt and guessed the source, The New Yorker for the win. And the writer sounds butt hurt that Musk didn't grace the usual media hacks with the original material. I thought Musk's choices were inspired, he picked people who could be classified as left, or at least liberal, but had a reputation for independence, making it harder to blow them off as right wing nutters. Which isn't to say that some haven't tried to do that ...
Democrat propaganda shill doesn't recognize shills propagandizing for Democrats.
"What the Twitter Files Reveal About Free Speech and Social Media/The company’s internal documents were supposed to prove a progressive agenda—mostly, they have exposed the limitations of the platform and its new owner"
Oh, is that what they mostly exposed?
What was your point in posting this without comment?
The world wonders. (Apologies to Nimitz)
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
There was a saying about term papers during my freshman year of college (1971):
"If you cannot dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit"
It seems like that captures lefty journalism for the last 50-60 years.
Only a tribal journalist can find censorship complicated.
Since conservative voices were actively reduced, obviously introducing greater freedom would "amplify" them. Freedom counterbalances prog hegemony.
@Sebastian, + 1
I read the article, and I just do not see where the first part of the article supports the part of the article that begins “The big disappointment of the Twitter Files is …”. The author sets up a big straw man when he writes about a “runaway progressive corporate culture.” Was it really a runaway corporate culture? Or were indefensible decisions driven by a smaller group of corporate decision-makers who found it necessary to suppress things that were indisputably true in order to support progressive viewpoints and to permit government-directed censorship? If the former, is it possible to fix the problem without firing 90% or more of the employees?
He writes that “Musk could have made different choices.” So he could have. But where in the paragraph that follows that sentence does he make the case that Musk’s choices are unreasonable, much less indefensible?
"The most eyebrow-raising revelations in the Twitter Files, documented mostly by Matt Taibbi and Lee Fang, concern the extent to which the F.B.I. and the Pentagon were interested in controlling what was seen on the platform," according to Wallace-Wells. Eyebrow-raising, yes. But he can never quite say that such involvement by the F.B.I. might be, you know, wrong.
I wish that The New Yorker didn't view totalitarianism as being fashionable.
Well, if Benjamin Wallace-Wells of the New Yorker thinks there was no conspiracy to deplatform conservative voices, I guess that settles it!
I think the bigger narrative with the Twitter files is not as much as conservative voices were silenced, which they obviously were, but, that it was really the government, across all groups were the ones promoting that silence.
I mean you have the FBI, the CIA, congressman, senators, DOD, NIH, CDC, FDA, and then quasi-connected governmental people like Scott Gottleib. I know there are others that I have missed.
And this wasn’t just about what the government considered misinformation or disinformation but about truth that they just didn’t want promoted.
And although I get why Musk wanted to put everything out on Twitter first, for people who are not on Twitter these stories are very hard to share. I want some downloadable PDF files that I can forward to people who are not on Twitter, who are having a very hard time believing any of this when you tell them about it.
I smell bs regarding Wallace-Wells; an oddly hyphenated name to sound more distinguished and W.A.S.P.y,
Perhaps he’s been positioning himself somewhere between journalism, progressive true-belief, donor money and environmentalism.
Reality bites. Sooner or later the truth about your actual subject matter, and the value of your knowledge and skill set emerges.
Which means he’ll probably have some gig at NYU soon and/or lecturing at the W.H.O.
If the institution by which you seek legitimacy, has itself sacrificed much of its legitimacy...blame others and run from the truth.
And suddenly, just like that, Glenn Greenwald was a conservative. I
Journalists should be reporting facts. It shouldn’t matter who or how many to get a story out. This article tells you all you need to know about the state of modern journalism where the need to have the right journalists with the right biases is necessary to get the narrative right.
He should have Alex Jones do a batch.
Similar to what Musk is doing via the Twitter Files, one of Taibbi’s recent articles implores journalists to come clean about their recent and pervasive gaslighting deeds, so that trust in media can be re-built. Perhaps that’s what this writer is fearful of - the sunlight on his own work and the company he works for.
The day Greenwood became a straight, white, conservative!
The New Yorker(D) - is in bed with the idea of a Democrat-Communist single party rule.
Progressives have to say they are doing the right [correct] and good thing. Doing the right thing is not political. Therefore progressives are not political.
Ahem. "various political actors." The FBI and the CIA are not supposed to be "political actors."
The DNC certainly qualifies.
The main value of outlets like The New Yorker to the regime is their power to ignore the elephant in the room and to have such trust from their readers that their readers actually believe that there is no elephant.
To the writer, I say: Nice try, assh*le.
If only I had been deemed worthy of a tranche of files, I would not be so hurt. Rightyo
The New Yorker is an evil publication written by evil people for stupid readers.
Hmmm...BW-W: the Twitter files should have been thrown open to the full press so they could be spun, ignored, and mischaracterized by the cadre of know-nothings and propagandists that have colonized and then taken over the MSM. Better than letting a group of independent, no BS journalists like Taibbi, Schellenberger, Weiss, etc. give us their analysis. Musk paid $44 billion for the privilege. Maybe he should have bought The New Yorker and Vanity Fair.
If people like BW-W hadn't become full-time liars to protect the ruling clique, he might have a point.
Glad you enjoy The New Yorker, Althouse. Much of the stuff you bring from it to this blog is laughably bad.
On 19th Anniversary....
Shorter AA: here's an interesting New Yorker article.
Shorter AA commenters: GRRRR.
Short bus rendering: Please change the subject!
You know those National Socialists in Germany? They're just harmless nationalists. See, it's even in their name. And Mao Zedong and his forces? Agrarian reformers.
Mao Zedong and his forces? Agrarian reformers.
They're still carrying out assassinations of Zulu competitors, sustained collateral damage to the native population, and transnational redistributive change, in South Africa under the cover of a progressive constitution and Xhosa regime. Still, even in the 21 century, Mao retains possession of the cupie doll.
Whether Weiss and Taibbi are personally conservative or not, they were hand picked by Musk because they are known for perspectives perfectly aligned to what he was trying to do. Therefore they are fundamentally untrustworthy in filtering through these docs and telling us what happened. (As a point of comparison -- do you trust the Jan 6 committee?)
If Musk wanted transparency, versus a particular narrative, he would have released the docs WikiLeaks style.
@ Daniel1`2 - And I hope he will eventually "release the docs WikiLeaks style."
Daniel12 said...
Thoughts on what HAS been found?
Daniel12: "Whether Weiss and Taibbi are personally conservative or not,..."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
They are both lifelong left-liberals!
But lets all just pretend they aren't.
Whenever you think the Althouse lefties couldn't possibly get any dumber they prove you wrong.
Twitter Files prove a vast US Government involvement in censoring social media platforms. The folks at Twitter went along with it - with some resistence - because they are overwhelmingly progressive.
All the things we said were happening and they denied.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন