Twitter Files: FBI, DHS Reported Tweets for Election Misinformation

Content moderators had "weekly confabs" with law enforcement officials, reports Matt Taibbi.

Law enforcement officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) met regularly with top content moderators at Twitter during the 2020 presidential election, independent journalist Matt Taibbi revealed in the latest dispatches from the Twitter Files.

Taibbi describes an "erosion of standards within the company" that took place between October 2020 and January 6th, 2021, as Twitter's Trust & Safety team, headed by Yoel Roth and Vijaya Gadde, took a more active—and, according to Taibbi, arbitrary—role in moderating election-related content. Taibbi contrasts their moderation decisions with calls made by "Safety Operations," a broader team "whose staffers used a more rules-based process for addressing issues like porn, scams, and threats."

15. There was at least some tension between Safety Operations – a larger department whose staffers used a more rules-based process for addressing issues like porn, scams, and threats – and a smaller, more powerful cadre of senior policy execs like Roth and Gadde.

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022

Notably, Twitter's moderation decisions during this time period increasingly relied on input from the FBI and DHS. In internal Slack conversations, Twitter policy director Nick Pickles floated the idea of publicly admitting that the company's misinformation policies were partly based on feedback from experts in law enforcement; he eventually decided just to call them "partnerships."

Other Slack messages suggest that Roth met regularly, even weekly, with the FBI and DHS. The FBI also reported tweets for spreading election misinformation, sometimes prompting Twitter to take action.

This is the aspect of content moderation that should provoke the greatest concern from the general public. While Twitter's opaque and inconsistent policies are undoubtedly enraging, they are a private company's terms of service; ultimately, users can (and should) complain, and encourage new leadership—i.e. Elon Musk—to change course, but there isn't a strong public policy connection.

Dictates from law enforcement, on the other hand, are absolutely matters of public policy. Is it proper for agents of the state to encourage private entities to suppress misinformation, even as national political figures excoriate these entities for not moderating more aggressively? The First Amendment might have something to say about that.

Comments

[CindyF]

The narrative that Twitter was suppressing only one side of political speech is a Conspiracy Theory invented by the right. Twitter was only deleting tweets that were hate speech or went against official government policy.

I know this because all the NYT and WaPo "journalists" have told me so. Tabbi and Weiss are simply "doing PR for the richest man in the world". That has to be true because I saw it tweeted multiple times by those same "journalists". No one would repeat such a thing word for word multiple times if it were not true.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

What?! You mean I have to believe these spambots which keep spewing the same few messages over and over?!?

Thanks for nothing, NYT and WaPo.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But how much will the NYT and WaPo pay me to "work" from home in my underwear? (And if I cross-dress, can I get more?)

[InsaneTrollLogic]

As long as you have raging TDS, mimic the party line, and call Hunter Biden’s laptop just dick pics, you have a guaranteed job.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/CariKelemen/status/1601411682425016323?t=-WeY1pQ13sl20ssRbeTHOw&s=19

Our entire government ran a coup to oust the only politician who was on the side of the people.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1601392801694248961?t=unweFPm_uvIlvcmmKmXiZQ&s=19

“[They] want the secret history of the ‘20 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream-a well funded cabal of powerful people…working together behind the scenes…to control the flow of information. They weren’t rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”

Read that crazy article again. With fresh eyes. #TwitterFiles

[Link]

[Fats of Fury]

Is the explosion of spambots an indication of a bad economy or a good economy?

[Utkonos]

Well, they work from home. Isn’t that good for the sex workers?

[JesseAz]

Tweets 40 to 43 show it was a consistent policy. By consistent I mean consistently applied rules that were vague and only affected conservatives.

[I, Woodchipper]

dont forget nothingburger

[DaveM]

You need to add a sarcasm flag these days. The truth is just too strange.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"I know this because all the NYT and WaPo “journalists” have told me so."

When will these "journalists" admit they are sycophantic whores who failed at their hopes to be holy warriors? Or just kill themselves?

[JSinAZ]

Once you realize these “journalists” were in fact hired as PR flacks and _all_ the lies and collusion are actually their deliverable product to their employers, all behavior becomes clear.

[tracerv]

^^^

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Talk about infuriating!

While Twitter's opaque and inconsistent policies are undoubtedly enraging, they are a private company's terms of service; ultimately, users can (and should) complain

Complain to Twitter? What is that supposed to accomplish? No, Twitter should be charged with violating their own terms of service, and for false advertising. They like to proclaim they are how people connect and communicate, yet they make that impossible.

Again: Twitter should be able to defend all their moderation actions the instant they are taken. They should be able to respond in court the day an action filed, allowing only for business hours and business days. If they are not ready, then their actions were taken without consideration of their own terms of service and their own marketing claims, and that alone should be enough to lose the court case.

This is not rocket science. It should not take months and years and expensive lawyers.

Yet it does, and that is where the American judicial system is broken. It is why I support making these social media companies into common carriers forbidden from moderating anything that is legal. If they want a rating system to downvote porn, spam, and other posts that are not family friendly, or a curation system which people can follow, fine, I have no problem with that, it is not moderation.

[JesseAz]

I like how Robbie glosses over ToS which is essentially a contract. Inconsistently applied terms for in fact negate the terms of those sections in a contract. They can not be discriminantly applied. Just like trademarks have to be consistently asserted, so do contracts across customers.

I wonder what it will take for Robbie to actually fully realize the issues at hand instead of defending unethical actions. Instead we get fairly light touch articles.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No one at Reason will ever admit the judicial system is broken in the way it makes everything so slow and expensive, unless it's some poor schmuck spending years awaiting trial, and then not if it's for "insurrection"; or some armed robber on death row because his fellow armed robber was shot and killed by their victim.

Economists like to talk about transaction costs and economic friction -- how much does it cost to deal with problems. The friction of waiting years for a civil suit to come to trial, the expensive lawyers -- Reason never wants to discuss that.

Something like Twitter violating their own terms of service, or their marketing being in direct conflict with reality -- these things out to be settled almost on the spot. You should be able to post a bond, get some judge over to Twitter HQ, get some Twitter lawyer into a room, point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency, and get a judgment the same day. If they are not ready to defend their action on the spot, then the action was taken without considering their own rules, and that alone should hold them liable. And if I lose, then I lose my bond, I pay Twitter's lawyer's time and the judge's time, and it's over. But if Twitter loses, then they have to undo their actions and pay all those same costs.

It really is not hard to show what is wrong with "justice" in these cases.

[Old Engineer]

Lawyers are paid by the hour not by the job. They are, essentially, a state enforced union and like all unions their goal is minimum productivity so that more people or hours are needed to get a job done.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Is that like cake-baking?

[BigT]

Class action suit??

[CE]

Twitter's "users" are actually Twitter's content creators. If Twitter was curating their content out of existence, they should have left.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Well, use common sense and say "readers" or "consumers". Twitter's true users are its advertisers, some would say.

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

If it was rocket science Elon would be able to do it easier *cough space x *cough

[Pebar]

stop with the "they're a private company" shit. If they publicly proclaim they are not censoring people, then no they do not have a right to censor people, because doing so is defrauding customers, advertisers, and investors. Private companies do not have a right to commit fraud.

[JesseAz]

They also made the claims they were not doing it to investors and congress.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And the government reserves for itself the right to prosecute, then refuses to prosecute. Victims are left with expensive and slow civil suits, which of course never happen.

[vevixat]

I am currently earning an additional $33,440 over the course of six months from home by utilizing incredibly honest and fluent online sports activities athletics. This domestic hobby provides the month. Given the stats system, I’m currently interacting fast on this hobby’s road and earning OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK

[DaveM]

And, they're no longer acting as a private company when they meet with the government weekly, the government hands them a list of tweets to censor, and they do it. That's still the government doing censorship, something they are absolutely not allowed to do.

[Mike Laursen]

What if they are doing it voluntarily with no coercion going on? Isn’t that their right?

[I, Woodchipper]

you cant possibly be this naive

[JesseAz]

He is indeed dumb. But he is mostly motivated to protect his team.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Why couldn't that be the case?

It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which Twitter leadership voluntarily invites government 'experts' to give advice on the best way to moderate content?

You have to remember, most people don't view government the same way most of us libertarians do, with suspicion and a bit of paranoia. Many tend to view government as staffed with well-meaning public servants who just want to help.

So I think Mike's scenario is plausible. We have no evidence after all that, before 2021, that there was any coercion placed on Twitter to accept the advice of government agencies to moderate content.

[Nobartium]

In which jeffie offers "the road to hell" as a valid excuse for obvious wrongdoing.

[Mike Laursen]

Not so obvious.

[Mother's Lament]

The Federal government was issuing requests to censor people, you disingenuous shit.

What are you trying to pull?

[I, Woodchipper]

^ I'm going to let the childish idiocy of this post speak for itself.

[Mike Laursen]

Their hiring of former FBI counsel, Jim Baker, is evidence they didn’t see themselves as coerced and saw their working with the FBI as a “partnership”.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Mother's Lament]

What the fuck, Mike. Do you realize how fucked up that is?

And again, this isn't about Twitter censoring people, it's about the government telling Twitter to censor people.
But you know that already, don't you, you narrative pushing shill.

No libertarian, even a leftist one, would run cover for what the federal agencies did. like you and Jeff are.

Absolutely fucking disgusting.

[Overt]

There was once a time when lefties complained to the clouds above about the intersection of government and its cronies.

It says a lot that now that its "their" guys in the crony and government spots that there is nothing to see here.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

There was once a time when lefties complained to the clouds above about the intersection of government and its cronies.

A lot of that started coming to an end in the early 80s when the Dems began promoting the "public/private partnership" that's been a keystone of WEF ideology.

[DesigNate]

Pretty sure private enterprise partnering with the government is fascism.

I know that’s what it is called anytime someone icky gets in bed with the government.

[Overt]

They have defined coercion just so, such that they never have to condemn fascism again.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Is it possible for any business to cooperate with any government agency on any level for it not to be considered 'fascism'?

[Overt]

This is ridiculous. Of course it is possible for the government and a business to cooperate.

The government bids out for a good or service within its enumerated powers and pays the corporation to do that thing.

In case you missed it, it is not one of government's enumerated powers to prevent misinformation by silencing speech. So a corporation "cooperating" with the government to do something the government is not empowered to do is fascism.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Okay.
So, the Twitter Files explicitly state that Twitter execs were having meetings with FBI and DHS.

Here are what FBI regards as election crimes within its purview.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/public-corruption/election-crimes

Now, these meetings could have consisted of the FBI telling Twitter "hey, delete these tweets". If that was the case, then that would have been wrong.

But, these meetings could have consisted of Twitter asking the FBI "hey, do you think these tweets constitute election law violations? If so, what should we do about them?" If that was the case, then that would not necessarily have been wrong, IMO.

And regardless of what we libertarians think about election law, the status quo is, that the federal government does have the authority to enforce election law.

The point is, I think we need more information before we start screaming about 'fascism!!!'.

[Overt]

Not a single one of those "crimes" requires the FBI to cooperate with Twitter to silence speech.

The FBI handles crime by investigating whether or not a crime has occurred, pulling together the necessary evidence, and submitting it to a DA who then attempts to convict the person of a crime in a court of law.

None of that requires Twitter's Censorship Czar to meet with them in secret meetings.

[Overt]

“The point is, I think we need more information before we start screaming about ‘fascism!!!’.”

Maybe you should provide more information on what, in your opinion, makes Fascism different than what is happening. Would the economic organization of Fascism *ever* violate libertarian principles? Note, I am not talking about the Nazi stuff like concentration camps and the like. I am specifically talking about a system where private corporations "voluntarily" cooperate with the government to decide economic policy because they are populated with party operatives.

[R Mac]

In case you were in doubt about what Mike Liarson’s role is, his consistent defense of what Twitter and the federal government did, is matched only by his denial that it was happening before it was shown to be true.

No amount of evidence will get him to admit he was wrong. None.

[I, Woodchipper]

My god. Imagine being this person. Mike L you have outdone yourself.

[JesseAz]

It is like the retard leading the retards now that jeff is here. Just ignore all known evidence, this might be the case yells jeff. And it is a good thing! Because it helps Jeff's team.

[Marshal]

the same way most of us libertarians do

I'm always amused when Jeffey pretends to be libertarian.

[Mother's Lament]

I've often said without hyperbole, Jeff is a Nazi.
Everything from his passion for racist racial theories, advocacy of Aktion T4 policies, kirchenkampf, corporatism, censorship, etc. demonstrates this.

[Marshal]

You're saying they voluntarily entered an agreement to censor users at the direction of the federal government? Sounds like a conspiracy to violate users civil rights.

[Mickey Rat]

Like if a company gives a customer's private information voluntarily to law enforcement without a warrant?

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

I believe the term is fraud, which reason is okay with as long as it helps team d

[Bill Godshall]

Twitter wasn't the only media outlet that corrupt partisan deep state Democrats at FBI, CIA, DOJ, DHS, CDC, DHHS & other federal agencies colluded and conspired with to steal the 2020 election from Trump.

I suspect those same partisan deep staters were also contacting and meeting with Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NYT, WaPo and dozens of other media outlets that (like Twitter) have censored and suppressed the speech of conservatives, libertarians, scientists, public health experts and others whose views and facts they disliked.

[Bill Godshall]

Interestingly, today the WSJ removed its reader's comment section, so nobody can post comments about editorials, op/eds or columns.

Hundreds of comments posted by readers were typically as astute or superior to the editorials and op/eds, and was far more interesting and thought provoking than most comments posted here on Reason by several obsessed and highly opinionated trolls.

[SQRLSY One]

"Interestingly, today the WSJ removed its reader’s comment section, so nobody can post comments about editorials, op/eds or columns."

This will happen more and more as Section 230 rights (private property rights of private companies) get eroded by spoiled brats who want only THEIR voices heard! Thanks, ye greedy assholes!

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

§ 230 was "meant" to remove spam and porn. It has been abused to remove "hate speech" and "misinformation", as should be obvious to even you by now, what with these three Twitter dumps.

§ 230 has outlived its usefulness. Turn these companies into common carriers.

[SQRLSY One]

Pass out some free sandwiches to the homeless... And now your fridge and all of its contents are "common carrier"; public property!

[Nardz]

Sure, but we're past the point where laws will fix the problem.

[Overt]

Here's SQRLS to flog the 230 drum. While I agree it would be a mistake to repeal 230, the reason he is bringing it up is because of how uncomfortable it makes him to condemn outright, unethical and fascist government censorship by proxy. So uncomfortable that he will bring up trump 20 times, then hawley, and whatever he can to avoid having to repudiate the people he is sympathetic with.

It is interesting though. While Chemjeff and Mike are running around doing everything in their power to say there is nothing wrong about this stuff, SQRLSY is trying to change the subject. That tells me that even SQRLSY thinks its insane to defend this nonsense. And when you are defending shit that even SQRLSY thinks is insane, well, you should really check yourself.

[R Mac]

“uncomfortable it makes him to condemn outright, unethical and fascist”

Condemning fascism makes him so uncomfortable, that he will frequently advocate for it. As long as it’s being done to the right people.

[SQRLSY One]

Example(s) please. Advocating Section 230 (control of one's own property rights in one's web sites) is now fascist? How so? MeThinks I smell projection!

[SQRLSY One]

The only reason that Twitter got busted is because they had a change in management. Do the mental math... Tomorrow it is revealed (after a change in management THERE) that Parler was censoring liberals and their news links, at the behest of Josh Hawley (and other CONSERVATIVES)! WHERE would your outrage meter be pegged THEN? ... Introspect honestly, and ye shall discover your TRIBALISM!

Techdirt, Parler censors liberals... https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/29/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like/

PS, Overt, I see people agitating against Section 230 here ALL of the time! They are power-lusting, property-rights-destroying FOOLS! I am happy to perform the public service of telling them so!

[Overt]

"Tomorrow it is revealed (after a change in management THERE) that Parler was censoring liberals and their news links, at the behest of Josh Hawley"

They should be condemned fully when that happens. In the meantime, maybe its time to confront the censorship by proxy that is actually known to be happening.

But we get it SQRLS. Those conservatives are BAAAAAD. They so BAAAD that we gotta talk about what they probably are doing. Sure, we just had massive drops of information showing that the liberals are doing the same thing, but we shouldn't talk about that.

PS: Keep changing the subject to 230. No one notices what you are doing. Really.

[SQRLSY One]

"In the meantime, maybe its time to confront the censorship by proxy that is actually known to be happening."

Over many years, I have submitted well-written and punchy guest editorials to hardcopy rags. NONE of them EVER got published!!! I could scream "THIS IS CENSORSHIT" to all listeners far and wide! But I don't waste my breath. I have email, snail-mail, conversations, telephone calls (cellphones), text messages... MORE communications than EVER dreamed of, in past years! And... 1.14 billion web sites on the planet!!! But let's selectively get our panties in a wad, 'cause Twitter didn't cover the Hunter Biden laptop story, while TONS of other sources DID cover it! (And then we'll also ignore Parler's so-called "censorship".) All rather lop-sided and a "tempest in a teapot", it sure seems to me.

As I've mentioned before... Boycott Twitter, and be done with it! I boycott Twitter and Parler and SOOOO many more!

[Overt]

"Over many years, I have submitted well-written and punchy guest editorials to hardcopy rags."

To be clear, this is not what was shown to be happening. This is a straw man.

But let's add this to your list of distractions:
1) We don't want to talk about this so SQRLS will bring up 230.
2) Well if we must talk about this, SQRLS will spend the discussion talking about how bad conservatives are.
3) Well if you are going to make SQRLS talk about the actual liberal work being done here, he'll make up shit rather than talk about what actually happened.

[SQRLSY One]

"This is a straw man."

I told you a TRUTH! A STRAW MAN is putting words in other people's mouth, that they did NOT say, and then burning down the straw man! Learn the terms that other people use!

Straw-man ... an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Red herring ... a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.

The other truth I keep on bringing up? Conservatives like to cry-baby when liberals set up bubbles that exclude them, but they do NOT want to discuss that conservative outfits (like Parler) do the EXACT same thing!

Me NOT pissing and moaning about guest editorials that I have submitted that didn't get published (true) is a near-exact-same case as people ON BOTH SIDES who piss and moan about their posts and links getting banned! Go find another bubble, and quit yer bitchin', is a simple fix!

[Sevo]

Tell the spastic asshole to fuck off and die

[SQRLSY One]

Wow, what a BRILLIANT analysis!

(Pretty good for a brainless, bitter old twat, at least.)

[Overt]

"I told you a TRUTH! A STRAW MAN is putting words in other people’s mouth, that they did NOT say, and then burning down the straw man! Learn the terms that other people use!"

Wrong. This is what you said:

"But let’s selectively get our panties in a wad, ’cause Twitter didn’t cover the Hunter Biden laptop story"

This is a straw man. It is factually wrong. Nobody is complaining that Twitter "didn't cover" the Hunter Biden story. Before we move on, will you admit to that or are you going to deflect and distract with yet another post about Trump or icky conservatives.

Are you capable of articulating what exactly people are complaining about, or do I need to spell it out for you?

[SQRLSY One]

They're complaining about Twitter not liking conservatives, or their posts, or their news links. But they are totally BLIND to Parler doing the exact same things! Twitter got busted because there was a change in management... Parler hasn't had a change in management to reveal their sins (sins, not crimes; I for one do NOT want a theocracy around here!), is the ONLY significant difference here! (Other than tribalism being the other difference... Twitter bad tribe; Parler GOOD tribe!)

[Overt]

"They’re complaining about Twitter not liking conservatives, or their posts, or their news links."

Nope. Let us note that you are now changing the story of what Twitter did. Before it was about "not covering". I'll take that as an admission by you that you were in fact flogging a straw man.

To be clear, nobody is complaining about what Twitter "likes" or doesn't like. So you switched from your previous straw man to a new straw man.

So let's do this again. Are you capable of articulating what exactly people are complaining about, or do I need to spell it out for you?

[SQRLSY One]

They’re complaining about people in media who do NOT do the bidding of Government Almighty officials, NOT getting invited to cocktail parties? Because I have not heard of ONE recent case, here, of such media folks actually getting PUNISHED by Government Almighty officials!

I think that able-bodied people who engage in messy housekeeping are SINNERS (who fall short), not CRIMINALS! So I don’t get my panties in a wad about it (messy houses, that is). Conservatives, here, want us to get our panties bunched up over Twitter and not Parler… And that some of us are focusing more on CRIMES and not on SINS, really bothers some conservatives!

How many guesses do I get?

[Overt]

“They’re complaining about people in media who do NOT do the bidding of Government Almighty officials, NOT getting invited to cocktail parties?”

Strike 3. You have had 3 opportunities to accurately describe the complaints against Twitter, and in all three opportunities you chose to make up a caricatured, mocking description of their point.

It is amazing to me that you think you are actually a voice of rationality or reason in these comments when you cannot even fairly summarize the arguments of the opponents you seek to dismiss.

Maybe, just maybe, you could use this as a moment of introspection. Maybe the reason you cannot see eye to eye with others on this board is that you aren’t bothering to understand the arguments they make. Maybe this leads you to argue against the strawmen in your head, and maybe this is why so many people find your rants to be insane and detached from reality.

[SQRLSY One]

"...so many people find your rants to be insane and detached from reality."

I, unlike many, can smell TRIBALISM when it pollutes my nostrils! Tribalism is bad enough, by itself, but when compounded with "do-gooder derogation", it leads to KILLING those who speak the truth! WHY do you think that they killed Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK Junior? Because... They denounced tribalism and self-righteousness! In the modern day, I have my anonymity, so at least I can speak the truth without getting killed for my troubles! If you have an open mind, read and heed... http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ as most directly relevant, and, for the "bigger picture", http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ ... Jesus was right! And self-righteous tribalists were, and are, WRONG! Before ye pick the speck out of your brother's eye, take the LOG out of your own!

[Overt]

“I, unlike many, can smell TRIBALISM when it pollutes my nostrils!”

And like many, you think your farts don’t stink.

Tribe Red: SQRLS can't even be bothered to get their argument right before mocking and dismissing them.
Tribe Blue: SQRLS thinks its the height of lunacy to talk about the evidence of them caught red handed doing something wrong. For some reason it is much more important to talk about Tribe Red.

Your tribalism is obvious to anyone who reads this thread. It was on display just now as I gave you three opportunities to state the “Other Tribe’s” argument. You couldn’t do it. Because they are the wrong Tribe for you- not worthy of even honest disagreement, let alone the hand waving and air cover you give to the Tribe you identify with.

Again, a moment of honest introspection on your part might make this clear to you. But then again, I might be overestimating your capacity to do anything but project. *shrug*

[SQRLSY One]

"It was on display just now as I gave you three opportunities to state the “Other Tribe’s” argument."

All tribes (except the tribe of the truly enlightened) believe that “My tribe GOOD, your tribe BAD, my violence GOOD, your violence BAD”... And then it turns into “My Tribe’s Holy Lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD; your tribe’s evil lies leading to violence against My Tribe BAD”.

Thus has it always been... And so it still is today!

So put in "Team R" v/s "Team D", freely substituted either way, above, and THAT is YOUR position, as well as fanatics on "Team D"! If you can NOT see it, then YOU are part of the problem, and NOT a part of the solution!

For all ideological hard-core warmongers everywhere…

So ye lust after the utter, eternal destruction of the “D” team, and the eternal victory of the “R” team? (The inverse kind of ideological idiot exists also, but not so much, on these pages = specifically where I sometimes comment, at https://reason.com/latest/ ).

“R” team likes to demonize “D” team? Biden is going to outlaw the internal combustion engine, tomorrow, to “Make American Green Again”? The NEW MAGA? Bullshit, demonizers!

“D” team likes to say that the next “R” POTUS (Alex Jones maybe?) will outlaw ALL abortion, and birth control? And turn ALL women into enslaved baby-making machines, because every sperm is sacred? Bullshit, demonizers!

All is for The Hive… The Tribe-Nation… Or, All is for the Individual, and you may NOT (of your own supposed “free will”) join a VOLUNTARY commune?! There can be NO compromise, traitors!!!

The males must UTTERLY DEFEAT the females, who must NEVER speak again!

Yin must smash Yang, till Yang exists no more!

Creation must smash destruction! NO eggs may be broken, for making omelets!

Life must rule over death, and NO ONE may die, to make room for the new living! No matter HOW old and decrepit they get! YOU MAY NOT DIE!!!

Do you ideological idiots NOT see that “R” v/s “D” falls into the same category? You would destroy it ALL (multi-party democracy, “balance”) in the name of your POWER PIG FANTASIES!!!

The ONLY way that ye will get your “ultimate victory” is in the DEATH OF IT ALL!!! The new POTUS, Alex Jones, will declare Nuclear War for the Ultimate Victory… And yin and yang, male and female, “D” and “R”, individual v/s tribe… they all ARE NO MORE!!!

Are you HAPPY now, ideological idiots and power-lusters?!!?

[SQRLSY One]

Twitter sucks? Go to Parler! Choose your bubble!

Brandybuck made an excellent post the other day... Started a short exchange. Good stuff! See below...

Brandybuck

My only criticism of social media algorithms is that it leads to bubbles. But that’s me, everyone else LIKES the bubbles. The complaints aren’t about bubbles, but that other bubbles exist. People don’t like that there isn’t a person in charge they can write to demanding their views be given priority. Conservatives are mad that progressives aren’t seeing their posts, and progressives are mad that conservatives aren’t being fed their lies.
Or you have conservatives angry that some progressive posts are making it through their bubble, but the algorithm sees that these folk like arguing back against the progressives. Or you have progressives angry that some conservative posts are making it through their bubble, but the algorithm sees that these folk like arguing back against the conservatives. But they are getting what they want. Stop responding to posts you don’t like. Stop forwarding their crap along. All that does is tell the algorithm that you like that stuff.
Revealed preferences. Angry people want stuff to be angry about, and the algorithm will accommodate them. They want to be validated that progressives are destroying the country, so they get fed validation. Ditto for those certain that conservatives are promoted fake news, they get fed the fake news that validates them.
The problem isn’t that there are algorithms designed to deliver personalized content, the problem is that people just haven’t learned to live with impartially personalized content. They spent their lives with curated content from people in news departments, or political leaders telling them how to think, or some other human being with a bias curating biased content just for them.
Note that I am NOT claiming that the algorithm is perfect. Not at all. I am merely claiming that it’s doing what it was ostensibly designed to do: deliver personalized content based on the user’s demonstrated preferences. I would tune it differently, but the idea that it was designed to be “progressive” or “conservative” is utter bullshit. The algorithm is agnostic.

SQRLSY One EXCELLENT mini-essay there Brandybuck!!! People want contradictory things (incompatible with one another).
I for one, want to be the Catholic Pope, AND a famous porn star!
Bob Seger, He wants to live like a sailor at sea…
He wants his home and security
He wants to live like a sailor at sea
Beautiful loser, where you gonna fall?
You realize you just can’t have it all…

1. Dillinger
substitute prostitute for p0rn star and you can probably pull it off.

SQRLSY One:
Whoa, why did I not think of that?!?! I’ll give it a try… Thanks! Excellent, VERY deductive, seductive, suggestive suggestion! Good for my digestion!
(I am a ho of the mo of the bro, and can rap my head around shit all around the hood, ass I should!)

[Overt]

Oh and on to phase 4:

4) SQRLS doesn't want to talk about how liberals were actively working with government to engage in censorship by proxy, so instead we should just all agree that the industry of social media is a problem.

You will do anything but agree that these very specific people (whom you sympathize with) were doing something unethical and helping the government engage in unconstitutional violations of free speech.

Feel free to make those arguments, but I am going to call it out every time. It is the sort of disingenuous hackery you accuse your opponents of all the time.

[SQRLSY One]

"...and helping the government engage in unconstitutional violations of free speech."

Government Almighty never punished anyone with jails or fines. No one has any "standing", then, to say that their rights were violated. Just a bunch of cry-babying! When your real and substantial rights DO get violated, take it to court!

[Overt]

"Government Almighty never punished anyone with jails or fines."

This is a strawman argument. I did not say that the government punished people with jails or fines. I said twitter was engaged in censorship by proxy. Governments can engage in censorship by proxy without actual jailing or fines. They can threaten or induce the same behavior without actually jailing anyone.

But you know this. I addressed this canard from you several days ago, and for some reason you are bringing it up as a distraction once again.

Once again we see you squirming and squirming because it makes you uncomfortable to admit to two facts:

1) That we now have the records of actual companies engaging in censorship by proxy for the Biden Administration. Not for Trump. Not for Hawley. As much as you want to insist that it is happening (and it may be) the evidence at hand is between liberals.

2) Censorship by Proxy aside, the facts at hand show that Twitter executives were engaged in unethical, partisan behavior, violating their own corporate policies in order to interfere with the 2020 election.

Those are facts on the record. And your own behavior really indicates why you are afraid to admit them. You have accused me of riling up the stupid people by stating those facts. You think those stupid people will do things you don't like. In other words, you share the same exact mindset of the people who were engaged in unethical behavior at twitter. You think you know what facts people should consider. And you would rather be intellectually dishonest to shove these facts to the side rather than integrate them into the discussion.

[SQRLSY One]

Integrate BOTH SIDES into your discussion, please! Parler... And Trump!

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-social-media-after-twitter-adds-warning-on-his-twee

Trump Threatens To Shut Down Social Media After Twitter Adds Warning To His Tweets

Politicians are power pigs. Bears shit in the woods. But I am only going to yell at the bears that I find to be ugly, for this, and ignore the good-looking bears!

[Overt]

At least you have admitted that you find the Twitter execs and Biden Administration to be the bears you'd like to fuck. It only took three weeks for you to do it.

And of course, this is why arguing with you is pointless. You don't want to find common ground, unless the common ground is that we shouldn't worry about Lefty malfeasance RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

[SQRLSY One]

Arguing with you is pointless, since you can see the sins (not crimes, sins, there is a difference) of the WRONG tribe, and not of YOUR tribe! It is THAT simple!

Go ye and study the "parable of the good Samaritan", and commentary about it, and ye will see that the sins of the Samaritans were ALL wrapped up in their belonging to the WRONG tribe, and the WRONG rituals and magical beliefs, and it all had exactly NOTHING to do with loving your fellow humanoids!

[Overt]

"Arguing with you is pointless, since you can see the sins (not crimes, sins, there is a difference)"

Look, SQRLS now creates a strawman of my argument.

For the record, censorship by proxy is unconstitutional. We can quibble over whether or not it is a crime for Twitter Executives to conspire to engage in unconstitutional acts by the government. Or whether it is a crime for government administrators to engage in violations of the constitution. But I never actually said "crime"

I said that what Twitter was doing is unethical. And it is. And rather than admit that, you want to accuse me of Tribalism. Who do you think you are kidding, SQRLS. Only you are the one bending over backwards to talk about ANYTHING but the malfeasance of Tribe Blue. That's on you.

And for some reason you think that every time you try to change the subject and distract from that fact, I won't point it out for any reader on this dead thread. *shrug* Keep trying and I'll keep pointing it out.

[SQRLSY One]

"For the record, censorship by proxy is unconstitutional."

Parler censors liberal would-be posters, acting as a proxy agent for all of their conservative participants who do NOT want their bubble penetrated by members of the enemy tribe! AND the local Church won't let me take over their podium! The minister is playing proxy-powers for the parishioners! WHERE is your OUTRAGE? Let them all, right, left, and center, indulge in their own bubble baths, if they so desire! I shun both Parler and Twitter (and FacePoooo, and more), as I have often stated. Am I then a "tribalist" for saying these things?

[Overt]

"Parler censors liberal would-be posters, acting as a proxy agent for all of their conservative participants who do NOT want their bubble penetrated by members of the enemy tribe!"

Look everybody. SQRLS demonstrates once again that he wants to talk about anything but the unconstitutional censorship by proxy performed by the Biden administration, and the unethical partisan behavior of Twitter Execs. Again. For the 20th time.

It kills SQRLSY to think that people will think his Tribe did something wrong. So once again SQRLSY changes the subject.

Keep changing that subject, SQRLS. I am sure that on the 21st time people will suddenly think that you aren't being a tribalist.

"Am I then a “tribalist” for saying these things?"

No you are a tribalist for saying "Let's not talk about Tribe Blue. I know this news story is about something Tribe Blue did, but lets talk about something other than current news! I want to talk about Tribe Red. Evil Evil Evil Tribe Red. Why, Tribe Red does thing A wrong and Thing B. And by the way Orange Man, the Red? He's really bad. Isn't he?"

That's what makes you a tribalist.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Not on the WSJ I see.

[Bill Godshall]

Not sure what happened, but many posted comments now appear on my WSJ editorials and op/eds.

Don't know why none of the comments appeared during the past three hours.

[CindyF]

WSJ censors have gotten to point that they delete almost any comment that is critical of any democrat, the media (same thing), and especially Joe Biden himself. The newspaper used to be pretty non-partisan, but that ship has sailed and now they are just part of the mockingbird media.

Their fluffy articles on Sam Bankman-Fried (But, he is a philanthropist!) have been pretty sickening.

[Super Scary]

"I suspect those same partisan deep staters were also contacting and meeting with Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NYT, WaPo and dozens of other media outlets that (like Twitter) "

Well, none of those are owned by the Bad Electric Car Man, who fell out of vogue with the democrats, so those companies aren't being scrutinized as much as they should be.

[CE]

Except they didn't really need to meet with MSNBC and PBS and WaPo and NYT, because they are all in goose step synchronized agreement anyway.

[Nardz]

It's safe to assume what was going on at Twitter was going on at all tech and media companies, to the same or greater extent.
Google was run for years by Eric Schmidt, a longtime cabal operative who headed up the Arab Spring organization. Even if he is no longer CEO, the cabal wouldn't let that power out of their control.
You think Musk buying Twitter caused a meltdown? It would be a minor reaction in comparison to the prospect of the cabal losing control of Google, or even Facebook (due to Facebook's other tech).
Neither will be allowed to happen.
Indeed the surprising thing about the Twitter files is that Musk was allowed to buy the company and reveal this information at all. That has rather terrible implications. They have such little respect for, and little fear of, the people that they found the revelation of misdeeds that would cause revolution in any other time ultimately acceptable.
Think about that.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Yes, it’s amazing that we even see this much. What’s hidden in the depths of Google and Facebook is probably even worse.

[Cyto]

Schmidt founded a company called "The Groundwork" for the 2008 election. They bragged about how much of an advantage it would be for democrats... it is designed to tie in to the back end of all of the tech companies for the purpose of shaping messaging for the democrats.

It was specifically touted for HRC, but it is the nexus of collusion between big tech and the DNC.

[Cyto]

https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign

[Nardz]

^

[JesseAz]

This is the lightest attack against corporate fascism o have ever seen.

Note the tenor Reason uses against people like Orban compared to this or the ignoring of far worse government censorship in the Ukraine.

[MarthaTurner]

I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do, .for more information simply.

Open this link thank you................>>> onlinecareer1

[JesseAz]

Can't wait for Jeff's rationalization of this dump for why this is good.

Also his continued claims if you're against distribution of child porn you're pro censorship. Ignore the victim of the action and illegality or the fact it is different that advocating for child porn. If you're against people posting images of children nude or in sexual situations you're pro censorship.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, Jesse, let's see.

Definition of censorship:
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+censorship

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Yup, that includes possession of child pornography.

The *creation* of child porn has a victim. The *possession* does not.

If you’re against people posting images of children nude or in sexual situations you’re pro censorship.

Correction:
If you are in favor of making it illegal to possess child pornography, you're pro-censorship, in this one area.

And I can totally believe that Jesse is in favor of this position. But hey, maybe he is pro-child-porn? If so maybe he should clarify his position.

And if you don't even want to go into child porn, simply imagine the case of an unwanted guest on your private property. Should the private property owner have the right to legally kick out, i.e., SILENCE, that individual, from the property? If so, then you're also in favor of censorship. And I'm willing to bet Jesse is in favor of this too.

But Jesse will never admit any of this because he wants the IMAGE of being "anti-censorship" while still surreptitiously supporting some censorship of his own. He just doesn't call it "censorship" when HE supports it.

[JesseAz]

I see you’re now changing definitions. Prior it was distribution of porn which is in fact a crime. It is not a victimless one either.

Youre also too stupid to understand censorship doesn't occur from owning or saying something, but a distributor of something. This is why you ignorantly tried to change your stance again. It is laughable how stupid you are, yet so determined to advocate for child porn.

We get it jeff. You want to see naked children. You can advocate for it. But you can’t pass it around. It is a crime. Just like it is if you put an offer out seeking a hitman. These are crimes. Being against crimes is not being for censorship. Your pretending it is so you can advocate for child porn while defending your teams true acts of censorship of thoughts and belief is telling. Your rationalization that your stance is libertarian is even more appalling.

You are truly a disgusting pedophile.

[JesseAz]

The sad thing is I don't think heff even realizes how disgusting it is to first advocate for allowing the distribution of child porn and then attack those against this distribution as being for censorship.

He literally is equating the distribution of child porn as to being equal to conservatives speaking publicly.

[R Mac]

Jeffy has literally tripled down on fucking children being speech. I really hope his neighbors that have children keep their distance.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

fucking children being speech

I never said that, and you are a liar for claiming that I said that.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Prior it was distribution of porn which is in fact a crime. It is not a victimless one either.

What’s the difference? And who’s the victim?

The victim is created when the pornography is created in the first place. Passing around an image of a crime does not create a new victim.

What you’re saying is that passing around an image of a murder scene itself creates a victim. That’s silly.

I am in favor of making distribution and possession of child pornography a crime. I said so at least two days ago.

https://reason.com/2022/12/09/bari-weiss-twitter-files-elon-musk-blacklist-shadow-banning/?comments=true#comment-9830402

And I am also honest enough to admit that it is for unlibertarian, fundamentally utilitarian reasons: because child pornography is such a horrible crime, if possession of child porn were to be legalized, its theoretical value to increasing liberty is not worth the tremendous cost.

Now here’s a guy who disagrees with both you and me on this subject. Perhaps you’d like to take up your disagreement with him.

https://reason.com/2022/12/09/this-principal-investigated-a-sexting-incident-so-the-police-charged-him-with-possessing-child-porn/?comments=true#comment-9829803

But of course you won’t, because he is on your tribe.

You are a fundamentally dishonest and stupid person who wants to maintain an image of being “against censorship” when you continue to favor censorship in one context after another, just calling it something else so as to maintain your faux image.

[Mother's Lament]

Sexual assault isn't speech no matter how hard you lie about it, Jeff.

You really are a fucking monster.

[Mike Laursen]

I do like Elon Musk’s latest idea of making account and tweet flags transparent.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"Law enforcement officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) met regularly with top content moderators at Twitter during the 2020 presidential election"

Did they have any choice? How else could they do their part to defeat Trump and save democracy? Something about how the Constitution is not a suicide pact, right?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yeah more weak tea from Robbie. The Biden regime was openly bragging about it's social media censorship months ago while Reason continued to defend "private companies". Now Robbie thinks maybe, just maybe, we should be concerned. The MSM and the dominant social media outlets have been straightforwardly disseminating government propaganda from at least 2016 in many cases using identical talking points. But Reason not only ignored this fact they carried water for the regime.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Too much hair gel?

[JasonAZ]

"But Reason not only ignored this fact they carried water for the regime."

This.

This is why I call out Reason Editors as far left progressives. They carry water for their allies. If they weren't allies, they'd stand against it.

[Laura Sandoval]

Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)

HERE====)> http://www.worksclick.com

[Longtobefree]

"Is it proper for agents of the state to encourage private entities to suppress misinformation . . . "

It worked for Goebbels; for a while.

[Mike Laursen]

Are everyone’s ears burning? They’re talking about us, guys!

https://twitter.com/enbrown/status/1601256561086988289?s=46&t=THMSp-mfpOQXMrqbr0ekOw

“Reason commenters make up a very small percentage of our readership, and are largely people who hate everyone on staff and all of our work, on any subject. They’re in now way representative of ‘libertarian audiences’ overall”

She’s pretty accurate in her assessment, by the way.

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

Maybe I should stop mocking her assertion that Twitter is imploding. Because that makes her complain about how mean I am ....... on Twitter.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Somebody is auditioning for a government job.

[CE]

More like a mainstream media job. So pretty much the same thing.

[Mother's Lament]

She really, really wants to be with the Atlantic or NYT. Every post she makes is an audition.

[Minadin]

Guy was talking about YouTube comments being largely negative on their 'destigmatize whoring' video.

[I, Woodchipper]

as they should be

[Marshal]

She’s pretty accurate in her assessment,

In reality it's a stupid assessment. she pretends disagreement is blanket hatred because that characterization allows her to dismiss it rather than acknowledge many libertarians disagree with her opinions.

[JesseAz]

People like ENB and Mike are so uneducated and unable to form a coherent backing if their views they switch to moral arguments instead so they don't have to confront the weakness of their own views. It is why Mike for instance relies so heavily on the mute function.

[Marshal]

This is how people end up out of touch. It's amusing when people who recognize this in others nevertheless do it themselves.

[R Mac]

Note Shreeka showed up to claim that she was unpopular here because of her skin color.

[DesigNate]

Hahahahaha, yeah, it has nothing to do with calling anyone with the slightest trepidation of completely open borders a xenophobe.

[Nardz]

ENB should be hated. She's a propagandist for malevolent totalitarians.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Also, with an echo of the old Soviet adage about work and pay, Reason can pretend to represent libertarian values as long as readers can pretend to agree.

[JesseAz]

By libertarian audience she means leftist democrats cosplaying as a libertarian. She is fully inundated into thought bubbles as demonstrated by the sources of her round up articles.

She is a leftist that latched onto free sex and then claims to be independent and a libertarian.

She is like Liz cheny declaring herself widely supported by conservatives.

[CE]

If your most libertarian readers take objection to your ostensibly libertarian writers on your ostensibly libertarian website, maybe the problem isn't with those readers.....

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Bingo. I’ve read since the 90s, and this is not the Reason that existed then, nor the Reason from the early 2010s. It’s a progressive shadow of itself.

[Mike Laursen]

Let me know when you see a situation like that. Around here, its conservative commenters criticizing Reason.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

They only appear conservative if you’re so far left you’re a fascist progressive.

[JesseAz]

Reminder. Mike and others are free to call everyone conservative or right wing but don't dare call them leftists.

[DesigNate]

Yep, only conservatives who voted for Trump complain about the lack of libertarian view points in the articles.

[Mother's Lament]

Plenty of left libertarians criticize Reason too. However, the Reasonistas are just like you, they're establishment mouthpieces who will soft peddle censorship to fit in with their peers.

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

That's because the commenters are libritarian

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

Perhaps it's because she thinks vox slate mother Jones and jacobian are libritarian publications

[CindyF]

Oh! I bet she considers criticism of her articles to be hate speech. Isn't she the writer that has only two viewpoints? One, is that everyone in the world should be able to cross the border into the U.S. without questioning, and the other is that women should be able to have sex whenever they wish, and charge whatever sum they desire, without suffering any consequences for their actions. Oh, and that men are the cause of all the problems in the world.

Hey, how many Reason writers have quit their job and moved out of their home in order to give that job and home to an illegal alien? Still zero? Humpf, who would have thought?

[Cyto]

She isn't talking about us. She is talking about me.

I don't hate you, Liz. I love reason. It has been important to me since long before you joined the staff.

I love libertarianism.

I do hate that the voice of libertarians is subservient to partisan politics now. Worse, I am embarrassed that you guys cannot see it. Talk to Kmele Foster privately. He will explain it to you.

Reason should be Balko taking on Hayne and West. Reason should be Postrel going on a free speech screed. Reason should be the voice that stands in opposition to foreign military excursions.

What Reason should not be is the loyal voice of the DNC, defending this current excreble administration. Reason should never stand with authoritarian propagandists, whether they be corporate or government.

That reason has spent most of a decade explaining that it is perfectly fine that a cabal of corporate insiders and government officials and politicians deciding what can and cannot be talked about in the national conversation is inexcusable. I don't care who is patting you on the back for it, there is not much that I can think of that is more anti-libertarian than this.

[soldiermedic76]

I came here in 2001 as a die in the wool, conservative both socially and fiscally conservative and a hawk. I defended Bush, Gitmo, Patriot Act etc. I bought the bullshit. Reason, and mostly the comments, broadened my mind. I didn't vote for Trump and wish he would go away (I would say something stronger but I try and be a good Christian). Reason is only a shadow of what it was when I first came here. The comment section, too. Back then people discussed philosophy and history and economics, but then around 2015 or so, it went sharply downhill. You could see it start around 2008, maybe 2006. But it was less pronounced. People like Mike and ENB and so many others are not anything like what it was two decades ago. They're sad parodies of what it once was. It actually converted this Bush Republican to a more Paul Republican back then. Today, I find myself angered and reflexively arguing views I rejected over a decade ago because of the leftward lurch of the writers, and their pure lack of talent, intellectual honesty, plus their tendency to misrepresent facts to frame the issues. It's no better now than any other media site, just as biased (and all to often that bias isn't towards liberty except a very disfigured form of liberty), just as partisan, just as close minded, echo chamber as all the rest.

[soldiermedic76]

The writers are mostly hacks, who no longer report and persuade, but preach, dissemble and demagogue.

[Nardz]

Liberty is lost, dude.
We live in the totalitarian USSA now.

[Overt]

I am pretty much in the same boat. I also was a Reason Foundation Torchbearer until this year. But I can't do it any more.

I do think, if you take a step back and look at it honestly, they have been quite critical of the Biden administration.

But, as you say, almost everything they do is framed by their blue-bubble proclivities- and that is most stridently apparent when you look at ENB. FFS this is an author who actually argued against allowing Ohio teachers to cary guns for self defense. She spent 2 months shitting on Musk and his attempts to promote freedom of expression in the private sphere. Choose an issue and her first instinct is to go look at what Blue Check Twitteratti are saying about it.

Even ENB's screed above that got us started is emblematic of Reason's problems. If you think sex-work and Drugs should be decriminalized, but discouraged by society, these Thick Libertarians think you are icky and not welcome inside the tent. It isn't enough to tolerate these things, she wants you to be socially acceptable as well. And that's how she finds herself praying for the failure of people like Musk. You would think that BASIC foundations of Reason and civil discussion like "Free Expression" would trump her blue bubble values. But nope- she wants nothing to do with people who decline to celebrate sex work and drug use, and so screw Free Expression.

I honestly think that the main problem is KMW. She has a hard job managing an online presence in a very competitive market. But she has largely failed, relying on TRUMP! articles and very misleading headlines to drive traffic. If you look at even decent articles, it is the headlines that get them started incorrectly. That's all on KMW or whomever she has empowered to do that stuff.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

If you think sex-work and Drugs should be decriminalized, but discouraged by society, these Thick Libertarians think you are icky and not welcome inside the tent.

Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is declaring that acceptance of sex work as socially normative ought to be a defining purity test for libertarianism. She is making her case that it ought to be socially normalized. You and others are making their cases. Let's all make our cases. ALL of them start from the premise that sex work ought to be decriminalized, if not completely legalized, so that by itself means it is more libertarian than the status quo.

[R Mac]

Ok Dreidel Jeffy.

[Overt]

"I don’t think anyone is declaring that acceptance of sex work as socially normative ought to be a defining purity test for libertarianism."

No one said it was a purity test for libertarianism. I said that Thick Libertarians don't want these people inside their tent. If you believe that sex-work should be decriminalized but condemned morally, they don't want you part of the argument.

For another example, look no further than all the hand wringing people have made about the Mises Caucus. The Rothbardians in general believe that as long as force isn't involved, people should be left to associate how they please- even if they are associating for the wrong reasons. This might result in a person going to an astrologer for love advice or a racist or homophobe declining to contract with a person different from them.

The Thick Libertarians are on record being unwilling to accept that. They want more, which is why they objected to the Mises crew pulling the "we condemn all bigotry" line from the plank. It isn't enough to say "don't use force." They also want, "And don't be a racist." ENB has repeatedly called out that she laments the Ron Paul revolution specifically because it brought (in her words) racists into the libertarian party.

I think there is a lot of interesting ground to be discussed here, by the way. The problem is that too many Reason editors, and KMW in particular, just assume that their social proclivities are the final word on proper libertarian thought. Which leads them to side with Liberals instead of libertarians precisely because they are icky conservatives that do not share their moral proclivities.

[soldiermedic76]

Yeah, I've noticed several "libertarians" as of late who have moved beyond legal, to full on forced acceptance. One of them is the gray box that just replied to you, and several are writers. It's not enough to say "you do you" anymore for them, they now want me to also celebrate too and if I don't I'm the enemy. You see it in any debate on the alphabet soup, that is now human sexuality (I'm wondering with the increasing number of categories at what point do heterosexuals start to become the minority, because the more categories for sexual preference you create the more people will end up in one of those categories, because sexuality and preference is unique to each individual), abortion and increasingly freedom of speech.

[Marshal]

Dictates from law enforcement, on the other hand, are absolutely matters of public policy. Is it proper for agents of the state to encourage private entities to suppress misinformation, even as national political figures excoriate these entities for not moderating more aggressively? The First Amendment might have something to say about that.

In addition to first amendment concerns we need to ask why law enforcement is involving itself in campaign matters at all. Have we now accepted the government agencies will openly perform campaign services for Democrats? Not only is this specifically illegal but it seems we've transitioned from the left media screaming that this should never happen to treating it as appropriate without ever mentioning the transition.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

This may be the winning comment of the thread. Thank you.

[Mike Laursen]

No, this is:

https://reason.com/2022/12/10/dhs-fbi-twitter-files-misinformation-matti-taibbi-yoel-roth/?comments=true#comment-9831483

[JesseAz]

This is just sad.

[Mother's Lament]

There's nothing there, White Mike.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Robby Soave ever makes the big leagues, I hope a professional helps him learn the meaning of "dictates."

Carry on, disaffected clingers and no-count culture war casualties.

[CE]

No worries, it's Elon Musk's private company now.

[I, Woodchipper]

And the howls of outrage will be all about what twitter is NOT censoring anymore.

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

Maybe if Robby graduates from Harvard Law like you he can deliver analysis comparable to your best work: "I wouldn’t mind seeing Judge Barrett confirmed, if only because I believe it would precipitate the installation of four new, better justices during the first half of 2021."

Yikes. What an embarrassing whiff. 🙁

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

While we're on the subject of Harvard Law people and their humiliating failed predictions, here's "Cyberlaw Clinic Clinical Instructor" Alejandra Caraballo on Nov. 17: "I don't think Twitter will last through the weekend. Twitter is restricting employee access to all its buildings through the weekend with no reason given ... Critical engineers in roles that simply keep this site running and keep the lights on all resigned. I can't see how this can last beyond a few days ... Since this site is likely about to collapse imminently, here are my other socials ... Payroll, tax, SRE, Twitter Blue teams all gone. The end is nigh."

Do you think this hysterical idiocy devalues your Harvard Law degree, Art?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

That didn't age well.

[JesseAz]

To be fair. If you follow others of our intellectual betters, the internet doesn't even exist. Ask 90s era Krugman.

[R Mac]

Be fair, Krugman didn’t say the internet wouldn’t exist, he just said it’d be as influential as the fax machine.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Obviously. I have younger employees asking “what’s a fax machine?”.

[CindyF]

When a company gets rid of two-thirds of their work-force and the company works better than ever, one gets the feeling that most of those employees spent most of their time at the wine bar.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republican bigots, superstitious right-wing slack-jaws, and half-educated conservative culture war casualties dodged Supreme Court enlargement because two senators -- Manchin (D-Hooterville) and Sinema (I-Space Cadet) -- were contrarians.

When Democrats have the votes -- and they will, because America becomes less white, less bigoted, less rural, less religious, and less backward every day -- the Court seems destined to be enlarged. A few new states also are likely. Enlarging the House, which is long overdue, also would diminish the structural amplification of bigoted hayseed votes.

Getting your bigoted, worthless asses kicked in the culture war will continue to have consequences, clingers. Open wider, assholes, because your betters will be shoving even more progress down your whining, whimpering, powerless throats.

As always, your compliance with the preferences of your betters is appreciated. This is a free country, so clingers get to cry about it as much as they like.

Until replacement, that is.

[Mother's Lament]

Somehow Kirkland thinks that talking like a 17th century French aristocrat is a winning formula on an ostensibly libertarian website.

[DesigNate]

This is the homophobic sophomore level bullshit I expect out of you, Artie. I was starting to think you were just another failed parody.

[Sevo]

Asshole bigot is a failed human being.

[DesigNate]

Is this one of the commenters you like ENB? He’s totes libertarian!

[CE]

How is an election supposed to be free and fair if people can just say whatever they want?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Thank you. Insisting that elections be free and fair is racist hate speech.

[Mike Laursen]

The right to not say something you do not want to say is also an important aspect of the First Amendment.

[JesseAz]

Government not asking corporations to censor at their behest is a fundamental aspect of the first amendment.

You seem really upset that people you disagree with can talk now.

[Aloysious]

[Mike Laursen]

Well said.

[Mother's Lament]

Lol

[Utkonos]

Move the reply button

[R Mac]

Oops.

[I, Woodchipper]

While Twitter’s opaque and inconsistent policies are undoubtedly enraging, they are a private company’s terms of service;

No leftist actually believes this. not a single one. They do not for a minute believe that Twitter is just a private company that can do whatever it wants.

Flip the sides and imagine a world where Twitter was banning drag queens and doctors who support 'gender affirming' care. You know exactly what the lefty stance on 'private company' would be.

[Nardz]

There are no rules (or principles); only weapons.

[CE]

Three Harvard professors agree on some of the biggest threats to democracy:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/11/where-are-we-going-america/

They can obstruct things or even control court appointments through the Senate with a third or less of the American population...

The US Senate
The Electoral College
The US Constitution
people who suspect that election results might not be accurate
people who use violence or the threat of violence to force political change (but only if they're conservatives)

[I, Woodchipper]

just say 'counterrevolutionaries' and cut to the chase, commies.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Kulaks!

Oh, and fuck Harvard.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Better Americans will continue to settle for Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Columbia, Wellesley, and essentially all of America's strongest schools, which are operated by and in the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

Conservatives, meanwhile, will continue to control a bunch of slack-jawed, fourth-tier yahoo factories, such as Wheaton, Grove City, Regent, Liberty, Ouachita Baptist, Ozarks, Biola, Hillsdalw, Dallas, Ave Maria, and every other shit-rate school operated by superstitious, gullible, obsolete, right-wing culture war casualties.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

"Better" Americans, Artie? Or just rich and well-connected to clout, graft, and corruption?

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

Twitter obviously welcomed federal agencies assistance. Citizens United protects their right to any type speech or shaping of speech they aspire to. They own the bullhorn and don't have to loan it out.

The only way conservatives have a good argument is if Twitter had resisted federal input and had been coerced into selective suppression. In that case they would have pursued a legal remedy.

Twitter's rights are of first and foremost importance here. After all Willard Romney himself said "Corporations are people too, my friend".

[TJJ2000]

Good grief UR a F’EN moron…. And why do you think Twitter would seek federal agency assistance? What is the purpose of that? Think for a change………………………………

It’s leftards like you pulling bunnies out of your hats and encouraging Nazism that is destroying the USA… Please export your vote from this nation.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And why do you think Twitter would seek federal agency assistance?

Because a lot of people don't view government in the same way we libertarians view it, with suspicion. A lot of people view government agencies as staffed with well-meaning public servants who just want to help.

[JesseAz]

I swear you get more authoritarian by the day, which I didn't think possible. Government censorship of ideas is never a good thing, yet here you advocate for them to be the arbiter of information.

At least you've stopped pretending to be an actual libertarian. So thank you for that.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Jesse's sleight-of-hand at work:

Me: I understand their point of view.
Jesse: You advocate for their point of view.

They are different claims. Jesse hopes you won't notice.

[Utkonos]

You know who else got more authoritarian by the day?

[R Mac]

Lefty Jeffy?

[Mother's Lament]

"We libertarians"

Lol, you're not tricking anyone. No libertarian left, right or center would advocate the things you do.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Twitter obviously welcomed federal agencies assistance.

This seems like the most plausible interpretation to me as well. They did not want to be accused (again) of "throwing" the election one way or another by permitting the proliferation of "misinformation", so they got input from "experts" on what they should do to moderate content.

[I, Woodchipper]

LOL imagine turning down the federal assistance....

Not a single tech company is willing to do so why do you think that is?

HINT: mafia

[chemjeff radical individualist]

As of right now we don't know who initiated the "partnership".

There are three hypotheses:
1. Twitter took the first steps to initiate the partnership with FBI/DHS for advice with content moderation, and the government willingly accepted.
2. The government took the first steps to initiate a voluntary partnership with Twitter to offer advice on content moderation, and Twitter voluntarily accepted.
3. The government forcibly coerced Twitter to take their advice on content moderation, and Twitter had no choice but to accept.

Nothing in The Twitter Files either proves or disproves any one of these three hypotheses.

[I, Woodchipper]

incredible that you think this is a valid argument instead of a semantic shell game.

[JesseAz]

And Jeff advocates for government to be the arbiter of truth. Amazing.

[DesigNate]

You see, bending the knee to “experts” isn’t a logical fallacy, it’s just how you do “radical individualism”. Glad I could clear that up for you Jesse.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

"Individualism", at least to me, does not mean that every single person ought to be able to successfully perform every possible task. That is absurd. Individualism, to me, means that each of us has the capacity for rational judgment to decide if/when we ought to perform a task ourselves, or if/when we ought to consult with an expert for guidance on what to do. No one here is suggesting BLINDLY following experts. Just that they perform a valuable service and, usually, have advice worth listening to in their fields of expertise.

[TJJ2000]

And what kind of information does the FBI/DHS supply?
UR playing retarded manipulation and deception games.

You know darn well they were checking with the ARMED ministry of truth to see if this press release Nazi-Friendly.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Notably, Twitter's moderation decisions during this time period increasingly relied on input from the FBI and DHS.

By hiring FBI and DHS agents.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Times of London regarding Hunter’s laptop. Hint, Buttplug, it’s not dick pics.

https://archive.ph/2022.12.09-173108/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-secrets-of-hunter-bidens-laptop-spell-trouble-for-joe-ssn3c59b8

[Nardz]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/musk-twitter-child-porn-failures-crime

[Agammamon]

Private company though, right? I mean, they can totally agree to do not-censorship if the government asks nicely. It's just a business decision, right?

[TJJ2000]

Democrats are Nazi's 100%. Spend some time reading about how Hitler came to power. Exactly how Democrats are coming to Power.

[B G]

It's not quite the same.

The actual Nazis didn't have the ability to denounce their opponents as being "literally Nazis" in order to silence them.

[TJJ2000]

The funniest parts of leftard projection… Calling everyone else exactly what they openly support (National Sozialists, syn: nazi’s). I’m sure it will only last so long as they have to use “democracy” to conquer the USA loaded with manipulation, lies and deception. After all; Bernie came out of the closet and finally admitted to being a USSR (Socialist) fan as has many other Democrats. Funny how USA citizens don’t find that flat-out treasonous to the USA and even manages to put one in a primary presidential election.

[SIV]

The First Amendment might have something to say about that.

Unelected, permanent tyrannical government bro', they can do what they want...

[TJJ2000]

The First Amendment might have something to say about that.
Well it certainly should have something to say; it is the people's law over their government.

The Federal Judiciary should indict every participant in this coup and at the very least remove them from office. The CONSTITUTION must be the supreme law of the land if we're going to pretend it's the USA.

[B G]

Indictments have to be initiated by the DoJ, the courts can't just issue them without a request.

DoJ includes the FBI, and therefore was a major player in the violations here.

I can't choose your reaction, but personally I'm not going to put too much energy into hoping that the executive branch under this administration starts indicting their own enforcers for weaponizing the powers of the State for the political benefit of the current administration. Even if a GOP administration takes over in 2024, I wouldn't expect much since they'll be as likely to want to flex these particular muscles on their own behalf rather than excise the corruption/politicization of the "deep state" despite their sworn duty to do exactly that.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1601720455005511680?t=LS_oOyLL7po_Zyo9BeCqxQ&s=19

1. TWITTER FILES, PART 4

The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7

As the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban

[Link]

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1601724559836983296?t=6msY4jJt7fI0xK0122mS0Q&s=19

But after the events of Jan 6, the internal and external pressure on Twitter CEO @jack grows.

Former First Lady @michelleobama , tech journalist @karaswisher , @ADL , high-tech VC @ChrisSacca , and many others, publicly call on Twitter to permanently ban Trump.

[Thread]

[Nardz]

Former Nixon White House counsel:

https://twitter.com/JohnWDean/status/1601757342676111360?t=gYRapTYb-hl5A7Qx5xameQ&s=19

I am looking for a lawyer/law firm that will file a class action against Musk. For many of us who were here long before he arrived he has ruined Twitter in too many ways to explain in a tweet!

[InsaneTrollLogic]

He should be looking for the missing 18 minutes of tape instead.

[R Mac]

The cope continues to fulfill me.

[Utkonos]

Can you believe Musk’s Blind Ambition?

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1601847972706152448?t=8K9woemlQSafwQXSEqYO2Q&s=19

[Link]

[Mike Laursen]

Well, the fourth Twitter Files dump revealed that …. wait for it … Twitter decided to suspend Trump’s account after January 6th!!!

Without drop #4 we would have never known!!!

[I, Woodchipper]

This whole twitter files thing is a perfect rorschach test for normies and regime supporters vs. anyone with half a brain.

[B G]

Can't if you're ignoring the real point again, or if you just chose to get your primary info from a source that's decided to ignore it.

The part where they decided to ditch trump after Jan 6 is the least of it is at best the appetizer. The fact that they altered their "terms of service" for the purpose of creating a pretext to do that in the furtherance of that decision is the main course.

[MarthaTurner]

I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do, .for more information simply.

Open this link thank you................>>> onlinecareer1

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

"Law enforcement officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) met regularly with top content moderators at Twitter during the 2020 presidential election, independent journalist Matt Taibbi revealed"

What in the heck is an "independent journalist"... someone who doesn't have a paying job anywhere?

[Mother's Lament]

"What in the heck is an “independent journalist”

Liberties.eu describes independent journalism thusly: "any news media that is free from influence by the government or other external sources like corporations or influential people. This includes television, newspapers, radio and online journalism. It means that journalists feel no pressure to shape or sanitize their reporting, even if it may negatively portray the government or other power entities, even the owner of the news outlet or other individuals. Independent journalism allows unvarnished facts to be shared with the public so that it may use the information to help them decide on important issues, like which politicians or policies to support or which companies are acting ethically and thus deserve their business."

As examples; Taibbi was a journalist for the Associated Press, Playboy, The eXile, The Nation, New York Press and was an editor for the Rolling Stone who left to do his own reporting as an independent journalist unbeholden to corporate censorship and advertisers.
Greenwald was a journalist for Salon and The Guardian. He then founded The Intercept only to leave it to become an independent journalist when it became clear that his colleagues were more interested in shoring up the Democrats than looking for the truth.

Of course you know all this, Shrike. You were just making a cheap attempt at trying to diminish Independent Journalism because you're shit at being a fifty-center.

[Sevo]

But one of many issues which confuse you.

[StephanieMcGeehan]

I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do, .for more information simply.
Open this link thank you……>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com

[ThomasD]

Meanwhile the former head of the CIA is now calling for Musk to be silenced.

And we get crickets from the 'libertarian' writers at Reason.

[BigT]

Some Reason staff silently support such bans because TDS.

[evamilo26]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently (inf-04) making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs

Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com

[Mike Laursen]

Really, stop.

[Utkonos]

But you get credit for all the articles here!

[Overt]

Mike really doesn't like this narrative, people. We need to stop. Why, if people were to accept this narrative, he'd have to do extra gaslighting the whole next year to assure people that he wasn't denying this stuff for the past 2 years.

[MeganHarris]

I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply

COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com

[R Mac]

His level of cope rivals ENB’s.

[AshleyBarnes]

I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..

HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM

[StephanieMcGeehan]

WOW

[PennyWoodard]

I worked part-time from my apartment and earned $30,030. After losing my previous business, I quickly became exhausted. Fortunately, I discovered this jobs online, and as a result, I was able to start earning money from home right away. Anyone can accomplish this elite career and increase their internet income by….
After reading this article… http://Www.Salaryapp1.com