The decision to suppress a news story about Hunter Biden's laptop was made many years ago. Last month, Musk said that he would release internal communications showing how it all went down.
It took a full two hours for the thread to be completed, which was from journalist Matt Taibbi, who Musk is believed to have leaked the documents to.
Taibbi deleted the email address she showed.
Emails between members of the Biden campaign and outside policy leaders are included in the thread. There is a "confidential" communication from the deputy general counsel.
The New York Post story that broke the news of Hunter's leaked laptop files, and whether or not they made the correct moderation decision, is shown in the emails. At the time, it wasn't clear if the materials were real, and that's when the ban on links to or images of the Post's story was put in place. The move was unpopular among Republicans but also with speech advocates who were concerned about the decision to block a news outlet.
The communications show a team debating how to communicate a difficult moderation decision.
One former communications staffer is struggling to understand the policy behind marking this unsafe. Similar stories will be marked as unsafe.
The head of trust and safety at the time said that the company had decided to be cautious because of the dangers. Jim Baker agreed that it was reasonable for them to assume that they had been hacked.
This is not proof of government interference.
The emails don't show how the initial decision was reached, just that there were emails afterwards in which leaders atTwitter discussed whether it was the right choice. Jack Dorsey was not aware of the decision.
The events seem to be proof of government interference. If this isn't a violation of the constitution's first amendment, what is? The email shows that the Biden campaign had moderation policies in place before the election. There is no evidence that the government was involved in the laptop story.
The personal email addresses of two high-profile leaders appear to have been exposed as a result of Taibbi's handling of the emails. An email address that belongs to someone Taibbi identifies as Dorsey is included in a message in which Taibbi criticizes the handling of the Post story. What appears to be Khanna's personal Gmail address is included in an email in which he criticizes the decision to restrict the Post's story on social media.
The names of several employees were revealed in the story. Journalists are allowed to report on the involvement of public-facing individuals or major decision makers, but not all of them. Some people could be exposed to harassment due to the leaked materials. I don't understand why names are needed. Biz Stone wrote tonight that it seems dangerous.
Taibbi deleted the account that contained the email address. As of this writing, it is still up. The Verge reached out to Taibbi, but he didn't reply immediately. A request for comment was not responded to by the company, which had its communications team dismantled. Requests for comment were not responded to by the two.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
