Deconstruct "Twitter Files"

The emphasis with which the so-called Twitter files were published is incongruous with the banality of their content. Even so, as the circus folds up the marquee and the barkers return to their sub-piles, a thorough retrospective is worth putting into context these reveal-flavored, breathlessly-delivered products.

The fact that few mainstream media have chosen to report much of the information in these threads has been attributed to complacency, partisanship, complicity with government interference, or various forms of corruption. The trivial truth is that while other newsrooms are like ours, they read each one diligently and simply haven't found anything new or interesting to report, or what little there is has been tainted by the dubious circumstances of their presentation.

What is important to understand upfront - and what the authors make clear upfront - is that no one involved in the selection and analysis of internal communications seems to have any knowledge ( much less expertise) of how social media and technology platforms are moderated or managed. This isn't said to poison the well - it's important because this lack of familiarity is a big part of why these stories were published in the first place, and it explains the editorial direction given to them.< /p>

In every Twitter Files feed, we see unfounded assumptions, innuendos, and personal interpretations that carry the same weight as facts, establishing them more or less as opinion pieces rather than factual reporting. That alone will have boosted much of the coverage, because as salacious as the theory is, little of what is actually provided meets editorial standards in many newsrooms.

It must also be apparent by now that this ostensible act of transparency was carried out with a specific purpose: to discredit previous moderation and management teams, and further a narrative of systematic anti-conservative activity on Twitter. This has resulted, both deliberately and through neglect of basic best practices, in the harassment and targeting of individuals.

Clearly this is all being orchestrated by Elon Musk, whose resentment is equally evident following his botched purchase of the platform - an event that was catastrophic for his wealth and reputation. But disaster loves company, and he seems to insist that all receive a share of his doom.

That said, given our readers' natural curiosity about these issues, I thought it might be interesting to catalog the complaints in one place, as well as what made most of them not declarable, although they sometimes contain notable information.

Claim: "An incredible story" of how "connected actors" had accounts deleted and stories deleted, with a clear left bias

The inaugural thread unambiguously and repeatedly shows honestly working moderators grappling with tough decisions.

It also shows the inbox of a content moderation response team: not a dark, secret feedback channel, but an official channel for governments (US and others), individuals, businesses , law enforcement and anyone else with a particular idea or goal to communicate with the company's dedicated service. There are no surreptitious "connected players", it's basically customer service. The claim that there were "more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left" is completely unfounded.

The issue of First Amendment violations is a massive red herring, aided by Musk, who publicly aired his misinterpretation in the answers. As the thread notes, “there is no evidence – that I have seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story.” Government demands, documented and publicly discussed for years, are common. Private requests, like the Biden campaign flagging non-consensually shared nude images of Hunter Biden as violations of Twitter's terms of service, are common.

Here as in other discussions, the source documents themselves may be of interest, but are unreliable as presented and do not substantiate the assertions made. And it should be noted here how sloppy the writing and presentation of information was, giving a sense of carelessness and haste to these supposedly important reports.

Claim: "Secret blacklists" and "phantom bans" were common on Twitter

The second thread is an exercise in fear, uncertainty, and doubt that describes the tools of a functioning social media moderation team as those of a secretive speech-controlling elite. Flags and moderation functions are not public in nature, as some information is proprietary...