What pre-Musk Twitter was doing in the Twitter Files is worse than described here. They were engaging in Calvinball censorship. It's not simply that the rules were flawed or inconsistently enforced across political lines (though both are also true). It's that Twitter execs were simply making up the rules as they went along.
What pre-Musk Twitter was doing in the Twitter Files is worse than described here. They were engaging in Calvinball censorship. It's not simply that the rules were flawed or inconsistently enforced across political lines (though both are also true). It's that Twitter execs were simply making up the rules as they went along.
In the case of the Hunter Biden laptop story, first they censored it, and then when the PR team asked the content moderation team what the rationale was, they openly didn't have that part figured out yet. They were hoping to hang their hat on "hacked materials" even though the knew full well that wouldn't pass muster as there was no evidence of hacking being involved. With the World Cup going on, an easy analogy is a ref giving a player a red card, kicking them out of the game, and only then trying to determine if any rules were actually broken in order to justify a decision that's already been made. Or in the words of Alice in Wonderland "Sentence First. Verdict Afterwards"
In the case of Libs of TikTok, when Twitter execs couldn't find any rules being broken (which makes sense since LoTT just recirculates content already posted by others), they had to make up brand new bullshit on the spot like "indirect rule violations". If a rule isn't being directly violated, then it's not being violated at all. They also couldn't even say which specific rule was allegedly being "indirectly" violated.
What pre-Musk Twitter was doing in the Twitter Files is worse than described here. They were engaging in Calvinball censorship. It's not simply that the rules were flawed or inconsistently enforced across political lines (though both are also true). It's that Twitter execs were simply making up the rules as they went along.
In the case of the Hunter Biden laptop story, first they censored it, and then when the PR team asked the content moderation team what the rationale was, they openly didn't have that part figured out yet. They were hoping to hang their hat on "hacked materials" even though the knew full well that wouldn't pass muster as there was no evidence of hacking being involved. With the World Cup going on, an easy analogy is a ref giving a player a red card, kicking them out of the game, and only then trying to determine if any rules were actually broken in order to justify a decision that's already been made. Or in the words of Alice in Wonderland "Sentence First. Verdict Afterwards"
In the case of Libs of TikTok, when Twitter execs couldn't find any rules being broken (which makes sense since LoTT just recirculates content already posted by others), they had to make up brand new bullshit on the spot like "indirect rule violations". If a rule isn't being directly violated, then it's not being violated at all. They also couldn't even say which specific rule was allegedly being "indirectly" violated.
Straight up Calvinball.