It seems Elon Musk did go ahead and made Twitter's internal discussions about Hunter Biden laptop public. A journalist named Matt Taibbi tweeted about Twitter's internal discussions about Hunter Biden's laptop story by New York Post:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598830911776251906
I think it's worth archiving on the blockchain just in case. Below is the twitter thread. It seems there will be more disclosure in coming days.
The Twitter Files, Part One: How and Why Twitter Blocked the Hunter Biden Laptop Story
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published BIDEN SECRET EMAILS, an expose based on the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop:
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad
Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be “unsafe.” They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography.
White House spokeswoman Kaleigh McEnany was locked out of her account for tweeting about the story, prompting a furious letter from Trump campaign staffer Mike Hahn, who seethed: “At least pretend to care for the next 20 days.”
From: Mike Hahn [email protected]
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:19 PM
Subject: URGENT: Kayleigh McEnany
To: [email protected] [email protected], Lauren Devoll [email protected], Twitter Government & Politics [email protected]Kayleigh McEnany(@KayleighMcEnany) has been locked out from her account for simply talking about the New York Post story.
All she did was cite the story and firsthand reporting that has been reported by other outlets and not disputed by the Biden campaign.
I need an answer immediately on when/how she will be unlocked.
I also don't appreciate how nobody on this team called me regarding the news that you'll be censoring news articles.
Like I said, at least pretend to care for the next 20 days.
This led public policy executive Caroline Strom to send out a polite WTF query. Several employees noted that there was tension between the comms/policy teams, who had little/less control over moderation, and the safety/trust teams:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 7:24 AM Caroline Strom [email protected] wrote:
Hi team! Are you able to take a closer look here?
Thank you!
Strom’s note returned the answer that the laptop story had been removed for violation of the company’s “hacked materials” policy:
Hi Caroline,
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Per checking, the user was bounced by Site Integrity for violating our Hacked Materials policy. Adding them here for further insights and guidance.
Thanks,
Elaine Ong Sotto | @elaineongsotto
Ops Analyst, Global Escalations Team
Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem...
The decision was made at the highest levels of the company, but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, with former head of legal, policy and trust Vijaya Gadde playing a key role.
“They just freelanced it,” is how one former employee characterized the decision. “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it.”
You can see the confusion in the following lengthy exchange, which ends up including Gadde and former Trust and safety chief Yoel Roth. Comms official Trenton Kennedy writes, “I'm struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe”:
2020-10-14 NYPost Hunter Biden Laptop Article - PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
our teams continue to investigate the origins of the material included in the reporting.Trenton Kennedy
I'm struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe, and I think the best explainability argument for this externally would be that we're waiting to understand if this story is the result of hacked materials. We'll face hard questions on this if we don't have some kind of solid reasoning for marking the link unsafe.Trenton Kennedy
cc: @yoel@twitter.com @rsommers@twitter.com @iplunkett@twitter.com @krosborough@twitter.comKatie Rosborough
Will we also mark similar stories as unsafe?
By this point “everyone knew this was fucked,” said one former employee, but the response was essentially to err on the side of… continuing to err.
Yoel Roth
The policy basis is hacked materials - though, as discussed, this is an emerging situation where the facts remain unclear. Given the SEVERE risks here and lessons of 2016, we're erring on the side of including a warning and preventing this content from being amplified.Vijaya Gadde
What is the warning that will come up?Yoel Roth
New
When you click the link, you'll see the generic unsafe URL message (references spam, malware, and violations of the Twitter Rules) - not ideal, but it's the only thing we haveIan Plunkett
New
Whatever we do in the comms (this will become a bias claim for Jack pre-hearing immediately), let's make it clear we're proactively but cautiously interpreting this through the lens of our hacked materials policy and allowing the link with a warning and significant reduction of spread.
Former VP of Global Comms Brandon Borrman asks, “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?”
Brandon Borrman
New
To Ian's point, can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy? i.e. As part of our approach to addressing potentially hacked materials, we are limiting visibility of related stories on Twitter while our investigation is ongoing.
To which former Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker again seems to advise staying the non-course, because “caution is warranted”:
Jim Baker
New
[PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL]
I support the conclusion that we need more facts to assess whether the materials were hacked. At this stage, however, it is reasonable for us to assume that they may have been and that caution is warranted. There are some facts that indicate that the materials may have been hacked, while there are others indicating that the computer was either abandoned and/or the owner consented to allow the repair shop to access it for at least some purposes. We simply need more information.
A fundamental problem with tech companies and content moderation: many people in charge of speech know/care little about speech, and have to be told the basics by outsiders. To wit:
In one humorous exchange on day 1, Democratic congressman Ro Khanna reaches out to Gadde to gently suggest she hop on the phone to talk about the “backlash re speech.” Khanna was the only Democratic official I could find in the files who expressed concern.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 6:21 PM Ro Khanna [email protected] wrote:
Generating huge backlash on hill re speech. Happy to chat if you're up for it.
Best, Ro
Sent from my iPhone
Gadde replies quickly, immediately diving into the weeds of Twitter policy, unaware Khanna is more worried about the Bill of Rights:
Hi Congressman Khanna,
Thank you for reaching out and we appreciate the heads up. We put out a clarifying thread of Tweets earlier this evening to explain our policy around the posting of private information and liking directly to hacked materials. The press secretary's account was not permanently suspended - we requested that she delete the tweet containing material that is in violation of our rules and her account is restricted until she complies.I'd be happy to jump on the phone if helpful. My team is in DC (Jessica and Lauren) are copied here and also available to discuss.
Thanks,
Vijaya
Khanna tries to reroute the conversation to the First Amendment, mention of which is generally hard to find in the files:
Ro Khanna to Vijaya Gadde Ro Khanna [[email protected] Hope you're well Vijaya! But this seem a violation of the 1st Amendment principles. If there is a hack of classified information or other information that could expose a serious war crime and the NYT was to publish it, I think the NYT should have the right. A journalist should not be held accountable for the illegal actions of the source unless they actively aided the hack. So to restrict the distribution of that material, especially regarding a Presidential candidate, seems not in the keeping of the principles of NYT v Sullivan. I say this as a total Biden partisan and convinced he didn't do anything wrong. But the story now has become more about censorship than relatively innocuous emails and it's become a bigger deal than it would have been.
It also is now leading to serious efforts to curtail section 230 - many of which would have been a mistake.I believe Twitter itself should curtail what it recommends or puts in trending news, and your policy against QAnon groups is all good. It's a hard balance.
But in the heat of a Presidential campaign, restricting dissemination of newspaper articles (even if NY Post is far right) seems like it will invite more backlash than it will do good.
Please keep this communication between just us and Jack and no need to cc the team or forward to them.
Just wanted to offer my two cents.
Within a day, head of Public Policy Lauren Culbertson receives a ghastly letter/report from Carl Szabo of the research firm NetChoice, which had already polled 12 members of congress – 9 Rs and 3 Democrats, from “the House Judiciary Committee to Rep. Judy Chu’s office.”
From: Carl M. Szabo [email protected]
Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Recap of Hill Convos About Biden & "Censorship"
To: Lauren Culbertson [email protected]
Cc: Steve DelBianco [email protected], Robert Winterton [email protected], Chris Marchese [email protected]Lauren,
Yesterday, NetChoice's Chris Marchese met informally with 9 Republican and 3 Democratic House staffers to gather intel about FB and Twitter and the NY Post story. The staffers hail from the House Judiciary Committee to Rep. Judy Chu's office.
NetChoice lets Twitter know a “blood bath” awaits in upcoming Hill hearings, with members saying it's a "tipping point," complaining tech has “grown so big that they can’t even regulate themselves, so government may need to intervene.”
High level take away - every Republican said "this is a tipping point. It's just too much." And both Democrats and the Republicans were angry.
Szabo reports to Twitter that some Hill figures are characterizing the laptop story as “tech’s Access Hollywood moment”:
When asked just how bad this situations is, one staffer said: "it's the tech's Access Hollywood moment and it has no Hillary to hide behind." Others were more blunt: "tech is screwed and rightfully so."
Twitter files continued:
"THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISN’T ABSOLUTE”
Szabo’s letter contains chilling passages relaying Democratic lawmakers’ attitudes. They want “more” moderation, and as for the Bill of Rights, it's "not absolute"
The Democrats, meanwhile, complained that the companies are inept: They let conservatives muddy the water and make the Biden campaign look corrupt even though Biden is innocent. They linked this to Hillary Clinton's email scandal: she did nothing wrong but because the press wouldn't let the story go, it became a scandal far out of proportion. In their mind, social media is doing the same thing: it doesn't moderate enough harmful content so when it does, like it did yesterday, it becomes a story. If the companies moderated more, conservatives wouldn't even think to use social media for disinformation, misinformation, or otherwise.
The Democrats were in agreement: social media needs to moderate more because they're corrupting democracy and making all "truth" relative. When pushed on how the government might insist on that, consistent with the First Amendment, they demurred: "the First Amendment isn't absolute."
An amazing subplot of the Twitter/Hunter Biden laptop affair was how much was done without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, and how long it took for the situation to get "unfucked" (as one ex-employee put it) even after Dorsey jumped in.