[2 / 0 / 2]
Quoted By: >>1125383
Https://taibbi.substack.com/p/notes-from-the-twitter-files-twitter
https://web.archive.org/web/20221219003429/Https://taibbi.substack.com/p/notes-from-the-twitter-files-twitter
Interesting news articles from the journalist releasing the Twitter files.
Important quotes:
>This didn’t sit right with the task force. To express its displeasure, the FITF sent the aforementioned questions.
>An interesting part is at the bottom of this letter, where the FITF included a bibliography, articles from the Oxford Internet Institute, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Mercator Institute for China Studies, even the Wall Street Journal.
>It’s hard to read this document and not glean that the FITF was citing the conclusions of the WSJ to counter an apparent implication by Twitter that they “had not observed much recent activity” by foreign actors. This is especially bizarre because some of those papers cited intelligence reports as their sources.
>If one didn’t know any better, one would conclude from this passage that the foreign-influence assertion at least in this case was being daisy-chained into existence: public sources cite anonymous official sources, then official sources cite the public sources in their communications with platforms like Twitter. An information loop, pooh-poohing any implication that foreign influence is not a threat, or at least a recent threat.
Notes from the Twitter Files: Twitter and the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF)
On Friday, I posted a series of exchanges between Twitter and the FBI. One that required a bit too much explaining was left out. But it’s an important document, because it clearly demonstrates that Twitter will not only take requests from the government, it will even act quickly to align its analyses with its “partners"
In the July, 2020 letter agent Chan demanded an explanation for Twitter’s apparent assertion that it “had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20221219003429/Https://taibbi.substack.com/p/notes-from-the-twitter-files-twitter
Interesting news articles from the journalist releasing the Twitter files.
Important quotes:
>This didn’t sit right with the task force. To express its displeasure, the FITF sent the aforementioned questions.
>An interesting part is at the bottom of this letter, where the FITF included a bibliography, articles from the Oxford Internet Institute, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Mercator Institute for China Studies, even the Wall Street Journal.
>It’s hard to read this document and not glean that the FITF was citing the conclusions of the WSJ to counter an apparent implication by Twitter that they “had not observed much recent activity” by foreign actors. This is especially bizarre because some of those papers cited intelligence reports as their sources.
>If one didn’t know any better, one would conclude from this passage that the foreign-influence assertion at least in this case was being daisy-chained into existence: public sources cite anonymous official sources, then official sources cite the public sources in their communications with platforms like Twitter. An information loop, pooh-poohing any implication that foreign influence is not a threat, or at least a recent threat.
Notes from the Twitter Files: Twitter and the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF)
On Friday, I posted a series of exchanges between Twitter and the FBI. One that required a bit too much explaining was left out. But it’s an important document, because it clearly demonstrates that Twitter will not only take requests from the government, it will even act quickly to align its analyses with its “partners"
In the July, 2020 letter agent Chan demanded an explanation for Twitter’s apparent assertion that it “had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.”
