It isn’t shadowbanning, it’s “amplification decisions.” Musk’s supporters are not advocates of free speech, they’re “right wing and reactionary bedfellows.”
This is the spin given by spinmeisters such as Charlie Warzel at The Atlantic to the revelations of Twittergate. Those upset about a bias in big-tech are not rightfully upset, they’re “aggrieved.”
While The Atlantic and the rest of the mainstream media obfuscates, Fox News succinctly states what we learned from Twittergate:
“According to journalist Bari Weiss, Twitter prevented disfavored tweets from trending and limited the visibility of entire accounts and topics—all without informing account holders.”
This is what we suspected. It brings into question the integrity of a purportedly neutral social media site.
Journalists complain that the troves of information were given to independent journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss. Now they have qualms about the legitimacy of the information; because after all, they weren’t able to vet it themselves. They’re upset it was through the filter of another voice other than their own. That’s their alibi:
That Jack Dorsey should be critical of the release of Twittergate files is disappointing, as he was originally supportive of Musk’s vision and leadership of the company.
Then again, Dorsey is in a tough position, because he’s either complicit in the malfeasance or was too weak of a CEO to know about it. Musk has implied the latter, a more charitable interpretation for his friend(?) and predecessor.
The media says the info is suspect because they were not able to curate it. Yet skipping over their partisan gatekeeping was the whole point. They say it’s old news, we already knew about that. They say this isn’t real transparency, you have to release more of it. Or less of it. Transparency is not really transparency if it reveals something that they don’t like.
Transparency is not really transparency if it reveals something that they don’t like.
It is fairly obvious that Twitter (and likely other tech platforms) has been working to suppress the voices of the center right and conservatives and putting a heavy hand on what topics and tweets would trend.
To learn that Dan Bongino was shadowbanned doesn’t exactly fill me with rage because I could frankly do without Dan Bongino. But to read an Atlantic journalist questioning Elon Musk’s motives compels me to speak.
According to the weasley journalist Charlie Warzel at The Atlantic, the Twittergate files are “devoid of context” and “anecdotal.” It’s a familiar pattern: no amount of context is sufficient when the facts reflect poorly on the left. No amount of hard evidence can rise above “anecdotal,” even if you see it with your own eyes.
To put it simply, the reporting on Twittergate, and Elon Musk more specifically, is dishonest.
It’s a damning fact that the Biden team had the Twitter team on speed-dial, and that their requests were “handled.” Whether that breaks the First Amendment is an academic argument. What it does violate, though, is the spirit of free speech.