Talk:Twitter Files



Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2024

"It should be noted however that while requests were made from the Trump White House to remove posts, the rate and amount requested and honoured were overwhelmingly Democrat Party affiliated , which is due to the fact that Twitter's employmees at the time was much more connected to the Democratic party of the United States"(source: https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394?lang=en) Digg396 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is protected, I can't modify it right now. What @Digg396 meant was to add context to the already existing section:
In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly denied that the Files showed the government had coerced the company to censor content, as Musk and many Republicans claimed. Former Twitter employees asserted that Republican officials also made takedown requests so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them..
The section should therefore be:
In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly denied that the Files showed the government had coerced the company to censor content, as Musk and many Republicans claimed. Former Twitter employees asserted that Republican officials also made takedown requests so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them. It should be noted however that while requests were made from the Trump White House to remove posts, the rate and amount requested and honoured were overwhelmingly Democrat Party affiliated , which is due to the fact that Twitter's employmees at the time was much more connected to the Democratic party of the United States.. Riky bet (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Text has changed in the interim, rendering this moot. Closing edit request from blocked user. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article is deeply biased, and this is clear from the fact that it is barely sourced. Also, Zuckerberg has recently admitted to bowing to Biden pressure on both Covid-19 and Hunter Biden: https://www.reuters.com/technology/zuckerberg-says-biden-administration-pressured-meta-censor-covid-19-content-2024-08-27/ 86.6.148.125 (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Err, Zuckerberg does not own Twitter. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing important context

1. This article's description of Taibbi's findings is completely twisted, relies on cherry picked quotes taken out of context, and directly contradicts summary statements make by Taibbi, like his report to Congress: What we found in the Twitter Files was a sweeping effort to use machine learning and other tools to reverse that promise (democratized exchange of information) and use machine learning and other tools to turn the internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FD/FD00/20230309/115442/HHRG-118-FD00-Wstate-TaibbiM-20230309.pdf 2. Further, this article leaves out key evidence of Taibbi's actual conclusions- for example, the fact that the FBI warned Twitter execs of a potential hack and leak operation by foreign actors involving Hunter Biden. I looked through the archives and this topic was raised and discussed but moderators refused to accept twitter threads as a reliable source! This article acknowledges that the authors of the threads cited are journalists, not random twitter users. And it acknowledges that a condition of the reporters getting access to the twitter files is that the results be published on twitter!

In other words, the moderators used a flimsy rationale, which they had to know was unreasonable, to prevent any real information about the Twitter Files from making it into an article about the Twitter Files. This silly game serves no one - Wiki itself becomes a less credible source, and people who read and rely on Wiki articles will find themselves hopelessly lost in conversations with people armed with facts. VRavenn (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, twitter is not an RS, so find reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the government is the ultimate publisher of repute.
Unless the material is too complicated for the average reader no secondary source is required. ~2026-16632-80 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Twitter nor any government are reliable sources. Should be obvious by looking at a month's worth of data from either. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source 8 is either false or out of date

Matt Taibbi's most recent interview heavily disputes or perhaps this 2022 interview is just operating off old information

Evan Perez; Donie O'Sullivan; Brian Fung (December 23, 2022). "No directive: FBI agents, tech executives deny government ordered Twitter to suppress Hunter Biden story". CNN. Archived from the original on March 21, 2024. Retrieved April 15, 2024. Matt Taibbi, one of the journalists Musk tapped this month to comb through Twitter internal messages for evidence of free speech violations, said himself on December 2 that "there is no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story."

"Twitter...use[d] the most extreme tools that they had...a tool they only use for...child [pornography]...They pulled that out for the [Hunter Biden laptop] story...Their reasoning was...we don't want 2016 to happen again...Twitter was meeting with the FBI...The FBI people had, in fact, warned ahead of time about this exact story...there had been an exercise that had taken place at the Aspen Institute...a gathering of some of the most influential journalists in America had been briefed in advance about the story and had done a wargaming exercise about how to not cover it...And we found that in the Twitter Files."

— Matt Taibbi, "I Exposed Twitter's Secret Blacklist" [clip from "Matt Taibbi: Russiagate Was a Lie and the Media Knew It"], Dad Saves America podcast, timestamp 8:00–11:35 Cdonny25 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.