Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 2

I think Yoel Roth, the former Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter may be notable enough for an article. Any help improving the draft and finding sourcing would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That article was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoel Roth (before the Twitter Files release). If you think there are enough new reliable sources about Roth, then you could consider requesting undeletion of the article. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is my opinion that for this story these sources should be used a viable sourcing. These sources represent the political affiliation of the party affected and the NY Post is one of the only sources to properly report on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. For some reason the NY Post has been deemed non-credible, not sure if this is more democratic gaslighting of the public by discrediting sources with stories they don't like or not, the notes say their credibility is mostly in question regarding local political issues, which this story is not. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There's consensus that Fox News is generally reliable outside of politics, and that reliability varies for political topics (see WP:FOXNEWS), while there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable after 1976 (see WP:NYPOST). Either way, both of them are usable, depending on the context (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INTEXT, WP:ABOUTSELF). MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"There's consensus" - could you please source where this consensus you're referring to comes from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.203.87 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP is a place where you can find links to the discussions that have determined what sources are reliable. Andre🚐 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.203.87 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Jonathan Turley to know how reliable his opinion piece is on this matter, but the relevant paragraph in it is:

The implications of these documents becomes more serious once the Biden campaign became the Biden administration. These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship. As I have previously written, the administration cannot censor critics and cannot use agents for that purpose under the First Amendment.

It's much less certain than the text that was present in this article before. Though to be honest the rest Turley's article (and even this excerpt) reads as disingenuous so I'm not sure how much weight it should be given in the first place. Citing (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I became acquainted, somewhat, with Jonathan Turley when he was called to testify in one of Trump's impeachments. Funny how he's so concerned about the Biden administration being in contact with Twitter, but not the Trump administration, which Taibbi says was happening. This is a good explainer. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: ...

• Previous: "Taibbi noted that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" that he did not disclose. Weiss later wrote that the only condition they agreed to was that the material would be first published on Twitter."
• Postvious: "In order to be given access to the materials, Taibbi and Weiss agreed to the condition that their reporting would be first published on Twitter.

As far as I can tell, the postvious version is true, because it says the same thing as the previous version; if it isn't, then the previous version is false as well, and should be removed. It seems inappropriate to make dark insinuations like "he agreed to certain conditions that he did not disclose", when the sole condition was both innocuous (i.e. that the stuff be posted on Twitter first, nothing about the content of the reporting) and disclosed a couple of days later. What other version of this text would be acceptable? jp×g 00:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WaPo also seemed to imply this was the condition, even before Weiss revealed it. (and I agree with their interpretation of that Substack post) DFlhb (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Note how he mentions Twitter exclusivity in one paragraph but "certain conditions" in another. Kinda odd. soibangla (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If we're going to get into our subjective interpretations, I think it's clear that the entire Substack post is about Twitter exclusivity. DFlhb (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Weiss later wrote that the only condition they agreed to"

Who are "they?" Weiss and Musk? soibangla (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You know darned well what he meant by “they." So why did you put scare-quotes around “they?” What’s your point? Be direct; out with it. Is the CEO of Twitter not good and credible enough for you? Are you implying that what Musk releases should be viewed with great skepticism? Are we to read your mind after you wasted hundreds of man-hours of the Wikipedia community’s time dealing with your nomination for deletion of this entire article? Try being straight up and clear as glass as to what it is you want with this article now that you have to suffer with its existence, Soibangla. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not he, it's she, Weiss, and it is not clear who they are. Was she speaking about herself and Musk, or was she also speaking about Taibbi? Maybe try to follow along better than continuing to take swipes at me. I'm not suffering with the existence of this article, I sought to delete the first version of it that was a politically-slanted mess. As I said in the AFD, "maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one." I'm having great fun with this one.soibangla (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

“[P]olitically-slanted mess.” Methinks thou doth protest too much. Greg L (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It was not an "investigation" in the sense we use that term here, nor was it evident it was a "political scandal," among other problems. I wouldn't have done the AFD simply because it was about Twitter Files. Funny how no one mentions I said "maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one." Do you concede you missed the whole issue in my previous edit? soibangla (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The article currently states "Taibbi's reporting undermined a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories." One problem here is that 'undermine' and 'narrative' here are non-NPOV WP:CONTENTIOUS labels (they imply falseness and dishonest intent), but the bigger problem is that it implies Musk is the source of this notion, while it actually originally caught on back in August when Zuckerberg claimed FBI gave that warning to Facebook. Refuting that it happened on Twitter (which this still does not do completely, though it does make a convincing case) does not mean it didn't happen on other social media. 82.197.199.203 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The source, CNN, used "undercut," I changed it to "undermined." I don't see a problem with narrative

The Taibbi posts undercut a top claim by Musk and Republicans, who have accused the FBI of leaning on social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories.

soibangla (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There-being: I see you reverted my edit here (), where I was trying to reflect reception by different sources more accurately. Would you mind elaborating more on your objections? I think the previous state is pretty lacking, so I would like to improve and expand on it. MarioGom (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There-being: Given the discussion below (#In-text attribution of Forbes quotes), I assume that your objections were not related to my characterization of public reception per se, but about the information about Government's (lack of) involvement? MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

did you see the recent tweets about the FBI and other govt agencies requesting tweets be removed? your lack of neutrality is honestly sickening, I truly hope that you take some time to reevaluate your life and why you edit/contribute in the first place. 76.95.193.186 (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There-being: with respect your revert , the following text contains direct quotes from Forbes (The files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories), and as such, using in-text attribution makes sense (see WP:INTEXT). MarioGom (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to this, the "no government involvement" quote is taken out of context both by Forbes, and subsequently in it's use here. The full text of the Matt Taibbi post the quote stems from is: "22. 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..." Clearly he is talking about no "foreign government" was involved in hacking this material and that this "was the problem" for Twitter because it created a challenge for them with respect to the proper way to justify the potential take-down of the information. The only "conspiracy theory" this statement contradicts was the lie that the contents of the laptop was a result of a foreign government hack. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Um, no. If your reading comprehension skills are this lacking, you have no business editing an encyclopedia. This is not an arguable point. The twitter files showed NO government involvement. Don’t you think if they had evidence of government involvement they might have showed it, instead of showing basically nothing? This has already been rejected by several editors. Please stop bringing it up. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to assume your comments are being made in good faith. I suggest you re-read the entire twitter files posts themselves so that you can get a good feel for what Matt was actually saying in context. But besides that point, the files do indeed show 'government involvement' in the censoring of information on the platform. Of course, they do not show 'government involvement in the laptop story' as Matt Taibbii indicates. We already know that the laptop story is real and was not created or hacked by any government though. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to argue about the merit of the quote, but about using in-text attribution. So my proposal is changing this:

The files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories

To this:

According to Forbes, the files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories

Just like I did here. MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies! I didn't mean to high-jack your conversation. I like your suggestion because it makes it clearer that this whole sentence is just "someone's take" on the situation... allowing that interpretation of facts is still up to the reader. I would further suggest moving your proposed updated version of the quote to the 'reactions' section. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

the reference already indicates that the source is Forbes. This edit is pointless.2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The text is a direct quote, which should be attributed in-text. Otherwise, it's confusing to the reader. There are double quotes precisely because it's not in Wikipedia voice. MarioGom (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:INTEXT. This is a direct quote (and a statement of opinion) by Forbes. Furthermore, and in that vein, it is also more appropriately located in the 'reaction' section IMHO. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If Taibbi admitted it in his own words, it might be better to just include his whole quote here? The problem is not the parts -already- in quotes... the problem is the entire sentence is actually a quote lifted from Forbes and placed in a Wikipedia article as if the conclusion that the Taibbi quote "contradicted several conspiracy theories" is actually a conclusion made by an editor based on the Taibbi quotes. It needs to be more clear that this entire sentence is lifted verbatim from Frobes and represents their opinion. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, the whole quote is included in the Twitter Files Investigation § Content section: Taibbi tweeted, "there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story." Which I don't dispute and don't plan to remove. My previous edits (see also the thread above) are about the paragraphs related to public and media reception. MarioGom (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your original media reaction edit was a good one. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

One more point though: That is not the "whole quote". The whole quote is what I posted above. It makes it very clear what he is talking about. Taking the quote out of context in order to make it sound like something different than what was said is a logical fallacy and a form of misquoting. I see no reason to not include the full Tweet if we truly believe the quote is important enough to include here. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Go spread your conspiracy theories on Twitter. Wikipedia is not the forum for spreading baseless conspiracy theories. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk)

The same people that are calling the Twitter Files alt-right conspiracy theories are the ones that are also telling you the Twitter Files prove the government had no involvement in censoring the laptop. You can only be dishonest so many times before people should stop taking you seriously. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• The in-text attribution has been added back (by another user) for a while and it has not been disputed. Given that this whole thread got derailed by off-topic forum discussion, an uninvolved editor or admin might want to close the whole thread. MarioGom (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this really a "scandal"? Are those categories justified? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

is there a "sham scandal" category? soibangla (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I imagine that a Category:Manufactured scandals would run afoul of core policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Dictionary defines "scandal" as "(an action or event that causes) a public feeling of shock and strong moral disapproval." I think it could be argued that this bar was reached for some people. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but when it's a conspiracy theory that has some people "feeling shock and strong moral disapproval", it's not a scandal. See Jade Helm 15 (in case you've forgotten that manufactured outrage), for example. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not ready to dismiss everyone who is "feeling shock and strong moral disapproval" over this as simply being overcome by "manufactured outrage". Personally, I think that the government (or even just candidates for office) asking for things to be removed from big tech platforms and having that platform capitulate is shocking and worthy of moral disapproval. What was Trump asking them to remove? He's the POTUS at that time. That's a scandal in my book. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

All we know of that the Biden campaign asked to have taken down, based on the selective release by Elon and Taibbi, were Hunter's dick pics. We don't know what the Trump White House asked to have taken down because Elon/Taibbi didn't share it. Unless shown otherwise, I'd assume other tweets that violated TOS. (I should be more clear that Elon and Taibbi are attempting to manufacture outrage and I'm sure that those who are feeling outraged on the ground just haven't read the entire story.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not ready to wholesale discredit a group of people's opinions just because of some vague notion I may have that anyone who would think a certain thought would obviously be under some sort of manipulation. It would be just as easy for these folks to say the opposite side is "manufacturing complacency". The point here is to ask if this is a "scandal". I believe it hits that bar.216.164.226.167 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What we personally believe isn't relevant. Where are sources referring to this as a "scandal"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If "what editors believe" is irrelevant to you when it comes to categorization, then I would suggest not asking the question in the first place next time. What do you think is the problem with leaving this in the scandals category? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I just indicated, lack of sourcing. I should have been clear about that earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Categorization does not require sourcing. There is also no source saying this is "Political terminology of the United States", but it remains in that category. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Categories must reflect reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. Citing (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If we know the Biden campaign asked to have this taken down, why isn't this under the category Biden Administration Controversies? Comments about removal of that category include that the event occurred in October 2020 (during the election) which was while Joe Biden was in office, however in a similar vein the Trump Administration Controversies include "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎" which would have been during the election while Obama was in office during the 2016 election. This is related to the 2020 election and has lead to some pretty contentious debate that may qualify as a controversy, but no a scandal. CaptainNedaESB (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Biden campaign is not the Biden administration. Joe Biden was not "in office" in October 2020. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is rightly not categorized as a Trump administration anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

soibangla (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have re-categorized this article following the guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. If it becomes characterized as a scandal by reliable sources we can re-add them. For now, this seems to be mostly an event in the Musk-Twitter saga. Citing (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this take. The argumentative takes about scandal definitions are pointless. It does not seem to be commonly referred to as a scandal in most reliable sources. If this changes, we can review it again. MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The lede now states that the two presenters are "independent journalists". Do we know how they were selected and approached, or did they volunteer their services, and their relationships with Elon Musk? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Unless it is something discussed by reliable sources, it's pretty much irrelevant. MarioGom (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This is relevant: Taibbi noted that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" that he did not disclose.

It is also relevant that as indies they have no editors who review their work prior to publication to determine whether, say, they have cherrypicked information they have had exclusive access to and no one else can see inside the black box to scrutinize it. In Weiss's report, she shows examples for Charlie Kirk and Dan Bongino, so does that mean there were no similar cases for liberal users? An editor would ask about that before publication, but no one else has the access she does to question it. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Do reliable sources convey that? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"independent journalist Matt Taibbi"

"Feeding on resentment against mainstream media, new media players have established a power base via Substack newsletters, podcasts and other independent channels. These writers — including Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Glenn Greenwald...

Basically, they're bloggers with better tech. They're free to say whatever they want without filter. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that with the notion of independence, we want to do opposite things for the same reason. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought perhaps it was relevant because "independent" gives the impression – rightly or wrongly – of an investigation carried out by some sort of "independent arbiters". That may or may not be the case, and we have no way of knowing, short of RSs. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Because Twitter is in complete control of what is being released, Taibbi and Weiss are not in positions to do anything more than what Twitter wants. It's a nice pubic relations campaign on Twitter's part. Taibbi is an independent journalist, but this role he's taken on is pr. --Hipal (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"Independent journalist" is a long-established term for journalists who don't work for a newsroom. And "Twitter is in complete control" and "role he's taken on is pr" are both false, and not alleged by any reliable source. The only condition was apparently that the reporting be published on Twitter, and reliable sources have not disputed that. DFlhb (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"Twitter is in complete control of what is being released" is false? soibangla (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that the files were given as a "dump" to these two independent journalists to do their own investigation; none claim that Musk told them what to say. DFlhb (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

who controlled the dump? No concern about Garbage in, garbage out? soibangla (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That is a separate question from editorial independence (and a completely irrelevant one from the standpoint of discussing improvements to the article). DFlhb (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

it is entirely relevant from the standpoint of discussing improvements to the article: who are these journalists and how did they get their source materials? were they spoonfed? soibangla (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What's not relevant is speculation that has no basis in any reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

it's not speculation they are freelancers with no editorial controls; it's not speculation they were provided a dump of unknown contents soibangla (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You're speculating once again and are trying to impose a negative perception on a process that you don't necessarily know or aware of. "Freelance" journalists was a good definition. I would keep it and see a clear neutral POV in it's use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.155.143 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not speculating, I just called them freelancers. I have less confidence in unscrutinized blackbox "citizen journalism" than does Musk, and here we have fully transparent crowd-sourced scrutiny, which totally rocks. soibangla (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you realize that it's just your opinion? If not, Houston we have a problem. WP's crowd-sourced scrutiny, like any relevant model you could examine has its PROs and CONs. Besides this is not a news site. Freelancers won't have editorial scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that story that's covered by a freelancer is flawed or fake. Independence can be claimed in most cases. Second, having an editorial line means that you mostly have to obey anything that the top requires you, often for political affiliation or convenience. Most famous newspapers don't have the kind of transparency they boast and while they claim impeccable journalistic process, often have been found to be deontologically and ethically lacking. Again, freelancing or editorial controls and any range of variations in between - both have PROs and CONs. Please don't go claiming to know what's best or not acting like you're an expert. Use common sense and don't impose your opinions everywhere. Thank you.

1. The FBI takes possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2019. 2. In 2020 Twitter executives have weekly meetings with the FBI. 3. The FBI warns Twitter executives that there there could possibly be a hack and leak operation involving Hunter Biden in October. 4. In October Twitter suspends the NY Post’s account and censors a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop for violating Twitter policy even though the article clearly reports how the laptop was obtained. (Not hacked or leaked). 5. In depositions to the Federal Elections Commission Twitter executives admit they labeled the story based on the information given to them by the FBI during their weekly meetings. 6. Taibbi claims there’s no evidence -that he’s seen - of any government involvement. Conclusion: How do the first 5 examples not prove that the government was involved? The only claim is Matt Taibbi’s claim that he hasn’t seen any evidence they were involved. (which isn’t even being reported on correctly and is incorrectly worded in this article). The FBI knew that if the story were to come out they had created the idea that it was hacked or leaked information within the Twitter executives knowing Twitter’s policy on such material. -The story was reported. -Twitter censored. -Government Interference. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

“Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story.” Taibbi doesn’t mention Democrats suppressing the story at all. I understand this probably won’t be removed because of Wikipedia’s liberal bias that compells them to defend Democrats honor, but at least remove the word “also”. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I wanted to cite the source of my accusation that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but I couldn’t find any liberal echo chambers that Wikipedia considers a “reliable source” to quote the co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger. Funny how that works. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias left wing slant. Adds opinions and comments that clearly show a dismissal of severity. Needs balance. For instance the fbi did tell social media to expect russian disinformation. This is not mentioned. It is also not mentioned that twitter have been proven now to shadow ban some right wing accounts; no proof for left win accounts has yet to be shown. Only opinions that avoid these realities and promote left defences are used in the article. There is no balance. Just like premusk twitter 82.31.48.231 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia. No surprise if it's contains leftist agenda. Don't donate your money to WMF, y'all! Donate to Internet Archive! 114.125.92.86 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

both those things are in the article soibangla (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again right wing IPs complaining about the article they imagine they are reading, not the article that we have published. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump still had access to post on the official "POTUS" and "WhiteHouse" Twitter accounts, neither of which were ever suspended. What was suspended was his personal Twitter account. It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that Trump was "deplatformed" from Twitter. Also, he was the president, he can call an actual press conference anytime, so it's kind of hilarious to argue that not being able to incessantly post on a personal social media account is "deplatforming." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is a platform. According to the leak, he was deplatformed together with a multitude of other "non-conforming" users. Let's not meddle in fanatism, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.64.124 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not inaccurate. We use the language of the sources. The source used in that paragraph at the time referred to it as deplatforming. The DJT twitter account was shut down; that source, and the actual investigative journalism done by Weiss et al on that topic, referred to it as deplatforming.

Now, personally, I despise the man Trump; loathed his presidency. Did not vote for him either election. But all this tribalism on Twitter where the two tribes have come in to this article to do battle on whatever their perceived positions are—often without reference to what the actual Twitter Files journalism tweet articles were about—or want to make it about what Democans or Republicrats say or have said or prefer, is just maddening. Wish we could simply write a good article explicating the actual content of the Twitter Files: investigative journalism on content moderation; shadow banning, deplatforming, or whatever else the journalism ends up uncovering. N2e (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The bombshell release last night documents FBI involvement with Twitter executives. So, the line in the lede that there was "no government involvement" is false and needs to be removed. Also, it has already been documented that the government of California was involved in suppressing certain opinions on Twitter . Please correct the intro. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Matt Taibbi is accurately quoted as saying he saw no evidence of government involvement with Twitter's decision to restrict distribution of information and misinformation about Hunter Biden's laptop. That you don't like this quote is irrelevant. A video clip of a conservative commentator expressing her opinion is not a useful source for anything except that commentator's attributed opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the full quote "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." So, it's obvious he was referring to foreign governments and this needs to be corrected in the article. (Personal attack removed) 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the full quote is the one provided by talk Assuming bona fide here: although the interpretation might currently be ambiguous and not obvious at all. Since the release of the Twitter Files is ongoing, I would advise caution reading on this line of writing at this time. Things might become clearer with the release of new installments. Just my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.4.116 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The key words here are "any government" (so, Russia, China, Burkina Faso or...the US) and "laptop story." Weiss didn't talk about the laptop story. I understand how many people are panting and drooling for a reveal that Comey, Hillary and Joe ordered the laptop story suppressed and they're all going to Gitmo and Trump will be reinstated, and they're really upset Taibbi hasn't said that, and they're trying really hard to find some way to connect dots, but that's not where we are and naturally we'll keep our eyes open for any BOMBSHELL developments the moment Gateway Pundit runs them. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• In the latest release, Taibbi clearly details government involvement , quote, "As the election approached, senior executives – perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed" and "After J6, internal Slacks show Twitter executives getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies" So, clearly, Taibbi is saying that there was government involvement in the censorship and election interference efforts on the platform. The intro needs to be changed. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's quoted from an entirely different thread about an entirely different topic - Twitter's decision-making process around how to deal with Donald Trump making false claims of election fraud and inciting a coup using his personal Twitter account. That tweet has nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter's decisions on the Hunter Biden laptop files. Furthermore, perhaps under pressure from federal agencies is, at best, a speculative expression of Taibbi's personal opinion. It is noteworthy that the tweet you linked contains no screenshots or evidence whatsoever to support Taibbi's assertion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're right. I've read lots of sly writers who are effective in maneuvering readers into conflating two distinct topics as though they are the same. Taibbi is a sly writer. Not to suggest that's what he's doing here, of course. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This demonstrates why we don't use or trust any reporting on American politics from Fox News, even on a talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit that used Independent Sentinel as its sole source. A quick review of the site does not give me the impression that it constitutes a reliable source for factual claims per Wikipedia's guidelines. Its staff are non-professional and the content is highly-partisan and clickbaity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Rolling stone has done nothing but pump out deflective, non-news, opinion pieces about the Twitter files while FOX news (NOT a left-wing establishment) is NOT allowed to be used as a source????? Whereas Fox reporting is actually descriptive and details what's actually mentioned in the tweets....

The whole entire world is watching Wikipedia make a fool of themselves. Watching all this go down.

Whoever these "30,000+ edits" people are seriously need to get back to the drawing board for the sake of spreading actual knowledge. Not this careful selection of information from left-wing news sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.206.82 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I will note WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS as a link for anybody on the page using it with respect to political controversies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the article's table of contents looks like this:

1 Background
2 Publication
3 Content
   3.1 Part one (by Matt Taibbi)
   3.2 Part two (by Bari Weiss)
   3.3 Part three (by Matt Taibbi)
   3.4 Planned releases on other topics
4 Reactions
   4.1 Politicians
   4.2 Legal scholars
   4.3 Former Twitter employees
   4.4 Journalists
5 References

This seems like a somewhat haphazard way to arrange the content. My reasoning for this is that, per discussion above, this causes a lot of avoidable confusion. For example, there is uncertainty about whether things should be included in "part one" or "part three" or both. This seems kind of unnecessary to me: what Matt Taibbi said about Twitter's internal communications four days ago and what he said about Twitter's internal communications yesterday are clearly part of the same process of reporting. I think the reason the article's set up like this is because it made sense when there was only one part, and it made sense when there were only two parts. However, it is turning into a trainwreck; if there are four parts, or five parts, it's going to become even worse. I think there should either be one section combining an overview of all the reports, or at most, one section for each reporter (i.e. a Taibbi section, a Weiss section, etc). jp×g 23:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article is poorly structured and doesn't cover the subject well. It encourages people to add poorly-sourced content and excessive and irrelevant details. It would make more sense to have Background (perhaps focused on Twitter's content moderation and Musk's acquisition rather than whatever it is now), Content (a summary of all the parts without excessive detail), and maybe something like "Reactions" or "Impact". Citing (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• A single section on all reports is unworkable with the amount we'll likely be dealing with. It should likely be ordered around topics: relations with FBI, censorship of Post story, decision to suspend Trump, etc. DFlhb (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)