The Twitter Files: Big Tech Power and Government Meddling
What happened behind the scenes at Twitter during the 2020 election tells the tale of how political power can control what we are allowed to discuss on social media.
The latest installments of the Twitter Files came out this past week, with revelations about the practice of "shadow banning" and the events that ultimately led to the banning of former President Donald Trump from Twitter.
The first installment, as I wrote last week, didn't reveal much about what was already suspects. The second installment, which Bari Weiss shared, revealed another suspected practice and, in this case, arguably more damning evidence about certain Twitter higher-ups acting in accordance with their political beliefs, rather than promoting open discussion.
But it was the next two installments that revealed more troubling issues, even if one had a great dislike for the individual who got his Twitter account revoked.
The third installment, from Matt Taibbi, revealed what went on behind the scenes at Twitter, in which execs debated about what action to take regarding Trump's tweets, leading to the fourth installment, from Michael Shellenberger, about what led to the decision to remove Trump from Twitter -- a decision that came shortly after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Set aside what you think about Trump and/or the events of Jan. 6 and consider what's actually going on here: Multiple Twitter higher-ups made decisions about who was or wasn't going to dominate discussion about the 2020 elections, in which decisions were often made regarding the politics of those higher-ups and, in plenty of instances, after government agencies got involved.
There are those who wave a dismissive hand at everything that's been discussed (and, in some cases, may not have even read what was revealed in the Twitter Files). Others wonder why the likes of Weiss, Taibbi and Shellenberger have been selective in terms of what they have revealed to the public thus far.
Let's look at the topics that have been emphasized in the first three Twitter Files installments and how they are related.
* Hunter Biden laptop story from New York Post: Arguably the most prominent example of a story in which the ability to share it was suppressed during the months leading to the 2020 election.
* Shadow banning: However you may define the term, the issue at hand was that certain accounts were de-emphasized in Twitter feeds and searches.
* Events leading to Trump's ban from Twitter: Not only were techniques utilized to de-emphasize Trump's tweets, but additional techniques were utilized to either flag them or others on certain topics.
These all tie into the eventual decision to ban Trump from Twitter. That's arguably the most significant decision Twitter execs made in recent years.
It's true that's not the only decision that Twitter execs made about somebody’s account. Whether or not more gets revealed remains to be seen, and it's fair to point out that the people should know more about exactly who was subject to de-amplification techniques or outright removal from Twitter.
But I will raise a couple of points here. First, when it comes to how social media controls what we are or aren't allowed to see, the events surrounding the 2020 election are arguably the most consequential and, thus, should be the first we learn about.
Second, by learning about those items that apply either directly or indirectly to the 2020 election, it's not difficult to draw conclusions about what happened in other instances.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't get more information about what happened. Rather, it means that the most significant situation tells us a lot about what was going on and why that's not a good thing for open discussion.
But there's more to consider than simply who was targeted more often than others. There's the issue about the government's role in what decisions Twitter execs made.
The latest installments reveal that Twitter higher-ups at the time were talking a lot to government agencies about removing, de-amplifying or otherwise limiting certain tweets or accounts. This is a major concern, regardless of where one stands on political issues, and dismissing it as "nothing" demonstrates one isn't thinking about the greater ramifications.
After all, one only needs to look at the history of the FBI, for example, to know that it's been involved in some questionable activities. While the ones that happened under J. Edgar Hoover may get the most attention from some activists, they aren't the only ones that matter (and that Wikipedia list may not include everything).
Furthermore, when a government agency starts meddling in the affairs of a private company, the arguments about First Amendment violations hold greater merit. That's not because the amendment suddenly applies to the private industry, but because the private industry's actions are arguably the result of government involvement.
For those that argue that Twitter execs could have acted without government involvement, here's the thing: The government's involvement is where the First Amendment issue lies. When government agencies attempt to dictate what speech may be regulated, regardless of who they get to act on their behalf, you have a First Amendment case.
But while the actions of Twitter execs aren't something in which the First Amendment legally applies, we go back to what I discussed last week: First Amendment principles are what is at stake. While laws can be based on principles, one does not have to have a law in place to hold principles. Also, one does not need to have a law apply to a case to apply principles to it.
The Twitter execs who acted weren't just fixated on the events of Jan. 6. They had raised a fuss about certain individuals long before the events of Jan. 6 happened. Say what you want about James Woods and his political views, but him simply raising an observation about mail-in ballots prompted certain Twitter execs to, essentially, demand the book be thrown at him if they found any instance in which they could argue he violated terms of service.
And as Taibbi explained in a Substack post about the Twitter Files, there was a double standard in place, regarding who could and couldn't talk about "stealing the vote."
On that subject, the only way to get to what's actually happening is for transparency and open discussion about what evidence does and doesn't say. Any process that involves letting one tribe control the room while all others get shoved out the door isn’t going to lead to a result that does the best possible means of determining what actually happened.
Getting back to the arguments about people wanting to know more about who was subject to Twitter's actions, regardless of whether or not it was related to the 2020 election, I would point out that what's been revealed thus far gives you plenty to know about the problems with giving too much power to a tech company, government agency or both when it comes to what's allowed to be discussed.
Let's not pretend that Twitter is the only company who has engaged in questionable practices. There's evidence of Facebook and Google -- the former which owns Instagram and What's App and the latter which owns YouTube -- engaging in similar practices to suppress or remove information that challenges a particular narrative.
Taibbi has gone over multiple instances of people who discussed certain topics, only to have material censored, demonetized or otherwise limited because they challenged a particular position -- sometimes a position held by the government. A few examples would be Bret Weinstein, Chris Hedges, Josiah Zaynar, Olivia Katbi-Smith and the U.S. Right to Know Foundation.
It should raise the question about how much influence Big Tech should be allowed to have on our public discourse, even if the First Amendment doesn't apply to it. More importantly, it should raise the question about allowing government agencies to get involved in the decision-making process about what is or isn't allowed to be discussed on Big Tech platforms.
And even though the First Amendment doesn't apply to private industry, we still need to ask about the principles of the First Amendment and how they should be utilized for social media. This is especially true if a social media platform proclaims it wants to promote open discussion. If a platform promotes that, only to turn around and censor certain discussions because of politics, then the platform can no longer proclaim that open discussion is part of its mission.