Understanding the ‘Twitter Files’

Do ‘leaked’ internal documents prove Twitter’s left-wing bias? A Dispatch Explainer.

By
130
Hunter Biden (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Last week, a blue-check Twitter user took to the platform with a clickbait-level tease: the revelation of “what really happened” with Twitter’s suppression of the New York Post’s 2020 Hunter Biden story would be forthcoming.

The user was no clout-chasing journalist, but billionaire, entrepreneur, and Twitter owner Elon Musk. He soon retweeted a thread by independent journalist Matt Taibbi containing internal Twitter communications discussing Twitter’s censorship of the Post story. “Here we go!!” Musk crowed.

In the days since, Taibbi’s reporting became something of a Rorschash test: Some think it a bombshell revelation, while others say it’s much ado about nothing. It apparently got Twitter Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker fired Tuesday for “vetting the first batch of ‘Twitter Files’—without knowledge of new management,” Taibbi tweeted. Then he promised a new installment of the “Twitter Files”series would drop soon.

So what should we make of the new revelations?

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
130
By
Comments (130)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ Opinions vary.”

    Hahahaha. I loved that line! Great way to put it.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Will I Am

    I hope you continue reporting on the Twitter Files stories now that more has been revealed. New reporting shows there were regular meetings between Twitter staff and government officials at the FBI, CIA, etc. That is HUGELY concerning. That gets into First Amendment violation territory.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Will Heffron

    There is ample evidence that social media was used to manipulate voters ahead of the 2016 election (just ask senate Republicans - they wrote the report!).

    Let’s say the “Twitter files” are everything the right wants them to be. Fine. Social media was used to manipulate voters in the 2020 election also.

    In both cases, that manipulation was not why the respective candidates lost. They lost because they were two of the worst and most unlikeable candidates in the history of American politics.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    I agree with the overall consensus that Twitter may have erred in the handling of the Hunter story, but that overall it's a nothing burger. I doubt anyone would care if Trump had won anyway.

    That being said, let me point out a few things others have not.

    I think that Ro Khanna has a good point when he raises a concern about the "violation of the 1st Amendment principles". That is quite different from violating the actual 1st Amendment. So far no sign that happened, as government officials did not force Twitter to remove any posts. But the question of whether Twitter employees gave people with government connections special treatment is still valid.

    Although it seems a whole lot of Trumpists think that the DNC and RNC actually are government agencies. Or that Biden being VP before, somehow made him a perpetual part of the government. (I wonder if the common interviewer courtesy of perpetually referring to PRIOR government officials by their past titles has actually contributed to this misconception.)

    And I am sure TD writers would agree that "a journalist should not be held accountable for the illegal actions of the source unless they actively aided the hack." Khanna actually comes off very well here because he is (1) adhering to principle despite that adherence possibly redounding to the benefit of political opponents and (2) holding to that principle in the first place, in stark contrast to many of his fellow progressives who tend to focus on shutting down speech for being "hateful" or "dangerous".

    Yet Taibbi agreeing to release the story in the inherently constrained form of a Twitter thread, as a condition for access to the source material, raises a lot of questions as well regarding, well, access journalism. What if the Trump campaign had agreed to give a reporter access to a trove of campaign documents, but on the condition he only post about the contents on Truth Social?

    I know Taibbi's fellow travelers in the "leftists who call out fellow leftists" pack have defended him, but I can't say the people accusing him of selling out and just becoming a PR hack for Musk, are totally misguided. It occurs to me that every time someone clicked on that Tweet thread, that gave Musk more of an opportunity to monetize those Tweets.

    Also, if Taibbi agreed not to post about the story on Substack, that means he can't monetize it. So how is he getting paid for his work? Or did he basically agree to work for free, just to get attention, and basically treat this as a PR opportunity for himself? Or is he getting paid under the table in some way?

    Musk has also name dropped Bari Weiss as a journo he has given access to the material. Did she also agree to the same terms?

    Let's say Chris Licht (new CNN boss) decided to give a journalist access to CNN emails from the Zucker era, but only on the condition that journalist limit posting story to the CNN website. But at least in that case people would assume that journalist was being paid by CNN, and treat the stories with the requisite grains of salt in light of the obvious conflict of interest. Whatever arrangement Musk is making with "independent journalists" strikes me as a way to launder an obvious COI.

    Collapse
    1. Israel.D.Gale

      Andy McCarthy, in a recent article in the NY Post, argues that the FBI actually was involved in intentionally tricking Twitter into believing that the laptop was fake. So this may be an actual 1st Amendment issue.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        It is stunning that so many here, including the journalists don’t see this as a problem. Jaw dropping in my case. Who in the hell thinks the FBI involving themselves in elections is a good idea?

        Collapse
        1. Israel.D.Gale

          I have actually had personal correspondence with some of the writers at The Dispatch about this. They are playing it down, it seems that they don't think it's a big deal. I don't get it.

          Collapse
          1. Rnoliver

            Wow, I had that feeling after looking for any other articles or updates about what is being released from Twitter. Makes me feel that The Dispatch is much more like the rest of main stream media than I realized. Very disappointing.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Earl King

            Interesting...an admission they don’t care the FBI is involving themselves in our elections.

            Well the lawsuit that Missouri and Louisiana is putting a spotlight on the collusion between the WH and Social Media. Colluding on messages they didn’t like. Suppressing speech. Suppression alternative narratives about the Covid vaccine. We can only hope that some investigative journalists will pursue this. Hopefully Congress will ask the FBI WTF he was doing.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      I am just a bit cynical here, too.

      Musk is in financial hot water. He owes a ton of money, having bought Twitter on credit. He's done some idiotic moves, that don't inspire confidence in advertisers, which provide 90% of Twitter revenue, and several advertisers have suspended ad buys while they do watchful waiting.

      And he has obviously been red-pilled, so he's brought a lot of disgusting right wing accounts back, which is going to kill him financially because of advertisers pulling out.

      He's obviously looking for some controversy to whip up, to juice engagement on Twitter. He may actually be desperate.

      So I think we can expect a lot more of these phony "bombshells" to be announced in advance and then (probably?) fall flat.

      This is all about (gasp!) money and conning gullible people.

      After all, you're going to have to go on Twitter and spend time in order to find out what all the excitement is about. It'll take a while before people wise up.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Chris.James.Burton

        Who'dathunk that a rocket and a social media platform are different?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          What an interesting period we're living in. Within days, months or years, some people are rising, while people are falling, and it's all so unpredictable. The characters who rise meteorically, then fall, and what brings it about.

          Who'd have expected that Elon Musk (had lots of respect when people thought they knew who he was & his personal life wasn't under the microscope) would turn out to be a blabbermouth/huckster full of kooky ideas? That Donald Trump would rise and keep not-falling despite unprecedented scandals. People shifting into the political space you'd never have expected.


          I read someone's article online which had this thesis: maybe Trump is wishing he never ran for President. An interesting idea: even though he made millions in taxpayer money for his properties, he's had so much public exposure that it's drawn attention to sketchy business practices he's gotten away with for years, his phony charity, his Trump University scam, a hush-money scandal that only happened because he was a candidate, and lawsuits from women alleging harassment; not to mention potential indictments when he brought his shady business practices to the election loss in 2020.

          I expect lots of books and Frontline documentaries.

          Collapse
  5. James Morphew

    The Twitter dump was an inside look at how the company made some decisions about Hunter's laptop, and responded to requests from important people. I noted that they actually debated the actions. I'm not impressed that they had Jim Baker as an "executive counsel", but my prejudice against liars is showing. What I noticed was that when faced with a subjective decision, the participants used their best judgement, which is of course informed by their own prejudices and preferences. A software company in San Fran is very likely more populated by left-wing opinions, who would be much more open to the possibility that Hunter's files were some nasty trick of the right.

    The presence of these Social Media platforms creates an entirely new channel of news and opinion, and its editorial handling will be influential. We are just beginning to decide how to deal with it. We semi-libertarians recoil from the thought of government regulation, but good solutions are not yet apparent.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Vlad.Nicolaescu

      The good solution is no solution. There are no laws that regulate what the editorial page of the New Yorker prints. What goes up or stays up on Twitter is really up to the arbitrary whims of its managers and owners. As it should be. Don't like it? Don't use it.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Jonathan

      I think I basically agree with you. The platform annoys me and certainly has done things that damage its credibility given the service it's trying to provide (a marketplace for ideas and information). But I really don't buy the argument that the government needs to regulate it because they are somehow critical to the success of a healthy republic.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Abridge683

        Someone has to make moderation decisions. Otherwise the sites descend into Nazi/sexist garbage. Ask Parler.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jonathan

          The biggest issue facing all the social media companies is not their content moderation (tho I think they could do that better). It’s that they *really* want to use algorithms to drive engagement. The algorithms choose winners and losers in terms of who gets heard on social media sites. But they really *don’t* want to be clear about how their algorithms work. Which makes them a blackbox into which any aggrieved group can argue persecution conspiracies or that the site is pushing a political agenda. I don’t actually think Twitter is trying to be a mouthpiece for Democrats or discriminating against conservatives, at least not deliberately (maybe they are effectively). But people will believe the worst so long as the algorithms are mysterious.

          Collapse
  6. Scianti7

    Elon Musk wants so badly for his take-over of Twitter to be fruitful, & relevant. It seems his actions around this story sound a bit more like P.T. Barnum barking. It sounds like the executives of Twitter erred on the side of caution, recognized the error, & then tried to rectify it.

    But do people *really* think that the antics of an addict family member are representative of anyone else in the family? That is a horrifying assumption, particularly when family members are taking pains to place boundaries around it to define themselves. It's like blaming DJT for something Tiffany Trump does in her private life --she's not even invoved in his businesses, which is why she is the only one qualified for this comparison.

    Furthermore, if anyone has ever had experience with addicts, they should know that the lies about connections & power are pretty usual, especially if they have powerful family. They'll use whatever they can to protect & perpetuate their addiction. Very much including trading on someone else's reputation that they will willingly ruin for nothing more than another hit. "How do you know an addict is lying? Their mouth is moving." Hunter is not a reliable witness, particularly when he was active in his addictions.

    We *have* to be smarter than to really fall for this. Alas, I suppose not everyone has the same experience or insight.

    Collapse
    1. Maryack

      It must be wonderful to be so wise.

      Collapse
      1. Scianti7

        Hard won experience with addicts ruining the people around them is nothing to be envied. It's incredibly painful when it's you, & difficult to watch when it's people you care about, yet there's nothing you can do. Powerlessness is no fun. The insight is from heartbreak, & some horrifying lessons with people who are supposed to love you, but love their addiction more. I was incredibly lucky to learn them a little faster than some, but watching other loved ones not learn them over & over is hard.

        Hunter's schtick is super duper familiar, & I've seen a similar attempt to trade on a loved one's hard won community reputation, with ZERO reguard for the damage.

        While I'm glad not as many folks have had this. First hand experience, there are plenty of stories in news & 20/20 to be familiar with the plays.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Abridge683

      Wait until January and we'll see. I suspect Jim Jordan really WILL go full tilt toward this.

      Collapse
      1. Scianti7

        Which is too bad if what he insinuates is true. Jim Jordan does not conduct himself like someone I would take seriously. *Unless* the evidence in compelling, incontrovertible, & quality enough to be admissible in court,because I will evaluate the evidence apart from the presenter of it. However, when the evidence is lack-luster, the presenter has to be considered.

        It's too bad no one more serious & more conventionally civil is doing this. But I'm afraid that speaks to the likelihood of finding anything. Passion isn't proof & doesn't make up for a lack of quality evidence. So I guess we'll see how he does. Less shouting more real evidence, less showmanship more substance is needed.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        Of course! It's all about angertainment.

        And these folks don't have clean hands.

        Where was Jim Jordan when Trump directed all travel by himself and his VP to his resorts and charged top dollar (or more) to Secret Service?

        Don't they care about Trump stealing classified documents and spreading them here and there, all over Mar a Lago and now in some storage unit?

        Jim Jordan may be putting himself in the crosshairs if he chooses to grandstand about this, as no one in the media's really made as much as they could of the scandal at Ohio State where he did nothing while his wrestlers were being sexually abused, or just what he was up to in the Stop the Steal/Capitol attack.

        We may be seeing lots of muckraking in The Daily Beast and Mediaite that will end up in social media and also in the Dispatch, the Bulwark, and lots of Substacks. I'm not looking forward to it. It's only going to amp up the anger and divisiveness we're already suffering through.

        Collapse
  7. MathewA

    "I don’t think that means there’s necessarily this sort of grand conspiracy in the way that some conservatives frame it.”"

    It's not a conspiracy in the traditional sense. But the results are VERY similar. When you get so many people with the same viewpoint all stuck in their same echo chamber you can and do get behavior you normally wouldn't with more viewpoint diversity.

    This is reinforced by woke cancel culture where people come after you for any deviation from woke orthodoxy.

    An easy example would be what happened when the reporter did an interview with Fettermen and mentioned his problems with small talk. A mob came after her. Why, because her actions might have helped a Republican. But of course her assessment was born out during the debate.

    But people don't like it when their peers come after them. So a lot of them will just keep their heads down. Not ask difficult questions or probing questions.

    Collapse
  8. Raincheck

    “the tabloid claimed that the younger Biden arranged a meeting between a Ukrainian energy executive while his father was Vice President”

    Between a Ukrainian energy executive and ?

    Needs some editing.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Republicans only win these days on negative campaigning.

    All parties have always done this to a certain extent, but the GOP went all-in on this starting in the Trump era: they had no written platform in 2020, and still don't. (Rick Scott's failed attempt to do so earlier this year is what it looks like when they even try).

    Because of this, the Republicans need to do two things:

    1. Make people terrified of Democrats using lies.

    2. Nullify inescapable Republican criminality using whatabouting, based on lies about the other side.

    In this context, it's simply stunning that Republicans haven't been able to lay a glove on Biden, and are left to probe the only minor weakness they can find within a thousand miles of him, his troubled son.

    When you read stories like this, ask yourself why we're not talking about, oh, I don't know, legislation that would make a difference in people's lives like improving Obamacare with market-based reforms. Try to think back to a time when Republicans were actually in the business of improving things. It wasn't that long ago, historically speaking.

    Collapse
    1. Maryack

      I've noticed the positive campaigning of the Democrats. So inspiring.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        If by that you mean Biden's Build Back Better, then... yeah.

        Collapse
    2. MathewA

      "Make people terrified of Democrats using lies."

      No need for lies. There's plenty of examples of Democrats saying and arguing for truly stupid things. Some of it is nutpicking. But a lot of it is from prominent Democrats. For example, Biden calling GA voting laws "Jim Crow 2.0"


      "In this context, it's simply stunning that Republicans haven't been able to lay a glove on Biden,"

      Biden has a super low approval rating. Republicans did poorly because of Trump and his election lies. If Republicans had been smart enough to ditch him and his lies after 2020, then 2022 would have gone VERY differently

      Collapse
      1. CB76

        Biden calling GA voting laws "Jim Crow 2.0"

        I mean, that's stupid and hyperbolic, but that's par for the course for Biden speaking impromptu, no? Anybody who was "terrified" of that rhetoric needs to be on psych meds.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Wow, Republicans are still butt-hurt over that statement. Amazing.

        If Republicans ditch Trump, then they will also ditch 70% of their voters.

        Collapse
        1. MathewA

          When you compare well within bounds election laws changes to one of the darkest periods in our nations history, then yeah people remember that.


          "Republicans ditch Trump, then they will also ditch 70% of their voters."

          Seemed to work just fine in GA

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Huh? What about GA?

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    BloggerBarbie

    I think where the Trump-base is confused is that this was not a hidden story, even if the Left didn't especially like it. It was out there enough that people prone to caring about this sort of thing knew about it, and had already mentally given it an evaluation. ("Is Hunter Biden a crooked jerk? Probably.") That evaluation had no impact on their political decisions, because of all the options to get Trump out of the White House, Joe Biden was the least bad. He wasn't campaigning as a savior of the world, about whom compromising information was going to make people say, "Whoa, I guess he's not the saint he's pretending to be!" He was campaigning, more or less, on the grounds of not being Donald Trump, and Hunter's behavior have any effect on that message. (Now, it could have been framed as "Well, Don Jr is also an @ss who has a lot of influence in his father's life, so how different are they?" but that would not have been a winning Republican strategy.)

    The question of social media moderation is a different question. Musk might well have made the astounding revelation that a private social media company had a political slant. I am so shocked I could be knocked over with a feather. But for me, the real question is just how much we've allowed private companies to own the public square. I've never posted a Tweet and don't get the fascination with the format (same with TikTok, Snapchat, and, ye gods and little fishes, Pinterest--at least Facebook lets me talk with friends and family about silly things), but for whatever reason, it's become a major part of the conversation. But it *is* a private company. For all intents and purposes, at moment, it's a big public meeting being held in Elon Musk's yard instead of on public ground.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Abridge683

      The primary product of sites like FaceBook, Twitter, Pinterest is their moderation of their sites. That's where a huge effort goes. Immense effort.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Also, other than among the most committed MAGA cultists, any "Biden crime family" rumor was pretty much negated by the obvious nepotism of Trump himself. And even most people who liked Trump himself really had little use for his kids tagging along. They saw Ivanka and Jared as too liberal, and Don Jr and Eric as too stupid, to really be an asset to Team Trump. They tolerated them as cheerleaders but certainly didn't see them as worthy of being Trump's successors.

      I think the Hunter Laptop story has persisted mostly because election deniers can save face by pointing to it as proof of a "rigged election". But if Trump had won, Republicans wouldn't be as obsessed. Maybe in a vague whataboutist "but her emails" way, but not the subject of House investigations.

      This is a mirror to how I am sure that the impact of the Access Hollywood tape was blunted by the fact that Trump's opponent happened to be married to Bill Clinton, widely thought to be guilty of similar actions himself. So no matter who won, a man accused of sexual misconduct would wind up living in the WH.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Porouke

      The fact that people are even flirting with the idea of considering social media software companies to be akin to public utilities tells me we are losing our way somewhat. I quit all social media a few years ago and wish a whole lot more Americans would do the same (especially journalists and politicians). The more integral to life these sites become, the worse they become.

      Collapse
Load More