The story about the suppression and censorship of conservatives on Twitter continues to get more interesting.
Americans have long suspected that the suspension of the President of the United States was one-sided and political in nature.
Now journalists working with Elon Musk are telling the story of his removal and it’s even more terrifying than anyone wants to believe.
Nearly two years later the truth is finally out about Donald Trump’s suspension from Twitter
Supporters of Donald Trump have long wondered how Donald Trump, while he was a sitting President, could have been removed from Twitter.
While many in the media pointed to January 6, there were many Americans who still couldn’t understand how it was possible.
Now journalist Matt Taibbi says that January 6 might have been a flashpoint, but it wasn’t the whole story.
He says it was the result of “the erosion of standards within the company” that happened for “months before J6.”
3. We’ll show you what hasn’t been revealed: the erosion of standards within the company in months before J6, decisions by high-ranking executives to violate their own policies, and more, against the backdrop of ongoing, documented interaction with federal agencies.
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Taibbi’s thread on Twitter shows a collection of “decisions by high-ranking executives” that not only violated the company’s policies but potentially the Constitution as well.
While some employees saw history in the making, executives were looking at creating speech policies
While the media told the people that this was imperative for the so-called “democracy” to survive, even Twitter employees saw it as an incredible development in tech history.
One employee asked on their internal Slack channel, “is this the first sitting head of state to ever be suspended?”
5. Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter’s employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech. pic.twitter.com/tQ01n58XFc
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Twitter executives saw it from a different perspective – they had no regrets and anticipated it may even happen again.
Internal communications shortly after the Trump ban show one executive saying they would “not suspend” the official @POTUS or @WhiteHouse accounts, but they would “take action to limit their use,” adding that Biden “will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary . . .”
6. As soon as they finished banning Trump, Twitter execs started processing new power. They prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses – perhaps even Joe Biden. The “new administration,” says one exec, “will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary.” pic.twitter.com/lr66YgDlGy
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
What would make it absolutely necessary?
One employee suggests using perspective and “historical context” while making objective rulings
While many reported that the suspension was born out of the January 6 protest-turned-riot, evidence from Taibbi paints a picture of a longer plan.
One user wrote to former head of legal, Vijaya Gadde, that the decision should be based on more than a single tweet.
They suggested that the company must take into account the “last 4+ years” of Trump’s administration and compared it to “yelling fire into a crowded theater.”
They said going beyond a single tweet that he did violate Twitter rules when considering “historical context.”
7. Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the “context surrounding”: actions by Trump and supporters “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.” In the end, they looked at a broad picture. But that approach can cut both ways. pic.twitter.com/Trgvq5jmhS
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Their idea of historical context comes from meetings that former Head of Trust and Safety, Yoel Roth, described as “very interesting.”
He seemingly spoke to himself in a company Slack channel complaining that “there weren’t meeting names generic enough to cover” these “very interesting” meetings.
11. After J6, internal Slacks show Twitter executives getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies. Here’s Trust and Safety head Yoel Roth, lamenting a lack of “generic enough” calendar descriptions to concealing his “very interesting” meeting partners. pic.twitter.com/kgC4eGykcO
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
Roth was in involved in the 2020 election response but sarcastically claimed he wasn’t meeting with the FBI
He then gave sneering examples of titles for the meetings.
One he suggested could be called “Very Boring Business Meeting That Is Definitely Not About Trump” and another “DEFINITELY NOT meeting with the FBI I SWEAR.”
These meetings are troublesome on their own, but Roth was also directly involved in policing information related to the 2020 election and attempts to flag Trump’s tweets.
In one exchange, he struggled to justify suspending Trump for stating there were issues with “50,000 OHIO VOTERS getting WRONG ABSENTEE BALLOTS. Out of control. A Rigged Election!”
16. The latter group were a high-speed Supreme Court of moderation, issuing content rulings on the fly, often in minutes and based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in cases involving the President. pic.twitter.com/5ihsPCVo62
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) December 9, 2022
He suggested that describing the election as “rigged” would be enough – if it weren’t true about the 50,000 voters in Ohio.
He even provided the link reporting about the issue Trump referenced.
The story inside of Twitter is getting dirtier and dirtier.
Americans need answers and a resolution quickly.
Investigations are bound to ramp up sooner than later.
Patriot Political will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.
