Great explainer, glad I found this to be better informed. One question, I see from a comment from someone else that Twitter reversed the ban 2 days after it first went into effect…however this seems to be missing from your timeline. Is this indeed correct, that the ban only lasted 2 days?
Yes! The Twitter-wide blocking of the NY Post story/link latest for 2 days (I just found a reliable source for this and will add it). However, the NY Post Twitter account was locked out for two weeks (meaning they couldn't tweet). As noted, Twitter was forcing them to delete their tweet, despite the reversal of the decision on the story.
It's also worth noting that the suppression of the story was literally only in place for two days, and the author of the NY Post story refused to have his name attached to it because it smelled off to him as well.
I agree. I just wish that one of the alleged authors of the NY Post story, Bruce Golding, would confirm this information and tell us his decision behind it. So far, I only see one NY Times story reporting on it (and everyone else cites that). But he's still at the NY Post, so maybe we just wants to keep his job? Maybe one day we'll know.
Twitter kept the Post story from being shared for a few days at most. Msybe they had valid reasons, maybe they were slow to act. Maybe it was malicious.
But the GQP will have you believe the Post itself was censored. Like, there was no other place to access this article. That's pure BS.
Good pickup for the timeline. I can add. The NY Post Twitter account was locked down for two weeks. (I can't find reliable info on the length of Kayleigh McEnany's lock out). All of it seems over-broad by Twitter, although yeah, both sides *love* to play the victim when given the chance. I think my biggest concern in real-time was the fact that it wasn't reported on so very few people I talked to EVEN AFTER the election knew about this story.
That's not a Twitter thing at all, as the NY Post's peers journalism refusing to cover it. Some of it, those peers say, it not having access to the same laptop dats. So lots of blame to go around.
Hi Scott. There are a few tweets I could offer up for citation, but this one takes the cake:
Elon Musk: "Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is"
Great explainer, glad I found this to be better informed. One question, I see from a comment from someone else that Twitter reversed the ban 2 days after it first went into effect…however this seems to be missing from your timeline. Is this indeed correct, that the ban only lasted 2 days?
Yes! The Twitter-wide blocking of the NY Post story/link latest for 2 days (I just found a reliable source for this and will add it). However, the NY Post Twitter account was locked out for two weeks (meaning they couldn't tweet). As noted, Twitter was forcing them to delete their tweet, despite the reversal of the decision on the story.
It's also worth noting that the suppression of the story was literally only in place for two days, and the author of the NY Post story refused to have his name attached to it because it smelled off to him as well.
I agree. I just wish that one of the alleged authors of the NY Post story, Bruce Golding, would confirm this information and tell us his decision behind it. So far, I only see one NY Times story reporting on it (and everyone else cites that). But he's still at the NY Post, so maybe we just wants to keep his job? Maybe one day we'll know.
One thing that appears to be missing is the fact that several NY POST reporters refused to allow their names to be used on the laptop article because they questioned the veracity of the reporting. How or whether that influenced Twitter decisions is not known to me, but it was one of several red flags that were hoisted at the time. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/new-york-post-joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-rudy-guliani-b1160302.html
Twitter kept the Post story from being shared for a few days at most. Msybe they had valid reasons, maybe they were slow to act. Maybe it was malicious.
But the GQP will have you believe the Post itself was censored. Like, there was no other place to access this article. That's pure BS.
Good pickup for the timeline. I can add. The NY Post Twitter account was locked down for two weeks. (I can't find reliable info on the length of Kayleigh McEnany's lock out). All of it seems over-broad by Twitter, although yeah, both sides *love* to play the victim when given the chance. I think my biggest concern in real-time was the fact that it wasn't reported on so very few people I talked to EVEN AFTER the election knew about this story.
That's not a Twitter thing at all, as the NY Post's peers journalism refusing to cover it. Some of it, those peers say, it not having access to the same laptop dats. So lots of blame to go around.
Can you expand on this? Where did he do this?
“Elon Musk has hyped this reveal as a case of government suppression”
Hi Scott. There are a few tweets I could offer up for citation, but this one takes the cake:
Elon Musk: "Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is"
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598853708443357185