Elon Musk releases the second set of 'Twitter Files,' detailing how conservatives were shadow-banned and blacklisted



Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk released a second edition of the "Twitter Files" on Thursday, revealing how the company had shadow-banned and blacklisted accounts.

The story was released to journalist Bari Weiss, who tweeted it in a long thread from her account.

\u201cTHREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART TWO. \n\nTWITTER\u2019S SECRET BLACKLISTS.\u201d
— Bari Weiss (@Bari Weiss) 1670544925

"A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users," she said in a second tweet.

Weiss detailed how Twitter placed the account of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending because he argued that pandemic lockdowns were harmful to children.

In another instance, radio talk show host Dan Bongino was placed on a "Search Blacklist" for a time. It also put Charlie Kirk's account on a "Do Not Amplify" list.

Weiss pointed out that Twitter had denied shadow-banning on the basis of political viewpoint.

“We do not shadow ban," said a statement from Twitter in 2018. “And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”

What is known as "shadow-banning" was referred to as "Visibility Filtering" at Twitter.

“Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool,” said one senior Twitter employee to Weiss.

“We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do,” Weiss quoted a Twitter engineer.

There was an official team that handled the shadow-banning of about 200 users per day, but there was also a specialized executive team for the more sensitive cases of users with high follower counts. One of those was the popular Libs of TikTok account.

That account was publicly suspended for hateful conduct, but interior emails said otherwise.

“LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy," the committee concluded.

The committee instead justified the suspension of the account by claiming the posts encouraged harassment by insinuating “that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.”

Weiss posted other deliberations where Twitter officials discussed how else to justify suspending and otherwise restricting the Libs of TikTok account.

“The hypothesis underlying much of what we’ve implemented is that if exposure to, e.g., misinformation directly causes harm, we should use remediations that reduce exposure, and limiting the spread/virality of content is a good way to do that," wrote Yoel Roth, Twitter’s then-Global Head of Trust & Safety, in an email from 2021.

Weiss concluded by saying there was much more to come from the internal files of the social media company.

You can read revelations from the first set of "Twitter Files" here.

Here's more about the second 'Twitter Files':

Twitter files 2: Employees accused of ‘blacklists’ | On Balancewww.youtube.com

Biracial student fails Critical Race Theory class for refusing to confess his 'white dominance,' mom claims



A biracial high school senior is being threatened with not being able to graduate for failing a Critical Race Theory class at his school because he refused to confess to his "white dominance" as part of the course requirement, the boy's mother claims.

What are the details?

Gabrielle Clark says that her son, William, was forced to take a mandatory "Sociology of Change" course at his school, Democracy Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada.

A crowdfunded profile of the situation posted by the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism explains that "In the class, William, along with all the students, was asked to publicly reveal his race, gender, religious, and sexual identities, and then attach derogatory labels to those identities. Students were then asked to 'undo and unlearn' their "beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that stem from oppression."

"William was understandably reluctant to label himself as 'privileged' or an 'oppressor,'" the profile goes on to say, adding that "while William is the only student in the class who appears to be white — he has light skin and green eyes — he is, in fact, mixed race."

William was given a failing grade in the course, and his mother filed a lawsuit against the school in December to protest the curriculum of the Critical Race Theory class and to seek damages after the school allegedly threatened to not allow William to graduate.

The lawsuit states that the Clarks are seeking "monetary damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, for the damage done to William Clark's future academic and professional prospects, and for the Defendants' deliberate and protracted harassment, emotional abuse, and violation of Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights."

According to The Daily Mail, "they also want the court to prevent the school from denying William a high school diploma and accommodate him with 'an alternative non-discriminatory, non-confessional class'."

Democracy Prep told the outlet that it could not comment on pending lawsuits, but issued a statement saying:

"Our curriculum teaches students about American democracy and movements for social change throughout our history. We strongly disagree with how the curriculum has been characterized in this filing."

The case has generated buzz over the already-controversial teaching of Critical Race Theory, and columnist Bari Weiss made a plug calling for support for the Clarks on Thursday.

Weiss tweeted, "This is a very important case if you care about pushing back against CRT and standing up for free thought and free expression. The Clarks need your help. Please donate to support them."

This is a very important case if you care about pushing back against CRT and standing up for free thought and free… https://t.co/hQltd9hGyB
— Bari Weiss (@Bari Weiss)1615515182.0

FOX & Friends: Mom sues school for requiring son to take 'anti white' classwww.youtube.com

Journalist Glenn Greenwald resigns from The Intercept claiming censorship of Biden-critical article — Intercept fires back



Claiming "trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity" have overtaken the publication he co-founded and the mainstream media at large, journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept on Thursday.

In an essay announcing his resignation, Greenwald said a decision by the Intercept's New York-based editors to censor an article he wrote that criticized Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was the "final, precipitating cause" of his departure. He lamented that the "pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept."

My Resignation From The InterceptThe same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing t… https://t.co/hjTed6IW6j
— Glenn Greenwald (@Glenn Greenwald)1603993157.0

According to Greenwald, an article he wrote this week criticized Biden, the Democratic nominee, over recent revelations about his business relations with foreign entities as reported by the New York Post and by a witness who claims to be a former business partner of the Biden family. He also critiqued "the media's rank-closing attempt, in a deeply unholy union with Silicon Valley and the 'intelligence community,' to suppress" the Hunter Biden materials. But Greenwald's editors wouldn't let him publish the story unless he removed the parts critical of Biden.

"The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept's editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression," Greenwald wrote.

"The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden's conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication."

He added that his editors rejected a suggestion that they publish their own article airing disagreements with his views on the Biden evidence rather than preventing him from publishing the story.

"So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose," Greenwald wrote.

In response, he chose to leave, "voluntarily sacrificing the support of a large institution and guaranteed salary in exchange for nothing other than a belief that there are enough people who believe in the virtues of independent journalism and the need for free discourse who will be willing to support my work by subscribing."

"Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice," Greenwald wrote. "I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election."

Greenwald co-founded The Intercept and its parent company First Look Media in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras. He said the original mission of the publication was "to create a new media outlets where all talented, responsible journalists would enjoy the same right of editorial freedom I had always insisted upon for myself."

He believes that The Intercept of today is "completely unrecognizable when compared to that original vision."

"Rather than offering a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives, it is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties, a rigid and narrow range of permitted viewpoints (ranging from establishment liberalism to soft leftism, but always anchored in ultimate support for the Democratic Party), a deep fear of offending hegemonic cultural liberalism and center-left Twitter luminaries, and an overarching need to secure the approval and admiration of the very mainstream media outlets we created The Intercept to oppose, critique and subvert."

Sounding off on the ideological bent of "every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom," Greenwald declared his independence from groupthink.

"I began writing about politics fifteen years ago with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression, and — regardless of the risks involved — simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces me to submit my journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates."

The Intercept on Thursday published a response to Greenwald's criticisms, accusing him of crafting a "narrative" "teeming with distortions and inaccuracies."

Glenn Greenwald's decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept's editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.

We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept.

In tweets sent after the Intercept's response was published, Greenwald refused to get into a "tit-for-tat" with his former employer, but announced he would publish the emails sent back and forth between him and his editors over the article "so people can decide for themselves if it was censored."

3) Given their claims, I'm going to publish -- along with the censored article -- the emails about it so people can… https://t.co/rfMtDVPOdi
— Glenn Greenwald (@Glenn Greenwald)1604000490.0

The news of Greenwald's resignation was received with admiration and respect from many journalists and political commentators.

Lee Fang, a reporter for The Intercept and now former colleague of Greenwald, called him "the most principled person in media today."

Glenn Greenwald is the most principled person in media today. https://t.co/xKFGuxDWXi
— Lee Fang (@Lee Fang)1603995175.0

Others applauded Greenwald for his "courage."

Bravo to Glenn Greenwald for his courage in standing up for what journalism is supposed to be.Without those committ… https://t.co/pcQ1fOTSMI
— Lara Logan (@Lara Logan)1603999304.0
Because he is a brave journalist ... I just subscribed to Greenwald https://t.co/lrl3Rr1K4M Also subscribed to… https://t.co/SfjE9cKJKy
— Mollie (@Mollie)1603994346.0
Glenn: I can’t overstate how much I admire your integrity and intellectual independence. We’d be honored to have yo… https://t.co/PdYD0SaSrf
— Sohrab Ahmari (@Sohrab Ahmari)1603995016.0
In an era of corporate media corruption, the voices of rebellion against the dominant narrative are increasingly st… https://t.co/6ekXCinPzd
— Ben Domenech (@Ben Domenech)1603994906.0
"Courage is required to step out of line, to question and poke at those pieties most sacred in one’s own milieu, bu… https://t.co/av2XIStzXF
— Bari Weiss (@Bari Weiss)1603994825.0
Let's be clear. I'm sure there are many things I don't agree with Glenn Greenwald about, but he is a dying breed, a… https://t.co/tlFd7oM4Mv
— Brent Bozell (@Brent Bozell)1603999607.0
I disagree with Glenn a lot, but I have always been impressed by his willingness to stand on his principles. The MS… https://t.co/t5XiVLIy6b
— Ari Fleischer (@Ari Fleischer)1603998995.0
Glenn Greenwald1000% respectwow https://t.co/nWmsW3wTjv
— Tim Pool (@Tim Pool)1603993487.0

But Greenwald is not without some detractors.

The Intercept: *applies editorial standards*Glenn Greenwald: https://t.co/erO8uuDu7o
— Joe Berkowitz (@Joe Berkowitz)1603995634.0
This is such amazingly *great* news for THE INTERCEPT, a truly impressive news outfit whose investigative journalis… https://t.co/DjHjLvLgnR
— Seth Abramson (@Seth Abramson)1603994744.0
Inevitable. There are still good reporters at The Intercept and I hope they can now be free of the stain of Greenwa… https://t.co/TKJ4URz5ab
— Wajahat "Wears a Mask Because of a Pandemic" Ali (@Wajahat "Wears a Mask Because of a Pandemic" Ali)1603995150.0

Columbia University Marching Band dissolves, confessing to being founded on racism and sexual harassment



The Columbia University Marching Band voted to dissolve itself over the weekend after more than a century of existence, citing a foundation of racism and sexual misconduct, according to the Columbia Spectator.

The band, which has had various conflicts with the university for years, was stripped of its university funding in 2019 after failing to register as a recognized student group. That registration was a condition for the group continuing to receive funding after violating university rules to hold a concert in the library in 2017.

In a statement provided to the Spectator, the band's leadership said the decision to dissolve was the result of "anonymous postings and allegations of sexual misconduct, assault, theft, racism, and injury to individuals and the Columbia community as a whole," which were discussed during a Sept. 12 town hall meeting.

In the statement, leadership expressed a belief that the organization was so structurally corrupt that it was beyond reform.

"The Band has unanimously and enthusiastically decided to dissolve. The Columbia University Marching Band will not continue to exist in any capacity and will no longer serve as a Columbia spirit group," the statement says. "The Columbia University Marching Band apologizes for insult and injury victims have experienced as a result of actions perpetrated in its name. The Band has maintained a club structure founded on the basis of racism, cultural oppression, misogyny, and sexual harassment. While substantial efforts have been made in recent years toward undoing decades of wrongdoing, we as a Band feel ultimately that it is impossible to reform an organization so grounded in prejudiced culture and traditions."

The marching band (!!) at @Columbia was apparently “founded on the basis of racism, cultural oppression, misogyny,… https://t.co/nDOAJkYRmm
— Bari Weiss (@Bari Weiss)1600181508.0

Earlier this month, the band released a statement about problems within the group that sparked calls for dissolution and led some members of the band's leadership to step down.

"The CUMB has very serious problems when it comes to racism, sexual assault, and alcohol culture," a Sept. 2 read, according to the Spectator.

Although it remains possible that a new band will be formed in the future, some fear that the spirit of the band that served the university for 116 years will be lost.

"The band is gone, and if and when it returns, it will be exactly what the corporations bankrolling Ivy League sports specifically because Ivy League sports is an essential establishment power identification and training system, want it to be," said Steve Greenfield, a former drum major from the class of 1982.