Twitter Senior Engineer Admits That Platform "Does Not Believe in Free Speech” (5/21/22 23:45 PST) (1 Viewer)

[GordonGekko]

VIDEO: Twitter Senior Engineer Admits in Undercover Video That “Twitter Does Not Believe in Free Speech” May 16, 2022

...Twitter Senior Engineer, Siru Murugesan, discussing how employees at the tech company “hate” Elon Musk’s impending acquisition of Twitter

“Twitter does not believe in free speech… Elon believes in free speech.”

“Our jobs are at stake, he's a capitalist and we weren't really operating as capitalists, more like very socialist. Like we're all like commie as f------k.”

“We did all we could to like revolt against it. A lot of employees were revolting against it.”

“I don't know if two parties can truly coexist on one platform.”

“They're like, ‘this would be my last day if it happens…’ a lot has changed. Like, we're stress eating a lot. Like, we're all worried for our jobs.....” 

 ... Back in March, Musk said he was a “free speech absolutist” and clarified his comments further adding, “By free speech, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people........”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TexDrY6AlAw

VIDEO: LEAKED RAW AUDIO: Full Twitter All-Hands Call 04-25-22    / Apr 26, 2022

Twitter CMO Leslie Berland acknowledged that Twitter’s “moderation policies” are why Musk bought the company....“Elon made it clear in public that a large part of the reason he bought the platform was because of our moderation policies and disagreements in how we deal with health,” said Berland. “This puts Twitter service and Trust and Safety as well as anybody who cares about health on the platform in a very difficult position......”

Musk successfully closed the deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion yesterday after weeks of speculation led to an official offer to buy Twitter on April 14....Prior to that, Musk repeatedly polled his Twitter followers about freedom of speech and whether they considered Twitter to be upholding the First Amendment. Musk has described himself as a “free speech absolutist,” and chafed against recent Twitter censorship of conservative and Christian accounts....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja3cPPL3lks

https://miamistandard.news/2022/04/26/breaking-project-veritas-posts-full-audio-from-leaked-twitter-call-held-after-musk-acquisition/

*******

A Twitter Senior Engineer just comes out and says that Twitter overall does not "believe in free speech" but that Elon Musk does. And that Twitter employees, which disproportionately leaned hard full on "socialist" and nearly all who donated, did so for the Democratic Party, and whom he mentions sometimes work only four hours a week and can take months off a time at their discretion, are up in arms and want to revolt. Could that be because Musk is known for being a demanding boss that expects his companies to stay on the cutting edge and keep innovating and growing? And that he just plain wants free speech to boot?

Twitter's CMO in leaked audio comes clean, Musk was buying the platform because he was unhappy with how it was moderated and how it handled "free speech"  The Biden Administration, where half of Joe Biden's followers have been audited out to be fake bots,  responds by discussing "reforming Section 230", which was never brought up in the past when Big Social Media was almost completely leaning in their direction and for their benefit.

What does it say when senior staff who works in that environment and knows how the internal game is played and all the players and all the contexts, says outright that the platform is chock full of communists?  And how exactly has all of recorded human history shown us about what Communists feel about actual free speech?

Is the Biden Administration and many Twitter employees and many in the Democratic Party and many in the activist complicit MSM upset solely because they've lost one of their main propaganda machines?

I'll leave this here for others to discuss.

 

[GordonGekko]

CONTEXTUAL MATERIAL:

Direct Headline: Musk puts Twitter employees on alert: ‘Work ethic expectations would be extreme’

...“Work ethic expectations would be extreme, but much less than I demand of myself...” ....The billionaire responded to his own earlier tweet that touted Twitter would be “super focused on hardcore software engineering, design, infosec & server hardware.....”

“I strongly believe that all managers in a technical area must be technically excellent....Managers in software must write great software or it’s like being a cavalry captain who can’t ride a horse!”

by Heather Hamilton May 08, 2022 08:40 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/musk-puts-twitter-employees-on-alert-work-ethic-expectations-would-be-extreme

Direct Headline: FEC data show Twitter employees made 99% of political donations to Democrats, Google employees were at 94%

Nearly all of the political donations made by Twitter and Google employees went to Democrats in 2021, according to data from the Federal Elections Commission....Google employees gave $652,600 to Democrats and only $37,700 to Republicans, which means that 94% of political donations went to Democrats, according to FEC records....

...Twitter employees made 561 contributions totaling $14,848.98 through ActBlue, an online payment processor for the Democrat Party. There were a mere eight donations made to Republicans through the GOP fundraising platform WinRed, according to FEC data. A whopping 99% of political donations made by Twitter employees in 2021 went to Democrats, the New York Post reported.....

Paul Sacca January 08, 2022

https://www.theblaze.com/news/big-tech-donations-favor-democrats#toggle-gdpr

Direct Headline: Audit Reveals Shocking Percentage of Biden's Twitter Followers Are Fake

President Biden would lose about half of his followers, according to an audit from software company, SparkToro....The company’s tool discovered 49.3 percent of President Biden’s 22.2 million Twitter followers are fake, Newsweek reports, meaning they’re “accounts that are unreachable and will not see the account’s tweets (either because they’re spam, bots, propaganda, etc. or because they’re no longer active on Twitter).....”

....Musk said he thought 20 percent of accounts on Twitter are fake and said the deal couldn’t go through if the problem isn’t addressed. ....According to SparkToro, about 70 percent of Musk’s 93.3 million followers are fake.....

Leah Barkoukis May 18, 2022 7:00 AM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2022/05/18/audit-half-of-bidens-twitter-followers-are-fake-n2607432

Direct Headline: WATCH: White House expresses 'concern' over social media power after Elon Musk buys Twitter

The White House responded on Monday to Twitter's acceptance of Elon Musk's bid to purchase the platform for $44 billion, and the potential likelihood that former President Donald Trump will be reinstated to the social media giant....Press Secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the purchase, and if "the White House has any concern that the agreement might have President Trump back on the platform?..."

...In response, Psaki said "Well I'm not going to comment on a specific transaction....What I can tell you, as a general matter, no matter who owns or runs Twitter, the President has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms, the power they have over our every day lives, has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms they cause....He's been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve that goal, including reforms to Section 230, enacting anti-trust reforms, requiring more transparency, and more— and he's encouraged that there's bipartisan interest in Congress.....We've long talked about and the president has long talked about his concerns about the power of social media platforms, including Twitter and others, to spread misinformation....."

Libby Emmons April 25, 2022 1:11 PM

https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-white-house-expresses-concern-over-social-media-power-after-elon-musk-buys-twitter

 

[knowledge dropper]

Great stuff as always.  

 

[squistion]

VIDEO: Twitter Senior Engineer Admits in Undercover Video That “Twitter Does Not Believe in Free Speech” May 16, 2022

...Twitter Senior Engineer, Siru Murugesan, discussing how employees at the tech company “hate” Elon Musk’s impending acquisition of Twitter

Project Veritas video.  

How do you expect people to take you seriously?

 

[FairWarning]

I can’t wait until Musk backs out of the deal, then the left can proclaim it’s a private business that can do what it wants.

 

[BladeRunner]

Project Veritas video.  

How do you expect people to take you seriously?

Just to be clear - did you watch the video?  If not, how can you make a factual determination?

 

[squistion]

Just to be clear - did you watch the video?  If not, how can you make a factual determination?

I didn't have to watch the video.

Project Veritas has a documented history of videos that appear to be misleadingly edited to give the wrong impression of what the speaker was actually talking about or responding to. They have been asked in every instance of a suspect video to supply their complete unedited footage and have always refused to do so (because it would obviously prove the video had been doctored to fit their narrative).

Project Veritas has no credibility. None. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

@gordon gekko How would you define “free speech” as it pertains to social media?

 

[BladeRunner]

I didn't have to watch the video.

Project Veritas has a documented history of videos that appear to be misleadingly edited to give the wrong impression of what the speaker was actually talking about or responding to. They have been asked in every instance of a suspect video to supply their complete unedited footage and have always refused to do so (because it would obviously prove the video had been doctored to fit their narrative).

Project Veritas has no credibility. None. 

Not sure how you can make a determination about the video without seeing the video.  Project Veritas isn't the one saying those things on the video - it's literally the engineer.

Are you saying that the guy saying that is a plant by Project Veritas and they put him up to say those things?

 

[squistion]

Not sure how you can make a determination about the video without seeing the video.  Project Veritas isn't the one saying those things on the video - it's literally the engineer.

Are you saying that the guy saying that is a plant by Project Veritas and they put him up to say those things?

Anyone who has seen their other videos doesn't need to view this one, as like the others it will contain out of context interview footage with the interview responses so edited that they give a misleading impression (IIRC with the Acorn videos it was alleged that O'Keefe and Project Veritas had taken interview answers and then substituted or dubbed in different questions other than what was actually asked). Until they are willing to provide the unedited footage of their interviews, nothing that they present has any credibility. 

 

[knowledge dropper]

Not sure how you can make a determination about the video without seeing the video.  Project Veritas isn't the one saying those things on the video - it's literally the engineer.

Are you saying that the guy saying that is a plant by Project Veritas and they put him up to say those things?

The Source Police.  Low energy response when they can’t discredit the story.  Same as always.  

 

[GordonGekko]

Just to be clear - did you watch the video?  If not, how can you make a factual determination?

In the last six weeks, I've started over 20 top level threads in the PSF. I've consistently supported many of them with updates and some are generating a lot of discussion. Since my topics will tend to lean Conservative minded, of course the attack pattern against myself and other Conservatives will increase.

When I came back to the FBG forums after many years away, it was just you @BladeRunner and @jon_mx and @Max Power and @NorvilleBarnes mostly, probably a year and a half ago, and I saw you guys get chased around and smeared for sport by the activist complicit radical leftists. I decided to do something about it.

Well, now it's a year and half later and I see more Conservatives posting, but also more moderates and more independents and a few traditional liberals. It's no longer a target rich environment. I see diversity of thought and diversity of opinion as a good thing. The radical left? They won't see it that way.

As I've always said, Conservatives should strive to create new "high information voters"  Present the information and source material and consistently bring value and let people decide for themselves. The woke cancel culture radical left simply cannot survive when faced with the truth and evidence and time and deep investigation.

That's the difference between myself and squisition. I'll give my analysis, no doubt, but I present the material and let people decide for themselves. Much of what is shown can't really be argued against and that's just going to enrage some people. squistion on the other hand wants to decide for people what they should think and say and can only enforce that with trolling, sealioning, personal attacks, ad hominem, logical fallacy bombing, gaming the Report Button and trying to enforce silence.

We don't need to match hate with hate. Conservatives should never match hate with hate. There are many traditional liberals who are good people, just different views, that want many of the same core things that we want, and they are not like the radical left. I embrace them as Americans first, not liberals first.

I have about 2600 posts or so. I'd say close to 2000 were made in the last year and a half. Squid has close to 44 thousand posts. Think about the positive impact he could have made for the entire community if he spent even 20 percent of that making some attempt at raising the level of discussion in these forums. That's not a purity test, it's a heat check. And I'm excellent at heat checks.

The radical left just wants to provoke people for sport. They want to punish anyone not willing to be an activist complicit woke shock trooper. Let them rot in their misery.

Conservatives should strive to provoke thought, and then let people choose for themselves. If we take care of business and keep setting the pace and keep setting the right example, then people will naturally come to choose our path on their own accord.

 

[sho nuff]

Not sure how you can make a determination about the video without seeing the video.  Project Veritas isn't the one saying those things on the video - it's literally the engineer.

Are you saying that the guy saying that is a plant by Project Veritas and they put him up to say those things?

Sure…then they post the full footage and not their selectively edited garbage (and yes…what Veritas has done historically has been garbage).  There is absolutely zero credibility with them.

 

[squistion]

In the last six weeks, I've started over 20 top level threads in the PSF. I've consistently supported many of them with updates and some are generating a lot of discussion. Since my topics will tend to lean Conservative minded, of course the attack pattern against myself and other Conservatives will increase.

When I came back to the FBG forums after many years away, it was just you @BladeRunner and @jon_mx and @Max Power and @NorvilleBarnes mostly, probably a year and a half ago, and I saw you guys get chased around and smeared for sport by the activist complicit radical leftists. I decided to do something about it.

Well, now it's a year and half later and I see more Conservatives posting, but also more moderates and more independents and a few traditional liberals. It's no longer a target rich environment. I see diversity of thought and diversity of opinion as a good thing. The radical left? They won't see it that way.

As I've always said, Conservatives should strive to create new "high information voters"  Present the information and source material and consistently bring value and let people decide for themselves. The woke cancel culture radical left simply cannot survive when faced with the truth and evidence and time and deep investigation.

That's the difference between myself and squisition. I'll give my analysis, no doubt, but I present the material and let people decide for themselves. Much of what is shown can't really be argued against and that's just going to enrage some people. squistion on the other hand wants to decide for people what they should think and say and can only enforce that with trolling, sealioning, personal attacks, ad hominem, logical fallacy bombing, gaming the Report Button and trying to enforce silence.

We don't need to match hate with hate. Conservatives should never match hate with hate. There are many traditional liberals who are good people, just different views, that want many of the same core things that we want, and they are not like the radical left. I embrace them as Americans first, not liberals first.

I have about 2600 posts or so. I'd say close to 2000 were made in the last year and a half. Squid has close to 44 thousand posts. Think about the positive impact he could have made for the entire community if he spent even 20 percent of that making some attempt at raising the level of discussion in these forums. That's not a purity test, it's a heat check. And I'm excellent at heat checks.

The radical left just wants to provoke people for sport. They want to punish anyone not willing to be an activist complicit woke shock trooper. Let them rot in their misery.

Conservatives should strive to provoke thought, and then let people choose for themselves. If we take care of business and keep setting the pace and keep setting the right example, then people will naturally come to choose our path on their own accord.

We obviously disagree over what is considered top level. And any thread that starts with a link to the discredited James O'Keefe and Project Veritas is not top level IMO. 

 

[Max Power]

We obviously disagree over what is considered top level. And any thread that starts with a link to the discredited James O'Keefe and Project Veritas is not top level IMO. 

I feel the same about WAPO and NYT pieces.  Their radical agenda is perfectly clear to anyone paying attention. 

 

[Rich Conway]

I can’t wait until Musk backs out of the deal, then the left can proclaim it’s a private business that can do what it wants.

Was, is, and will continue to be.

 

[FairWarning]

Was, is, and will continue to be.

It will probably end up in the SC someday about the role of social media.

 

[squistion]

I feel the same about WAPO and NYT pieces.  Their radical agenda is perfectly clear to anyone paying attention. 

Poor analogy. WAPO and NYT don't have a history of their reporters taking quotes out of context and doctoring videos to give an intentionally misleading impression. Both publications have had, in rare instances, reporters who misreported things either intentionally or unintentionally, but in all cases both publications admitted the error and made a retraction once they were made aware of it.

Project Veritas has never once produced any documentation that their videos are not selectively edited so as to distort what was actually said by the person being interviewed. They have no credibility at all, and it is a joke IMO to start a thread citing one of their interviews as having any legitimacy. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I guess I don't get why this is interesting. Twitter suspends, removes and bans accounts/posts all the time based on what they say. Of course Twitter is not an open free speech platform. Whether it should be and to what extent is far conversation though.

 

[Rich Conway]

It will probably end up in the SC someday about the role of social media.

Obviously, the new Texas legislation is headed that way.  Of course, that one should be a slam dunk "Texas legislators should try to educate themselves on what a website is before legislating" ruling, but who knows.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I guess I don't get why this is interesting. Twitter suspends, removes and bans accounts/posts all the time based on what they say. Of course Twitter is not an open free speech platform. Whether it should be and to what extent is far conversation though.

I think it’s an interesting experiment. The trend has been more and more moderation on social media. What will happen when it’s scaled way back? My guess is it will be a mistake but I’ve been wrong before. 

 

[Captain Cranks]

In the last six weeks, I've started over 20 top level threads in the PSF. I've consistently supported many of them with updates and some are generating a lot of discussion. Since my topics will tend to lean Conservative minded, of course the attack pattern against myself and other Conservatives will increase.

When I came back to the FBG forums after many years away, it was just you @BladeRunner and @jon_mx and @Max Power and @NorvilleBarnes mostly, probably a year and a half ago, and I saw you guys get chased around and smeared for sport by the activist complicit radical leftists. I decided to do something about it.

Well, now it's a year and half later and I see more Conservatives posting, but also more moderates and more independents and a few traditional liberals. It's no longer a target rich environment. I see diversity of thought and diversity of opinion as a good thing. The radical left? They won't see it that way.

As I've always said, Conservatives should strive to create new "high information voters"  Present the information and source material and consistently bring value and let people decide for themselves. The woke cancel culture radical left simply cannot survive when faced with the truth and evidence and time and deep investigation.

That's the difference between myself and squisition. I'll give my analysis, no doubt, but I present the material and let people decide for themselves. Much of what is shown can't really be argued against and that's just going to enrage some people. squistion on the other hand wants to decide for people what they should think and say and can only enforce that with trolling, sealioning, personal attacks, ad hominem, logical fallacy bombing, gaming the Report Button and trying to enforce silence.

We don't need to match hate with hate. Conservatives should never match hate with hate. There are many traditional liberals who are good people, just different views, that want many of the same core things that we want, and they are not like the radical left. I embrace them as Americans first, not liberals first.

I have about 2600 posts or so. I'd say close to 2000 were made in the last year and a half. Squid has close to 44 thousand posts. Think about the positive impact he could have made for the entire community if he spent even 20 percent of that making some attempt at raising the level of discussion in these forums. That's not a purity test, it's a heat check. And I'm excellent at heat checks.

The radical left just wants to provoke people for sport. They want to punish anyone not willing to be an activist complicit woke shock trooper. Let them rot in their misery.

Conservatives should strive to provoke thought, and then let people choose for themselves. If we take care of business and keep setting the pace and keep setting the right example, then people will naturally come to choose our path on their own accord.

Hopefully you welcome the feedback that your biased, agenda-driven anecdotes do nothing but push this moderate away. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Hopefully you welcome the feedback that your biased, agenda-driven anecdotes do nothing but push this moderate away. 

Which moderate are you talking about?  Has he posted in this thread yet? 

 

[GordonGekko]

Hopefully you welcome the feedback that your biased, agenda-driven anecdotes do nothing but push this moderate away. 

Direct Headline: Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said on Saturday that he “fully admit” Twitter employees share a largely left-leaning bias after facing accusations that conservatives are discriminated against on the social media platform....“But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period,” he added.....Dorsey went on to insist that his company only polices behavior on the platform, not content....Dorsey’s remarks follow criticism from the right over supposed “shadow-banning” of conservative users.

By John Bowden - 08/18/18 05:57 PM EDT

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning

Direct Headline: Jack Dorsey says blocking Post’s Hunter Biden story was ‘total mistake’ — but won’t say who made it

By Noah Manskar March 25, 2021 | 4:04pm

https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-total-mistake/amp/

*******

Jack Dorsey says Twitter only enforces upon behavior and not content.

Then he later admits the NY Post's Hunter Biden story caused them to be suspended and blocked, but cannot explain why in terms of "behavior"  He points out the policy was "wrong" and that he changed it immediately. But he refused to unlock the NY Post's account until they deleted the "offending tweet" He was stupid enough to testify in front of Congress and continue to call it an offending tweet when he admitted the NY Post violated no rules. And if there was an error, it was on the part of Twitter and them alone. Then he was stupid enough yet again to wait two weeks to unlock their account without them deleting it. Which only reinforces that the enforcement was petty and arbitrary and only designed to limit future liability, when Dorsey's actions only increased it a thousand fold.

A Twitter senior engineer says the platform does not believe in free speech.

Based on what happened with the NY Post, how is he wrong?

 

[GordonGekko]

Hopefully you welcome the feedback that your biased, agenda-driven anecdotes do nothing but push this moderate away. 

Direct Headline: Twitter is so liberal that its conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions,’ says CEO Jack Dorsey

“I don’t think that’s fair or right,” Dorsey says.

By Kurt Wagner Updated Sep 14, 2018, 11:06am EDT

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics

Direct Headline: Facebook, Twitter CEOs struggle to name a single liberal who has been censored on their platforms

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey couldn’t name a specific person or entity

By Brian Flood  10/28/20

https://www.foxnews.com/media/facebook-twitter-ceos-struggle-to-name-a-single-liberal-who-has-been-censored-on-their-platforms

*****

It's interesting how former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey confirms what this current senior engineer is claiming - that Twitter doesn't believe in free speech. Dorsey literally admits that Conservative minded in his own employee ranks were fearful to speak about their politics, and he did absolutely nothing about it.

Twitter and Facebook roll fully hard left, and I point it out, again and again, but I'm the one with the agenda?

I point out bias, clearly so, but you decide that since I do so and it upsets your personal political tribalism, that I must be the biased one  instead?

You can attack me. Plenty do. But no one can actually refute me with substance. I get why that makes so many radical leftists angry here.

 

[Captain Cranks]

You can attack me. Plenty do. But no one can actually refute me with substance. I get why that makes so many radical leftists angry here.

I'm not attacking you. I'm giving you feedback.

I realize it makes the world easier to understand to label everyone who pushes back on your shtick as "radical leftists", but I can guarantee you radical leftist I am not. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

@gordon gekko How do you feel about a social media company having a hacked materials policy? Can it ever be OK to remove posts containing such information? Is so, when?

How do you feel about a hateful conduct policy? Is it ever OK to remove content directed at a minority group that might be viewed as vile?

Finally, what rights should Twitter or other social media companies have to moderate as they please? If they believe that certain moderation actions improve user experience leading to higher usage and, therefore, higher revenues, is that reasoning sufficient to curb “free speech” on their platforms?
 

 

[BladeRunner]

@gordon gekko How do you feel about a social media company having a hacked materials policy? Can it ever be OK to remove posts containing such information? Is so, when?

How do you feel about a hateful conduct policy? Is it ever OK to remove content directed at a minority group that might be viewed as vile?

Finally, what rights should Twitter or other social media companies have to moderate as they please? If they believe that certain moderation actions improve user experience leading to higher usage and, therefore, higher revenues, is that reasoning sufficient to curb “free speech” on their platforms?
 

What about vile content directed at a majority group?  

 

[Juxtatarot]

What about vile content directed at a majority group?  

That’s a fine question too. Do you think it is ever appropriate to moderate that?

 

[BladeRunner]

That’s a fine question too. Do you think it is ever appropriate to moderate that?

I think rules of decorum are fine.  However, I draw the line when those rules are abused with pretzel logic to silence one side of the argument which is EXACTLY what Big Tech is doing. 

For example, if I called a group a bunch of #### and #### and #### - then that deserves moderation.

Big Tech has basically become a proxy for the Democrat Party - it's how the left gets around the Freedom of Speech issue.