reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @bariweiss

bariweiss
Posted - March 4, 2025 at 6:32 PM
Saved - March 6, 2025 at 10:38 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Department of Justice is investigating the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion initiative from the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at addressing climate issues and supporting historically underserved communities. However, concerns have arisen about the allocation of funds, with reports suggesting that $20 billion was distributed to eight nonprofits connected to former Obama and Biden officials shortly after the 2020 election. Critics, including the new EPA administrator, argue this process lacked oversight and was marred by conflicts of interest, with some grants reaching unprecedented amounts.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

The Department of Justice is investigating the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion program that was part of Joe Biden’s $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act. Created in the spring of 2023, and managed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the fund was supposed to be a “first-of-its-kind” program to address the climate crisis while revitalizing communities that it considered “historically left behind.” But it appears little of the $27 billion revitalized anything—except the coffers of a range of environmental nonprofits associated with former Obama and Biden administration officials. “The Biden administration used so-called ‘climate equity’ to justify handouts of billions of dollars to their far-left friends,” @leezeldin, the Trump administration’s new EPA administrator, told @TheFP. “It is my utmost priority to get a handle on every dollar that went out the door in this scheme and once again restore oversight and accountability over these funds. This rush job operation is riddled with conflicts of interest and corruption.” A Free Press investigation reveals that of the $27 billion, $20 billion was rushed out the door to eight nonprofit groups after Biden lost the election—but before President Donald Trump took office. As one former EPA official put it on a secretly recorded video, it was akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic.” The eight groups were allocated sums ranging from $400 million to $6.9 billion. Several of them were formed in August of 2023, just one month after the grant applications went live in July of 2023, when it became clear that large nine- and 10-figure grants would be up for grabs. The boards and staff of these eight groups include Democratic donors, people with connections to the Obama and Biden administrations, and prominent Democrats like Stacey Abrams. “These are some of the biggest grants to individual organizations in American history."

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

@Maddie_Rowley_ has the scoop: https://www.thefp.com/p/a-20-billion-slush-fund-nonprofits

A $20 Billion Slush Fund—Paid by You to Progressive Nonprofits It appears the billions didn’t revitalize anything—except the coffers of a range of environmental nonprofits associated with former Obama and Biden officials. thefp.com
bariweiss
Posted - January 6, 2025 at 12:37 AM
Saved - January 6, 2025 at 10:19 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Britain is facing a crisis as public outrage grows over a scandal involving widespread abuse and a systemic cover-up. Petitions and calls for accountability highlight the complicity of various institutions, from social services to law enforcement, in silencing victims and ignoring pleas for help. The media's failure to adequately report on the issue reflects a reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths about multiculturalism and immigration policy. As a result, the extent of the abuse remains largely unknown, with thousands of young girls affected since the 1970s.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

"Britain now stands shamed before the world. The public’s suppressed wrath is bubbling to the surface in petitions, calls for a public inquiry, and demands for accountability. The scandal is already reshaping British politics. It’s not just about the heinous nature of the crimes. It’s that every level of the British system is implicated in the cover-up. Social workers were intimidated into silence. Local police ignored, excused, and even abetted pedophile rapists across dozens of cities. Senior police and Home Office officials deliberately avoided action in the name of maintaining what they called “community relations.” Local councilors and Members of Parliament rejected pleas for help from the parents of raped children. Charities, NGOs, and Labour MPs accused those who discussed the scandal of racism and Islamophobia. The media mostly ignored or downplayed the biggest story of their lifetimes. Zealous in their incuriosity, much of Britain’s media elite remained barnacled to the bubble of Westminster politics and its self-serving priorities. They did this to defend a failed model of multiculturalism, and to avoid asking hard questions about failures of immigration policy and assimilation. They did this because they were afraid of being called racist or Islamophobic. They did this because Britain’s traditional class snobbery had fused with the new snobbery of political correctness. All of which is why no one knows precisely how many thousands of young girls were raped in how many towns across Britain since the 1970s."

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

Read @DrDominicGreen in @TheFP on the biggest peacetime crime--and cover-up--in British history: https://www.thefp.com/p/muslim-grooming-gangs-cover-up-keir-starmer-elon-musk

The Biggest Peacetime Crime—and Cover-up—in British History The rape of thousands of girls by Pakistani Muslims went on for years. Few in power—including Keir Starmer—seemed to care. Then Elon Musk started tweeting. thefp.com
bariweiss
Posted - December 7, 2023 at 2:52 PM
Saved - December 7, 2023 at 10:02 PM

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

At Harvard, "fatphobia" constitutes violence. But "globalize the intifada" requires context. WATCH: https://t.co/tEvg9IVVXS

Video Transcript AI Summary
University administrators prioritize safety on campuses, but their approach to speech and professor firings has led to a moral framework that treats microaggressions as violence. Harvard's mandatory training session deemed using incorrect pronouns as abuse, and attitudes like sizism and fat phobia perpetuate violence. However, when asked about calls for the genocide of Jews, Harvard's president stated it depends on the context. Similarly, the University of Pennsylvania sanctioned a law professor for controversial statements, but when asked about calls for genocide, the president said it could be harassment depending on severity and pervasiveness. MIT canceled a lecture due to disagreement over hiring based on merit, but when asked about calls for genocide, the president claimed ignorance. Anti-Semitic speech has escalated into physical violence on campuses. Safety seems context-dependent.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Safety first. That's the approach taken by university administrators these days. On campuses across the country, safety first has been the rationale for silencing speech and firing professors. This practice has birthed a whole new moral framework, one that treats microaggressions as acts of violence. It is your job to create a place of comfort and home for students. But when it comes to threats and calls for genocide against the Jews Who who is that? It's a different story. Not safety first, but anything goes. Just look at the facts. Last year, Harvard told students in a mandatory training session that using the wrong pronouns for a person constitutes abuse. Sizism and fat phobia, according to the session, are also attitudes that contribute to an environment that perpetuates violence. But when Harvard's president was asked by members of congress this week in a hearing on campus antisemitism, if calling for the genocide of Jews constitutes bullying and harassment, Here's what she said. It can be depending on the context. In 2018, the University of Pennsylvania barred law professor Amy Wax from teaching freshmen after after she said black students rarely finish in the top half of their graduating class. Penn has since been trying to sanction WACs for statements the law school says violate its antidiscrimination policies. But when Pence president was asked if calls for genocide violate college rules, here's how she answered. Speaker 1: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes. Speaker 2: I am asking Specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment? Speaker 1: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. So the answer is yes. It is a context dependent decision. Speaker 0: And when she was asked this, So is your testimony that Speaker 2: you will not answer Speaker 0: yes? This is what she said. Speaker 1: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment. Speaker 2: Yes. Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment. This is unacceptable, miss McGill. I'm gonna give you one more opportunity For the world to see your answer, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's Code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment. Yes or no? Speaker 0: It can be harassment. In 2021, MIT canceled a major lecture about climate change by scientist Dorian Abbot because a group of graduate students disagreed with his belief that hiring should be based on a person's merit rather than their identity. If MIT won't tolerate unacceptable views, surely the college's president would shut down chants of long live the Antifada on our campus. Who are the Antifada? Speaker 2: Right? At MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no? Speaker 3: You're targeted at individuals not making public statements. Speaker 2: Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment? Speaker 3: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus. Speaker 2: But you've heard chants for intepada? Speaker 3: I've heard chants, which Can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people. Speaker 2: So those would not be according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules? Speaker 3: That would be, investigated of as harassment if pervasive and severe. Speaker 0: But anti Semitic speech on campus has already escalated into physical violence. Students at these campuses have been assaulted, targeted, and harassed. Safety first. When it comes to the juice, it all depends on the context. I'm Maya Sulkin. This is The Free Press.
bariweiss
Posted - October 25, 2023 at 6:30 PM
Saved - October 26, 2023 at 2:22 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a poignant account, a mother shares her experience during the Holocaust. Despite the heavy atmosphere, she managed to keep her young daughter quiet in hiding. Whispers replaced conversations, even when her daughter fell, she didn't cry. The mother's realization that her life was in jeopardy is heart-wrenching. Read more: "I Understood My Life Is Going to End."

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

You hear stories from the Holocaust of people with little children in hiding, and I always thought, “How do you keep a child that small, that young, quiet in this situation?” But the energy was so heavy and we were so quiet. I told my daughter, “You need to be as quiet as a mouse. We’re not talking now.” And she whispered through the whole day. Even when she fell over, she didn’t cry. "‘I Understood My Life Is Going to End’: A Mother Describes 20 Hours in a Safe Room" https://www.thefp.com/p/my-life-is-going-to-end

‘I Understood My Life Is Going to End’: A Mother Describes 20 Hours in a Safe Room Sofie Berzon MacKie on what went through her mind while terrorists attacked her kibbutz, and the first thought she had after she was rescued. thefp.com
bariweiss
Posted - October 8, 2023 at 2:54 AM
Saved - October 8, 2023 at 7:31 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In the face of the ongoing war in Israel, be prepared for a barrage of lies. Some will be explicit, others through omission, obfuscation, or minimization. People fear facing the brutal reality or expressing their ugly beliefs. Cable news is already spreading some of these falsehoods. Let's set the record straight. [Link to article: https://thefp.com/p/today-is-israels-911-db6]

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

You are about to withstand a barrage of lies about the war that broke out today in Israel. Some of those lies will be explicit. Some of them will be lies of omission. Others will be lies of obfuscation. Or lies of minimization. Lies told by people who are simply too afraid to look at such a barbarous reality. And lies told by people whose true beliefs are too ugly to quite say aloud. Turn on cable news and you can hear some of them right now. So let’s get some facts straight. https://thefp.com/p/today-is-israels-911-db6

bariweiss
Posted - December 12, 2022 at 6:06 PM
Saved - October 1, 2023 at 8:17 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The removal of Trump from Twitter sparked controversy. While the platform had resisted calls to ban him, pressure grew after the Capitol attack. Twitter employees were divided, with some advocating for the ban earlier. Ultimately, Trump's tweets were deemed not in violation of policy, but later, Twitter executives questioned if they incited violence. Trump was permanently suspended, causing mixed reactions. The decision raised concerns about the power of social media companies to influence public discourse.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART FIVE. THE REMOVAL OF TRUMP FROM TWITTER.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

1. On the morning of January 8, President Donald Trump, with one remaining strike before being at risk of permanent suspension from Twitter, tweets twice.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

2. 6:46 am: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

3. 7:44 am: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

4. For years, Twitter had resisted calls both internal and external to ban Trump on the grounds that blocking a world leader from the platform or removing their controversial tweets would hide important information that people should be able to see and debate.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

5. “Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly,” the company wrote in 2019. Twitter’s aim was to “protect the public’s right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account.” https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldleaders2019

World Leaders on Twitter: principles & approach An update on Tweets from world leaders blog.twitter.com

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

6. But after January 6, as @mtaibbi and @shellenbergermd have documented, pressure grew, both inside and outside of Twitter, to ban Trump.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

7. There were dissenters inside Twitter. “Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee on January 7, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

8. But voices like that one appear to have been a distinct minority within the company. Across Slack channels, many Twitter employees were upset that Trump hadn’t been banned earlier.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

9. After January 6, Twitter employees organized to demand their employer ban Trump. “There is a lot of employee advocacy happening,” said one Twitter employee.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

10. “We have to do the right thing and ban this account,” said one staffer. It’s “pretty obvious he’s going to try to thread the needle of incitement without violating the rules,” said another.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

11. In the early afternoon of January 8, The Washington Post published an open letter signed by over 300 Twitter employees to CEO Jack Dorsey demanding Trump’s ban. “We must examine Twitter’s complicity in what President-Elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

12. But the Twitter staff assigned to evaluate tweets quickly concluded that Trump had *not* violated Twitter’s policies.“I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement,” wrote one staffer.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

13. “It's pretty clear he's saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) from Wednesday.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

14. Another staffer agreed: “Don’t see the incitement angle here.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

15. “I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet,” wrote Anika Navaroli, a Twitter policy official. “I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vios”—or violations—“for the DJT one.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

16. She does just that: “as an fyi, Safety has assessed the DJT Tweet above and determined that there is no violation of our policies at this time.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

17. (Later, Navaroli would testify to the House Jan. 6 committee:“For months I had been begging and anticipating and attempting to raise the reality that if nothing—if we made no intervention into what I saw occuring, people were going to die.”)

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

18. Next, Twitter’s safety team decides that Trump’s 7:44 am ET tweet is also not in violation. They are unequivocal: “it’s a clear no vio. It’s just to say he’s not attending the inauguration”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

19. To understand Twitter’s decision to ban Trump, we must consider how Twitter deals with other heads of state and political leaders, including in Iran, Nigeria, and Ethiopia.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

20. In June 2018, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, “#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” Twitter neither deleted the tweet nor banned the Ayatollah.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

21. In October 2020, the former Malaysian Prime Minister said it was “a right” for Muslims to “kill millions of French people.” Twitter deleted his tweet for “glorifying violence,” but he remains on the platform. The tweet below was taken from the Wayback Machine:

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

22. Muhammadu Buhari, the President of Nigeria, incited violence against pro-Biafra groups.“Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war,” he wrote, “will treat them in the language they understand.” Twitter deleted the tweet but didn't ban Buhari.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

23. In October 2021, Twitter allowed Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed to call on citizens to take up arms against the Tigray region. Twitter allowed the tweet to remain up, and did not ban the prime minister.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

24. In early February 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government threatened to arrest Twitter employees in India, and to incarcerate them for up to seven years after they restored hundreds of accounts that had been critical of him. Twitter did not ban Modi.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

25. But Twitter executives did ban Trump, even though key staffers said that Trump had not incited violence—not even in a “coded” way.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

26. Less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees had determined that Trump’s tweets were not in violation of Twitter policy, Vijaya Gadde—Twitter’s Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust—asked whether it could, in fact, be “coded incitement to further violence.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

27. A few minutes later, Twitter employees on the “scaled enforcement team” suggest that Trump’s tweet may have violated Twitter’s Glorification of Violence policy—if you interpreted the phrase “American Patriots” to refer to the rioters.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

28. Things escalate from there. Members of that team came to “view him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

29. Two hours later, Twitter executives host a 30-minute all-staff meeting. Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde answer staff questions as to why Trump wasn’t banned yet. But they make some employees angrier.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

30. “Multiple tweeps [Twitter employees] have quoted the Banality of Evil suggesting that people implementing our policies are like Nazis following orders,” relays Yoel Roth to a colleague.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

31. Dorsey requested simpler language to explain Trump’s suspension. Roth wrote, “god help us [this] makes me think he wants to share it publicly”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

32. One hour later, Twitter announces Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

33. Many at Twitter were ecstatic.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

34. And congratulatory: “big props to whoever in trust and safety is sitting there whack-a-mole-ing these trump accounts”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

35. By the next day, employees expressed eagerness to tackle “medical misinformation” as soon as possible:

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

36. “For the longest time, Twitter’s stance was that we aren’t the arbiter of truth,” wrote another employee, “which I respected but never gave me a warm fuzzy feeling.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

37. But Twitter’s COO Parag Agrawal—who would later succeed Dorsey as CEO—told Head of Security Mudge Zatko: “I think a few of us should brainstorm the ripple effects” of Trump's ban. Agrawal added: “centralized content moderation IMO has reached a breaking point now.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

38. Outside the United States, Twitter’s decision to ban Trump raised alarms, including with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, and Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

39. Macron told an audience he didn’t “want to live in a democracy where the key decisions” were made by private players. “I want it to be decided by a law voted by your representative, or by regulation, governance, democratically discussed and approved by democratic leaders.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

40. Merkel’s spokesperson called Twitter’s decision to ban Trump from its platform “problematic” and added that the freedom of opinion is of “elementary significance.” Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny criticized the ban as “an unacceptable act of censorship.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

41. Whether you agree with Navalny and Macron or the executives at Twitter, we hope this latest installment of #TheTwitterFiles gave you insight into that unprecedented decision.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

42. From the outset, our goal in investigating this story was to discover and document the steps leading up to the banning of Trump and to put that choice into context.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

43. Ultimately, the concerns about Twitter’s efforts to censor news about Hunter Biden’s laptop, blacklist disfavored views, and ban a president aren’t about the past choices of executives in a social media company.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

44. They’re about the power of a handful of people at a private company to influence the public discourse and democracy.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

45. This was reported by @ShellenbergerMD, @IsaacGrafstein, @SnoozyWeiss, @Olivia_Reingold, @petersavodnik, @NellieBowles. Follow all of our work at The Free Press: @TheFP

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

46. Please click here to subscribe to The Free Press, where you can continue reading and supporting independent journalism: https://www.thefp.com/subscribe

Subscribe to The Free Press A new media company built on the ideals that were once the bedrock of American journalism. Click to read The Free Press, by Bari Weiss, a Substack publication. thefp.com
bariweiss
Posted - September 11, 2023 at 2:53 PM
Saved - September 11, 2023 at 5:02 PM

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

When we went to cover the Twitter Files, one of our very first searches was for a name: "Dr. Jay Bhattacharya." We found that he'd been put on a blacklist to prevent his tweets from trending. Could never have imagined that it would all wind up here:

The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists. We Fought Back—and Won. Last week, a federal appeals court confirmed that science cannot function without free speech. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reflects on a victory for himself—and every American. thefp.com
bariweiss
Posted - December 9, 2022 at 12:15 AM
Saved - September 8, 2023 at 8:17 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
A recent investigation reveals Twitter's secret blacklists, where employees limit the visibility of accounts and prevent disfavored tweets from trending. These actions contradict Twitter's mission of free expression. Examples include blocking tweets from Stanford's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and right-wing talk show host Dan Bongino. Twitter denies shadow banning but admits to "visibility filtering," controlling what users see. The Strategic Response Team and SIPPES make politically sensitive decisions. The story continues to unfold. Access to Twitter's files sheds light on these practices.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

THREAD: THE TWITTER FILES PART TWO. TWITTER’S SECRET BLACKLISTS.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

1. 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.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

2. Twitter once had a mission “to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.” Along the way, barriers nevertheless were erected.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

3. Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

4. Or consider the popular right-wing talk show host, Dan Bongino (@dbongino), who at one point was slapped with a “Search Blacklist.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

5. Twitter set the account of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) to “Do Not Amplify.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

6. Twitter denied that it does such things. In 2018, Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said: “We do not shadow ban.” They added: “And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

7. What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

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

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

9. “VF” refers to Twitter’s control over user visibility. It used VF to block searches of individual users; to limit the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; to block select users’ posts from ever appearing on the “trending” page; and from inclusion in hashtag searches.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

10. All without users’ knowledge.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

11. “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,” one Twitter engineer told us. Two additional Twitter employees confirmed.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

12. The group that decided whether to limit the reach of certain users was the Strategic Response Team - Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET. It often handled up to 200 "cases" a day.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

13. But there existed a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the rank-and-file moderators following the company’s policy on paper. That is the “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support,” known as “SIP-PES.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

14. This secret group included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust (Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust & Safety (Yoel Roth), subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

15. This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made. “Think high follower account, controversial,” another Twitter employee told us. For these “there would be no ticket or anything.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

16. One of the accounts that rose to this level of scrutiny was @libsoftiktok—an account that was on the “Trends Blacklist” and was designated as “Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

17. The account—which Chaya Raichik began in November 2020 and now boasts over 1.4 million followers—was subjected to six suspensions in 2022 alone, Raichik says. Each time, Raichik was blocked from posting for as long as a week.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

18. Twitter repeatedly informed Raichik that she had been suspended for violating Twitter’s policy against “hateful conduct.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

19. But in an internal SIP-PES memo from October 2022, after her seventh suspension, the committee acknowledged that “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy." See here:

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

20. The committee justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of “hospitals and medical providers” by insinuating “that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

21. Compare this to what happened when Raichik herself was doxxed on November 21, 2022. A photo of her home with her address was posted in a tweet that has garnered more than 10,000 likes.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

22. When Raichik told Twitter that her address had been disseminated she says Twitter Support responded with this message: "We reviewed the reported content, and didn't find it to be in violation of the Twitter rules." No action was taken. The doxxing tweet is still up.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

23. In internal Slack messages, Twitter employees spoke of using technicalities to restrict the visibility of tweets and subjects. Here’s Yoel Roth, Twitter’s then Global Head of Trust & Safety, in a direct message to a colleague in early 2021:

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

24. Six days later, in a direct message with an employee on the Health, Misinformation, Privacy, and Identity research team, Roth requested more research to support expanding “non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagements and deamplification/visibility filtering.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

25. Roth wrote: “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.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

26. He added: “We got Jack on board with implementing this for civic integrity in the near term, but we’re going to need to make a more robust case to get this into our repertoire of policy remediations – especially for other policy domains.”

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

27. There is more to come on this story, which was reported by @abigailshrier @shellenbergermd @nelliebowles @isaacgrafstein and the team The Free Press @thefp. Keep up with this unfolding story here and at our brand new website: http://thefp.com.

The Free Press A new media company built on the ideals that were once the bedrock of American journalism. thefp.com

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

28. The authors have broad and expanding access to Twitter’s files. The only condition we agreed to was that the material would first be published on Twitter.

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

29. We're just getting started on our reporting. Documents cannot tell the whole story here. A big thank you to everyone who has spoken to us so far. If you are a current or former Twitter employee, we'd love to hear from you. Please write to: tips@thefp.com

@bariweiss - Bari Weiss

30. Watch @mtaibbi for the next installment.

View Full Interactive Feed