Jump to content

Talk:Twitter Files

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Denied government coercion AND kept database of requests?

[edit]

Please make the following change to the article:

denied that the Files showed the government had coerced the company to censor content, as Musk and many Republicans claimed, and asserted that Republican officials also made takedown requests so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them
+
denied that the Files showed the government had coerced the company to censor content, as Musk and many Republicans claimed. Twitter also asserted that Republican officials made takedown requests so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them

As currently written, this sentence seems to be using the incorrect article. However, replacing "and" with "but" may run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Splitting the sentence is less jarring while avoiding any POV issues surrounding the debate between government "requests" and coercion.

While we are at it, the Mashable source should probably be replaced with their source, a Rolling Stone article. Rolling Stone is generally reliable according to WP:RSPSS while Mashable has no consensus. Squidroot2 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the claim, the Rolling Stone article, says:
In interviews with former Twitter personnel, onetime Trump administration officials, and other people familiar with the matter, each source recalled what could be described as a “hotline,” “tipline,” or large Twitter “database” of moderation and removal requests that was frequently pinged by the offices of powerful Democrats and Republicans alike.
So it's actually not something that Twitter (or its attorneys) attested to, but various anonymous people contacted by Rolling Stone (Also Rolling Stone is not considered reliable for political matters, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, so probably better to use the secondary sources here). I changed it to say "Former Twitter employees asserted..." instead. Cheers, Endwise (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry that I missed that Rolling Stone is only reliable for culture, not politics. Given that fact, and the fact that there is no indication that the cited Mashable opinion article did any independent verification, should the claims be attributed? "According to Rolling Stone, former Twitter employees asserted..." Squidroot2 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the reference to the claim that "Republicans made so many request that Twitter had to setup a database 9" to the Mashable article which referenced the Rolling Stones article which made no mention of this claim. This seems like a bad reference? Like the game of telephone? 107.190.69.245 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be any references to the Zuckerberg disclosure?

[edit]

Recently Zuckerberg has admitted that Facebook was also complicit in suppressing factual information on behalf of the Biden-Harris administration, though only for marking COVID-19 observations as misinformation. 108.63.216.11 (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2024

[edit]

"It should be noted however that while requests were made from the Trump White House to remove posts, the rate and amount requested and honoured were overwhelmingly Democrat Party affiliated , which is due to the fact that Twitter's employmees at the time was much more connected to the Democratic party of the United States"(source: https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394?lang=en) Digg396 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath edit

[edit]

Ken Klippenstein was suspended for violating Twitter(X) rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance's physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number.

Besides, the file source was never confirmed, only alleged. 188.246.45.196 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And he was unsuspended. What does this have to do with the Twitter Files? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]