The Twitter Files Take the Stand 

Matt Taibbi, the unofficial leader in the Twitter Files investigation, testified in Congress about what his investigation has discovered. 

Why It’s Important 

There has been no confirmation that the Twitter Files releases are near completion, but the release of new information has slowed down to a new part every two to three weeks, with the most recent Part 16 releasing on February 18, following Part 15 on January 27. Beyond sporadic media coverage and Congressional hearings, it remains unclear what consequences—if any—will come from these releases, beyond confirmation of the degree that the federal government used and abused Twitter to its own ends. 

The FTC immediately demanded Musk to “identify all journalists” who have been given access to Twitter’s records following the initial publication, suggesting that the Twitter Files releases have ruffled feathers in Washington, D.C., The Wall Street Journal reports. 

Breaking Down Taibbi’s Statement  

“When Twitter Files reporters were given access to Twitter internal documents last year, we first focused on the company, which at times acted like a power above government. But Twitter was more like a partner to the government. With other tech firms, it held regular ‘industry meetings’ with FBI and DHS, and developed a formal system for receiving thousands of content reports from every corner of government: HHS, Treasury, NSA, even local police,” says Taibbi. 

As the previous releases have shown, dozens of government agencies watched over the social-media network. They peppered it with thousands of requests to review or take down accounts to the point where the government began paying Twitter for the sheer volume of requests. Much of the requests didn’t come directly from the federal government but through proxies, NGOs, and think tanks tied to the government, such as “The National Endowment for Democracy, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, and Hamilton 68’s creator, the Alliance for Securing Democracy,” according to Taibbi.  

These organizations created spreadsheets of thousands of names, accounts, and tweets to review on behalf of whatever organizations saw fit. This included intelligence agencies, defense departments, NGOs, and even the presidential campaigns for Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Their targets included journalists, whistleblowers, veterans, and accounts sharing Noam Chomsky’s articles. 

As Taibbi notes, many of these NGOs and organizations were created to serve as checks on the federal government but are now working directly with the government to fight against “disinformation.” When push came to shove, Twitter relied on the same connected experts to fight disinformation that the government and NGOs use, the majority being taxpayer-backed groups like the Aspen Institute.

“Their taxpayer-backed conclusions: the state should have total access to data to make searching speech easier, speech offenders should be put in a ‘holding area,’ and government should probably restrict disinformation, ‘even if it means losing some freedom,’” he continues. 

The end result was millions of tweets being labeled as “disinformation” or accounts banned by an “absolute fusion of state, corporate, and civil society organizations.” 

And despite its claims to stand against disinformation, Taibbi affirms that these organizations are spreading disinformation themselves, falsely accusing Twitter accounts of spreading Russian propaganda or being connected to the Russian government. The State Department indirectly funded these claims. 

Notable Quotes 

“The Twitter Files show the principals of this incestuous self-appointed truth squad moving from law enforcement/intelligence to the private sector and back, claiming a special right to do what they say is bad practice for everyone else: be fact-checked only by themselves … This is the Censorship-Industrial Complex at its essence: a bureaucracy willing to sacrifice factual truth in service of broader narrative objectives. It’s the opposite of what a free press does,” says Taibbi. 

“Without real oversight mechanisms, there is nothing to prevent these super-empowered information vanguards from bending the truth for their own ends …  In the digital age, this sprawling new information-control bureaucracy is an eerie sequel to the dangers Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address, when he said: ‘The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists.’” 

Thursday’s Committee Hearing 

Thursday’s hearing became an openly partisan affair, with congressional Democrats and Republicans attempting to affirm or challenge Taibbi’s and Shellenberger’s testimonies along party lines—Republicans claiming Democrats are attacking first amendment protections and Democrats attacking both journalist’s credibility.  

Representative Stacey Plaskett (D-VA) and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) alleged during the hearing that Republicans did not provide full access to the Twitter File’s investigation and were granted information before the committee meeting that Democrats did not receive. 

Schultz accused Taibbi and Shellenberger of using cherrypicked and biased information to misrepresent, based on a quote from Taibbi’s Joe Rogan Experience appearance, claims about how federal funding is being used, noting funding used to prevent abuse or criminal activity online is not being used to silence Americans. 

Schultz also accused Taibbi of generating “rightwing conspiracy theories” and profiting from them with new Twitter followers and substack subscriptions. 

Taibbi declared that he received no pay for the Twitter Files investigation and paid for his team’s investigation and travel out of pocket, making the enterprise “a wash” in terms of profitability for his journalism work. Shellenberger affirmed that federal funding that compromises freedom of speech is a severe issue. Representative Dan Bishop (R-NC) accused congressional Democrats of trying to crush Taibbi’s investigation and silence dissenters. 

Representative John Garamendi (D-CA) entered a study into the record claiming the majority of censorship on Twitter isn’t going towards conservatives and that most banned accounts were due to spreading conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon. “This is the speech my Republican colleagues would say is being censored by social media companies. No private company has an obligation to amplify anything, especially not messages that strike at the heart of our democracy.” 

“The thing we’re concerned about is when the federal government, by proxy, essentially contracts this out. The federal government can’t ban speech. They cannot ban content, and anyone would be foolish to think when teh FBI comes to a private speech and highlights speech, it would expect them to do nothing,” says Representative Chris Stewart (R-UT). 

Shellenberger affirmed Stewart’s statement, saying free speech is the foundation of democracy and that corporations being pressured by the White House and government organizations to spread narratives or stifle information it knows is true is wrong. When faced with antisemitic tweets by artist Kanye West, Taibbi admitted that Twitter taking down hate speech is difficult to litigate, but that hate speech is protected by free speech. Representative Collin Allred (D-TX) celebrated hate speech being taken down on Twitter. 

Representative Daniel Goldman (D-NY) accused Shellenberger of unintentionally misrepresenting Ukrainian corruption claims surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story, citing The Trump-Ukraine Inquiry Report, which Shellenberger has not read. He further contested whether the FBI flagging accounts that violate Twitter’s terms of conditions qualifies as “directing” and claimed that Twitter censorship was non-criminal and frivolous in context to Republican efforts to violate the first amendment by “banning books.” 

Shellenberger also defended Representative Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) right to spread tweets questioning COVID-19 and vaccine dissenting opinions, with Taibbi noting that these opinions are genuinely held opinions by those who hold them.  
See our previous coverage on Part 1, Part 2, Parts 3-5, Part 6, Part 7, Parts 8-10, Parts 11-12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, and  Lee Fang’s Pfizer coverage.