You Can Read All the 'Twitter Files' Right Here
Shortly after Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, the billionaire entrepreneur pledged to release internal documents that would reveal how Twitter engaged in free speech suppression under previous ownership. The files were released to two independent journalists for review, Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss.
On Dec. 2, Taibbi published the first installment of the “Twitter Files” on Twitter. The following is, word-for-word, Taibbi’s reporting on and release of the files. Some links were added to Taibbi’s copy for added context. Other small additions to Taibbi’s copy are included via brackets.
A second installment written by Weiss was written on Dec. 8. Stay tuned to The Western Journal for further coverage of the “Twitter Files.”
What you’re about to read is the first installment in a series, based upon thousands of internal documents obtained by sources at Twitter. The “Twitter Files” tell an incredible story from inside one of the world’s largest and most influential social media platforms. It is a Frankensteinian tale of a human-built mechanism grown out the control of its designer.
Twitter in its conception was a brilliant tool for enabling instant mass communication, making a true real-time global conversation possible for the first time. In an early conception, Twitter more than lived up to its mission statement, giving people “the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.”
As time progressed, however, the company was slowly forced to add those barriers. Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly.
By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.”
Internal Message at Twitter: Requests from “the Biden team” by The Western Journal on Scribd
Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party:
Internal Message at Twitter: Censorship Requests From the DNC by The Western Journal on Scribd
Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However: This system wasn’t balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right.
[Here, Taibbi linked to a report from Open Secrets showing that Twitter employee political contributions tilt heavily in favor of Democratic candidates].
The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you’re about to read. However, it’s also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives.
Okay, there was more throat-clearing about the process, but screw it, let’s jump forward[.]
The Twitter Files, Part One: How and Why Twitter Blocked the Hunter Biden Laptop Story
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published BIDEN SECRET EMAILS, an expose based on the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop: [Here, Taibbi linked to the New York Post’s initial coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Email from the laptop revealed a meeting had taken place between then-Vice President Joe Biden and a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm back in 2015].
Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be “unsafe.” They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography.
White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany was locked out of her account for tweeting about the story, prompting a furious letter from Trump campaign staffer Mike Hahn, who seethed: “At least pretend to care for the next 20 days.”
Mike Hahn’s Email to Twitter Employees Regarding Kayleigh McEnany by The Western Journal on Scribd
This led public policy executive Caroline Strom to send out a polite WTF query. Several employees noted that there was tension between the comms/policy teams, who had little/less control over moderation, and the safety/trust teams:
Internal Message at Twitter: Employee’s Query Regarding McEnany’s Account by The Western Journal on Scribd
Strom’s note returned the answer that the laptop story had been removed for violation of the company’s “hacked materials” policy: [Here, Taibbi provided a link to a web archive of Twitter’s previous “Distribution of hacked material policy”].
Internal Message at Twitter: McEnany “Bounced” Over “Hacked Materials policy” by The Western Journal on Scribd
Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem…
The decision was made at the highest levels of the company, but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, with former head of legal, policy and trust Vijaya Gadde playing a key role. “They just freelanced it,” is how one former employee characterized the decision. “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it.”
You can see the confusion in the following lengthy exchange, which ends up including Gadde and former Trust and safety chief Yoel Roth. Comms official Trenton Kennedy writes, “I’m struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe”:
Internal Message at Twitter: Employee Confusion Over How the Hunter Biden Story Violated Company Policy by The Western Journal on Scribd
[The following sentence contains language some readers may find offensive.]
By this point “everyone knew this was fucked,” said one former employee, but the response was essentially to err on the side of… continuing to err.
Internal Message at Twitter: Communications Between Yoel Roth and Vijaya Gadde by The Western Journal on Scribd
Former VP of Global Comms Brandon Borrman asks, “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?”
Internal Message at Twitter: Frmr VP of Global Communications Questions Censorship Decisions by The Western Journal on Scribd
To which former Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker again seems to advise staying the non-course, because “caution is warranted”:
Internal Message at Twitter: Frmr Deputy General Counsel Advises Censoring of Hunter Biden Story by The Western Journal on Scribd
A fundamental problem with tech companies and content moderation: many people in charge of speech know/care little about speech, and have to be told the basics by outsiders. To wit: In one humorous exchange on day 1, Democratic congressman Ro Khanna reaches out to Gadde to gently suggest she hop on the phone to talk about the “backlash re speech.” Khanna was the only Democratic official I could find in the files who expressed concern.
Rep. Ro Khanna’s Email to Twitter Regarding “backlash re speech” by The Western Journal on Scribd
Gadde replies quickly, immediately diving into the weeds of Twitter policy, unaware Khanna is more worried about the Bill of Rights:
Frmr Twitter Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust Vijaya Gadde Email Response to Free Speech Concerns by The Western Journal on Scribd
Khanna tries to reroute the conversation to the First Amendment, mention of which is generally hard to find in the files:
Rep. Ro Khanna’s Follow-Up Message to Twitter Over “backlash re speech” by The Western Journal on Scribd
Within a day, head of Public Policy Lauren Culbertson receives a ghastly letter/report from Carl Szabo of the research firm NetChoice, which had already polled 12 members of congress – 9 Rs and 3 Democrats, from “the House Judiciary Committee to Rep. Judy Chu’s office.”
Carl Szabo of NetChoice’s Email to Twitter Over Recent Poll Over Censorship Concerns by The Western Journal on Scribd
NetChoice lets Twitter know a “blood bath” awaits in upcoming Hill hearings, with members saying it’s a “tipping point,” complaining tech has “grown so big that they can’t even regulate themselves, so government may need to intervene.”
Carl Szabo of NetChoice’s Email to Twitter Over Recent Poll Over Censorship Concerns: Part Two by The Western Journal on Scribd
Szabo reports to Twitter that some Hill figures are characterizing the laptop story as “tech’s Access Hollywood moment”:
Carl Szabo of NetChoice’s Email to Twitter Over Recent Poll Over Censorship Concerns: Part Three by The Western Journal on Scribd
“THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISN’T ABSOLUTE” Szabo’s letter contains chilling passages relaying Democratic lawmakers’ attitudes. They want “more” moderation, and as for the Bill of Rights, it’s “not absolute[.]”
Carl Szabo of NetChoice’s Email to Twitter Over Recent Poll Over Censorship Concerns: Part Four by The Western Journal on Scribd
[The following sentence contains language some readers may find offensive.]
An amazing subplot of the Twitter/Hunter Biden laptop affair was how much was done without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, and how long it took for the situation to get “unfucked” (as one ex-employee put it) even after Dorsey jumped in. There are multiple instances in the files of Dorsey intervening to question suspensions and other moderation actions, for accounts across the political spectrum[.]
The problem with the “hacked materials” ruling, several sources said, was that this normally required an official/law enforcement finding of a hack. But such a finding never appears throughout what one executive describes as a “whirlwind” 24-hour, company-wide mess.
Internal Message at Twitter: Unknown Employee Explains Censorship of Hunter Biden Laptop Story by The Western Journal on Scribd
It’s been a whirlwind 96 hours for me, too. There is much more to come, including answers to questions about issues like shadow-banning, boosting, follower counts, the fate of various individual accounts, and more. These issues are not limited to the political right. Good night, everyone. Thanks to all those who picked up the phone in the last few days.
You can view the second edition of the “Twitter Files” below:
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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. pic.twitter.com/qTW22Zh691
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
4. Or consider the popular right-wing talk show host, Dan Bongino (@dbongino), who at one point was slapped with a “Search Blacklist.” pic.twitter.com/AdOK8xLu9v
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
5. Twitter set the account of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) to “Do Not Amplify.” pic.twitter.com/dOyQIVdsW2
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.”
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
7. What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
10. All without users’ knowledge.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.”
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.”
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.” pic.twitter.com/Vjo6YxYbxT
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
18. Twitter repeatedly informed Raichik that she had been suspended for violating Twitter’s policy against “hateful conduct.”
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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: pic.twitter.com/d9FGhrnQFE
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.”
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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. pic.twitter.com/tUeaBP1bS4
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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: pic.twitter.com/Li7HDZJtIJ
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.” pic.twitter.com/lqiJapHjct
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.”
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.”
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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: https://t.co/qYaBJzKcZj.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
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
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
30. Watch @mtaibbi for the next installment.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 9, 2022
The Western Journal will continue to publish coverage of future installments of the “Twitter Files.” Stay tuned.
CORRECTION, May 15, 2023: An earlier version of this article misspelled the first name of Kayleigh McEnany.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
