Matt Taibbi's latest piece:
Press Silence on Latest Twitter Files Scandal a New Low
Newly released documents clearly show the FBI tried to help Ukrainian intelligence censor Aaron Mate, but the mainstream press continues to show their lack of scruple
Matt Taibbi
Jun 8
∙
Paid
Share
CNN had the gall the other day to run a story called, “Twitter’s own lawyers refute Elon Musk’s claim that the ‘Twitter Files’ exposed US government censorship.” The plummeting cable network, which consistently refused to cover any of the Twitter Files revelations in real time, is citing a legal motion filed by Twitter that, shockingly, does not confess to liability in a years-old First Amendment claim filed by Donald Trump.
This motion, in conjunction with stories like CNN’s, is being used by the usual suspects to argue that the Twitter Files reports, and the notion that they “exposed government censorship,” have been proven untrue. If nothing else, the stubborn dishonesty is impressive, especially given the confidence they’ve again showed in blowing off another clearly newsworthy Twitter Files expose, this time by Aaron Maté. Apparently, the mainstream press doesn’t consider it news when the FBI works with a foreign intelligence service to try to censor an award-winning Western reporter.
Aaron found in Twitter’s internal correspondence emails showing the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) ask an FBI attache in Kyiv, Aleksandr Kozbanets, for help in removing 175 accounts they accused of “spreading fear and disinformation” from social media. The 175 names included an expected gaggle of Russians, including one-time Guinness Book record holder for largest newspaper circulation (Komsomolskaya Pravda), the Russian Communist Party, the Donbas Police, TASS, and others. One name stood out, however: Aaron’s own. His @AaronJMate Twitter handle was included with no explanation.
As was the case with nearly all the Twitter Files reports, there’s no factual controversy. The published emails show all the important elements: the request from the SBU, its forwarding by Kozbanets to Twitter, the list of accounts, and Twitter’s response:
Clockwise from top right: request from FBI attaché Alexander Kozbanets, list entries for Komsomolskaya Pravda and the Russian Communist Party, the entry for Aaron Maté, and Yoel Roth’s response.
It’s already scandalous that Ukrainian intelligence would ask the FBI to “take urgent measures to block” a well-known, award-winning Western reporter (Aaron is Canadian). What makes this as important as any of the earlier Twitter Files reports is the fact that the FBI agreed to help. Kozbanets passed the list to both the San Francisco field office of the FBI and to Twitter, “for your review and consideration.” Twitter’s Yoel Roth ultimately declined to remove Aaron and many others — “only” 34 were suspended — noting in a blunt characterization I’m not sure I’d agree with that “authentic news outlets and reporters that cover the conflict with a pro-Russian stance are unlikely to be found in violation of our rules.”
That was an admirable enough stance, in keeping with others we found. For instance, Roth’s reluctance at times to endorse the work of Hamilton 68, the Clemson Media Forensics Hub, even our own government’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) suggested some level of pushback by the Twitter Trust and Safety department did in fact go on.
The disposition of the incident isn’t the point, however. The FBI even attempting to censor a well-known Western journalist on behalf of a foreign intelligence service represents serious abuse. Several reports have hinted at this kind of thing, from Lee Fang’s article showing the FBI pressured Facebook to remove “disinformation” at the behest of the SBU, to a report in Twitter Files #9 that the FITF sent Twitter (and presumably other platforms) an Excel spreadsheet identifying a string of YouTube videos as having promoted “anti-Ukraine narratives.”
Government efforts to suppress or surveil domestic writers have traditionally gained a lot of press traction, from Nixon’s plotting against Jack Anderson to the Pentagon Papers case to FBI monitoring of Thomas Wolfe and Truman Capote. In this case, apart from excellent prompt coverage in The Hill shown above, not one mainstream reporter uttered a peep in protest. This is revolting no matter whether this is proved illegal in the end or not.
This latest salvo by CNN in the seemingly endless procession of leprechaun tricks deployed to deflect attention from the Twitter Files makes use of a ruse normally used by the likes of Politifact and the Washington Post’s “Fact-Checker” column, “debunking” claims not actually made. The CNN lede for instance reads, “Twitter owner Elon Musk and his allies have amplified baseless claims that the US government illegally coerced Twitter into censoring a 2020 New York Post article about Hunter Biden.” They cited a tweet from Musk saying, in reaction to the first Twitter Files report, “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?”
The Donald Trump vs. Jack Dorsey, Twitter et al suit referenced by CNN was filed in July, 2021, and pertains narrowly to the decision to remove Donald Trump from the platform. The new motion getting so much attention focuses narrowly on a Hail Mary attempt by Trump’s lawyers to use the Twitter Files to reopen an already adjudicated case. Defendants here only need to prove the Twitter Files (the “New Materials”) don’t constitute evidence on-point enough to do that. The broader question of the legality of “anti-disinformation” efforts by the FBI, DHS, the Global Engagement Center and other federal agencies is only just starting to be hashed out in the ongoing Missouri v. Biden litigation, as well as Berenson v. Biden, the New Civil Liberties Alliance suit against the Stanford Internet Observatory, and other cases.
Everyone who worked on the Twitter Files knew questions of constitutionality would take years to sort out, which is why none of us made that a focus. We focused on making sense of material we had, showing clear episodes of shadowbanning, industry meetings with FBI/DHS/ODNI, the mass-forwarding of moderation requests through the FITF, mass-monitoring of domestic accounts by enforcement agencies under the banner of monitoring “malign foreign influence,” the creation of cross-platform surveillance partnerships with input of agencies like the DHS and CDC, and now, internal evidence outing hoaxes like Hamilton 68, and other issues.
Whatever courts decide about any of this, it sure looked upsetting to millions of people, with the most conspicuous exception being professional journalists apparently more interested in protecting intelligence agencies than doing their jobs. Their silence about the FBI passing on a request to block a legitimate journalist by Ukrainian intelligence is just another brick in their proverbial wall of shamelessness.
