Three questions on the FBI role in Twitter's content moderation
The latest iteration of the Twitter Files reveals the FBI had a systemic method of alerting the social media company to content deemed objectionable.
Thanks for reading the Weekly Dystopia! Researching and writing a newsletter takes time and effort. Please buy me a coffee if you want to support me to ensure the viability the newsletter.
Summary: Three questions on the new revelations of the FBI-Twitter relationship in online censorship: 1) Who oversaw the initiative at the FBI? 2) Did the FBI convey any consequences for not complying? 3) How porous was staffing between the FBI and Twitter?
With the latest round of the Twitter Files corroborating the emerging discovery FBI officials were alerting Twitter to online content they deemed objectionable and wanted removed, we have the strongest evidence yet of a systemic initiative within the U.S. government to curtail free speech in total disregard for the First Amendment.
Based on reporting by Matt Taiibi, the FBI's level of scrutiny in finding content and flagging it for Twitter for removal — requests Twitter with which appeared all too eager to comply — went well beyond the U.S. government parameters on speech censorship, which is restricted to limited areas like incitement to violence.
A key component of Taiibi's reporting indicates significant portions of the FBI were tasked with monitoring tweets — instead of pursuing more pressing issues like child-sex trafficking — and bringing them to the attention of Twitter, even if that content was intended as a joke or made by users who have a negligible online footprint. That's the kind of Big Brother oversight usually derided as a conspiracy theory, but based on the Twitter Files actually happened.
The Twitter Files are cracking open the door for visibility of this conduct by the U.S. government, but much remains unanswered. Here's three questions I have on the relationship between the FBI and Twitter on online censorship:
1. Who was responsible for oversight within the FBI on staffers charged with monitoring online content?
The systemic approach by FBI officials to monitoring online content and flagging it for Twitter, as reported in the Twitter Files, appears too thorough to have been an ad hoc or informal side task for staffers charged with other projects. That would be inconsistent with revelations Yoel Roth, former head of trust and safety at Twitter, was meeting with the government officials on a weekly basis to manage this relationship. There must have been one senior FBI official responsible for overseeing all that.
For that answer, we might find a clue not in the Twitter Files, but other reporting on the relationship between the U.S. government and social media companies. The Intercept had a blockbuster report just a few weeks ago on a continued relationship with the Department of Homeland Security and social media companies in censoring content deemed misinformation, which includes special portals for U.S. government staffers to access Facebook and Twitter to flag certain posts.
One FBI official found to have a key role in this ongoing engagement was Laura Dehmlow, who also reportedly played a part in encouraging Twitter to take down the New York Post's story on Hunter Biden's laptop in the 2020 election. If a further revelation came Dehmlow was in charge of coordinating efforts among other FBI staffers to flag content for Twitter, that would be very consistent.
I should also point out the director of the FBI at this time in the 2020 election was Christopher Wray, whom former President Trump had reportedly planned to terminate had he won re-election. Wray continues to serve to this day under the Biden administration as director of the FBI.
2. Did the FBI ever imply or explicitly convey any consequences for Twitter in the event the company refused to comply with content removal?
One of the more common retorts from skeptics who think the U.S. government was doing nothing nefarious by flagging content for Twitter for removal was the government has an interest in containing misinformation, especially if it were election-related and could inspire a mob to violence. Flagging that for Twitter, these skeptics say, is totally consistent with other actions from the U.S government, such as urging to the public to get a COVID shot or telling business not to price gouge at the time of record inflation.
Personally, I think there's a big difference between those situations, but one thing that would likely change the minds of these skeptics would be if FBI officials were found to have made a threat to Twitter if the company didn't comply with requests to take down information. It could be something like, "It would be a shame the IRS were to conduct an audit." It doesn't need to be quite that dramatic or blatantly illegal. If that were the case, the relationship without question would be government coercion.
I would argue there would be an implicit threat even if the FBI officials conveyed no consequences for Twitter. These are government officials imbued with special powers to investigate crimes and report them for legal prosecution. Even if nothing is expressed, the potential for reprisal is highly implied.
3. Just how pervasive was the open door of staffing that consisted of former senior FBI officials moving over to Twitter?
One thing that came forward in the Twitter Files not as part of the content but the delay in getting it out there was the revelation Jim Baker, a former senior FBI official who once peddled false information on behalf of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign and who has to ties investigations into Donald Trump, found his way to a position at Twitter as general counsel. Matt Taiibi reported a delay in the release of the Twitter Files was found to have been the result of Baker reviewing the material before handing it over to him and Bari Weiss. Elon Musk subsequently fired Baker.
New reporting just this weekend from Jon Levine at the New York Post reveals Baker wasn't alone and other senior FBI officials migrated over to Twitter in senior roles. One was Matthew Williams, who spent more than 15 years with the FBI as an intelligence analyst before joining Twitter in 2020 as “senior director of product trust." So Williams had a key role in overseeing content moderation. The other was Dawn Burton, a former U.S. prosecutor and top FBI staffer who worked closely with James Comey before joining Twitter in September 2019 as director of strategy and operations and counsel organization.
So these former FBI staffers moved over to Twitter and took key roles in oversight with significant impact on what content should be censored. The porous nature of U.S. government officials moving over to Twitter makes the contrast between a private company and U.S. government less distinct and colors whether or not the U.S. government is infringing upon free speech under the First Amendment. More answers on how pervasive this cross-staffing was would bring clarity to this relationship between the FBI and Twitter.
In closing, I'm clear-eyed the kind of content we're about here is likely tweets about the 2020 election that may be denounced as misinformation, such as accusations of mishandling ballots that have no basis in reality. It's not explicitly stated in the Taiibi's reporting on the Twitter Files, but I would venture to guess much of the content was also related to COVID and contrary to guidance from public officials.
But that's perfectly allowed under the First Amendment. Twitter as a private company has greater leeway in censoring that content. If it came at the behest of the U.S. government, however, that's a flagrant attempt to control the populace in contempt of the U.S. Constitution.
Just a note at the end: Please sign up to subscribe if you like what you’re reading at the Weekly Dystopia. Subscriptions for a limited time are completely free and adding your name to the mailing list would really help us a lot in getting past our launch phase: