In a major development from the Twitter Files release on Friday night, it was confirmed that Twitter engaged in 2020 election interference.
“Donald Trump was shadow-banned” one week before the 2020 election.
Journalist Matt Taibbi tweeted that Trump was “visibility filtered” as a late as a “week before the election.” “Visibility filtered” was a Twitter euphemism for “shadowban,” as was explained in the Twitter Files 2 drop.
“VERY WELL DONE ON SPEED” Trump was being “visibility filtered” as late as a week before the election. Here, senior execs didn’t appear to have a particular violation, but still worked fast to make sure a fairly anodyne Trump tweet couldn’t be “replied to, shared, or liked”:
The revelation was pointed out by journalist Ian Miles Cheong.
Trump was shadowbanned before the election. Holy crap. https://t.co/tfCWcYAfjr
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) December 10, 2022
The Twitter Files 2 drop confirmed a widespread censorship operation, shadowbans, and ‘blacklists’ of conservatives. But almost lost amid the noise was that Elon Musk confirmed that there was a massive election interference operation that targeted political candidates running for office.
The Twitter chief confirmed the development in an exchange with journalist Ian Michael Cheong.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2022
“So here’s a question for @elonmusk and @bariweiss: were any political candidates — either in the US or elsewhere — subject to shadowbanning while they were running for office or seeking re-election?” Cheong asked.
“Yes,” Musk replied.
Libs of TikTok, whose moniker was mentioned in the Twitter Files 2 release, noted the major revelation.
Wow! Elon confirms that Twitter shadowbanned and suppressed tweets from political candidates while they were running for office. ELECTION INTERFERENCE! pic.twitter.com/6WEe36mtJQ
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 9, 2022
“Wow! Elon confirms that Twitter shadowbanned and suppressed tweets from political candidates while they were running for office. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” she wrote.
This is a huge development because it shows that Twitter’s censorship and boosting practives may have actually broken federal election law. As a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Twitter argued in the aftermath of the 2020 election, the social media platform’s practices constitued an undeclared ‘in-kind contribution’ to Donald Trump’s political opponents.
While the suit was not successful, it came to light that former Head of Trust & Safety, Yoel Roth, confirmed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was involved in getting the Hunter Biden laptop story censored on Twitter.
“Since 2018, I have had regular meetings with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and industry peers regarding election security,” Roth revealed.
“During these weekly meetings, the federal law enforcement agencies communicated that they expected ‘hack-and-leak operations’ by state actors might occur in the period shortly before the 2020 presidential election, likely in October,” he went on. “I was told in these meetings that the intelligence community expected that individuals associated with political campaigns would be subject to hacking attacks and that material obtained through those hacking attacks would likely be disseminated over social media platforms, including Twitter. These expectations of hack-and-leak operations were discussed throughout 2020. I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.”
In the initial Twitter Files dump, journalist Matt Taibbi revealed that the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee were requesting that users be censored or banned from the platform.
Twitter was just one Big Tech platform that is now revealing massive election interference in 2020 to ensure that Donald Trump was not re-elected. Just imagine what the other major social media platforms are hiding.
"*" indicates required fields
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.