Twitter Files: How Elon Musk Promotes Conspiracy Myths


fact finder

Status: 05.01.2023 3:42 p.m

With great fanfare, Musk announced the so-called Twitter Files – alleged revelations about how unwelcome opinions were censored on Twitter. According to experts, the findings are not new – but reveal a lot about Musk himself.

By Pascal Siggelkow, ARD fact finder editors

“The public deserves to know what really happened,” Twitter owner and multi-billionaire Elon Musk wrote in late November on the platform, which he acquired for $44 billion in October. Musk was referring to the publication of the so-called Twitter Files – a series of internal documents from the social network that Musk made available to selected journalists.

But the big scandal has not materialized so far. Above all, outside of the United States, the Twitter Files attracted little attention – with the exception of conspiracy ideological circles. Musk is celebrated there as an alleged enlightener who uncovered “the corruption of Twitter” in order to make the “great awakening” possible. But what are the Twitter Files all about?

“Most of this has been known for a long time”

The Twitter Files consist of twelve consecutively published reports (so-called threads) published on Twitter by Musk’s chosen journalists. In terms of content, they each deal with their own thematic aspects, some of which, however, overlap. What they all have in common, however, is that they are intended to show how the reach of supposedly unwelcome opinions and users was restricted at least in Twitter, and how Twitter also worked with secret service organizations and state actors.

This narrative, which has been spread in the US by conspiracy ideology and right-wing circles for years, is something Musk is deliberately using with the Twitter files, says Katja Muñoz, research associate at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). “In terms of content, they hardly bring any new insights. Most of them have been known for a long time.”

Hunter Biden’s laptop

Among other things, the story with the laptop of Hunter Biden, the son of US President Joe Biden, is rehashed in the Twitter Files. During the 2020 presidential election campaign, the “New York Post” reported an article about explosive documents from a laptop that Hunter Biden had dropped off at a computer store and never picked up again. Emails revealed that Hunter Biden had business ties in Ukraine and China that benefited from his family’s political influence. The authenticity of the laptop and the documents was hotly debated for a long time, but it is now regarded as certain.

However, links to the New York Post article were blocked on Twitter at the time, and the newspaper’s account was temporarily blocked. The company justified the procedure with its own terms and conditions: The distribution of information that was obtained through hacking and contains private files is prohibited. Criticism then rained down on Twitter. The then Twitter boss Jack Dorsey later apologized, but rejected political partisanship. The account was unblocked and the link could be distributed again.

Musk nevertheless wrote in connection with the publication of the Twitter files that Twitter acted on government orders. However, there is no evidence of this, even according to journalist Matt Taibbi, who edited this part of the Twitter Files. In addition, Joe Biden was not yet US President at that time.

Freedom of expression versus combating disinformation

“What’s really interesting about the Twitter Files is actually getting a glimpse into the company’s internal debates at the really difficult moments,” says Muñoz. The files show how difficult it was for the company to make decisions such as blocking ex-President Donald Trump’s account after the Capitol storm. “The fact that some of the internal discussions were very heated also shows that Musk’s allegations of political censorship by Twitter come to nothing.”

Mareile Ihde, head of digital communication at the political consulting network polisphere, also considers the knowledge gained from the Twitter files to be manageable. “At a time when so much disinformation is being spread on social networks, it is logical that appropriate moderation takes place there.” It is hardly surprising that large social networks such as Twitter are also in contact with secret services. It is also understandable that the administrations of Trump and Biden turned to the company, for example to combat disinformation about the corona pandemic.

Rather, the Twitter Files would show how difficult it is for social networks to manage the balancing act between freedom of expression on the one hand and combating disinformation on the other.

Shadow ban allegations

This also applies to allegations of so-called shadow banning, says Miro Dittrich, Senior Researcher at CeMAS (Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy). “Shadow banning means that certain users or tweets are restricted in their visibility and thus their reach without being informed.” Accusations of political censorship are often raised in this context, especially in conservative circles.

However, there is no evidence of political censorship in the Twitter files, says Dittrich. “The accounts that had their visibility restricted had previously violated Twitter’s policies.” All major platforms would use algorithms to sort content. They used many different markers to see what contributes to the discussion and what doesn’t. “But the markers aren’t political beliefs. Unless you include conspiracy stories like the stolen elections.”

Dittrich explains the excitement about the topic above all with the ignorance of many people about the mechanisms of social networks. Musk is apparently not aware of this either. Because he himself had written after taking over Twitter that the new Twitter guideline was “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach”.

“That’s exactly what was and is being implemented on Twitter and other social networks,” says Dittrich. “It is, so to speak, the further development from the early phase of post moderation, where there was only the decision: delete post or account or not delete. The social networks have seen that they need more options.” The term shadow banning already rejected Twitter as inappropriate in 2018, as the affected content can still be found. With “real” shadow banning, on the other hand, according to the definition, nobody but the user himself can see his content.

“This is a political campaign”

Dittrich believes that Musk is pursuing his own agenda with the Twitter files: “It’s a very clear political campaign.” Because instead of really relying on transparency, he only selected journalists for the Twitter files who shared his political views. On the other hand, he did not release all documents, but only selected ones.

“In principle, the journalists do PR for Musk,” says Dittrich. “It would be transparent if journalists could freely search the data for possible stories.” Former CEO and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey also criticized Musk for this and called on him to publish all internal documents at once and “without filters”.

Musk reactivated far-right accounts

In an email to Twitter employees, Musk threatened to sue any employee who leaks internal content to the media like her Journalist Zoë Schiffer reported – exactly what he had done with the Twitter Files. Musk also had accounts he didn’t like blocked on Twitter, including several journalists from established media.

“Musk’s political positioning is actually relatively clear – from the right-wing libertarian to the right-wing extremist and conspiracy ideological corner,” says Ihde from polisphere. “The publications fit into his world view that governments are colluding behind closed doors. He supports the narratives of many conspiracy stories that are circulating in the United States.”

Among other things, Musk reactivated numerous accounts of right-wing extremists and anti-Semites such as those of Kanye West and Andrew Tate. one UK NGO Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) investigation According to him, the number of racist, homophobic and misogynistic tweets rose rapidly under his aegis. Ihde considers this development to be very dangerous: “It can lead to people becoming radicalized and hatred then ultimately leading to action.”


source site