▲ 453 points
back
340 comments
There is a Substack associated with the suspended twitter account [0].
They have made a recent post about the suspension of said account and all of the users other twitter accounts [1]. It states that twitter told the user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information".
> It states that twitter told the user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information"
By that logic, Twitter should also be blocking @jack's account due to all the Bitcoin-pushing going on there too.
In fact, I think I'll go report it now...
There's a whole wave of real accounts that have been swept up in a couple of ban-waves in the past week, falsely accused of being bots.
Seems like they are doing network-based targeting, because none of them had tweeted anything particularly offensive.
How can you trust someone who says "There was not outside amplification"? How would the controller of the twitter account differentiate between simple virality and outside amplification? Of course, it's lame that Amy can buy a bunch of bots to get Bob's account canceled.
So they were banned for using sock puppets to popularize their tweets?
The spooks hate the light. Now that the spooks control not only traditional media, but also social media, it's very dark.
It's ironic that they're using Substack when they say:
> Big tech has gotten too powerful, and they can silence us anytime they want.
Substack is well on its way to becoming part of "big tech" and is yet another platform you don't control.
Setting up your own blog will not protect you from any and all threats but it makes arbitrary "suspensions" very difficult.
Ok, let's change the URL to the latter one from https://twitter.com/TrackerTrial, which doesn't say anything.
https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/1462845583178313734 They were and they have an incredibly shady history.
There are plenty of reputable journalists closely following the trial including Julie K Brown, the Miami based reporter whose story broke the whole thing open a few years ago leading to these arrests:
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist
Adam Klasfeld is another one I enjoy:
I’m sure there’s plenty of hyperbole in this post, and it's really just more hearsay, but within their lane, I think TrueAnon is reputable enough. https://twitter.com/trueanonpod/status/1468617453718675461
> It was some doofus not at the trials trying to shill his paid sub stack and then tweeting absolute bullshit. As you can imagine, a lot of the 500,000 followers were bots, which is probably why it got suspended. Also we are covering this for Barstool Sports.
(Quote tweeting a Barstool Sports account, so that part’s a joke).
> It had 200k followers the day after it was launched it doesn’t take a damn genius to figure it out!!!
They also suspended Nancy Tracker [0], a twitter account tracking Nancy Pelosi's stock trades.
Something else I noticed that I think has changed is the follower counts on suspended accounts, which is only available on the app. It may have always been hidden on the web.
I get it, they're a private platform. But if they're acting on behalf of powerful state actors, how can we say that's not suppression on speech? The white house has admitted that they're in direct contact with social media platforms even going so far as tagging posts for "misinformation" [1]. In theory the state can't restrict the speech on social media. But in practice they don't even need to.
[0] https://twitter.com/NancyTracker
[1] https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-would-government-ce...
I just got banned from Twitter a couple days ago for the same reason: "platform manipulation and spam". I only occasionally tweet about college football and don't do anything illicit at all. All I can figure is I was banned simply because of the accounts I follow, which included @TrackerTrial among other "controversial" conservative-type political accounts.
I am not sure if they are aware of the Fediverse [1,2]. The Fediverse essentially rebuilds all the social-networking services but as federated services. This means each service can be hosted by multiple instances and instances can communicate with one another, but all still have their internal rules. I think they even used the "-verse" term before the whole Metaverse-hype.
They could move the tracker to a suitable Mastodon instance [3] or even host their own Mastodon instance in order to get a suitable exposure out there (Maybe even use one of the Blogging instances). This would also be a first test how robust the Fediverse is with respect to external pressure.
[1] https://fediverse.party/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse [3] https://instances.social/
It is sad that actions like this don't even surprise people anymore. Perhaps this is one of those Twitter actions that falls under the umbrella of "improving community discussions" instead of the first amendment.
I don't support reasonless bans and no communication from Twitter. That said, this account was not particularly useful for tracking the trial. In particular, they were tweeting a lot of what they hoped would happen or wanted to happen. Folks were constantly replying "is that what happened today, or what should happen?" E.g. something like "Now is the time for Federal Agents to show exactly who was on all the CDs". This was not an event that happened in the courtroom. Clearly the prosecution has no desire to reveal all that information when there's still a possibility of going after those parties next. The trial tracker account was no good.
Is there a good case for why someone who doesn't use twitter would create an account and use it now? Trying to figure out what organic growth for them looks like.
I think this really just speaks to the problem of people relying on platforms like this for news.
The system can easily be gamed and there is something about the immediacy of it that tends to inflame people. Which I suspect is why there are so many people trying to game them in the first place.
As a whole I don't think we are really mentally and emotionally prepared for this kind of communication.
Twitter has a huge problem with bots.
On one hand, there are a lot of bots which are more or less malicious, e.g. trying to cause political strife or promote scams. On the other hand, Twitter sells advertisers on the idea that they have however many millions of users. So if Twitter was to actually get rid of the bots, then they would cause advertising revenue to drop, which might actually kill the company. So they are stuck with algorithmic techniques which walk a fine line of accuracy.
The solution is probably to mass verify real users (though "real name" verification is problematic). Right now, they use verification as a way to play favorites. Real users with hundreds of thousands of followers can't get verified.
Telegram backup:
@dang can we update the link to this one please?
At the moment people are just reacting to the headline and there doesn’t seem to be much substance to the debate due to this.
https://twitter.com/realMattBuck/status/1468535971125895175
@NancyTracker, the account that tweets Pelosi's stock trades, was suspended today.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Twitter added the rule banning pictures/reports on non-public persons on the first day of the trial.. which also coincidentally was the day Twitters and other companies CEO/CFO's all suddenly resigned; thus making them non-public persons..
Twitter is a cesspool, with lush islands of information crisscrossed with rivers of sewage.
Here's a good youtube account run by a lawyer who has physically been at the trial every day and gives pretty good updates and legal takes: https://www.youtube.com/c/GoodLawgic/videos
The podcast TrueAnon is covering the trial with daily updates.
If you rely on social media for your news you're gonna have a bad time.
How do we save our freedom? Why is the truth such an apparent threat?
Every day there is more and more of this that I am losing hope.
It seems there's some flagging of news of the trial here too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493009 (presumably you need to be logged in with showdead).
I case anyone is interested in the removed content > https://t.me/TrackerTrial
when the account started posting stuff like "when the trial is over we'll be exposing ALL corporate and government corruption!!" I knew its days were numbered (not because anything will actually come of it)
This would all be so much easier if Twitter and other social media companies were actually transparent and explicit about the specific reasons an account was banned. Instead, you are just generically told that you are in violation of the Terms of Service and MAYBE if you're lucky, linked to a certain section of the ToS which might theoretically be relevant to your case. The specific rule that was broken, and examples of behavior which broke that rule are never given.
Whatever the reasoning behind not going into more detail may be is irrelevant. The fact that none is given feeds directly into the narrative that Big Tech is unjustly censoring The Truth That They Don't Want You To Know and only exacerbates the current environment of distrust and disinformation. I feel like this is something that is going to have to change to have any hope of ever returning to some sort of consensus on what constitutes objective reality.
Twitter is currently completely down, so hard to read the tweet.
Sniff sniff, smells like Cli ton amd a bit of orince andrew...
As a society we need to redefine what a public space is.
Honestly I read through the substack and its not that good reporting. Not the kind of hard hitting journalism the tag of this post suggests -- not worth your time. Still shouldn't be banned tho!
Can’t have transparency. This account was posting pictures of Bill Clinton on Lolita Jet and Hollywood celebrities on Epsteins Blackbook. The made men protect other made men.
> Big tech has gotten too powerful, and they can silence us anytime they want.
Did you speak out when Trump got banned? If not, did you really think they would only go after the „bad guys“?
@trackertrial2
> "artificially" amplifying information
Isn't that the whole point of Twitter?
> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information".
That is newspeak pure and simple.