Yesterday Twitter gave advanced notice to CNN about a story they are a subject of allowing them to break the news on a controversy they pushed for Darcy said Jones was only banned due to media pressure which means CNN profited off of an issue they created Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Alex Jones has finally been banned from the last large social media platform, Twitter. | ||
| Last night we heard that because Alex Jones confronted Oliver Darcy, and this violated Twitter's abusive behavior policy, he was going to be permanently banned from the platform as well as InfoWars. | ||
| What's interesting was that before Twitter made the announcement, some news outlets tweeted the story out, which means they had it written before Twitter actually announced that Jones was going to be banned. | ||
| And Oliver Darcy, the subject of the story, the reason Alex Jones got banned, tweeted the story out at the exact same minute as Twitter. | ||
| This means that Twitter contacted the media and told them beforehand what they were going to do. | ||
| That Twitter knew they were going to ban Jones and didn't tell Alex Jones until the media knew and already had the story written. | ||
| Naturally, you have people screaming collusion. | ||
| They're saying the media is working hand-in-hand with Twitter to ban the competition. | ||
| At least, that's what Paul Joseph Watson, who works for InfoWars, is saying. | ||
| And that may or may not be the case. | ||
| Some journalists are saying, you know, it's kind of weird. | ||
| We understand that press embargoes are normal, and this is a big story. | ||
| Alex Jones being banned is going to generate a lot of buzz, so of course Twitter is going to contact the press and let them know. | ||
| But after going through the evidence, I have to conclude that at least by a bare minimum standard, I think you actually can say there was some collusion. | ||
| Because these news organizations, in fact Oliver Darcy, has said the only reason Alex Jones has been banned is because of media pressure. | ||
| If the media, if Oliver Darcy, the subject of the story in which Alex Jones has been banned, even CNN includes themselves in the story, was given advanced knowledge, and last month they took credit for putting pressure on these companies to ban Alex Jones, I have to say, at least by a bare minimum definition, There was some back and forth between the companies, and there was a desire to ban Alex Jones. | ||
| So let's take a look at what actually happened. | ||
| Let me break down why I think this to be the case, and we'll look at exactly what happened yesterday, and if there actually is collusion. | ||
| Now before we get started, let me give a quick shout out to today's sponsor, VirtualShield. | ||
| VirtualShield is a virtual private network service that helps keep your data safe. | ||
| Be it from the government, a hacker, anybody who wants to spy on your information, a VPN is going to help obfuscate your data and make it much, much harder. | ||
| We're never guaranteed perfect security, but that doesn't mean we don't lock our doors and lock our windows. | ||
| Virtual Shield is a simple step that you can take to help keep yourself and your family safe from anyone who would want to spy on you. | ||
| For those that are interested, the link will be in the description below. | ||
| Yesterday, Twitter Safety announced that they had made the ban of Alex Jones. | ||
| They said, And we can see this tweet came at 4.47pm. | ||
| on new reports of tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, | ||
| in addition to the account's past violations. And we can see this tweet came at 4.47 pm. | ||
| And then we can see at 4.47 pm, Oliver Darcy, who is a subject of the story, also tweeted out a story | ||
| from CNN, the company that he works at. BuzzFeed tweeted the story out exactly at 4.45, two minutes | ||
| before Twitter. | ||
| The AP had the story up on Twitter one minute before they made the announcement. | ||
| So naturally, If the media knew before Twitter announced, the media was informed beforehand. | ||
| And we know this to be true now because a writer for BuzzFeed News has said this is true, that he contacted Twitter and they told him what was gonna happen. | ||
| Charlie Worzel said, Here was my process. | ||
| won't be met with good faith, but there are some out there who might just be confused, | ||
| tweets like the one below suggest something nefarious. | ||
| Here was my process. | ||
| I reached out to Twitter, independently of anyone, to inquire about one of yesterday's | ||
| tweets from Alex Jones. | ||
| He highlights the tweet from Cassandra Fairbanks that says, Collusion? | ||
| Mainstream media informed of Twitter's Infowars ban before Alex Jones was. | ||
| He said, eventually got a response, but had to agree to an embargo, an incredibly standard | ||
| journalistic practice for a national news story with lots of interest. | ||
| Most journals accept begrudgingly because it's better to have the info than not. | ||
| The reason for embargoes is often that it gives reporters a chance to question, and also write a story with a bit of time to make sure no facts are flubbed by rushing. | ||
| In this case, I had about 40 minutes to put together a story with context. | ||
| So yeah, honestly, nothing nefarious. | ||
| But some people don't know what embargoes are, and it's on reporters to help give context. | ||
| All the heads up, which again is a thing that is reasonably common, did was allow me time to double-check my facts and add context on a high-interest story. | ||
| So while definitively stating there's collusion is a bit hard to do, I mean collusion implies there was some kind of secret act between the two groups that was going to cause harm to somebody or it may be illegal, but there was some exchange between them. | ||
| Oliver Darcy said a month ago that it was only after the media continually pressed these companies did they actually start to enforce their own rules. | ||
| On August 6th, Oliver Darcy said, Important to note that tech platforms did not enforce their | ||
| own rules and take action against Alex Jones InfoWars on their own accord. | ||
| It took media outlets to point out for weeks that InfoWars was skirting the rules on these tech platforms for them to | ||
| enforce own standards. | ||
| Alex Jones had been violating these standards for some time. | ||
| And they only actually took action after weeks of media pressure, after weeks of the media outlets saying, you know, | ||
| you say that this would violate your standards, so why is this still being allowed to be posted? | ||
| Later in the afternoon, he said, Twitter spokesperson says that neither InfoWars nor any | ||
| other associated accounts are currently in violation of Twitter Periscope rules. | ||
| I don't think it's strange that Twitter notified the press. | ||
| Honestly, I lean towards nothing nefarious. | ||
| The issue is that Oliver Darcy has been putting pressure on these companies repeatedly. | ||
| Personally, I kind of lean towards it may be an inadvertent low-level form of collusion, and the reason for it is... | ||
| If you go on Twitter and search for racist death threats, it will only take you a few minutes to find several. | ||
| And I'm not going to show them because I will probably get in trouble on YouTube. | ||
| So, I did a search. | ||
| And yes, I found people posting racial slurs and death threats from days ago. | ||
| In fact, during the hearing in DC, a congressperson showed Jack Dorsey posts from drug dealers. | ||
| They were actually offering to sell drugs. | ||
| How is it that all of these can remain on the platform, but for some reason Alex Jones is singled out? | ||
| Well, as Oliver Darcy said, it was media pressure. | ||
| So then isn't it strange that media pressure got Alex Jones banned from various platforms, and then after Alex Jones confronts Oliver Darcy, Twitter announces they're going to ban Alex Jones for his confrontation of Darcy, and they tell Oliver Darcy and CNN beforehand! | ||
| To me, that sounds like they were working behind the scenes, sharing information, and targeted somebody who isn't the worst offender on Twitter. | ||
| Now, it could just be that Alex Jones is high profile, he's an easy target, and yes, maybe it's just simple media pressure, and Twitter was backed into a corner, and had to do it because they were facing bad PR, but the point is, Twitter gave advanced knowledge to a subject in the story. | ||
| Look, If groups like Hamas and specific branded Antifa cells and people like Louis Farrakhan are still on the platform and Twitter says offline behavior counts, you know, towards whether or not they'll ban you. | ||
| That they've removed verification from certain individuals and not their counterparts on the left. | ||
| That conservatives have been shadow banned from auto search and their counterparts on the left haven't. | ||
| Though, yes, there are people on the left who get banned. | ||
| Because Jack Dorsey says in this hearing they make mistakes constantly, I have to wonder if it's not just on purpose at this point. | ||
| Let's look at this example. | ||
| And this has 74,000 followers. | ||
| They say it's the official count. | ||
| I don't know if it is. | ||
| It's not verified. | ||
| Palestinian movement that resists the Israeli Zionist occupation and aggression. | ||
| We struggle for equal rights for all in Palestine." | ||
| And this has 74,000 followers. | ||
| They say it's the official count. | ||
| I don't know if it is. | ||
| It's not verified. | ||
| But I'm not surprised it's not verified. | ||
| But what is Hamas defined as, according to many Western governments? | ||
| It is regarded either in whole or in part as a terrorist organization by several countries and international organizations. | ||
| The U.S. | ||
| considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization. | ||
| You then have someone like Louis Farrakhan, who goes on anti-Semitic racist conspiracy theories off platform. | ||
| Twitter says that off-platform behavior counts as to whether or not they're going to ban you. | ||
| So why are they allowing the Taliban? | ||
| Why are they allowing Hamas? | ||
| I have to imagine it's on purpose. | ||
| Because if Twitter was doing a blanket enforcement of its rules, I wouldn't be able to find racist death threats. | ||
| I wouldn't be able to find people accidentally not being banned when they threatened Dana Lash's family. | ||
| And I have had people threaten me physically. | ||
| I have had people tell me that if I go and cover a story, they will steal my phone, they will physically attack me, they will pin me down and steal my backpack. | ||
| And when I report this to Twitter, Twitter does nothing about it. | ||
| Candace Owens puts out a tweet, she gets banned, even though she uses a very similar language to what Sarah Jong used. | ||
| And she says the point is, specifically, to highlight the bias. | ||
| And Twitter bans her and then says, oops, it was a mistake. | ||
| Dana Lash has her family threatened. | ||
| Twitter doesn't ban this person. | ||
| Later comes back, oops, it was a mistake. | ||
| When Congress confronts Jack, he says, we make mistakes. | ||
| But how often do you make mistakes? | ||
| How long are these mistakes going to keep happening? | ||
| And then you have to try and convince me that you think Alex Jones is a bigger threat Because he confronted Oliver Darcy, then Hamas, then the Taliban. | ||
| Because those accounts are still active, and that's apparently okay. | ||
| And yes, you might argue, but Tim, Alex Jones, made a direct statement. | ||
| He did an action. | ||
| And Hamas and Louis Farrakhan and his other extremist accounts don't use Twitter in this way. | ||
| So they're allowed to stay. | ||
| Okay, if that's the argument you're making, then the Proud Boys got banned for being an extremist organization, and Hamas did not. | ||
| The Proud Boys got banned for being an extremist organization, and their counterpart in the street battles, specific branded anti-fascist cells that have their own logos and Twitter accounts with tens of thousands of followers, were not banned. | ||
| And this is why, if you were to ask me, I would say, at what point do you just say, look, it's not an accident, and it's not a mistake, it has to be on purpose? | ||
| And it might not be a grand conspiracy where Jack Dorsey is sitting there saying, let's burn down InfoWars. | ||
| But when the media says their pressure resulted in the banning of Alex Jones, and then Twitter gives the subject of the story advance notice, I have to say, yes, they were talking to each other behind the scenes about Alex Jones being banned for the actions that Alex Jones took against Oliver Darcy. | ||
| Maybe Oliver Darcy and CNN are the ones who actually reported him, or maybe it was just that because many news organizations asked about the tweet, it was essentially reported. | ||
| It might all be one big accident, but the dominoes fall into place, and whether or not it's on purpose, Twitter took action against Alex Jones because of pressure from the media, and they gave advanced notice to the actual subject of the story. | ||
| At what point do you say that is collusion? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I can't accuse them of anything, and maybe it's all just one big dumb political game, and Twitter is really just bad at what they do. | ||
| But if the mistakes are going to keep happening, if every day it's a new mistake, I have to say, okay, at some point, you're willfully inept. | ||
| You're just not willing to actually fix any of these problems. | ||
| But let me know what you think in the comments below, and we'll keep the conversation going. | ||
| It's hard to definitively say collusion, but I have to say it again. | ||
| If Hamas and the Taliban are actively posting on Twitter, But you think the Proud Boys are an extremist organization, you are really, really bad at what you do. | ||
| Or it's on purpose. | ||
| So what do you think? | ||
| Is it on purpose? | ||
| I think at this point we can only say yes, because they gave foreknowledge to the media companies that claim to be putting pressure on the media companies to ban Alex Jones. | ||
| How much- what else do you say? | ||
| I mean, short of Twitter saying we did it on purpose and we worked with media companies, I don't know what else you can do, but at some point you have to say, hey guys, if you're talking to each other behind the scenes, and the media has admitted they're the ones putting pressure on the companies to ban people, it sounds like you really did collude. | ||
| So let me know what you think. | ||
| We'll keep the conversation going. | ||
| You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast. | ||
| Stay tuned. | ||
| New videos every day at 4 p.m. | ||
| and more videos coming up on my second channel at 6 p.m. | ||
| YouTube.com slash TimCastNews. | ||
| Thanks for hanging out. |