Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
#TwitterFiles On Taylor Lorenz w/ Paul Thacker
Recorded: May 18, 2023 Duration: 4:11:40Space Recording
Short Summary
The discussion highlights Taylor Lorenz's influence on Twitter's moderation process through personal connections, which was disrupted by Elon Musk's acquisition, leading to changes in transparency and moderation practices.
Full Transcription
Yo, can you hear me?
I can, yeah, how's it going?
Good man, how's my audio?
Is it good?
Yeah, it's really good, really good.
What's happening then?
I'm a beast.
It doesn't matter where I am in the world,
impeccable audio, impeccable quality.
Everything is perfect.
No one can even tell.
I'm happy with the team.
Let me start sending out the invites.
We do have an interesting, so we're going to do a space on DeSantis.
There's an interesting Twitter files drop.
Nothing too major, but I think he's worth covering.
I'm sure a lot of people would have different opinions on this.
But let me send out the invites in the meantime.
I'll give this a couple of minutes.
So I heard you've been doing some like meditation.
How's it going?
Are you feeling Zen?
Bro, can you not start trying to small talk, please, yeah?
Yeah.
Let me just support the speakers.
I hate doing it.
Can you do it with Trash or Joe?
Because it's a bit boring, bro.
I was trying to make you sound interesting, but you're boring.
Hey, Trash.
How are you, man?
How's it going?
Let me see if Taylor Lorenz want to join.
Hold on, let me pingo.
I think she left the platform.
Oh shit, she left Twitter?
I think so.
I know she's over on Blue Sky.
I see her over there, but I think she left the platform.
Interesting.
I wouldn't expect her to leave the platform.
I think it's a step too far, but let me see.
I'll be surprised because she had a pretty...
No, she's there, but obviously you're saying she's not using the platform.
Let me see.
No, she's tweeting.
She's retweeting people now.
She tweeted an hour ago.
Oh, cool.
Yeah, no, she's active, bro.
Let me ping her now.
Oh, I haven't seen her.
You must have unblocked me, too.
She'd have you blocked at one point.
Joe.
It means you have an opinion when you get blocked.
That's like my badge of honor is that...
Sebastian Gorka blocked me.
I have...
Yeah, I've got some scalps too, Joe.
Back before, even if he's even trying to take myself seriously on this platform.
I just pinged it now.
Let me send out the invites and then we can kick it off.
Oh, yeah.
I've been second out with the guy.
I'll let you get the thread organized.
You've got it with you?
Yeah, I've got to pull up my laptop.
So, like, when we get more people in here, I'll start to go through it.
I've been going through it the last 35 minutes.
It's pretty interesting.
It's not super long.
Bro, what's so interesting about it?
Why is it so major?
I haven't gone through it.
I'll tell you.
We'll get to it, but I'll tell you what I thought was most interesting.
Is that Taylor had special privileges with connections at Twitter and DOJ, and we're able to actually, like, streamline
request to the Twitter administrators.
to get people taken down and such.
Paul said he wasn't clear whether that more people had that access,
but the people that he was working with at Twitter
kind of was able to point that out,
and he actually has screenshots to show that where she was able to do that.
So it's kind of a one-way street.
Okay, your connection, is it my end, Simon, or is connection chopping in and out a bit?
It seems it seems alright to me.
Ah, okay, okay, cool.
Yeah, nothing major.
I heard everything he said.
They just chopped a tiny bit.
If anyone is having that choppiness in the audience, let us know in the comments as well.
But I think we could start going through it.
Like one thing in there, and we're going to go through it in a bit,
but one thing in there that was just didn't seem that major to me is that the fact that her uncle owned the way back machine,
which I think she says he doesn't, but I don't know.
I haven't verified it.
But then he removed information from the way back machine on her behalf.
That, to me, sounds very silly.
It was true.
So back when this whole debacle went down.
But what's major about it?
What's major about it, though?
Well, because once the...
for lack of better terms, once the power dynamic started shifting away from big tech and one ideology and it kind of the dam started breaking up and Twitter started opening up.
And Taylor went after lives a TikTok, there was a lot after her MSN and MSNBC interview.
A lot of people tried to go, you know, and go find her past articles and stuff she had done because she had.
egg-on cancellation campaigns before
this actually speaks to a lot of that
so the fact that that was scrub and you could not pull the archives
so it could just be deleted forever from the internet
was actually kind of a big deal
how is it a big deal do you know anyone could remove your
you can go right now remove any information request to remove information
from the wayback machine though anyone could do it
everything that she's ever had on the internet is gone
from the archives.
Ah, so what he's saying is that she scrubbed information
that was on other websites,
not websites she owned.
Yeah, old tweets
that didn't make it into,
it's all gone.
So yeah, no, it was kind of a big deal.
I don't know if you, because I know anyone could request to remove a certain page or certain information from the Wayback Machine,
but I don't know if you could remove stuff on other people's websites or only your own website.
But let's let's start before going through the thread, Max, you want to talk for clarity on this before we start giving an overview for the audience?
Yeah, the, yeah, what Taylor Wrenz did with Internet Archive is pretty unprecedented.
I think it's, you know, we had this sort of image that she's this, she's this gumshoe reporter.
In reality, she's heavily connected, and so she was able to do something that you're not capable of doing.
Twitter, for example, Twitter could say, you can exclude us.
What Taylor Renz is, she calls up whoever she knows at the Internet Archive.
Apparently, your uncle, I don't know.
And she said exclude everything.
And so she wipes your tweets, no, you can't hold her accountable for the terrible thing she's done in the past.
The other thing is,
Um, she was very well connected to Twitter.
She, as the Twitter files showed, and, and we knew this, but now it's nice to see, like, actual email proof of it.
We knew that, uh, that she had ins at Twitter.
Part of the reason that she and many others had meltdowns after Elon Musk took over is that their, uh,
their connections to Twitter were gone.
They got fired and they were no longer able to like literally they would call up or email or whatever and say like please suspend this person and it would happen.
And so the whole idea of this moderation, you know, it all had this human touch and it was this very opaque process before and then Elon Musk just did a jail break.
Interesting.
All right, let's give an overview for the audience.
So Saman, maybe you can kick it off.
Who the hell is Taylor Lorenz?
Because when I got into the Twitter space scene,
and we started doing the Twitter files, she was mentioned constantly and she was one of the people that I just saw people love to hate her.
But I never really understood why.
Like the main reason in Ian, I won't use the word despises her, but he doesn't like her.
And the reason he gave me is that she docks the few people including Libs of TikTok.
Is that the only reason people hate her?
Who is she?
What one can you tell us?
Yeah, yeah, I'll just give a brief overview because we're going to go into it because some of it's actually in the Twitter files.
But essentially, Taylor Lorenz is what one we want to make a journalist and she writes for the Washington Post and a number of other
mainstream media outlets.
Now, with her, the issue is this, as you said,
she's known for the lives of TikTok,
but more even in addition to that,
what she's known for is essentially
what this Twitter files reveals extreme censorship.
And an example of that was, in my view,
or the most flagrant, the most blatant example
was when she went on TV,
started crying about how people are bullying her.
and essentially use that as a tool to censor people
and make sure that no one can criticize it
and now you see that not only was it,
not only did she use that manipulation to do so,
but essentially she had the powers to do so as well.
And so just think about that.
And this is something that I wrote a thread about as well,
which you know about, and the BBC guys
who were meant to come on your Twitter space before.
but essentially what that she did is and she's probably one of the...
And for the record, you're sorry, I need to...
In time, you fucked it all up for me.
So had the BBC guys come in to talk about their piece on Andrew Tate.
Very difficult to convince them.
You know, BBC's pretty strict on those things.
And just before the space, you were invited guests
instead of being appreciated for being invited.
You do a whole thread about them and they ended up not coming.
But yeah, please continue.
Yeah, that's true, Mario.
And essentially, I did a thread to demonstrate their lies and propaganda and misinformation.
And then they coward it out and didn't turn up.
And then they did the Taylor.
And why I mentioned it is because they did the Taylor Lorenz move,
which is we're scared, you know, we're getting death threats and all these kind of fake...
Well, what if they...
Hold on. What if they are?
You can't just put it...
You know, some people do get death threats and that could be the reason.
Bullshit, bro.
Well, they were saying yes until you did your thread.
Yeah, so they were saying yes, right?
And everybody knew they did the tape piece.
And so according to you, they never received any death threats, even though they basically attacked it.
They basically lied.
They basically did all this exposure.
They got nothing.
And then as soon as, and they were willing to come to your space.
And then remember your space was delayed.
It was meant to be on like a Wednesday and then something caused it to be delayed.
I think it was actually Twitter files came out and you delayed it.
And then what happened was it was delayed.
And then I'd released my thread.
And then the day later they dropped out.
Like, come on.
Yeah, if you went back in time, would you, by the way, can you mute hot mics?
If you hear hot mics like I just did, if you went back in time, would you still do your thread then or would you delay it?
Bro, I would do it then, bro.
That's the game, bro.
Oh, you wouldn't delay it.
You wouldn't delay so you can call them out during the space.
Anyway, let's move on.
Taylor Lorenz, so he's saying she started pretending she's a victim.
And I'm actually going to learn a lot in this space because I've heard a lot about her.
I reached out to him like, hey, what's the story?
I tried to understand.
Mario, it's not about her pretending she's a victim.
Okay, people do that.
But then she used that and that's the problem I have, and this is what the BBC guys is.
To cancel people.
Yeah.
To more than cancel, well, she did that content of Twitter files, but more than that at that time, she used that to be able to not allow anyone to criticize her or criticize her journalism.
And that's where the...
How can you, being a victim, how can you be, how can you, when you're pretending to be a victim, how does that allow you to prevent people from criticizing you?
I don't understand.
Other than censorship.
That's what I'm talking about censorship.
So you're going to think...
Because you said other than censorship,
which we're going to talk about in the Twitter files.
Oh, yeah.
But what's it?
Hey, just quick thing, quick thing.
How the fuck did BBC?
How did the fuck, just two sex, guys.
And I'm going to move on.
How the hell did the BBC?
How can you compare them?
The BBC had nothing to do with censoring you.
They didn't even mention...
you're not coming on the show.
Bro, are you joking?
All them, I don't want to mention no names
because I'm cool with them people now.
But all those guys started doing drama
and having a,
I don't know if I'm a lot of swear now,
but having a bitch fit that I'd done the thread
and I was threatening their lives
and they, you know, BBC couldn't protect them
and the FBI and the police couldn't protect them.
But, and so...
Yeah, but they didn't try...
they didn't wait
to censor.
They've never
tried to censor.
They used it
as an excuse
not to come on
the show.
Maybe that's
fair argument.
But they didn't
use it to censors.
Just get your facts
right.
no, no.
So what,
because what they do
is essentially
make sure that
I can't talk
about anymore.
So it's like,
guess what?
How do they make sure
you can't contact?
I'll explain it.
I'll explain it.
So, because basically
you do the thread.
And then they do the drama, oh, you know, this guy's, this guy's risked our lives, causes problems, so on and so forth.
And then I can't then continue attacking them or proving that what they did was a fallacy.
Why can't you? Hold on. Why can't you continue attacking them?
Because if I do, then you, then a lot of people, many of which you know, were basically saying that I'm threatening their lives or basically putting the responsibility that I'm risking their lives and I shouldn't do it.
Yeah, that's a stupid excuse.
If they wanted to do that, man, they would have tried to get Twitter to censor you,
or they would have done a thread against you or tweeted about the threats they're getting because of you.
They didn't even say it publicly.
They say it privately to us.
Yeah, exactly.
No, no, but the whole point is they did it privately to you guys,
so you guys got more pressure on, which happened, isn't it?
Yeah, okay, whatever.
Anyway, so let's get into the thread.
I think we've got a good overview.
So who is Taylor Lorenz?
She's a journalist for the Washington Post.
Is that correct?
Yeah, that's right.
And what gave her notoriety?
Like what made her who she is?
I'm not sure if it's covered in the thread.
I don't think the thread is about her life story.
Can anyone tell me what made Taylor Lorenz?
There's thousands of journalists out there.
Why do we keep talking about her?
Yeah.
I think it's a...
She's a social media, she's a social media reporter.
The Washington Post and others have employed her to be in touch with the youths.
She talks a lot about TikTok.
She talks about who's prominent on TikTok and other social media.
And she's controversial because she tries to destroy people's lives.
It takes random people, goes on vendettas against them, and tries to get them banned from the internet.
The thing is, it's more than just that.
She not just a person who goes online and tweets things.
She goes and harasses family members of conservatives online who she doesn't really like.
Um, her, her, her problem is this is more so for the, uh, the rights and how we kind of look at this.
Um, she goes after a conservative, but non accounts and tries the very best to docks them.
And not only docs them, harass their family members, harass their business and talk to them and make them fire them.
That that's who Taylor Lorenz is.
Yeah.
activist with the cover of a non-biased journalist for a Washington Post who goes out of her way to harass family, friends, anyone associated with you because you say things online.
So Harass
So Trumpster
I wish we had
Some of her friends
And I think Taylor
To jump in as well
If she has time
But can you tell me more
About harass?
Can you give me examples
As in
So I would like those examples
To be factual
Because people
Use this as a reason
To get
Whenever someone doesn't like
Someone that I bring on stage
They just start sending me
All that shit
No proof
No evidence
But all these different
Things about them
Happes all the time
It's been happening
Since I started the show
So with Taylor Lorenz
What are the things we know she's done?
I think the Libs of TikTok is one known story.
When I spoke to her, she said she didn't do it.
So I don't know if we have evidence on that.
But can you tell me maybe three, four things you know that she's done?
Yes.
I'll find the video.
But she basically went and went in person to her family's house.
Not just one person, but several of them.
I have a article from T.P.
Yeah, again, yeah, the post-millennial about that.
She visited a house that belonged to a fame member of Lids of TikTok.
I saw the video like a year or so ago, but I'll put the article in the thread if you want to...
review it.
But she,
she is going out,
not just online,
but in person to family members' houses,
who aren't even associated with,
Taylor or may not even share her,
sorry,
a little TikTok,
may not even share her opinions.
but she went out of a way to actually visit this family and, uh,
basically ask some questions about about about lived a tick talk so i did reply uh with but isn't
that so she went out and visited the family to talk to them about lives of ticot but i don't
so what what's the big deal about that so sorry for my ignorance like i'm just trying i'm just curious
yeah so she's an anonymous account so that that's the thing like so you're an on you're an
anonymous account random person you're like bob 200 or something online and a reporter from washington
post with an agenda to get people visits your family uh
Visits people who you know in real life, harasses them.
And basically the video there, there's a video in that article I posted there, you know, showing this little exchange.
She's knocking at the door, ringing the doorbell.
She's at the front of her family's house.
That's harassment.
That is going out of the way to go after people who have nothing to do with this entire issue.
But that's relatively common for journalists.
This is part of the ugly side of journalism.
Like they do, I know it's a thin line between harassment and trying to get certain information.
And we've seen this all the time, like whenever someone's under the radar,
everybody, or the journalist will go around
everybody that knows them and try to get
information from that person. So how
is it what Taylor did different to what other journalists
do? Again, I'm coming from a place
of ignorance, so giving me the basics would be good.
I'll tell you. I can respond.
It's not just, you know,
talking to family.
Taylor Wrenz contacted
the employer of
Lives of TikTok and asked them questions about
her. So it
the thing
Quick, Chief, real quick.
What she actually did, she tried to stealth edit the piece that she put out on Live the TikTok,
who's now unmatched herself as Chaya Rychick, which I've sent an invite to her to see if she'll come.
I'd like to hear what she has to say about it, but she actually posted,
I believe it was a business license that actually had the personal information that you could actually find
where she registered the business under, therefore doxing her, and then they tried to go in and stealth edit it.
Washington Post had to put out some stupid response to...
So trash, just to come, before we get on to your point,
because I think that's interesting.
But in terms of Chief's point,
I don't get it.
Like, what's, like, I agree with Mario.
Like, what, what are she doing different to anybody else?
And that's, we'll come to the stealth editing
in a second class, a separate point.
But that specific point,
When you're a journalist and you're basically speaking to people around to get a story, to get information, to get background.
Isn't that what a journalist should be doing?
Can I talk about why Taylor Lorenz first, like her first big controversy?
It was...
So let's talk about this point specifically.
Well, no, this is the journalism.
This is she reached out to Kellyanne Conway's 14-year-old daughter to try to dig up dirt.
But the issue...
Yeah, so that's crossing the line, going to children.
Other than that, I mean, other than that,
her speaking to family members around whoever she's investigating,
I don't see a problem with that or even if someone came along.
And the reason I'm saying that, sorry, just in one second,
the reason I'm saying that is because I was covering a story
and I was actually contacted by a family or member or someone.
and friends, and I interviewed them,
and they accused me of the same thing,
and I was like, what are you on about?
Like, that person, literally, it's a story.
We need to get to the background.
We need to find out the real aspects of the story.
So essentially, you don't want the truth to come out.
And then they accused me of harassing,
but it wasn't harassing.
It's just normal journalism.
Like, you're meant to be interviewing people
to find out the truth and the backstory of the matter.
So obviously, if the argument is that,
oh, it was under-raid children, that's a problem.
But other than that, I'm not sure.
So, Dustin, were you going to say something about?
Yeah, the problem with this is that it's not that she was just showed up and asked some family members, some questions, like is she lives with TikTok.
And this is what we'll get to in the Twitter files, what this drop reveals, is that this is the activist portraying themselves as journalists and how they attack activists from the other side.
Hold on just a sec. Sorry.
Okay.
he doesn't agree with you bro chief go yeah so this is my my kind of take on this this is kind of
how journalism is weaponized against like this is my my opinion about this when the the purpose
is not just to ask questions but is this person on the tic-tok it's to make people get fired
it's to go and um intimidate um in this case paying members because it was repeatedly going to their house
So it wasn't just one little walk by.
It was several little walkbyes.
So it's multiple times.
It's going to the business and asking them, you know,
questions that are leading in a way that will try to get this person fired.
These questions that these journalists are quote, quote,
independent journalists, you know, do,
they say them in a way to have implications to get people fired or to,
hurt them in some capacity.
And that's what they were trying to do.
Little Teahawk did lose her job from this.
And it really is more about the doxing, which is, you know, doxing of a random non and having a journalist with an agenda go and visit family members multiple times, not just one family member, but several of them who weren't even really close to her, you know, not just the mother, but other associates as well.
And even reach out to family and other friends and business.
So it's a journalist with an agenda who wants to hurt someone and.
is militia.
So again, like, I think she just is,
all right, look, let me read this out to you, Slaman.
Let me know what you think.
So you can see as we're playing, you know,
me and Slaman are kind of pushing back
because everyone here is obviously very critical of Taylor.
Let me read out, so I checked on Bard and I checked on chat GPT.
Why is Taylor Lorenz hated by many?
So go to the following.
Taylor is a technology journalist who has been criticized by many for her reporting on social media influences and online culture.
Some of the reasons for this hatred include.
There's three points.
And two of them are linked to Libs of TikTok.
Number one, her reporting has been accused of being biased and unfair.
You know, welcome to journalism.
For example, she was criticized for her coverage of the Libs of TikTok account,
which is a right wing, blah, blah, blah.
Lorenz article about the account was accused of doxing the woman who runs it.
Oh, it's a woman, I didn't know.
And she, I think, I don't know if she's been on our space.
And she was also accused of anti-Semitism for mentioning the woman's religion.
Number two.
She's also been accused of hypocrisy. For example, she has spoken against online harassment.
That's what you said, Slayman, but she has also been accused of harassing people herself.
For example, she was criticized for tweeting a photo of herself standing outside the home of the woman who runs the lives a TikTok account.
And number three, she's been accused of being a bully.
For example, she has been criticized for her interactions with other journalists.
For example, she was criticized for tweeting a photo of herself with a smirk on her face after she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
Like he gives a fuck.
So she seems like a journalist...
With an attitude, a journalist that might be vengeful,
that might cross some lines in the eyes of many,
I just don't see what makes her and Sarah, maybe I'll give you the mic,
but I just don't see why she's getting that amount of hate.
And I'm trying to understand it.
And when I spoke to her as well, when I first heard all the hate towards her,
as you know, we always like to get both debates.
I ping them like, hey, do you want to come on the show?
So when we jump on a call,
And she was open to come on our space one day when it's relevant.
So maybe she'll come on today if she's online now.
Actually, I'll ping her on Twitter as well in case she doesn't check her phone.
But I talked to her and she started telling me her side.
And I'd love her to come on.
But she's telling me about all the threats she's getting.
It doesn't mean what she did is right.
But like she's getting death threats to her family.
She read some of the messages to me.
So the amount of hate going towards is insane.
It's like she killed someone.
But let's see.
Maybe there's more to it than what I just read, Sarah.
Did somebody did the chief Trumpster guy say that she caused some that Taylor
Lorenz caused somebody to lose their job because she docks to them?
Yeah, he lives a TikTok woman.
Indirectly, yes.
Well, you said directly.
And is that proof?
Chief, Chief, hold on, hold on.
Is there proof on that chief?
I'll just push back against this a bit Sarah before I give you back to Mike.
Is there any evidence for that chief?
It's, well, I mean, she, did they say that she, that she's gone or she's leaving her work because of, uh, ex-reporter?
No, they didn't explicitly say that, um, but she's not incapacity, uh, working, um, after the whole ordeal of doxing happens.
So it's, it's indirectly caused.
That's my take.
It's indirectly, not directly, but it's indirect, so.
But did someone, did the employer say this is the reason she was let go?
No, they, no.
Okay, so I would say, Chief, if you allow me, I would put that as it possibly led to her being fired from her job.
Is that a fair way to, would, is it fair to say that?
Well, and it's like why, why would she have been let go?
What was the event that changed at?
But you don't know.
And so therefore saying that is irresponsible.
Right.
But what event, if we're to be like up front, like what event caused her to leave her job?
What was the nexus that made this happen?
It wasn't like she woke up one day and she was gone.
There was a report.
There was an investigation into her which resulted in her being gone.
So it's indirectly responsible 100%.
You can't say that her...
I don't agree with that, Sarah.
I don't think what he stands irresponsible.
I actually think...
I think if you're saying that she is the cause,
he said she was the cause.
Now he's backing up and saying indirectly.
Yeah, she is the cause.
It's not indirectly, but indirectly.
It's not...
It's, yeah, she is the cause.
Her reporting resulted in, you know,
in her being gone from that place.
So...
Is she not the cause?
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
She's that different.
So are you saying it's her reporting or the fact that she was contacting the employer?
Because I think that's quite different.
Well, I believe she conduct the employer.
And I don't know if that contributed.
But you don't know that.
What?
Okay.
She did contact the employer.
Guys, again, so what happened was why this is going to tie up a lot for you guys.
Number one, what she did was in that article in the Washington Post.
She actually posted a picture of the information of the business address registered to Chaya Rijik, who is lives of TikTok.
She then had posted it. Washington, then she stealth edited it out.
Washington Post had to issue a statement.
And then they removed it.
So people went back in the archives looking for it.
And that's when they discovered all of Taylor Lorenza's stuff was gone out of the archives.
That's how people discovered it was because of that stealth edit, then subsequent statement by the Washington Post.
So whether it was actually a business license that was actually posted, and that's where her name get.
And the only way, and the only reason, especially when you are acting as kind of...
Back up one sec.
So she posted the address, and then she stealth edited, which means she basically edited the address out, right?
And then Washington goes act like a...
But it's, yeah, okay.
So it's in the rap.
I'm sorry.
But it's not...
What did you say, Trash?
You were cutting out, and I couldn't hear everything.
Yeah, Trash, you're awkward.
Now, Mario's right.
I didn't...
It's actually quite bad.
I don't know.
I've got full bars.
Yeah, I'll try to get you to...
Yeah, Trash, if you can fix it as well,
because if you've been cutting out a lot, it's hard to hear you.
Yeah, yeah.
I heard him actually...
Oh, shit, you just come to hold.
Casse, I heard him to...
Yeah, go ahead, Chief.
He was saying that...
this is kind of i was getting to indirectly uh he so let taylor wrenz posted the business license
of willa ticot worked which got people to know she works at x place so that happened and then
taywarence self edited her piece so instead of they're having a revision you know where you have
the documentation on on their website she stealth edited
her article and that's what happened.
So she covered up her little doxing where she posted the business license of where it lives
of TikTok worked.
So that's what I'm saying indirectly for it.
She's the cause of it by putting information online about where she works.
It wasn't directly, you know, she going after them, right?
You know, like, and then they're saying, this report called me and that's why this person's gone.
They have the business license up and people contacted that business and she departed from that.
So it's indirectly caused.
That that's all it is.
That's a fact.
I mean, like, that chief person that caused this all.
I think...
Okay, so I think I'm going to start reading the thread in a couple of minutes.
We've got a pretty good panel here.
But Slyman, from everything you've heard so far, what would you summarize other concerns?
And I know you're very, just for disclaimer for the audience, Slaiman is very critical of journalists, like extremely critical of journalists.
From what you've heard so far, what makes Taylor worse than other journalists?
Yeah, yeah.
For me, what makes it the worst, I mean, there's so much.
So some of these arguments are a bit more weaker, but the stronger one for me was when she's basically using her power to censor a journalist, getting people banned.
And more specifically, before we even knew all of this, was her using tactics.
emotional tactics, because like she is a woman and, you know, people feel more emotions in that regard as well, using that to make sure that no one can criticize her journalism.
All right, so, yeah, I don't know.
I just, I think these are all valid points.
I think we're going to see, for me, the most concerning thing that was mentioned in what we're going to see in the Twitter files now, and I'm going to read it out for the audience, is the use of influence to censor people.
For me, that's really concerning.
And I'll see the audience, like if you can go through the audience points as well, Slaman, see if there's any other points of concern, anything else that we missed.
But I'll read out other things.
Let me read out, let me read out according.
Yeah, so comments is bottom right corner, that purple circle.
Let me read out what chat, GPD gave us, gave me five reasons why she's hated.
Hated.
Misrepresentation.
Some individuals believe that Taylor misrepresents or misunderstands certain online communities and subcultures.
Boring.
Number two, cancel culture and online harassment.
Okay.
Fucking cancel culture is insane now.
Lorenz has been associated with reporting on cancel culture and online harassments.
Some could exclaim that her coverage often focused on negative aspects.
Yeah, welcome to journalism.
Lame.
Number three, Twitter controversies.
Lorenz has been involved in several high-profile Twitter controversies
where her interactions with other users have sparked heated debates.
These incidents have led, okay, I need to know more about point three.
I think this is the, please give examples.
I think there's Libs or TikTok examples.
All right, let me read out the thread.
Okay.
Let me see if trash is here.
I am back.
You guys hear me okay?
Oh shit.
Can you guys hear me?
No, how are?
There you are.
You're a speaker.
Yeah, let me call you.
All right.
Let me start reading out in thread.
I've got it open in front of me.
So if you can pin it above someone,
or Max already pinned it above, no.
If someone pin out the thread above, please I'm up.
I pinned it already.
Pin it again, so it shows at the top.
Or remove other pinned tweets so people can see it.
Twitter provided privileged access to banning Queen Taylor Lorenz.
Twitter engineers walking me through their reporting system.
Wow, she's a heavy user.
All right, that's the headache.
That's the title of it.
Tweet number two.
Shortly after Elon Musk bought Twitter, Taylor Lorenz got apoplectic,
writing that Twitter was opening apoplectic, is that talking about an apocalypse?
Writing that Twitter was opening the gates of hell by letting banned accounts back.
I'm going to read out the article there, the heading of the article she wrote.
So Taylor just started creating a lot of, she was just very concerned about, and a lot of people, especially people from the left, were concerned about all the accounts.
Elon was bringing back onto Twitter, and Taylor did a whole piece on the Washington Post.
The heading is, opening the gates of hell.
Musk says he will revive banned accounts.
The Twitter chief says he will reinstate accounts suspended for threats, harassment, and misinformation, and misinformation beginning next week.
Number three.
That's important, isn't it, Mario?
Because essentially, I know we're going to come on to it.
But, I mean, she does that drama about most taken over.
And obviously, we're going to find out now what is the reason for it.
It's because she had inside access to get people banned.
She had complete carte blanche to silence anyone who even dissented with her.
But doesn't mean, yeah, yeah, but doesn't mean her concern is not valid.
A lot of people...
That's why it's the apocalypse because it'll be her apocalypse.
Yeah.
Yeah, it could be, it could be, but also apocalypse because it gets clicks for a new story.
So being dramatic is pretty common for journalists.
And there were a lot of valid concerns from people from the left.
But I had genuine concerns about all these accounts coming back onto Twitter.
I don't agree with that.
I think people from the left may have genuine concerns,
but these journalists clearly had an agenda
and were worried that they're going to be exposed.
Okay, so people from the left includes journalists.
I don't get it.
I'm saying some journalists might have had an agenda.
Who said that they include journalists?
I'm saying people from the left,
genuine people, normal people, fine, they were concerned.
Genuine people, hold on, bro, bro.
What the fuck did you?
Genuine people, normal people...
Not every journalist is a bad person.
You're crazy.
Journalists do some of the most important things in our world.
Name me one good.
It's good.
I want name.
Hold on.
I'm not going to name you.
Don't play that game with me.
I can tell you right now, name me one good surgeon.
You don't know any.
Does that mean there isn't any?
Naming one good journalist.
Are you just saying, are you, hold on, are you, are you, are you, are you so?
Okay, bro, you get my point.
Yeah, don't play smart.
Are you saying there's no good journalists out there?
Hold on, journalists that go die in the war to cover the story.
I'm not saying they're not biased.
I'm not saying the system is not flawed.
I'm not saying there's a lot of journalists that are bad people.
I'm not saying there are journalists that don't do a bad thing.
But to go to an extreme and say journalists are all bad people,
ruin the freedom of the press is one of the most important things we have in the West.
Now, I know it's not as free as we'd like it to be.
Let me finish the point.
It's not.
It's not as good as we'd want it to be.
And I'm one of the main people bringing criticism to it.
But I try to be objective.
And when he make a statement, especially as the host,
when he make a statement saying all journalists are bad,
I think it's just disrespectful to all the journalists doing the right thing.
You can't put any position, anyone, not all politicians.
You can't even say,
politicians obviously is a more difficult one to protect.
But even all politicians are not bad things.
Politicians are they trying to do the right thing.
Highlight the bad apples.
Don't put everyone in the same basket.
That's just very unfair.
Yeah.
Okay, so let me come back on that because I was saying it as a job, but now you're making me specify my position.
So yeah, the mainstream media journalists are all bad.
Obviously, there are certain journalists who aren't.
So, for example, Glenn Green, I'll help you out, is one example of an excellent journalist.
Someone you can respect and you can value his content.
Matt Teabee is another example.
But in terms of mainstream media, I can't think of many, to be honest, but I'm sure you've got a few you can look up.
So...
If I can, real quick. I do want to, I'm actually going to read just real quick so I can bring, kind of get the color to this, and specifically why Taylor Lorenz and people of the ilk, like her, were actually very much loathed.
So like her first line in that article, the Twitter chief says that he will reinstate accounts suspended for threats, harassment, and misinformation beginning next week.
And if we've learned anything from all the Twitter files of what they actually deemed misinformation, well, a lot of times was malinformation, meaning it was information that was true, but they didn't want.
people to react a certain way to it. So it was labeled as mal or misinformation. The other thing is,
is people like Taylor Lorenz, they report on violence, violence, literal violence, which are words,
which has been carried out. And she has reported on this multiple times that misgendering someone or not
using appropriate pronouns is violence and harassment towards somebody else.
So you have to be very specific when they're using these words like this
is because they're using it because it's just words that go against the narrative that they don't like.
And that is the problem with people like Taylor Lorenz.
I can actually name you about 15 journalists.
I think you can do an excellent work out there.
But this is not one of them.
This is an accurate.
Yeah, I think I think, I'm glad, by the way, I'm just chatting to Taylor now.
So I've asked you to give me some points.
and she cannot join the space.
She's on the move.
So maybe another time.
But I've also given me some points
to her perspective
so I can mention them in the space as well.
But Tresha, I like the point you've made.
Like we're focusing on Taylor.
Let's focus on Taylor.
But for Slayman,
and I understand his concerns,
but for Sleman to come in
and make a statement like all journalists are bad,
it's just heartbreaking.
It's first, it's just very disappointing.
And Sleman is an extremely close friend
and someone of respect to tremendously.
Very disappointing,
but also heartbreaking.
Heartbreaking because it's a shame to see because of the media bias and how flawed the system is,
it's a shame to see the trust broke into such an extent where there is people that make such crazy statements.
It's ridiculous, it's ridiculous.
There's journalists, there's journalists, I'll just finish, I'll finish one last word, I'll finish one last word.
There's journalists don't get paid much.
And there's journalists that go to war zones so they can film atrocities.
We won't know about.
I can give you a list of things.
I can get it now.
I'm sure I can get your list of things.
Things that were exposed by journalists.
And they don't make much money from it.
So it's funny is that journalists exposing these things that are not how to make money from
these things.
They focus on exposing the story rather than profiting from the story.
Obviously, I'm not saying, I'm sure you'll find bad apples, but they make them all bad apples.
Just pissed off about it, man.
Yeah, well, speaking to bad apples.
Mario, can't get emotional.
The issue is this.
Let's be clear.
When you've got the mainstream media, a corporate media complex, there's a reason
why real journalists, distinguished journalists like Glenn Greenwald, can't exist in those
entities because that entity or that entity is a...
What about...
Yo-Yo, what about...
Okay, what about the journalists?
Are you?
Let me finish.
Oh, Epstein.
Yeah, I would.
I'll let you finish.
but there's a journalist
when I was looking into Epstein
I'll get his name
there was a journalist that triggered
the investigation into Epstein
and he made his statement
and said I'm not going to stop this
and he's still working in
what you call the mainstream media
and he said I'm not going to
I'll quit my job if they don't let me run with the story
because it was such a groundbreaking story
and that would trigger the first investigation
that read to the first arrest of
Jeffrey Epstein
and led to where we are today
so to put the
This journalist in the same basket as everyone else
because everyone's bad is ridiculous.
Mario, do this.
Everyone, look at your phone for a second, okay?
Look at the speakers.
Look at your phone.
This is a simple thing.
Raise your hand if Taylor blocks you on Twitter.
I was...
I'm pretty sure she blocks half of the people on stage here and probably half of the audience.
It's her M-O.
Look, one, two, three, four, five.
Justin, Justin, okay, Justin, okay, Justin, you're on the same group as...
Hold on.
Let me ask you, Justin, and I'll give you some end the ability to...
Yeah, okay, so just Justin, on that point, yeah, good, great, Justin, wow.
Well, Ian, who's a friend of both of us and we're both in the same group on WhatsApp,
he blocks a whole bunch of fucking people before you used to do it more than he does now.
Kim.com has probably a third of Twitter blocked.
This is, it's not that uncommon to find people, but I don't think that highlights any.
Very similar, very high intensity accounts, right?
And I just, it's context, I think, for talking about Taylor.
She's very sensitive.
And in fact, the big thing that I had a problem with Taylor is when she went on MSNBC and cried her heart out about how she's being harassed and everything else there, it's like, she can dish it out, but she can't take it.
And I have no problem.
If she came and haunted me, that'd be fine.
I, I...
And she could talk to my family, whatever she wants to do.
But the minute that someone starts pushing back on her for her efforts,
she folds like a card table, blocks you like it's no tomorrow.
And she's just no journalist.
She's just not journalist, as far as my point.
Anyway, Mario, coming back to the point where I was speaking about before you don't let me finish.
which when it comes, and what I was saying was when it comes to the mainstream media establishment, to be part of that establishment, you won't exist in that.
If generally speaking, obviously there might be some exceptions, but generally speaking, you will not exist in that complex, which is a propaganda based complex, which is there to manipulate the populace, which is no longer there to hold power to account, which is what we want and we want them to go back to.
is the reason why I think...
Okay, so you've already stepped...
Hold on, you've already stepped back from your statement.
So now you're saying, generally speaking, not...
It doesn't...
So you're saying it doesn't apply to everyone.
Generally speaking, journalists can't function.
So you've already moved away a bit from the statement of all of them.
Let's move on.
No, no, no. I'm saying generally, but okay, you can find me a journalist. And again, you may
give a name, you give an example of the Epstein one, but again, we don't know what the, what the,
what the, what the, what the, what the, what the situation was a backdoor behind the scenes,
whether there was a decision to go after him. For example, let me give you another example.
I'll give credit to those people who exposed the Uyghur situation in China, but at the
I'll give you more.
I've given more, man.
Let me finish my point.
But at the same time, one may argue, and actually a lot of people do argue this,
but actually the only reason they did it is because that was going on for ages,
but they only did it now because the West wanted to go.
Oh, how about, okay, okay, how about the Watergate?
How about the Watergate?
All right, okay, okay, okay, bro.
Okay, what about the Watergate scandal?
Journalist Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post uncovered the Watergate scandal,
which eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
The Pentagon Papers.
Are you talking about 50 years ago?
That's consistent with the New York Army.
No, no, no.
That's consistent with that.
That's not inconsistent.
That's exactly the sort of messaging that they want.
It's good journalism.
Fair point.
Fair point.
The point that Suleiman is making is if you are a good journalist,
even if you can be a great journalist,
you will not be permitted to print any sort of investigation.
Let me give me, okay, let me, okay,
investigative,
investigative,
okay,
how about Jody,
Jody Cantor and Megan Twohie of the New York Times?
Okay.
And Ronan Farrow, the New Yorker, the New Yorker uncovered multiple, they uncovered the sexual assault and harassment allegations against film producer Haver Weinstein.
Their reporting sparked the Me Too movement and led to a widespread reckoning of second-in-backed.
So what you're saying, so what you're going to say is they did it.
So what you're going to say, what you're going to say, Slaman, is that.
Well, the Me Too movie was it.
Evil movement.
So what are you going to say now?
Now, let me say it for you.
So now they started, the Me Too Movement is not an evil movement.
It was abused by some.
It doesn't make it an evil movement.
Why are you so extreme with everything you say?
Why are you so binary?
Bro, I'm not binary.
You need to understand the ramifications of these things
when you're basically being all like artify
about important issues like this.
This is when you have a problem.
Essentially, the Me Too movement
has caused a massive shift in for society
and is the reason, in my opinion,
that is going to be the collapse of society.
Well, hold on.
Well, for the Epstein thing,
wasn't there the Prada Veritas tape
that kind of showed that one of these ABC reporters
said they had this story for years
and they were told not to cover it?
The point of...
Yeah.
Can I jump in on that?
Awesome.
I'll say real quick.
I'll say this.
Like the problem is that the mainstream media on how they operate and how a lot of them are biased.
Everybody is biased.
We all biases.
I have biases.
You have biases.
Everybody has a bias.
But whether or not people choose to.
bias and propaganda is different in truth though when you try to manipulate the populace to create a narrative
yeah yeah of course and it happens more more times than not so when like this happens so much
throughout the media and we see selective reporting and we see activists out of these reporters
we we have a view of the media in a very harsh manner so it's not
It's not to say there's no good journalists out there.
We can pick a couple, but the entire mainstream media has engaged in this selective reporting in some capacity.
And it's like we have examples of collusion with media companies and governments, media companies and private corporations to push.
agenda to propaganda out.
Like this is the issue with the mainstream media.
We should be critiquing that and saying if we have actual objective journalism that,
you know,
is not going to be so slanted and people like Taylor Wrens popping out of the woodworks,
that would be actual journalism.
And we don't see enough of that.
We see more of these activists and less of actual reporters.
That's the issue here.
Yeah, I think, Chief, Chief, I think this, so see, this is a good way of articulating a point, very objective way.
So what you're saying is that the system itself is very biased.
What we're seeing is that bias slowly take over, not only bias, but influencing or propaganda or influencing based on their biases.
It's starting to become creep up and become gradually more and more important.
And focus is moving towards that rather than just making money and focusing on being objective.
So that, for example, the way you've described it,
and the way it's more of a systemic issue
and journalists have to try to,
they might cover a good story,
but that story might not come out,
might not get the same coverage because of the bias,
is a good way of articulating it,
but what really triggered me,
and that's something we've talked about a lot in the space,
about what really triggered me is when Slaman comes on
and says all journalists are bad.
That judge is such an extreme stance to take.
I do want to start going through the thread, not sure of any more comments.
Please comment on the bottom right. I'm seeing all your comments. I appreciate all of them.
I'll stop doing that, bro.
Mario.
The thing is, don't just please talk about the topic and read your comments.
Actually, Patrick, hold on, let's, Patrick, please. I want Patrick to speak.
So Patrick, I want to ask you a question.
And maybe you might, you might have a stance that could also strongly disagree with what I just said.
When I say the system is flawed, when I say the system is corrupt,
but to say, am I wrong to say there's journalists within this system?
There's obviously a lot of journalists that are not doing the right thing.
They don't give a fuck.
They want to get paid and they just follow the rules that they have to abide by.
But there's journalists doing the right thing.
There's journalists dying covering stories that need to be covered.
And they don't get paid that much.
So I want to kind of, I'm happy to criticize the system.
But to go in and just start painting a picture that says all journalists are bad,
I think it's just very dangerous.
Can we just agree that good journalists are good and bad journalists are bad?
Yeah, I like how you.
So, Patrick, I'll let you wrap it up before we move on to the thread.
Sure, yeah.
And just firstly, there's only two types of people in this world.
The binary you're talking about, there's pro tape and anti-tate.
Just to back up slime in there.
So, Mario, you know, some of them do make a lot of money.
and and though what what the problem is I think where a lot of the criticism comes from
is that these are not journalists that speak truth to power these are journalists
that defend the centers of power these are journalists that are habitually
establishment gatekeepers they're hired for that very reason and they're rewarded
handsomely for their loyalty to
to the system. So this idea of what a journalist used to be that ideal, and there's still some good mainstream journalists out there,
but fewer and fewer as time goes by, because the system is geared against that sort of level of independence.
And there's so much churn between, let's say, you know, government positions and media,
between the intelligence services and government, and then to media again.
There's like three or four revolving doors.
that all these people just go through in their career
and often they're rewarded for things that they do
that probably are not in the best interest of the public
and there's too many talking heads and too many journalists
that are former government for starters,
former intelligence agencies, former military
and there's no independence whatsoever.
Just like there's too many people in government agencies
that are former investment bankers
that are from the big banks and then cycling back again into the regulatory agencies.
And the same with Big Pharma and the regulatory agencies and government again.
So this incestuousness, I think, has taken hold of media and journalism.
And the real journalists are now off of mainstream.
And clearly the best ones, Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald, and a whole bunch of bevy of other pretty good journalists.
And ones that we don't even know the names of.
And you probably don't know.
They're not household names, but they're doing really great work.
And they're being attacked by the mainstream media.
People like myself and my colleagues are the mainstream are doing hit pieces on us.
Anytime we scratch the surface of anything sensitive, whether it's the Huffington Post, the BBC, the Guardian, NPR, NBC.
I've been pursued by Vice.
I've been pursued by Vice.
All these people, they're pumping you for information or trying to set you up for a fall because you're actually doing some work that could undermine the official narrative in a war zone, for instance.
Let me let me continue with a thread.
So we're up to number three and it's pinned above.
Number three goes the month prior, Taylor, okay, there you go.
So this is where this is for me the most concerning part.
And Kim, you were talking about this earlier as well.
So it'd be good to get your thoughts.
And if we miss anything as well to highlight it.
Good to have you back.
So we're up to number three.
The month prior,
Taylor Lorenz got this tiny account banned.
Surprise.
The account detailed Lorenz as a Manhattan rich girl who attended Swiss
boarding school and whose uncle owns Internet Archive,
thus erasing her past.
Okay, so the thread is not saying unless it says it later.
The thread itself doesn't say, because I had a few people DM me that this is not factual,
and I'll ask Taylor now, when you guys are speaking, I'll just ping her and see if that's true or not,
or what she says on this.
That's erasing her past.
But yeah, the thread doesn't make that statement.
Someone made it, and then the concerning part is that Taylor Lorenz got that account banned,
and there's a screenshot of the tweet or the thread that that person made.
And it seems that thread didn't go viral, but there's definitely got a lot of engagement.
Number four, but did fear the floof, let me see if that account still exists.
If you know, still suspended, shit.
But did fear the fluff violate Twitter's rules?
Nope.
No ban evasion.
Abuse, harassment towards Taylor Lorenz, platform manipulation, all the sharing of personal information.
Inverted comments, the account was generally healthy and mostly conversational or commentary in nature.
This is according to, I think, Twitter, let me see.
Okay.
I think that's how Twitter's.
Kim, who said that?
The account was generally healthy,
mostly conversational or commentary nation.
I think that's Paul comments.
Twitter's team?
I think that's Paul comments after he reviewed the account.
Okay, cool.
So that's tweet number four.
Let me read a couple more.
By the way, Mario, about Warren Taylor,
because I don't know how much time,
I just want to point out,
there's an ongoing lawsuit that was followed by Arianna Jacobs
against Taylor Lorenz
because of the fact that allegedly...
that Taylor works, her PR place basically is in competition,
was in competition with Arianna for representing young social media influencers.
And she put out a devastating hippie,
hippies, which Ariana claims is full of lies.
That's basically designed to state, to led to claim that,
Arianna had been taking advantage of her clients.
I'm not sure in what way,
but whether it was financially or in other ways,
but basically what Ariadna claims to be,
a complete set of lies.
And Taylor never disclosed the fact
that her own PR team are like basically
the primary competitor for Arianna Jacobs.
So that's a,
that's a situation where she's,
where she's potentially using her power and influence
to bludgeon a competitor without disclosing to the public that she has a bias against Arianna based on the competitive nature of her associates and Arianna.
So is that an abuse?
So logic is it so that's an abuse of power?
Saman maybe you want to summarize logic's point. I know he's on the move so can hear it too well.
Sorry, I was just checking something.
I didn't fully hear what he said.
Great, great co-housing, bro.
All right, so I'm going to keep that in mind, logic.
No, no, I got it.
No, no, no, all good.
No, no, I heard you.
I did my job and actually heard what he said.
So I'm going to add it to the thread
as we continue the discussion,
and we paint a character here.
And I'll try to keep pushing back as well
to kind of balance out the panel
since Lauren Taylor
and we haven't been able to get anyone
from her team or friends to join us.
I'll try to do that myself.
Number five, nonetheless,
Twitter suspended the account.
Mario, I think you should read the image because I think that's imperative.
Which one? The image and tweet number four?
Yeah.
Yeah. So that's what the image is. And what it is, is it's saying that this is all the feedback, basically, all the feedback from all the reporting, all the reports on like flag tweets.
You want to read it?
Yeah, sure. I mean, absolutely.
Well, just summarize it. It's just very detailed. Maybe just summarize it would be better, no?
No, no, it's only like four water points, Mario.
Okay. All right, go ahead. Trash, you want to read that screen show?
Yeah, it's just saying we reviewed the account and did not see any linkage via our tools or similar profile signals to Rob province.
Basically saying that this Rob province is another person connected to the fear of the fluf guy, which is not, Neville the cat or whatever is not.
It's also saying it's generally healthy, mostly conversational and commentary, not spamming.
No abuse of safety policies are being broken.
no possible sole purpose of harassment towards Taylor-Rens.
We can only see one interaction between the accounts.
No other mentions aside from the tweets flagged.
No action needs to be taken.
No spammy or platform manipulation detected.
And then it has the list of the tweets.
It's basically saying that this is all of what...
This is in response to all the reporting that Taylor Lorenz by sharing it and then accusing this person of attacking and harassment, all that this mass reporting that occurred by her ginning up this thing that this person is hateful because he put together public information threat about her.
What's important there for me is like she's claiming harassment or like a campaign against her and there's only one interaction between them.
Right.
And it's a mass reporting event.
Right.
That's how a lot of...
That's get taken down.
I'll say this.
Like, because the thing that makes this one special, right?
She went on NBC, was crying about harassment.
She made this whole big, you know, you know, video interview about this whole thing when she was engaging in harassment.
And well, she was engaging in this type of, you know, dirty journalism, I'll call it, that...
you know, really hurt people.
And for her to collude with a private company, like Twitter, to get people removed,
it really shows that this person is engaging in, like, some, you know, dirty type of tactics.
But when there is pushback, she plays the victim.
And that's the problem I have.
Yeah, yeah, that's a, I think that's a good, good, that's a valid concern.
But for me, her playing the victim and stuff, look, again,
I see the shit all the time.
I see a lot of politics.
I see a lot of these things.
In Sly, man, you're probably starting to see those things happen as you co-host the space with me.
This happens a lot, guys.
This happens in business.
This happens in life.
And the more people you deal with, you know, I have over 100 employees at my companies.
And I deal with the shit all the time.
For me, that's just human nature.
What concerns me is her ability to get an account suspended that easily
and the influence she has within Twitter.
That is a very valid concern and one I really want to focus on.
But let me read a few more tweets in the thread.
Number five, nonetheless, Twitter suspended the account
because it, quote, violates the Twitter media policy.
I don't know what the Twitter media policy is.
The account then deactivated.
Well, why that's a question, Mario,
is because look, you see in a,
and I think this is a good call off point,
because you see in a process where Twitter
is going through a process of checking
if this account is violated.
So it looks at the harassment,
and she's only done one tweet.
It looks at, for example,
whether the account is,
what was it again,
you know, whether it's being abusive
and then it doesn't meet that part.
So it went through four bullet points
and showing that, look,
it didn't meet any of them requirements.
And despite growing through that process,
this...
bandy account.
Yeah, I'm going to invite Adriena Jacob.
She's been on this place before talking about Taylor.
I don't know how we talked about Taylor in the past, but we have.
So I think she can offer some good context here.
Joa, anything to add before I invite,
if I send an invite to little Miss Jacob.
Yeah, I mean, I'm just like kind of like, okay,
one more person that could censor.
Don't we already know that Berlin left and...
And, you know, people were using it to something.
Yeah, but we're talking about journalists now.
I never thought it was that easy.
It's that easy to get influenced within Twitter.
For example, you run a company, Mario, like imagine your friends with a good, with someone who's always looking at the news.
So you tell him, hey, anytime you see something interesting, shoot me a text, right?
This person was supposedly fact-checking things and would say, hey, here's false stories.
And it kind of says that in a thread as well.
Who knows if she just wasn't working with Twitter as like a person looking for false stories?
I don't.
Look, I don't like her.
Wait.
Where are you from, Joe?
Because up to now in the thread,
that doesn't,
it doesn't say that,
is it?
It says,
I saw one article that it was basically,
she would point out what was misleading information.
And that's what was the reasoning.
Well,
first of all,
we need to look at that because,
again,
this is the,
this is the point she was,
She was claiming misleading information.
She was claiming harassment.
And now when we're looking at the information,
nothing meets the requirement,
even according to Twitter themselves.
They're going through a process
and it doesn't meet that requirement.
So for me, it's what Mario said.
What makes this much more bigger is that it's a journalist.
So yeah, people are trying to, like,
for example, cancel me,
censor me, but that's different.
Yeah.
But that's a hater.
That's whatever they may do.
But this is like a journalist who has a responsibility to take power to account.
And yet she was using that to basically censor people.
Yeah, like the willingness, the willingness to censor it.
Joe, but the willingness to censor happens all the time.
Like, this is a nothing burger.
I can promise you if anyone had influence to remove people from this space
or to get accounts banned on Twitter or whatever.
If you give anyone that level of influence, they're going to abuse it.
Most or large chunk of people will abuse it.
The fact that they were able to is the main point of concern that I have, Joa.
What you're saying is that it's, we know this already and it's, well, go ahead.
Yeah, if this was the first that we hear of anyone being able to ban something on Twitter, big deal, right?
It would be a big deal.
The fact that it's one more person, we don't know what her relationship was.
We don't know if they look to her to like,
Maybe she was bribing.
Let's see, let's see, let me read a bit more.
Maybe she was bribing.
We don't know.
Like some people on the panel that might have read it already.
Maybe people, some people in the audience read it.
But let's see what we do.
Six.
A month prior to that, Lorenz went after Batacharya,
who's been on our stage before,
for tweeting an email by your friend and,
and itinerant blogger, Walker Bragman, but you're right.
Okay.
I don't know how to say that name.
But we have Batacharya tweeted an email by her friend and another blogger.
They were both suspended.
She went after them.
Let's see what she did to them.
Batacharya tweeted a harassing email, Bragman sent him, and it had Bragman's contact info.
Okay, maybe Kim, you've read the thread.
Can you tell us more about this particular story instead of me trying to read it and understand it?
Yeah, I could, but I'm currently in another conversation.
I'll be right back.
No, I got this.
Bradman play.
Oh, good.
Joe, yeah, Trash, you go ahead, go ahead, man.
Yeah, yeah.
So this is actually a screenshot out of the Jira reporting system.
We saw this in other Twitter files drops.
The Jira reporting system was used, and it had connections not just within Twitter.
Basically what this is is a ticketing system.
where you flag content that needs to be moderated
or accounts that need to be taken down.
And basically you had this gyra system put in
because Yol Roth was getting requests for censorship
or request for suspension or some kind of other action
through several different people.
He wanted to kind of optimize the system.
So they had this gyra ticketing system.
And what you're seeing here is an email
into this gyra ticketing system,
basically a ticket that was put up by,
Liriel at Higgin News Partnerships.
So this is kind of like a media watchdog type organization.
I would call it a censorship apparatus, but I'll try to be fair here.
And they actually sent this in the ticketing about Dr. Badacharya, who was obviously very critical during COVID, so on and so forth.
And that's why his stuff was always flagged.
But this screenshot here says, Taylor-Lorrens, a reporter at one of my partners just flagged this tweet to me that shows the email and phone of Walter Bragman, a journalist who was writing a story about Dr. J. Botacharia.
Please note that Walter Bragman is not one of my partners, however, he is verified and has turned his tweets private, suggesting this tweet is causing unwanted attention.
So basically, this Walker Bragman guy sent an email to Dr. J. Badacharya, who was critical during COVID.
and it was very hateful.
I don't recall exactly what it said,
but I remember seeing it and said because he posted it,
I guess it has an email address on there or something.
He didn't scrub out the screenshot.
He's saying they're trying to docks him and this and that and the other.
And he's now this Walter Brogman's being targeted and harassed
because of the things he was saying to Dr. Bottachari.
So his tweets are private now.
We've got to do something.
And this is the impetus to try to get Dr. Bottacari taken down.
So this is how another way that they were using it.
Okay.
Yeah, so I was going to ask, what's the goal?
Because they're complaining about that person being targeted, which would be due.
But what you're saying is that was used as a way to censor a doctor or to get the account,
Dr. Batacharya's account taken down.
Is that what you're saying?
That's correct.
Yes.
That's what that's what this is saying here.
Okay.
Okay.
Can you read number seven and eight then if you don't mind reading that one?
But that plays into my point of it being like an external, like you just talked about
an external ticketing system.
where reporters could say flag things as misleading.
No, no, that was a backdoor system, wasn't it, trash?
Yes.
That was even used by the Intel.
That's correct.
And it was being used by Intel communities.
It was being used by media groups like this.
It was being used by a lot of people.
Specifically, though, the Intel communities.
Yeah, but that means, so what you're saying,
what you're saying, Joe, is that that was built for people to request those things.
So the request itself is not bad.
Any of us could send that a request.
So is that way you're saying, Jova, that anyone, if there's a backdoor, if there's a system created for people to send out requests where they see intelligence, et cetera, what's the big deal?
You're just giving them the ability to send reports.
As long as Twitter follows their guidelines before acting on those reports, that's not that concerning.
And what you're going to say probably trash now as you read through the thread is we're going to see that they did not follow their protocol and they probably acted on...
bias or personal favors or bribe.
Yeah, so we actually know that from previous Twitter files.
So Global Engagement Center, Twitter files dropped was really good at illustrating this,
where they were getting up to 50,000 requests a day.
There were just buckets of usernames.
And these were actual Americans, right?
And what they were doing, where they were using the rules of propaganda and censorship
for international propaganda campaigns.
And then what they were doing is they were taking these tranches of accounts that were, I don't know, maybe spending mal-information was the biggest one, right?
True information, but it went against the narrative of what they wanted.
And so what they were saying was that these people were spewing Russian disinformation or Hindu nationalist misinformation or whatever.
But these were American citizens that were not part of any of these groups, but this global engagement center was then taking tranches of these accounts.
They were sending them through the driver ticketing system, and they were not going one by one.
They were just nuking them.
They were just taking them out right away.
So they had full unfettered access and full control over who they wanted to censor and not.
And that's what this gyra ticketing system came out through the Twitter files.
Right.
But this one specifically, I bet Paul can talk to more about this because he just got here.
But that's what I'm seeing here when I see this screenshot of the Jaira ticketing system.
So I'd be interested, Paul, to see what you found when you were reporting on this some more.
So what happened was I knew that Jay Batatari had been...
had been suspended for whatever reason.
It had something to do with Walker Bragman.
Now, let me just tell you something about Walker Bragman.
Look, I mean, to some degree, like, I wrote a law on disclosure of financial conflicts of interest when I was in the Senate.
So you can now look up your doctor and see if your doctor is being paid for by a pharmaceutical company.
It's a really important issue.
And the reason why we did that is because every time we ran into a corruption scandal involving pharma, inevitably...
The only reason why they're able to do this stuff is because of doctors helping them.
The doctors wrote the prescriptions and the studies.
You can't have pharmacruption without complicit doctors.
And so we wrote that kind of issue.
So I'm very well aware.
I spent years on this issue before I like to start yammering about like what financial
conflicts of interest are.
And so Bragman has written several stories about this stuff trying to tie
Bata Charya to the Koch brothers.
And there is,
there is some like some,
some threads that's like actually true.
But I talked to Jay about this,
like what happened who was funded,
whatever.
And I don't want to get down into all this stuff.
But when he got banned,
I went to Twitter and I was like,
well,
who got him banned?
And I saw that it was,
Taylor Lorenz based upon the fact that after,
Walker Bragman sent him an email asking a bunch of misleading questions and, you know, why did you, when did you stop being your wife questions?
He then got pissed off and tweeted that email out.
It's like, hey, here's this guy's harassing me.
And in the process, you see Bragman's phone number and email.
Now, let me tell you something.
You can look right now on Twitter and a lot of reporters have their phone numbers.
in their Twitter accounts because you need to be able to contact them.
That's how journalism works.
You can't be a functioning journalist without people being able to contact you.
Paul,
Paul,
two questions.
Yeah,
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Oh, you can hear me.
Oh, you can hear me.
Perfect.
First, Paul,
I want to give you a massive shout out.
Not because only you came on.
We came on.
You're in Italy,
I think.
So it's very,
very late for you.
So I appreciate you actually coming on at this time.
So, Paul,
two questions.
One, do we know this is the reason why he got suspended?
Is it causation correlation?
And question number two is...
Yes, you're allowed to post your own contact information.
I'm not really defending what's happening,
but we try to have a lot of pushback and debates here.
So a journalist or someone's allowed to post their own contact information,
but to post someone else's contact information is a breach of terms of the policy,
of Twitter's policy.
Is that correct?
Well, so like, okay, so yes, I am.
I'm in Spain, actually.
And so, like, I'll give you kind of how crazy some of this stuff.
I've actually tweeted out.
emails and documents released under the Freedom of Information Act request or state corollaries to that act.
And in that, it might have a phone number, whatever.
This is now public information.
The government has now said it's public information.
But because I tweeted out a publicly available document from the government...
I was once suspended because it had someone's like whatever personal whatever on there.
It's like this idea that like you can't like this, there's this like bright line.
Like if I share it, whatever, that's kind of nonsense.
Like look, you can find my number in my email on my personal website.
Why?
Because I'm a working journalist and I need people to be able to contact me if they want to give me something.
So this whole thing was kind of nonsense from the beginning.
It was like, it was like, it was like, it was like, it was like, it was like, it was like, it was like, it was like,
it was like, it was like, of a soccer match.
Like, do people get kicked in soccer matches?
Yes.
But wouldn't you have, wouldn't you have two phone numbers, a business one and a person one?
I'll give you an example.
We had one speak, we had Tom Fitton, who was on stage and we had another speaker, William Legate,
who shared his phone number, who texted him.
So he had his phone number.
Tom, he's like,
I, everyone went crazy and telling me to remove William for sharing his phone number.
Everyone's saying this is a big deal and they should never be allowed.
It should be banned from the space.
He didn't share it on the Mario's, but he just texted.
He texted him, yeah, but then the fact that he had his number.
So he didn't even share it.
So sharing it is even worse than that, so what I'm saying is that, you know,
it's a big deal when it is, but it's not a big deal.
Isn't Taylor Lorenz?
Wasn't she criticized for doxing the, I don't know what details of, lives of TikTok?
So...
I don't know, like if you have your business number, it's one thing, but if you share your personal number, then people could just abuse that.
And that would be concerning.
But then you make the argument, but if that number is available publicly, then anyone should be able to share it.
But then you go to Twitter, how would Twitter know what's public or what's not?
And they just make a policy, hey, don't share the contact details of someone else.
It just makes it, it's tricky territory.
It's very hard to know it to say, hey, this is right, this is wrong.
what do you think of this slime man before we continue well i i i agree with like that's kind of
the case but i think the problem is that like what what what what triggered this suspension was
of sharing a working journalist purported like private information like as a working journalist
You have to have information public so people can contact you.
That's how it works.
And so then after I saw this, I went through the entire reporting system that involved
Taylor-Renz.
And that's when I found these other examples.
Like, that just triggered the initial issue.
You know, so I don't want to get stuck on this, this like issue about what is doxie
and what is not.
And to be honest, like, let's be clear.
Yeah.
And to be clear, let's be clear, I mean, let's be clear the reason she wanted or people wanted
in band is because of his anti-COVID policies.
Right, well, right, exactly. That's what triggered it. Yeah.
Yeah, I agree. And I think we're up to number, we're up to tweet.
Now, we haven't gone through the entire thread yet, Paul.
So we'll get you to summarize it. We're up to number, I think you've read seven, the Bragman, trash, the Bragman.
Do you want to read that one quickly?
Because then we get Paul's thoughts on it.
Yeah, real quick. Yeah, number seven.
Bratman played this all up on Twitter, of course, to call attention to himself,
retweeting Vodotachari's tweet before people made fun of them for, quote, doxing himself.
Manhattan rich kids playing it journalists are easily bruised at scenes and then it shows a tweet from Martin cold off below
I guess it was somebody responding it looks like this that you know dear Walker bragman your tweet below contains your email address so you may want to delete it just friendly advice and you want it private
uh Dr. Bottachara is still locked out and I don't want that to happen to you so yeah they guess they pointed out to see no question Mario isn't he actually out there himself
Yeah, exactly.
But the point I was making is like it's hard for Twitter to know.
So Twitter's policy, I think you're not allowed to share someone else's contact information
because Twitter doesn't know what's public, what's not public.
And like I said, they're trying to figure out each case.
So it's put a blanket rule of not allowing to share it.
But obviously, you know, it's hard to deny this was abused with a certain agenda in mind.
but yeah I was just trying to push back on the on the concept of sharing one's contact information
because in some cases everyone goes crazy when it happens but in other cases they're like yeah but
this is pretty normal you know you're a journalist for example sharing your contact information
should be should be okay but let's go to the next point of concern trash and we get Paul's thoughts
on it where we're up to
Yeah, so we're at number eight, and I'll get and read this real quick, but Paul kind of already brought this up.
However, tweet nine is where it's going to start to get pretty spicy because Alejandra Carbio is a whole other topic on itself.
But number eight, Braggman's game is to constantly accuse people of quote being co-funded, as you mentioned.
You know, FYI, SORS.
So, yeah, SORS funded you, Paul, for a 2019 BMJ conference.
It's not quite the same thing as making you completely SORS funded, like some of these DAs, I might add.
but there was it was basically to go make up
it's like trash stress like we can never have
a space without sort of somehow coming into it
hey it's right here in the thread just saying
Yeah, yeah, I know. I know. I'm not criticizing you for it. It's just funny how
saw us in every single discussion recently.
All right, what's the next one? Because he said the next one is pretty juicy.
Yeah, well, now we're starting to get into it because Alejandro Carabayo is another one
altogether. She, she, whatever, I don't know they, whatever their pronouns are,
whereas on Capitol Hill, and this is actually what's prompting this. So, number nine,
Several of Lorenz's past reporting targets tell me she seems to work in concert with her sources.
After Lorenz Doc lived a TikTok, Kaiya Rijek.
In the post, Alejandra Carabio sent Twitter a private letter to remove lives of TikTok.
Lorenz quoted Carabio in the post the next month.
So I'll just give you a little bit background.
Alejandro Carabio was a trans activist.
Okay.
and is also one of these people that was floating around Twitter
and was having these like hyper-mash reporting events
to try to get people removed.
I don't know if we're maybe saying the wrong pronoun, gender, whatever.
But this Alejandro Carabaya is a pretty notorious and vicious trans activists on Twitter.
I was on Capitol Hill.
And I'm trying to remember when this was because...
This email down here, somewhere around that time, I'll read the email.
This is from Alejandra, and this was to Twitter, it looks like.
So good morning.
I'm reaching out on behalf of the Coalition of Multiple LGBTQI Plus and anti-hate organizations
that have come together around our grave concerns about the imminent public safety risk posed
by lives of TikTok account.
The attached letter details this accounts hateful conduct and the impact that is having on children's hospitals,
Mm-hmm.
LGBT community events and venues, and LGBTQ teachers and school staff.
We believe this account is directly inciting violence and hate against the LGBTQI plus community.
We asked that Twitter take action to suspend Lib to TikTok permanently to prevent further harm to the LGBTQ community,
as well as address the torrent of anti-LGBQ hate, allowed to flourish on your platform.
The letter is not public and is only addressed to Twitter executives.
We would like to schedule a meeting within the coming days regarding this matter,
and we'd greatly appreciate it if you could respond by Tuesday, October 11th.
And that's from Alejandro Carabio,
basically a clinical instructor,
cyber law clinic,
Berkman Klein,
Center for Internet and Society,
Harvard Law School,
pronouns, of course.
But this is now,
and the people that were actually...
I mean, before you go on,
Trash,
just on that,
obviously we know Alejandro Carabello,
who's basically a self-proclaimed
misinformation expert.
So Paul,
if you want to just...
Expand on that.
What was her agenda to try and get lives of TikTok band?
And what was your thought when you saw that?
Well, first off, I'll just point out,
you'll notice that I redacted part of the phone number there.
Just back to our prior discussion about, like, not doxing people.
Actually, I did it at the last minute right before I put that up there.
So, you know, I don't know.
Like, again, you have to understand.
I'll just give you my background on this stuff.
I don't follow lips.
I did not follow lives of TikTok.
I didn't know who they were at all.
I kind of had a sense that there was this thing floating around on Twitter called
Libs of TikTok.
And what happened is when Taylor Lorenz wrote her story about them, I read that story
and I thought, this is some really weird reporting.
What's going on here?
And so then I, at that point, started following, there was a TikTok, and I thought, like, okay, this is just someone making fun of, like, nutty liberals.
Like, what's wrong with this?
And that's when I first realized that time, this is, like, back in, like, almost a year ago, 10 months back, there's something really weird going on with Taylor Lorenz, right?
Like, there's something really odd and weird about her reporting.
Now, I can't tell you exactly what's going.
I don't know.
So, again, I don't know anything about, like,
Libs of TikTok and Kaya and her arguments with Carabayo.
Like, I don't know, but it's pretty obvious what's happening here is they're trying, they want lives of TikTok off.
Um, and so what I remember at the time was there was also like,
lives of TikTok was, there was been Taylor runs in multiple stories.
There was something about when lives of TikTok and something about like transgender surgeries
for like minors at some hospital and then like, oh, this is creating hate.
And it came out later like, but actually they are doing these surgeries when they say they're
not.
Like here's the webpage.
So like I only peripherally paid attention to some of this stuff.
Like it's not something I focus on.
But, um,
There's definitely something, I don't know if you guys know this or not, but like as an American who lives in Spain and I'm outside the country.
So I'm an American and I'm part of you guys.
But I'm also like I'm at a distance right now.
There's something really weird going on in America now with transgender issues, which is not normal.
And I don't know what that is.
because in my life as a man who's 53 years old,
I know one transgender person,
one guy who became a woman,
like in the last like six years.
But I read these stories all the time in the media
and it's really weird.
There's something weird going on here,
which I don't get.
I know we're moving a bit off subject, Paul.
But I'm curious on this point, weird how?
Is it like,
talked about way like it's become too mainstream too divisive how is it weird
I think the fact that like I know one transgender person in my life and I know a lot of people.
I know none personally like I don't know I don't know many I don't know many people personally but I agree with it.
It's just not not that many around.
Okay but how does that relate to how it's being covered in the US?
So I can tell you right now is what happening when I first realized something weird was going on was a friend of mine at the Washington Post believe it or not.
We were talking on the phone.
I think this was last summer, maybe it could have been the summer before, but like,
in the last year.
And it was like, have you noticed all the trans stories appearing in the post?
And I was like, oh, yeah, there's quite a few isn't there.
It's like, don't you think that's a little bit weird?
And I was like, and that's when I thought about, like, based upon the number of stories
that I see in the Washington Post about trans people versus,
the number of people I know who are trans versus like, let's say, the number of working class
Mexicans that I know, like, I don't see those stories in the post.
It's just been very weird.
But isn't just, but isn't, isn't just, you know, weird things go viral all the time,
things that are, that just sound, like, they're not as important, but they just, they
just either they're too divisive or they're designed to go viral.
For example, in terms of anything about trans,
you know where I see it go viral more than the mainstream media?
Social media.
People love to share those videos in most cases criticizing the trans community
or certain aspects of the trans community.
So is it just people that are paying attention to this
because the story clicks and it's become very political?
Or is it the mainstream media?
Sorry?
I think the mainstream media is out of whack from the rest of America.
Like, I mean, I don't mind if there's trans stories.
I mean, there's trans people.
Like, we have to have journalism on that.
We have to have stories explaining, like, what's going on with these people.
Like, what's happening in their lives like that.
But, like, I mean...
I mean, it's so out of whack the number of the stories that appear in the mainstream media compared to that population.
But that's what's weird.
But, Paul, doesn't that mean just people are loving those stories?
Getting clicks, their incentive is to, in most cases, obviously, with the biases.
That might very well be.
That could very well be.
Yeah.
That could very well be, yeah.
But it is weird.
Like, I agree with you, though.
It's just covered way too much.
Kim, any comments on this particular point before Trash continues with a thread?
Yeah, there's a very simple explanation for why...
all of a sudden the LBGTQ topic is exploding in the U.S.
and, you know, it's endorsed and, you know, there's even promotion for it in schools.
Because in a recent study, it shows that 86% of the LBGTQ
community vote Democrat.
So the more LBGTQ stories there are,
the more people they can turn into changing their genders,
the more likely it is that they increase the vote.
the other that's also happening with illegal immigration 90% of people that become eventually
you know eligible to vote in the u.s that have immigrated illegally and have been supported for
years by the democratic party are all becoming democratic voters so
There's a very simple explanation to why these things are happening.
It's the Democratic Party harvesting potential future votes.
Okay, yeah.
and talk to people about why Democrat
rather than have them change their gender to vote Democrat?
And also, like, could they be democratic or liberal
before they change their gender?
And then they change their gender.
So I just don't think the argument,
I think the immigration one,
it clicks more for me,
but to encourage people to change their gender,
to vote more liberal.
I will put the study in the nest for you, Mario,
and you should have a look at it.
You know, it's quite interesting because...
When you now have drag shows at schools to educate young children about their right to be different,
you know, and almost kind of putting it into their heads, they would never maybe even have had these thoughts.
But you will see a massive increase in the next decade of youths.
changing their genders simply because they were indoctrinated with that stuff at a school age.
And there is a method behind it.
And the method is, and you see it, it's primarily happening on the left.
The method is to create more voters for the Democratic Party in the future.
Should we stop at him?
Just, I mean, just, sorry, go ahead, Joe.
Should we stop at Kim?
Because isn't that censorship?
Yeah, I think here's the problem, right?
Kids can be indoctrinated.
Kids throughout history have always been the subject of propaganda.
You just have to look at regimes like in North Korea, where kids at an early age are taught
who their enemy is, how they have to fight the enemy, who their god is, you know, in the leadership of the North Korean government.
But that's true for, it's true for adults, though, too, Kim.
This is my whole argument about censorship.
It's like sometimes it's good, sometimes, like, stopping school, like stopping a teacher from bringing in someone who's trans into the classroom to talk about their story.
You don't want it. We should censor it.
Well, just think about how absurd it is.
I personally agree.
Just think about how absurd it is that you ban religion from school.
You are not allowed to teach kids about Christianity or, you know, the Muslim faith.
But it's okay for you to teach them at a young age that they can choose their gender when they are easily manipulated.
I don't think that makes any sense.
I'm just trying to keep it on subject. When is it okay to censor? Because a lot of people are like censor-free maximalists.
Let's let's guys. I want to go back to the thread because I know Peter, I don't want you to fall asleep while we're doing the space.
I know again it's like what, four, three, four a.m. What is it, two, three a.m. in Spain?
Spain time, let me check.
I'm not, 1.30, 130.
I'm not at 1.30.
I'm not to bed, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, all, let me go through a bit more than thread.
Where we're up to trash, which number?
right now we're on number 10 but this is the same email it's just actually showing a response
and then who the all the emails to so what i was going to bring up earlier was i wanted to note this
that alexandra carbio has digadi's actual twitter official twitter email that this letter was sent to
paul let me let me do this let me let me do this try peter i've got two questions for you so i'm
talking to taylororens in the background i'll read out what she said as well um because she can't jump
into the space i'll read that out in a bit but
But my first question to you, Paul, is, can you just give us a summary of what's left in the thread?
Like, what have you learned?
What do we know from the Twitter files that you covered in your thread?
We're going to continue reading them afterwards.
And then number two question is, have you heard back from any pushback from Taylor Lorenzo,
anyone from her team or friends or anyone else that you could share as well?
So the first thing that we, like, just from looking, like, first off, like, I realized, as soon as I started asking questions about Taylor Lorenz, I got a lot of people contacting me, which I was not expecting because I don't know Taylor Lawrence.
I don't know social media.
And I learned a lot about what a terrible reporter is, she is.
And I put some of that stuff in here, like a couple of statements from people who've signed affidavits after lawsuits.
And then we also notice further down that, like, after Tucker Carlson did this very short piece on her, like about.
two minutes or something like that.
You know, and again, this, what, what, what Twitter did is they sent out this email saying,
hey, we got to be careful with her.
to all their top people,
like to watch for her on Twitter.
Well, like, look, I've been harassed, like, hell on Twitter.
Like, I mean, I wrote a story about Monsanto in, like, 2015,
and the shit that I got on Twitter,
I woke up the next morning,
and there'd be, like, 18, like, direct messages to me,
like, what an asshole I am, you know?
And I was like, what is this?
Like, it was very weird for me.
Like, it was actually very, like, physically assaulting to me
to wake up to have this kind of stuff.
I'd written only factual stuff about,
Monsanto, which by the way, it's such a terrible corporation.
Like when Barrett bought them, they destroyed the name.
Like that's how bad this corporation is.
And they're gone as a corporation, but there's still litigation for terrible things they've done.
Right.
So, you know, Taylor-Renz had this ability like, you know, to get all this help from everyone.
And then what she did also is she helped.
one of her sources, which again, this is kind of weird,
and I don't know from the story exactly
if she was helping the person directly.
She's probably going to try to see, like,
well, I was doing this as part of my reporting process.
But this guy got his account killed,
and so he went to Taylor to, like, you know,
bring it directly under the nose of people at Twitter
to get his account turn back on because...
A lot of people have lost their accounts, but they don't have anyone who, like, brings you up to the front of the line to say, like, hey, please look at this guy's account.
That's what Taylor did, you know?
And so I think that's kind of what we have from the total Twitter frials.
But, you know, the thing that I learned about Taylor is that...
She has some incredibly unorthodox reporting tactics.
I sent emails for herself and to the Washington Post.
I'll read you.
Let me see if I can find this one, if I can find this one email that I sent to her,
which I can't seem to find.
Okay.
I'll just give you a sense of like what I sent to her, you know, because, you know, she, I don't, there's, she is a, she's a very odd. Hold on. Let me see if I can find this. Taylor and Telfanian. Trying to find the exact, trying to find the exact email that I sent to her.
Okay, here's what I sent to Taylor.
Okay, it's two days ago.
Hello, Taylor.
I've heard from several friends of the post and from one of the times that you're
a bit of a handful, which I have.
So I've looped in Cameron and Matea.
These are the two top editors of the post.
We've already sent questions for right to reply.
I sent them questions like asking them to respond the day before.
I've gone twice to Twitter.
I'm going through documents to concern you.
I'm releasing some tomorrow letting her know that maybe I have a little bit more.
In the process, I spoke with Aria Tufanian.
You had bought him in 2019 while at the Times.
After you published your Times piece, Tufan sued you.
You then began messaging people to contact Ryan Finkl, an AUSA, assistant U.S. attorney, who works at the SDN.Y, Southern District of New York.
And at least one message you provided Finkel's DOJ email writing, again, just do not say you got it from me.
That's weird.
Yeah.
Then that next month, Tufonian received a subpoena.
I read the subpoena, by the way, with allegations ripped almost directly from New York Times piece.
Tufani was never charged in DOJ investigation end of this January when DOJ emailed him to pick up his three-year-old MacBook they confiscated.
Tufonian tells me you did not up a criminal investigation against him to retaliate against his lawsuit.
So now is when I get into questions.
You have the questions I asked to Taylor because she's now tweeting about me, right?
Can you please explain why you were secretly directing people to contact the DOJ?
Also, were you working with the DOJ?
I don't know.
Maybe she was like maybe the DOJ contacted her.
I don't know.
That's what I asked the question.
Finally, do you plan to cover the fact that the investigation was launched after your article led to no criminal charges being filed against Tufanian?
Is she going to follow this up?
Also, can you please explain which tweets are factually inaccurate in this thread by fear of the fluve?
This is the account that she got nuked in September.
This is the account you reported September to Twitter and got banned.
This is an archive version of those tweets.
So I sent her an archive version of those tweets to let me know.
Like, are these tweets true or not?
Like, I don't know.
Like they banned the account, but it would be something wrong.
I don't know.
It's their tweets, right?
One final question besides Ariadna Jacob.
Are you facing any other current litigation regarding you reporting?
If yes, who else is currently in litigation with you?
So I asked her a lot of questions to get a response.
She responded to nothing and now she's on Twitter saying everything in my thread is wrong.
So there you go.
I gave her a chance to respond and explain.
She chose not to.
And so has she specified what's wrong in your thread, though, rather than just give up a lot of...
No, she has not, I don't think.
Has she specified, Peter?
Paul, I think he means Paul, Paul, has she specified exactly what I haven't seen it yet.
Someone sent me a message. I don't follow her on Twitter.
Somebody sent me a message. She says everything in this thread is wrong.
Yeah, I'll tell you what she told me. Paul, let me read out what she told me.
And I was just messaging her.
I don't know personally, we've just spoken once.
I wanted to learn more about her when I started learning everything about it.
And one of the Twitter files, I think Kim, you were there when she came up in the discussion.
But anyway.
She said, oh my God, the thread is so...
Let me see she allows me to read out exactly what I said.
Okay, when I asked her, what can I share publicly?
She says, I mean, it's literally just made up nonsense.
I don't even know how to dispel it.
One of the guys on that thread literally sued the New York Times and lost so badly
he owes the New York Times hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
I don't know who she's referring to, how that's relevant.
It's all just so absurd and hilarious.
I was laughing on my family group chat, like,
where is this $5.7 million house we're entitled to?
I'd love to get out of my shitty rental.
What's that thing about being entitled to a $6 million or $5.7 million house, Paul?
So that's something in this thread that I asked her about,
to ask, tell me, like, if that was accurate or not.
Like, I give her a chance to explain, right?
Is this true or not?
She chose not to.
I mean, this is a pretty common tactic.
Mostly corporations use this.
And actually, it's really funny.
I saw this first being used, believe it or not,
by the Koch brothers about six years ago.
And this is when the Washington Post was going after them.
What they would do is they would take all of the questions
from the environmental reporter at the Washington Post
not respond, but they could tell from the questions what the story is going to say.
And then we'd come back and they'd say, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong.
And then you would like realize like these things in this story and the posts were wrong,
but they'd asked the Koch brothers first like,
Can you please explain that this reporting is right or not?
That's what I did with her.
She doesn't have to respond.
Now she wants to complain that things are wrong.
So you can see what.
And what does your story?
What does your thread?
Because we haven't gone through the entire thread.
What does your thread say about that $5.7 million house?
What's that story?
Oh, it's not a story.
It's just a screenshot that I did of that account fear the flute that she got newked.
And so it has a screenshot of like one of the,
one of the,
tweets and the,
in the,
but that's a bit off topic,
That's,
that's not the important part of the thread.
The important part is how she silence people,
how she,
she,
she,
she requested Twitter to silence certain people.
So it's actually,
so what I'm saying is that she responded to her,
something that's not really that important.
I don't want to,
you know,
Taylor's not he.
So I try not to criticize her while she's not here.
But to me,
that response just shows that she's,
You know, when there's some story and someone wants to refute it,
because I always try to get their take as well,
when they want to refute it, they refute the points one by one.
In this case, Taylor was very vague and just saying,
hey, all of it is wrong, but not giving any specifics.
Now, I do want to give her the benefit of the doubt,
because she is on the move, so maybe she's just in a hurry.
But it would be good to...
Also, I have fine contradictory, Mario, because...
If you look at the, on the thread, it's basically post number three she's referring to.
And in post number three, it's via the fluff was posted that information that you're referring to.
And in there, it says that she was raised in a $5.7 million mansion.
Now, she had his account nuked for basically given her private information.
But if it's false, then how is it private information?
No, but he get, the account gave other private information as well.
It's not private information.
He says, I was raised in a $5.7 million house.
Maybe there's other things in there.
We haven't seen the entire post.
The entire post is there, Mario.
So it says, Taylor-Lorenz was born to mega-rich developer, Walter Lorenz, and Anne Lorenz, and raised in a $5.7 million.
Isn't that part of a thread?
Or is just that tweet?
Oh, right.
Okay, yeah.
There's other stuff in that thread that is worse.
Bro, you're sitting there criticizing journalists, and you can't even analyze evidence like a journalist.
No, no.
Bro, I said you made a fair point.
It says a thread, isn't it?
No, but the point is, is that I sent her the entire thread,
and I asked her to explain if any of those tweets were wrong or not.
I sent her the archive thread.
which is in my story.
In my story, I linked to the archive thread.
Let me, let me ask you another question.
So Paul, so essentially what we see in this thread,
how would you summarize in one minute,
what would you summarize the entire thread for people
that just came in in the last few minutes?
What did we learn?
I would summarize it as Taylor Lorenz
had too much influence within Twitter.
Twitter.
to be able to silence people that were critical of her.
Is that a fair kind of basic summary of what we learned from the threat?
Oh, yeah.
Not just that, but also like Twitter was so in love with her.
Like here's how the thing you have to understand, I think.
She was in a very powerful position at the New York Times to report positively or negatively upon any social media company.
And I think she leveraged that position in order to influence things within what was happening in social media companies.
Like one of the things like this is not in the thread, but in my story, you can find at the bottom of the thread where I go into a lot more detail.
One of the things that Aria Tufanian told me is once he started complaining about,
about Taylor Lorenz's story about him and sued her,
he suddenly lost his Instagram account.
I don't only think about the kind of stuff,
but appearance is really important for people
and with certain companies.
He lost his Instagram account with a million followers,
is what he told me.
He can't prove to her prove that Taylor-Renz shut it down, but he told me she's friends with a guy who owns Instagram or started it or whatever, like I own this area.
He's asked them, like, why was it shut down?
I sent an email directly to Instagram asking them, why was his Aria Tufanian's Instagram account shut down?
This guy can't do a business now.
was Taylor Renz involved and they've not responded after two days.
So another thing, if I may, real quick, if I may add on to that,
this is kind of like the old mob trope, right?
Where it'd be, wow, I'd be real shame that this place burnt down.
So basically you had these journalists, quote, unquote,
that go to these companies or they go to these individuals, so on and so forth,
to say, boy, I'd be real shame if I printed a story like this.
and then they could actually leverage that power because they were directly influential within that arena.
So it's like Paul actually referenced this a lot earlier when he came in.
It flipped my mind what it is, what he said, but it's what these activist journalists use to get stuff shut down or to level their power as they see fit.
I always just say it's the real shame this place burned down type trope.
Can anyone do me a favor, including you, Paul?
Has anyone, because again, we try to always get different sides of every story.
I'll try to get Katie Nonopoulos onto the stage.
If anyone knows, please do invite her.
She's been on our stage once before.
But if anyone knows Taylor in the audience,
if you know Taylor, or you've got a different side to the story,
you've got more context to give us,
I wanna get the full story, do come up.
Because I don't want this, you know,
all of us are talking about Taylor.
Taylor's not able to join this space,
and I'm sure she'll join, you know,
she did say she'll join our space when I invited it a while ago.
So hopefully she'll join maybe tomorrow to discuss this if she's free.
But if anyone else can give us a different take,
and I wanna go back to you again, Paul,
was there anything else you've heard?
So I know you got a lot of messages
of people critical of Taylor, fair,
But was there anything else you heard about from people that are close to her, people that know her that were positive, that were kind of contradicting any aspects of the thread that is worth mentioning?
Just to balance out the discussion.
Then we'll go to Sarah.
So this is my last response.
And I'm going to go to bed.
I'll leave you guys.
It's 2 o'clock in the morning.
Thanks, I didn't, like, I, I, I'm not a guy investigating Taylor-Lerenz.
I don't care about Taylor-Rens.
Like, I don't care about social media stuff.
This was literally like, I went to Twitter to get documents.
And in the process, I tripped over these Taylor-Lrens documents.
And that's all it is.
And then I started asking questions and people started calling me.
I have no clue who really Taylor Lorenz is.
Just like I have no clue who, you know,
how her right check is that she wrote about.
Like these are people I have read about and I've seen some stuff about.
And I was interested in like, okay, how did all this function?
And what I found out, which is what I'd heard from a lot of people,
which is Taylor Renz has a lot of, had a lot of power inside Twitter.
I think this is something like, we all know this,
but I'll just repeat it because I think it's worth repeating.
We're only seeing a tiny bit of what went on inside Twitter through these Twitter files.
We also don't know what happened in all these other social media companies.
I'm giving a talk this weekend about this very issue when it comes to vaccines.
What we know right now is from some prior stories I've done on these Twitter files.
While Twitter was regulating what is and what is not vaccine misinformation,
they simultaneously had a client, Johnson and Johnson,
who they were helping on their marketing strategy for their COVID-19 vaccine.
I don't know what it was, but I know for like one small little thing that I tripped over in the Twitter files.
I don't know how much this was going on also at Facebook or Instagram or other things that were going on.
I can tell you right now I have a substack.
um the disinformation chronicle i can put it on twitter if i had someone who was running my
instagram account for my um substack she couldn't things kept getting shut down all the time so i
don't know what's going on on instagram but apparently whatever i write you can read my stuff it's it's
It's pretty normal.
You know,
they can't make it on Instagram.
So I think that's something to think about
is that like this really goes beyond Twitter.
Twitter is just giving us small little insight
into what's happening in these broader social media companies.
I don't think that like Taylor Wrenz had any...
you know, more influence at Twitter than social, than Instagram or Facebook.
I think she had a lot of power within the social media companies.
And that's concerning because you can see what I found in one small part at Twitter.
So there you go.
Thanks so much, guys.
I appreciate it.
Thanks a lot, Paul.
I appreciate you for joining.
I do want to just read out some tweets by Taylor Lorenz and people she retweeted.
Never thought I'd be talking about her again.
Jesus, she gets a lot of attention.
All right, so we have a tweet.
She retreated from Katie Notopoulos.
Taylor Lorenz uncle owns the way back machine, has this energy.
And then that was a retreat of all nothing.
I was just buying some e-meditation for my medication for my sick uncle.
Laura says to look at you dead in the eye.
Who's a model, by the way?
All right, so I think there's a few people saying that this is not,
this is not, it's not, Taylor Lorenz's uncle does not own the way back machine.
Ben Collins says the following, so she's retreated, Ben Collins as well.
All of these extremely affluent adult men obsessed with making things up about Taylor Lorenz for literally years have a clinical disorder we don't have a name for yet.
Again, I would love someone if they can find some tweets breaking down exactly what is made up because I love, you know, I want to fact check things and I don't want to spread misinformation.
And we do know that Paul did reach out to Taylor Lawrence to clarify things and hopefully she does.
Jen Takahashi said the following, it should not be socially acceptable to call someone a knee-po baby, a nepo baby.
who controls the internet archive unless there is unequivocal evidence for such a claim.
Trash or anyone, has there been any evidence that Taylor Lorenza's uncle owns the way back machine?
Because I don't think the thread even makes that statement.
The thread quotes someone who's made that statement.
There's another one here.
There's a lot of people that are very critical of this.
So let me read that one more and then I'll let you respond, Sarah.
Ari Drennan said, on Twitter,
the false claim that Taylor Lorenz used family connections
to remove information from the Internet archive
was swiftly debunked,
but it's spreading far and wide on YouTube
after being amplified by Elon Musk,
including the quarterings 1.5 million subscribers channel.
So it seems that a lot of people are saying,
a lot of people are pushing back on this particular point.
A lot of claims made in the thread,
but instead of pushing back against the influence within Twitter, they're pushing back on the uncle, uh, owning wayback machine, which again, I don't think from memory the thread makes that statement.
They just happened to be quoted.
But Sarah, go ahead.
You know, that was debunked pretty quickly, the wayback machine and that her uncle owns it.
Um, that was debunked really quickly.
by several people.
In fact, the gentleman that is the digital librarian actually tweeted,
no, I don't know her, no, I'm not her uncle.
I'm hearing a whole lot of supposition, but I'm not hearing any facts.
I mean, she never...
Yeah, but that's the whole thing.
It's just about the fact.
Hold on.
Sarah, and then we'll go to Justin.
Thank you. She may or may not have gotten somebody banned a small account banned off Twitter. She may or may not have gotten somebody fired from their job or she may or may not have gotten somebody banned off Instagram.
But where's the proof?
And where's the proof?
I mean, if she, if I, you know, I know you, Mario, if I go to you and I say, you know what,
I don't like trash, I'd like you to not have him co-host anymore.
It's totally up to you whether or not you have him co-host.
Am I using my undue influence to influence your decision?
And I've had, and I've had.
And I've had a lot of people telling me reasons to remove trash, Slay Man, even more than trash.
Kim.com probably a record number.
But yeah, I get those and generally you'd ask for evidence.
And what you're saying is that there's no evidence in this thread.
Show me, show me the document that says that she had somebody removed from their job.
She had somebody removed from Twitter and she had somebody removed from Instagram.
Otherwise, it's all just talked.
But I also do want you to remove trash and Salim on his co-host.
Thank you.
Okay.
Justin, you were responding.
Don't be trying to censors.
We've already got loads of people trying to do it.
Taylor and her friends.
Justin.
Taylor and her friends are trying to dig into the post.
Yeah. Taylor and her friends are trying to dig into the post and they're trying to say,
hey, this thread of this now defunct account is full holes.
It's like it's not about those facts.
It's about the screenshots that Paul actually brings up, the discussions within Twitter,
the evidence of the timing of when she influenced people to make these decisions.
And everything that came about there, I mean, look, it's fine if...
if you're just a lay person and you want to, you know, throw your weight around, right?
But she's a journalist, right? And the worst than that is when you have people that are part of the government influencing Twitter.
Like I said, I've got my lawsuit against the government because around that time July 2021, when Jen Saki and Vivek Murphy got up to the pulpit and said, social media companies aren't doing enough to take down accounts that aren't towing the narrative line.
My account was taken down on Facebook.
My account was taken down on Twitter.
And it had a lawsuit to get it back and reinstated because I said that the impact on children for COVID is very negligible.
In fact...
As we pointed out, Scott Gottlieb, who was not at the White House, but was the former FDA commissioner.
He was at Pfizer.
He used a White House connection to connect to Twitter and try to get my account taken down.
We know my good friend Scott Botiataria and his account was taken down.
It was literally labeled as blacklisted, right?
Ironically...
Paul's account was down. A dozen other, two dozen other accounts of my friends were all down.
When Jay got reinstated in the first Twitter files, when that came out, right?
He, or when it came out, he was reinstated earlier. But when it came out, that was the case.
He went to Elon and he got all of our accounts reinstated, I think, including Paul's.
So the irony of.
Taylor's influence and other influencers trying to get Jay to be taken down and and rung down a notch.
And that happened.
He was suppressed on Twitter.
And then he comes on, Elon buys Twitter.
And he's the guy who ironically gets the accounts restored.
Actually, trash.
You've gone through the entire thread.
Is that to Sarah's point?
Yeah, go ahead, bro.
Sarah, I mean, I'm not understanding your point.
Is your argument that the only way you're going to believe it
is if you achieve certainty?
So it's basically Twitter saying,
okay, Lorenz, we are now banning this account
based on what you said.
Because if you look at tweet number...
three, sorry, number four, she makes the complaint, they go through the process of explaining how he doesn't violate, and then they still ban the account based on what she said.
So your argument is essentially...
My argument is essentially, how do we know it was just solely based on what she said? That's my argument, essentially.
Causation, it's a whole causation correlation argument.
It's a weak argument.
It means basically in Sarah,
according to Sarah's argument,
we can never know anything
because we actually need philosophical certainty.
We need...
No, you don't need philosophical...
Hold on, hold on.
That's a stupid...
Look what a way to characterize it.
I think I just first...
I think Sarah is asking good questions.
I think it is the reason, and I think that this is enough information.
I haven't gone through the entire thread, but it looks like enough information to be critical and to be concerned.
But the way you've characterized it, Slaman, they cannot have philosophical certainty.
No, man, if you have an email like says, like we've had in the Twitter files,
we've removed this account because of Taylor, based on Taylor Lorenzo's request.
Exactly.
That's certainty, man.
That's called evidence, man.
Not philosophical certainty.
That is called certainty, bro.
I think the problem is, Mario.
You have a lack of understanding of the levels of proofs and evidences
and what constitutes certainty, probability, possibility,
most likely in these type of statements.
Yes.
what you want is
although this is essentially
very obvious that it happened
what you want is those words
and if those words don't happen that means
it didn't happen come on
no I'm talking about Sarah's argument
and she's saying it's causation versus correlation
this one the example I gave would be more evidence
then this stuff which shows that it's likely because it happened at the same time
because they could despite all these who could and haven't got through all of it
but the Sarah is making an argument that it could still not be the exact reason
whereas the Twitter files we saw direct evidence this is a reason because they said
Hey, we've got a request to remove this, let's remove it.
Or we've removed this based on the FBI's request.
That's direct evidence.
But I just really think you're condescending answers like, hey, we don't have philosophical certainty
and making it philosophical.
It's nothing to do with philosophical.
She's just saying we don't have enough evidence as we did,
and now I'm going to add to it as we did in other Twitter files, which I think is there.
No, no, it's not a good argument.
It's a very weak argument because...
It's not, though.
It is.
Come on, y'all.
It was...
the Twitter files there was evidence.
No, no.
We could get behind with this.
This isn't evidence.
This is just somebody's opinion.
No, no, it's not.
So basically it is evidence,
but what you actually want is a certainty
based on epistemology
and the problem is in everything in life.
Stop using epistemology in words.
No, let me explain Margo.
You make a good point.
Go ahead.
The problem is that you guys literally make
arguments specifically on a point but then don't
apply to the rest of your lives.
So as an example, you don't have this certainty
for all other aspects of life.
And I can give you many examples.
Give me an example.
Okay.
Okay, so gravity.
Prove that, for example.
Gravity isn't small, little aliens.
Oh, fuck.
Bro, bro, bro.
Okay, sorry.
Sorry, I know, and I guess he goes...
Guys, guys, guys, yeah, let's go back to the thread, because every time Slaman wants to go down philosophical routes, I end it right there because it gets really fucking dumb.
And you do exactly Slaman why criticize others for doing it.
They start complicating things just to sound smart when they're making very stupid points.
Let me simplify what you say.
Sarah is saying that we don't have enough direct evidence.
You're saying, okay, we don't have direct evidence that this person says we don't have certainty, which is fine.
You can have certainty.
I gave an example of one certainty.
I'm simplifying it without starting to talk about epistemology and starting to talk about philosophical certainty.
And what you're saying is that we have enough evidence though to be concerned and to be able to say Taylor-Rex-Z is the reason X, Y, Z happen.
And I'm leaning more to your point.
I just get pissed off the way you've made it.
But let me,
they see a lot of hands up and people being very cordial and not jumping in.
Ryan,
you've been very quiet.
Hey guys, I think the biggest issue here with the situation, whether we have direct proof or not that she did this, is that she was in a position of influence, right?
As someone who has a high-ranking position of influence in journalism, as a journalist, where if she's swaying her bias to contact these companies to remove certain individuals, maybe Twitter removed it because she asked or maybe they found another reason for it.
It's the fact that you're putting your weight into a situation to make a situation.
a certain number of change.
Jude, for not for a great grander reason, but for a personal reason, it seems like.
That's the way that I'm understanding the situation, because I'm also catching up with the
story with you guys in real time and trying to understand it.
As a journalist, the point of a journalist isn't to go out and find, isn't to start
with a certain note of bias that you start with and try to prove that bias, right?
The note of a journalism is, from my understanding and looking at definitions, is to find
the truth on a certain number of,
a certain matter, right?
It's to go out and be like, okay, this is happening.
Let's go find the truth about it.
But it seems like this person, unfortunately, again,
correct me if I'm wrong and allegedly to this whole thing,
because this person seems very legalese and very happy to sue people.
It could be that this person is very biased and influence is going out there as a journalist
to prove certain points.
And throughout this storm, this person ran into enemies, people that they don't like.
Let's see.
It's a little bit.
Let me do this before going to Adrian.
I've got a lot of questions for you.
So we're probably going to spend a fair bit of time.
Let me just do one thing first.
Chief, I want to go to you and tell me one tweet in the thread that you think has the most incriminating evidence.
Let's go through the worst one, Chief or Trash, whoever's gone through the entire thread.
Can you point one out that we could go through it and use it as a good indicator?
Trash?
Yep.
So I already mentioned earlier the Jira ticketing the system, but I'll even go one further.
So on tweet number 13, this is actually a screenshot from unified escalations from the global escalations team, right?
Get.
And in this, it actually has.
So I'll read what he said, but I have more context to this.
So he says Lorenz had more than special reporting access to get accounts banned.
When Tucker Carlson did a piece ridiculing her, Twitter put out an alert, quote, we need to be careful with her.
I couldn't evidence that Twitter provided the support to other reporters, meaning he could not find that any of the reporters had this kind of preferential treatment.
And in this screenshot, it is from Unified Escalations, UE 79731.
I'm assuming that's the ticket number.
It says, hey, get team on the bottom of the description.
Can we please monitor the conversation around Taylor Lorenz?
She was specifically targeted by Tucker Carlson on the show tonight,
and I think she's going to be in the center of an abuse campaign on the platform.
Okay.
she's had tremendous trouble with abuse on here before
and we need to be careful with her.
So basically what's the saying is number one,
she has priority access.
Number two, she was on an email to Vigati herself.
Number three, this is escalating
and saying we need to monitor anybody replying
or saying anything about Taylor-Rens
and we need to try to
try to like monitor them or deflect.
So I think,
Tresh,
the way I see this is there's two ways of looking at it.
I'm going to make three points.
Number one,
I want to say that this shows that they,
she's getting preferential treatment.
That's point number one.
That's one way of looking at it.
Number two is that,
She's been targeted heavily and we've seen that she has and others have as well.
She's not the only one and we don't know how many people have had this identification like,
hey, we have to watch this account carefully because they've been targeted very heavily.
But that's what it says.
That's another way of looking at it.
And number three, in a kind of a general statement I want to make, you know, we've covered a lot of things in the Twitter files.
This to me.
seems like it's important and it's concerning and it shows that Twitter is being biased and being
influenced and they can start you know if we say if he's Taylor Lorenza having that much influence
being a tech reporter how about other more influential people executives at the New York Times
or billionaires for example how much influence did they have and how much corruption is in these
social media platforms but to me this part this thread this this drop
is the least concerning out of all the Twitter files,
but concerning nonetheless.
These are the three points I'd want to make,
considering this tweet, tweet number...
13 to be the most concerning in your eyes, trash.
And again, trash, you know the entire Twitter files.
You might even agree with me.
We can go to Adriana now, because I know Adriana, you have a history with Taylor Lorenz,
and you've covered it in our spaces before.
Trash, do you want to add anything before we go to Adriana?
Yeah, and this is one of the least consequential, like, obvious of any of the Twitter files.
Like, we all knew this.
There are some...
seriously concerning stuff because you know how much work that I've done on censorship and
national intelligence in our intel communities doing the censorship so like that's way beyond
that like this is just one that confirmed a lot of bias that we saw but yeah go ahead to ariadna and
And again, just a reminder before Adriana goes on, if anyone, and again, I want to see if Taylor could jump on, but if anyone knows anyone close to Taylor or anyone has a different take, we're inviting other journalists that were retreated by Taylor or spoken out against the thread and in support of Taylor Lorenz.
just to kind of get the different sides of the story.
But if you do know someone, please hit us up,
DM me and the team will check it out.
Or just have them come in and request and DM us,
DM me so the team can see it.
Adriana, you would love your thoughts on the thread.
I know you have a history.
You can maybe do a quick introduction for the audience
and your background and your issues with Taylor Lorenz.
And I've got questions for you.
I'm sure Suleiman does as well.
Um, thanks Mario.
I know you guys, uh, everyone has a problem pronouncing my name.
It's Ariadna, but you can call me Ari if it's easier.
Oh, so sorry.
No, no, no, don't be sorry.
Usually everybody can pronounce Ari.
But I can't say a lot and I probably won't be able to answer a lot of questions.
But, you know, I'll just say this.
You know, currently I am pursuing a lawsuit seeking justice.
for defamation.
I sued Taylor Lorenza and the New York Times.
And it's a process, I believe, will prevail once we advance in court, which isn't easy
against, you know, one of the biggest, you know, most important news organizations
in the world, arguably.
And I want to emphasize that I'm not politically motivated.
And having bootstrap my own business,
politics just simply wasn't a luxury.
I could really afford to spend too much time in.
Yet Lorenz seems to insistent on branding me and people like me as right-wingers
I believe she tweeted something in that realm today.
And yes, I appeared on Tucker Carlson's show, or Carlson's show after I lost everything.
I worked on, you know, 15 years of my career and I filed a lawsuit.
That, however, doesn't affiliate me with right-wing media, nor should it diminish my experience.
And platforms and media, particularly those favoring Lorenz,
just weren't as open to hearing my side of the story.
And as an immigrant from Mexico City who moved to the United States
following the death of my father when I was a little girl,
I was taken aback that even Univision and Televisa,
they all seemed reluctant to challenge the narrative
presented by the New York Times and Lorenz,
And it was Fox who stepped up to give me a platform when I didn't have anything, allowing me to expose the harm inflicted by, you know, the quote, unquote, journalist in question here.
And the issue at hand isn't about politics. It's about power when influential individuals unjustly attack ordinary people with,
limited platforms, lives can be decimated and counteracting can feel nearly impossible.
People say it would be impossible to go after justice, but it is possible.
And this is why my case, which is ongoing, is crucial.
And I just think we have to ensure justice prevails and that this alarming trend of media
is checked and here's why it all matters because if she can misrepresent me and my experiences
with impunity then she can do it to anyone and without checks and balances um the truth can be
lost so you know if this should be concerning to everyone because today it's me and tomorrow it could be you
so arey just can you tell us more very briefly about the lawsuit uh what what it's about just very
very briefly in like one or two sentences
I had a management company that was working with creators, social media content creators,
and she wrote an article full of lies about my company and how I treated the talent talent.
And, you know, this is somebody that is...
Ariya, can I just ask what was the specific points of defamation?
Because it won't be the whole article.
So what's the bit is what are the paths that you highlighted that are part of the litigation?
I mean, there's dozens of statements that were defamatory.
But the judge has allowed five to move forward.
What are those five?
Um, I'll, I'll, I'll link the, um, the article. I don't know if Joe is still in here, but, you know, I, again, like, I really don't want to speak. I think there's going to be a lot, um, when my case moves forward that will be shown in discovery. And, um, the, I can tweet right now the link to the, to the, um, to the filing. Um, but yeah, I, I just, I just.
I want justice, so I just want to be careful.
Is it like an ongoing thing so you can't talk about it, basically?
Is that why it sounds like?
What's that?
It's like an ongoing legal thing, so you can't talk about it.
Yeah.
That's what I'm guessing.
I think it would be wise not to.
But the thing is you are talking about it because you've explained that you're suing her.
Obviously, I'm assuming that the, so in the UK is called particulars of claims.
So I'm sure you guys have got something similar.
I'm sure that's out in the public because you're going to, is that what you're linking?
Or what are you going to link?
I can link the second amended complaint.
And I'm here because, you know,
despite what happened or aside from what happened to me
and I feel like in some ways it's selfish to just talk about myself,
but I just feel like
It's just dangerous for somebody to be able to have the kind of power to destroy somebody's life and livelihood.
And when it's not somebody that's important, I'm not Chaya Rachech.
I didn't have a million followers.
To get anybody to listen to the story was like impossible.
And so, you know, sometimes like I just want to come into rooms like this and just share why it's important.
for people in power in the media to not do these things and, you know, for them, for the platforms
that are part of the media today to not give these people special privilege to destroy others
on false accusations, you know, or whatever. I just, it's just not right. And that's why I feel compelled
to speak sometimes, even though, you know,
I do want to take my lawyer's advice and I want the court case to play out.
But, you know, I don't see Taylor here either.
So I really wonder why.
And the last time I was in one of these spaces, her ally or her friend or whatever, Katie, I think her name was Katie from, from.
BuzzFeed, I think it was.
Kay Notopoulos, I think it was.
Yeah, I brought up some very direct points about how Taylor asked me for my...
the addresses of where my content creators were living in the houses I was renting, et cetera,
and she promised it wouldn't be on the record or it wasn't for publication.
And then in the article, she linked to a Zillow account of one of my private property
rentals that was not a business address where I was living at the time.
So, you know, she docks to me.
I brought that up to Katie and then essentially she was like, well, I don't know anything about that and cut me off and just dismissed me.
And I think this like elitist dismissal of people that are just, you know, I didn't have a bone to pick with Taylor at all.
You know, I was focused on building my business and, you know,
Now that that's, you know, once she did what she did, then I started focusing on how I could, you know, expose and what she did and get justice.
Yeah.
Hopefully that gives you some context.
No, it does, yeah.
And I would just ask a question just to get more information
because I do get it essentially if someone is defaming you,
normally if you're not someone who's completely, like, extremely rich.
You haven't got that much.
First of all, it's very difficult to get justice in the second point.
How many, Ari, how many lawsuits are you part of,
you don't mind me asking?
Or have you been part of?
We filed a lawsuit against New York Times and Taylor Lorenz and...
Who's me?
Well, my company.
The company, bro.
The company, pay attention.
Okay, and how many lawsuits are you part of whether you filed or someone has a lawsuit against you in total?
There's three lawsuits where I'm the plaintiff.
Okay, cool. That's all. There's a reason I'm asking that question, but I can't remember the reason, because I remember when last time you were on stage, there was something to do with, I don't want to mention something I remember, but I can't remember exactly what it is. So I don't want to mention it until I know exactly. Let's go back to the. If there's any cases where she's the defendant, I think that's what he's trying to get out.
Yeah, but there's not that many.
She said there's three others where you're the plaintiff.
How many?
Okay, sorry, yeah, yeah, cool.
So, Ari, the point I was making is how many cases,
how many losses are there where you're the defendant?
Thanks, Sarah.
I don't believe there are any.
Okay, cool.
Done.
There's no point.
I have no point to make then, Ari.
Chief, go ahead.
I'm not sure if you're able to answer this or not.
Like, is the Siller-Rent's defense saying they're a public figure?
Are they using the public figure type of argument where, well, I guess, are they classifying you as a public figure or are they doing something different with their strategy?
I'm not sure if you're going to answer that or not.
Yeah, I don't want to go into it. I think like, you know, like good logic, a bunch of the people that have been following my case. Hopefully they can do like a follow up and, you know, like a summary of what's going on. Because, you know, I learned so much just about how difficult it is for to file a lawsuit against the media. I think my...
My lawyer tweeted something like it's easier for the state to take you to court for murder than it is to take the media to court for lying.
And it really is true.
It's so difficult.
And when everything happened and you go to your lawyers and they're like, you know, essentially, you know, honey, like, I'm sorry this happened, but, you know, there's not much you can do.
It's infuriating.
And I think, like, if anything, I'm just proud of myself that I stood up for myself because, you know,
God knows how many other young people that are out there just trying to start a business and, you know, just, I don't know.
You work so hard when you're an entrepreneur.
I know a lot of people in this room know what that's like and for somebody to come with false accusations about you that are, you know, completely...
untrue.
And,
and,
you know,
the fact is,
like,
maybe people are more interested
when,
you know,
somebody does a hit piece on,
you know,
a political figure or somebody like,
you know,
that's,
it's really big in the news.
But my whole thing was,
I think she,
I think she targeted me and I think that a lot of people didn't really care.
Like, what was in it for anybody else to tell the other side of the story,
to have Taylor and the New York Times mad at them?
Like, what would be in it for someone to defend just a little person that nobody really cared about?
Like, you know, a Twitter agent.
Like, it was just so...
sort of dismissive for everyone, but people didn't realize, you know, that that industry was a
multi-billion dollar industry and some of my former clients have, you know, have made over $70,000.
The problem I have is, and this is the first time I've heard about your case,
is that your case is public,
and obviously you've come on to the public platform to talk about it to an extent.
And so for me, it's like to understand your perspective,
I would want to know, like, the information that's specifically in the claim.
Do you got I mean?
Because I understand if somebody wants, if you made the claim and you're like,
look, I've made the claim, and I don't want to talk about it at all,
but then you have come up to talk about it, but then when we're asking questions...
I've talked about it.
I just don't want...
I don't want to seem like I'm attacking her unfairly.
I just, I believe in the court system and, you know, the judge is going to make the right call.
I think, you know, the case is still alive.
And, you know,
I would just say, you know, look into it.
I just don't really want to.
I think that we're progressing in a good way right now with the lawsuit,
and I just think it wouldn't be smart.
I mean, I can jump off.
I just, I told, you know, the person of testing.
And she's had, yeah, and Ari's spoken about the case a bit more.
Last time she came on during the Twitter Files saga, you came on, you gave us a, you gave us a,
a deeper story into the case.
I think some people came on stage and tried to push back and
poke holes into the story.
We've had that whole debate.
I can't remember what the other counter argument was,
so I couldn't take that position.
The other thing I just want to mention quickly is I also tweeted,
you know,
I think the reason why people believe that her uncle owns the Internet
archive is because,
There was a tweet where he, I believe, called her his niece.
And I tweeted that in this thread.
And I shared his profile, like what it said that he's the, I think, founder.
Can you pin it?
I'm actually curious.
Can you pin it above?
The tweet in which she calls her knees.
You got to click on the, so go to the tweet.
Anyone could do it.
Go to the tweet, click on the share button where you can share with someone,
and then click on the first option which allows you to share in the space.
The first option should have the space name.
I'm not sure if that pops up for you.
Oh, I see.
So click on that and I'll pop it at the top and then I'd love to have a look at it.
Because this is getting interesting.
Like it's just, it's starting to feel like a Mexican drama show.
Like drama is fun sometimes.
I'll see it.
Let me see.
Hold on.
Okay, this man, okay, there it is.
So Ari is, okay, you tweeted it yourself.
This man tweeted to her calling her his niece.
Do you have that tweet?
Okay, there it is.
Live screen recording of an alleged uncle's live tweet was filmed by Chrissy Mayer.
Is Chrissy, by the way?
No idea.
All right, comedian, Chrissy Mayer.
All right.
So there's a YouTube link from November 2020.
Okay.
I also included the screenshot.
The screenshot.
Taylor Lawrence, you saw your New York Times piece this evening on Facebook's policy statement.
I remain impressed with all that you do and proud to be your uncle silly.
Hmm.
This is interesting.
And this is the founder of Television Archive, Internet Archive, offering journalist colors.
So can you send that to Taylor and ask her to comment on that, Mario?
Yeah, I'll do that now.
This is getting interesting.
Okay.
Well, not really. I mean, not to think it, but that doesn't prove, like, that doesn't prove he's an uncle because some people...
That's right.
Yeah. Some people are like, oh, yeah.
Even what I'm awful. The joke's always calling me uncle. I'm not his uncle. Do you know what I mean?
But the point being, you could forgive someone for thinking that after seeing the tweet. It's not like it's out of the blue.
Right.
It seems like that whole thing was suppressed, like almost as soon as somebody told that story.
So, because that wasn't, you know, I think that tweet went away.
I don't remember at the time, but, you know, obviously we were paying attention enough to that the tweet was still live at the time.
But I don't know when she got the Tad account suspended or whatever.
Yeah.
I'll say, kind of bringing it to, I think, your cake, I was looking through at least your law, the firm that you hired, what they're saying about it for context.
The article that you're talking about are what the defamatory comments are from, according to at least to Dylan Law Group's.
post was an article called Trying to Make a Big Outline, Getting Signed Isn't Everything,
which they allege published several defamatory statements that devastated Jacob's business and reputation.
Ornanzatimes published their defibratory statements about the plaintiffs,
even though they had been provided with evidence contradicting the false statements prior to the publishing of the articles.
I don't think the actual post from the law firm says what those defamatory statements were.
But I guess the point I was making, though, about the public figure part is because if you're a public figure, it's very tough to prove liable or defamation.
It's extremely difficult.
And there's very rare instances where it goes through.
Most of the time, people don't really get...
barely get anywhere with that, unfortunately, with the laws we have in our country,
which is kind of why Trump is alluding to a lot about during, we saw about libel and
how he wants to sue people and all of that.
And right now, we don't know, like, anybody could be considered a public figure or a limited
public, a limited purpose public figure, like if you're an expert in your field or something
like that.
You know, I don't know in my case exactly what the cases, but you're right about that.
That, you know, if you get sued for defamation, the typical, you know, I guess, responses that you would say that the other person was a public figure and that, and then you would have to prove malice.
Yeah, the bar for public figure, I'm not sure for each state, the legal, like actual bar to be a public figure.
But it's very difficult if you are like a celebrity or someone who is known in their field to get defamation or to get libel lawsuits in your favor.
Yeah.
Yeah, and I think I had like 5,000 or less followers on each platform at the time
and wasn't involved in any public controversy.
Yeah, I need to know like this, well, you need to know that the state where this is all going down in,
like, well, I mean, it would depend on what a judge says to you about public.
If they're, if they're, if they, I mean, I don't even know if they are,
I'm not making that, that, uh, that argument for Lorenza's eye,
but it's a very common tactic with the media does a lot with the public figure, uh, claim.
So, so, um, Sarah, sorry, Josh, go ahead.
No, no, no, no, no, I'm still reading through a lot of the court documents here, and I'm kind of reading through the thread again.
Yeah, so can we go back to the thread? What number will we on?
I actually skipped ahead to 13 just because I knew that Ari was here, and that's when that gets first brought up.
So I kind of went to 13 anyway because Mario had asked what I thought was very consequential.
And seeing this in the global engagement team, escalation team is...
Quite interesting because I can guarantee there weren't many other people and like he alluded to that there weren't in other people that kind of luxury.
But number 14, Taylor also provided special support to a source in stories she wrote for the Atlantic, New York Times, and recently for the post.
And this is Jackson Weimar.
A Weimer.
Jackson Weimar's account was suspended.
Lorenz put this in front of Twitter.
So it's actually, so what it's doing is actually an email that was sent from Jackson to Taylor.
Says, today I was suspended on Twitter for impersonation on my account, Jay Weimer Media.
As someone with a large following on Instagram and as an editor for eBom's world and contributor for Know Your Meme,
I've taken action and used my following to help bring light to a large group of chats on Telegram who harassed scam and fish people on Instagram and other platforms.
Thank you again for including me in your article.
And then I guess she forwarded this to Twitter and all the other social media accounts.
This is from Taylor.
So she's kind of, there's not a lot here.
They're just saying that there was a false Twitter impersonation account.
But what it's showing is that she did have some kind of poll with Twitter where she could jump people to the head of line and have their accounts looked at because there was appersonations going on.
And then number 15, Lorenz has incredibly unorthodox, if that's the right word, reporting tactics.
Here's an affidavit signed by someone she quoted in the article about Ari actually.
And FYI, this person was a minor.
Should I read all of this as quite a long thing?
But I guess, Ari, let me ask you how...
No, just summarize it briefly.
I wouldn't read the whole thing.
Go ahead, man.
Yeah, yeah.
All right, yeah.
But in around 2020, Miss Lorenz called me again, this person was a minor.
This is someone that she was reaching out to you for the story and asked if she was working with Ari.
Right.
And then so basically all of these, Taylor was asking all these questions about all these things that were being, were being said about Ari.
And then basically this person was saying, like, I don't have any experience or knowledge of what you're trying to say.
Yeah.
She said she followed up by asking if I heard all the stuff going on Ms. Jacob,
but about her manipulating talent, behaving badly and other things,
and sounded very negative about Ms. Jacob and influences.
She told me that she had spoken to Alex,
she's tomorrow, Emmy, Combs, and the girls in the valley.
So on and on and on.
And it's saying here, she said she felt pressured by Ms. Lorenz to actually give negative information about Ari.
But she said, I'd not experience those negative interactions at any point in seven months.
She'd been working closely with her.
I did not witness Ari behaving unprofessionally or anything like that.
So basically saying, this Taylor Lorenz,
was that I knew Ms. Jacob for a while, but she didn't experience what she was describing.
So basically it was like Lorenz wasn't really asking questions.
She was more or less like saying, so this is what we're hearing.
This is what we're hearing.
You saw this too, right?
Right, right?
Like a pressure type thing, which is what I'm gathering from that post.
And then saying the appra David signed by the story and it kind of goes more into it on number 16 there.
Yeah.
And again, this is all just the stuff that she's been kind of working on.
Ari, I'm assuming that this is from the affidavit.
Is this included in the case or is this something separate?
Yeah, it's included.
Okay, all right.
So we can actually go find this full case file and actually take a look at it.
I just pinned the lawsuit.
I pinned a link and there's a link to the lawsuit and there's a link to the two affidavits that we included in the lawsuit.
Awesome. Thank you so much for posting that, by the way. So that's up in the nest. Great. Thank you.
And number 17, Tufanian told me he sued Lorenz over the article, and she then began sending messages to Jinn up a DOG.
I think you should go back. Sorry, I think you should read 16 because that was different. It's referring to an affidavit that explains, I think, what the next one is about.
Sure, no problem. Yeah. So it's saying it's an affidavit signed by a Lorenz, New York Times story about Aria Tufanian.
And this is Ari's saying I was a source of information from Ms. Taylor Lorenz, a New York Times reporter, currently with WAPO, provided with information that she used for a November 6th, 2019 article called thousands of college kids paid to work for a viral party kingpin.
What could go wrong? Good Lord, that headline.
In the article, Ms. Lorenz asserts that Mr. Tafan, quote, promised students Instagram fame, then silenced them with threats.
Ms. Lorenz never asked me for any documentary proof showing that Mr. Tafanian defrauded or scammed anyone
or that Mr. Tafanian was operating any kind of pyramid scheme.
I was also the founder of GroupMe, group chat, I've used that before,
whose members were directed to source information to Ms. Lorenz for article.
He said to provide any material to Ms. Lorenz to support a tweet thread.
She wrote about Mr. Tathanian that reads, quote,
blah blah blah yet don't put any of that energy into actual scammers so basically this is like a defamatory type rhetoric on social media
about aria tofanian with no nothing substantiated basically is what this is saying here in this affidavit which then
area can i ask you a question on that place um so it says that and you say in your affidavit that you were the source of the information so what information do you provide
I think you're getting me confused with Aria Tofaynian that had a different thing with Taylor.
Oh, that's not you?
No, can you see the last name? Can't you see Jacobs in this, in our...
No, I don't know.
I don't know her name and I don't know that person's name is the first time I'm seeing the name.
And then earlier you were criticizing journalists, yeah?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, let me be clear because we keep saying that.
So the reason I criticize journalists, because I'm basically reading this in real time.
If I was researching it, obviously, I would never be publishing this without verifying it, checking get, I know what I'm doing.
where that's why I have a problem with journalist.
I'm literally reading this real time
and because she told him to read it
and it's important, it's an affidavit.
You know why I want,
you know, I won't reply back on this one.
I'll let you kind of say what you want to say
and move on to another thing.
We have a guest that's coming on that you like.
And the reason I'm going to do that,
just to show that I...
actually care about you.
I don't want to call you out
in a way that will destroy your career.
But so I'll let you finish your point.
I will not respond.
You can never do that, bro.
You can never do that.
You know how my first.
You know how my first bad was by me destroying you
and you don't want it to come again.
Yeah, you should see the messages.
I looked at the messages behind the scenes, but about like, hey, Mario, there's the thread of this guy made against him.
Like, oh, let me check it out.
It's like, yeah, it's full of bullshit, but at least he's arguing protate and we need more proteet.
People are like, yeah, we'll bring him, try it on.
They're like, Mario, are you sure?
Like, all his fucking thread didn't have any DD.
Like, no problem at all.
We can call him out when he talks shit on the space.
And that's how we brought you on.
I smashed on that space, bro.
After your first couple of spaces, I showed your boys.
Yeah, because whenever they make a point you don't like,
you just get philosophical and suddenly you think you're right because you got philosophical.
Would you have that account?
You know the account that got suspended?
Let me tell you what it is.
They have a different account now.
They're going to come on with that account.
And that's Neville the cat, feed the fluff.
Feet the Fluff, which is the account in question that was apparently suspended.
based on Taylor Lorenza's request.
They do have another account and they're gonna come in through their other account
in a bit. So we've just sent them through an invite. Make sure you use your phone if you're listening to us now, never look out.
I would love to get your story directly from you and see what you could share with us.
Trash, you were saying something?
Yeah, so the reason I'll go ahead.
So the reason Ari wanted me to back up and read 17 is because we're talking to Aria Tafanian.
And actually it was important to bring it up.
Ari, I really appreciate you for backing me up on that.
Because now that I'm looking into it, because the point I was going to make, this is another one that was concerning to me because this is a tactic that she's been using.
Yeah.
Number 17, Tufanian told me, and this is, Tufanian's telling Paul this, that he sued Lorenz over the article and that she began sending messages to gin up a DOJ investigation against him.
So basically, Taylor looks like she's been DMing people, this Ryan Finkel at USDOJ.gov, which is an assistant U.S. attorney, and I'm assuming this other...
So Trash, just before you continue, so obviously this is not the same area,
but the issue I have with that one of, and if someone can clarify,
even though there may not be Arya, is that in that affidavit,
he's admitting that he was a source.
So he says, I was a source for information for Teller Lorenz for that specific article.
So the question becomes that what did he actually give?
What was he the source of?
Aria-Cefini wasn't the source.
Correct.
The affidavit was given by somebody else.
So who was the source?
It's not naming it.
It's in the link of the lawsuit that I posted.
All right.
We've got speakers that want to come on that know Taylor well and they could, you know,
give us the other perspective.
They're like, you've been aggressive to them, Ari.
What are you doing to us?
We can't bring people on stage.
He's scaring people away, Ari.
Okay.
We do have Mr. Fluff.
So I don't know.
You sound pretty nice on stage, but I don't know if you have a feisty side where you just eat people alive.
Like Sleigh Man, Slaman.
Someone talks shit to me.
I'm a nice guy.
Like, I just ignore them or, you know, try to be understanding.
Someone talks to SLOF.
Yeah, maybe people don't want me to talk because I know so much about.
And the last time
That's what Slyman
I don't know
That's what Slyman says
It's like yeah
Maybe people don't want to talk to it
Because I just destroyed
I've got too much information
I'm too smart for them
And they're like no man
You're just too aggressive
You start attacking people on a personal level
No I don't think I'm too smart
I just I know
No no you not you
I'm following
Let me go
But I love to jump off
If you have other people
No no no no no
Oh good dog
Stay alright
Mr Fluff how are you
I'm great how are you
Good, man. You're all over the news. What is going on?
You've got your account suspended by Miss Lorenz, and now you've got a new account.
Let's hopefully make sure it doesn't get suspended as well.
Actually, this is my old account.
Elon gave me my old account back.
So this is my original account from 2013.
I like how...
When you say Elon, you mean Twitter or Elon himself?
Because I like how people just always use Elon on his Twitter.
Well, his takeover of Twitter allowed me to get my account back.
Cool. Yeah, man, so tell us a story. What do you have? I know you said you have some screenshots you could share.
Is there more to the story? Is there anything the thread got wrong? Is there anything you can add to it? Have you spoken to Paul who wrote the thread before he published it?
I know. Nobody knows in that whole article who I am. My real name is Rob Province. This is my original account from 2013.
Okay.
It got suspended in 2020.
I do believe that Taylor Lorenz was somewhat involved in that as well.
And to be a background on me, I'm literally a nobody.
I'm literally a hick in Missouri.
I'm not a journalist.
I'm a shit poster.
I'm just a guy who makes jokes.
I like to have fun.
I post things that make me laugh.
I'm literally a nobody.
I don't know what it is about me that makes her so angry.
I don't think she's a particularly nice person,
and I like making fun of her behavior because I think her behavior is quite humorous.
I wrote that thread at work.
because my account had been suspended and I had another account that was for my cat, Neville.
I have lots of pictures of him, but it was just a, it was just a silly cat account that picked up steam, just like this one.
I was at work. I was in my office. It was a slow day. And I had a thought one morning that it was interesting that people like Gay Wonk and Ben Collins and Miss Lorenz dive into the personal lives of nobody's and ruin their lives. And yet nobody knows anything about them.
You know, nobody knows anything about Ben Collins.
Nobody knows anything about Gay Wonk.
Nobody knows anything about Taylor Lorenz.
And it seemed like Taylor Lorenz had gone to quite a bit of effort to make that happen.
You know, the old joke about her birthday in Wikipedia.
So I just decided to start poking around.
I found out a lot of things about Gay Wonk that he was raised by billionaires.
I posted that.
You know, that was the first subject of the thread.
The second one was Ben Collins.
And my only take on Ben Collins that irritated me was that I had made the point that when you Google Ben Collins, you get a ton of Google bios.
And they're all wrong.
They're all Ben Collins, the Stig.
And I'm a huge...
Jeremy Clarkson fan. I'm a huge
Top Gear fan and I always found that humorous.
I kept finding these
Google bios about
Ben Collins with his picture, Ben
Collins, the journalist,
with the bio of Ben Collins
the race car driver.
The only thing I could find out about him is something that he posted on LinkedIn of the college you went to, which was a very rich, very exclusive.
I'm going to say as somebody who went to a poor Cal College, I went to Southwest Missouri State.
I'm just a poor hillbilly redneck.
I mean, it's the kind of school that is a kid in the 80s.
I'm like, oh, that's where the rich kids go to school with their BMWs and their convertibles, and they buy their education.
And...
He just came off like another spoiled rich kid to me.
But that's literally the only information I could find on him.
And I made the joke.
Well, the only thing I'd find out about him was that he's the Stig and he went to this college.
And he engaged in his own misinformation by claiming that I actually said he was the Stig.
By saying that he was, whatever, 48 years old and all that stuff.
And it was clear if you read the thread that I was making a jab at that.
I'm just going to, just for the listeners who don't know who Ben Collins is,
Bell Collins is a mainstream media journalist.
who is part of a propaganda campaign
who just does full on complete propaganda.
And a good example of that is when Elon Musk took over,
he was one of the people involved in using the verbi,
the same one everybody used,
which is that he is,
so about Matt Heaby that he was doing PR
for the world's richest man.
So just for people know, he's basically...
And how does that relate to the story of Taylor's guys?
I'm just, I'm a bit confused.
How does that relate to the whole Taylor-Lorene's story and what you've posted?
Because it was a thread about all of them.
That screenshot you see in the article is, I think, screenshot 10 of an entire thread about those three people.
And then I got to Taylor.
And I had found who her mom was, her dad was.
There was a public record of her home,
which was a $5.8 million mansion.
Her family is very involved in politics in Colorado.
Um, her uncle is R McDonald.
Um, educated, uh, sorry, what, which is our colleague educated.
So educated what, um, because, uh, she has text Mario and she's specifically denying that she owned a 5.7 million.
Well, her parents did.
Where did you get on her Twitter?
Sorry.
Yeah, what did she post, Sarah, sorry.
What did she post, what did she post exactly on her Twitter?
I'll put it in the nest.
Go ahead.
I'll put it in the nest.
But did she say, did she say she doesn't own it?
Because technically she doesn't.
It's her parents that do.
And that's what Fulf said.
Yes.
She says that she doesn't.
Yeah, that's the only misinformation works.
I say her parents own it.
She said, I don't own it.
And that's kind of a cute little turn of phrase.
So real quick, if I can, Mario, I know that this isn't about Ben Collins and Brandy, uh,
I'll just call her Zamboni.
But there is some context here of how this actually works,
where the circular reporting that they're doing this,
I have a feeling this is why he puts this thread together.
If you don't mind, actually, Dustin can probably talk to this directly
because he was actually the ire of Brandy and Ben Collins,
but it is related on how this...
how Taylor was using her news articles
and then the censorship through Twitter
if you want to go to Dustin
because it's really relevant.
So I will in a bit
that are you mean Dustin
yeah
I will because I just don't want to move in
It's just beautiful to see how Fluf has been an anonymous account that got suspended that.
No one reached out to became the center of the Twitter files.
And then no one reached out to because no one knows who that is.
And then he just comes on.
How did you find the space, Rob?
It's just fascinating.
It doesn't want to go to you.
A lot of people know me and a friend of mine texted it to me and said, hey, you're blowing up.
They're all talking about you.
That's so cool. I love this. Slaman, how cool is that?
It happens a lot on the space.
Is that we're talking about someone and that person just pops up in our space out of no one.
Suddenly he's like, everyone freaks out.
It's amazing as well, as he said, he didn't have a voice and now he's got a voice to
to best him back up his position.
I don't have a voice. I'm still in nobody.
Can I just say about something?
Can I just say about something?
All right, guys.
All right, okay, Slavitt, all right, yeah.
Fluff, you've got a voice.
Now, let's go back to the, to the topic.
Sorry, Sarah, you want to add something on this particular point before we continue?
Yeah, it seems, and I posted her tweets in the nest, it seems like she's alluding to never, ever living in some $5.7 million mansion, just reading her tweets.
But so, so, Fluf, what's the source?
Yeah, Sarah, I think I'm about to ask the same question.
What's the source?
How do you know that she lived in that mansion?
How do you know that other gentleman, the way back machine guy, is her uncle?
How did you know this stuff?
Um, so I was poking around on the internet.
And, um, I have to be honest, it would take me a little while to find it again.
But there was a gentleman who, on a, uh, forum board, um, posted that, uh,
husband, her father's name, her mother's name, their ages, and had the public records of the home
that they owned when she was a child, I believe in, I don't want to say actually which state,
because I can't remember off the top of my head, and I wish I had the thread in front of me,
honestly, but unfortunately it's, it's a comment. What, the throne, you say thread,
um uh sorry they had public records um public records from where exactly and did you verify that these
were the actual public records i i didn't i have to be honest with you guys i wrote that thread i don't
know what it was seven eight months ago i was literally bored at work and i was in the bathroom
I'm just being honest.
Okay, cool, cool.
So I do want to point out that it is possible and flu, I think that doesn't really matter.
If what you posted is true or not, I think it still doesn't move away from the point of having too much influence and censorship on social media platforms.
but I do want to say to you, Fluf,
and you've been pretty honest on the space,
I appreciate it.
Is it possible that this information is actually incorrect?
Because you said you got it from a thread,
but it's public records.
You don't know what the source of the public records are.
You don't know that the name is actually hurts.
I don't.
I was riffing and I was having a good time and having a laugh.
I believe it's true.
And honestly, I just, I don't expect anything I write to blow up.
I'm a nobody.
Nobody cares about me.
No, I didn't figure anybody was going to read it.
I love how you keep saying this.
No, no, but what's the most?
The thing is, look, I,
Look, Rob, the issue is that even if you're a small account, first of all, even in this account, you've got 40,000 followers, so I wouldn't say you're a small account.
Like, irrespective, like, I don't like Terrell Loretna, Lorenz, I don't like the way she's tasked to censor people and so on and so forth.
But whenever you put anything on the internet, it should be, you should verify.
Like, you can't just put something.
I verified it to my own satisfaction.
But that's not acceptable.
I don't know.
I understand it is not acceptable to you.
I appreciate your honesty.
So two things, two things.
First, Slaman, I was about to.
Literally, I was preparing to give you a shit.
I'm like, Slaman, you're the one that breaks down everything and dissects everything and pushes back up against everything.
And why aren't you doing the same to Fluf?
and you're just sucking up to him and being nice
and then you did exactly
just broke it down
so I want to give credit to say man
just before he took my shit
but Fluff all right cool
and I appreciate you taking it in
so the other point I wanted to ask you
Flufl again
you do have 42,000 followers
I didn't check that
so you can't say you're a nobody anymore
we get that out of the table
stop trying to pretend you're humble
you have 42,000 followers
now next question man
is the gentleman
from the way back machine being her uncle
Can you give us a bit more context on this?
Is that that that was shared earlier?
I don't believe I said, I may have.
I don't believe I said the Wayback Machine.
If I did, that was a mistake on my part.
I met Internet Archive.
Sorry, sorry, Internet Archive, not Wayback Machine.
It's my bad, bro.
Sorry.
Yeah, I believe I said Internet Archive.
You did, yes.
Um, you know, that, that was my connection is that I did find that tweet of his.
Uh, the McDonald's, uh, are, I believe her, uh, mother's side of the family, uh, very involved in politics.
I believe her uncle, uh, great uncle was a state senator. Um, they are, uh, very prominent in, uh, Colorado. Um,
And yeah, that R. McDonald tweet was like, oh, that's her uncle.
And I did know that her mother's maiden name was McDonald.
And that I did find a couple of family members that she was related to with the last name McDonald's that were very involved in politics.
And that was, again, I understand that some might not find that high enough standard for a non-journalist to post that.
But I was comfortable with saying like, hey, I think she's from a very rich, well-connected family.
What aspect of the thread was actually doxing?
Is it the names of the parents?
I never got told what was doxing.
That day was very chaotic because I tweeted this out
while I was in the bathroom in about 30 minutes
and went back to work.
And I was getting calls.
I got a call for my father.
telling me I was on the news.
I got a call from a friend of mine telling me I was on Tim Poole's podcast for something.
I got a call from somebody else telling me that I was on some YouTube video from somebody named the Quartering.
My phone was exploding while I'm trying to do my work and...
I just, it just kept vibrating and kept going off and I kept trying, I just kept ignoring it.
And then, uh, then I, my accounts, what's that?
I do appreciate your, like, you know, you've been so honest and forthright and you're not trying to, like, black it, which a lot of people do.
I got nothing to gain here, man.
Yeah, no, no, I appreciate that and I appreciate you.
But the issue is, and I don't want to, like, rest at the same point, but like,
I mean, how many followers did you have on that account when you published that?
The Fear of the Fluf account, my Kat's account, I think I had, before that all started, I think it was 15,000.
So 15,000 is quite a large number.
It's not gigantic, but it's decent enough.
I know, but I post stuff and I don't get any responses.
It just didn't seem like it was going to go anywhere.
I understand that.
But whenever anyone posts, even if it's a small account,
and this is just for everybody, you should verify.
And the reason I'm saying that is because even though you were a small account,
you just explained how that blew up.
And then now, like, nine months later,
Paul has put that as part of the Twitter files.
And now we're finding out that none of that's verified.
And it's not based on any kind of substantial information.
and what it does
is a legate to Matt
for me
even when it comes to
what Paul's written
on Twitter files
it basically degrades
his reporting as well
because he should have also
verified it
and tried to find you
and find out what it is
but does it does
but Saman does it remove
from the substance
of the Twitter files
because if the information is true
or not
that's not what the point of concern is
whether this guy from the internet archives her uncle or whether she does own a $5.7 million home,
because that moves away from the point.
I think you make a valid point.
I'm glad you made it, that this wasn't verified, and I'm glad that the Fluff came up and shared that.
But the Twitter files talks about Taylor Lorenza's influence within Twitter and the ability to censor people.
Yeah, go ahead, Sarah.
Yeah.
It is important because it talks about how she's getting these accounts suspended.
This gentleman is calling himself a big nobody on Twitter.
Then why would Taylor Lorenz have a big nobody on Twitter suspended?
Because his tweet went viral.
He became somebody that day.
But Mario, every single person on here has haters,
and every single person on here has people that will die on a hill for them.
I'll take my reputation, and I will take Taylor Lorenz's reputation for going after people,
and I'll let everybody judge.
Is it possible, though, that her fans reported your tweet, mass reported,
and therefore you got suspended rather than Ms. Lorenz contacting Twitter?
I think that screen grab that was posted today says it all.
What does it? Which screen rep? Can you? Yeah, yeah, which screen rep? Can you?
From the Twitter files that says that she specifically reported me, uh, for her various reasons under the, uh, search of Taylor Lorenz.
For context, the number of that, I believe is number four on the thread.
Oh, cool. Thank you.
That's also, hey, Mario, there's also, Thacker has a second thread.
Right. So really what he covers in both threads is the media's role in the censorship apparatus at the big tech companies.
So he has a second thread that talks about Ben Collins, Brandy Zandrosny, Brian Stettler, Dana Perino, and the rest of these media hosts.
And the way that they were, that the role that they played,
connecting the censorship apparatus to the media corporations.
And the way they do it is like what we see in the email from Taylor,
which is, hey, I'm writing a story about so-and-so,
and you're giving this person a platform.
And I would love to include that you guys are not platforming a hate monger in my story
if you're willing to remove them or, right,
I'll talk about like the great content moderation policies you have.
That's how they abuse their power and that's what showed throughout both the different threads.
And you know what it is Mario?
Like I just want to add...
It's clear for me.
I know Sarah wants almost certainty,
but it's clear from me from this that she did cause him to get banned.
You can see it from tweet for.
So just to clarify how that day went,
so I was getting all these phone calls from everybody,
and my account was taken down at noon.
I appealed it very quickly, and it was reinstated, and then it was banned again almost immediately within about 30 seconds.
I put in an appeal for that, and it really was impressive.
It was getting reactivated within, like, minutes, which I was kind of shocked by.
But it was banned three or four times in a very short secession of time in about 30 minutes.
It sounds like an internal struggle within Twitter.
He's getting juicy.
Something.
And so I decided to deactivate the account because at that point I was like, this is just getting weird and I'm just here to shit post and have fun and laugh.
And so I deactivated the account, which is why it says that it was deactivated at the time it was.
And I was on my lunch break.
So Fluff, you actually ended up deactivating the account, so maybe it would have been back within a period of time.
I deactivated just to get it to stop because, I mean, my phone was blowing up.
I was picking up like thousands of followers a minute, which is not my goal in all this.
I have like a couple of hundred friends that I'm really talking to and everybody else is just kind of there.
And I just kind of was like, it was getting out of control and I just decided to take myself offline and took the account down.
And I just reactivated it the next day.
All right, so this is how this, yes, man, go ahead, man.
You know, no, I do want to finish your point because I wanted to add a slightly similar, but different point.
And then just to clarify, it was, it was banned, I think, within a week of that.
It did, it never stopped getting reported.
It was a constant.
It was a constant.
battle of getting reported to the point it was getting ridiculous.
The thing I'm seeing on here is, for example, one of the things that I thought she was doing drama about, which obviously she does do drama.
Let's be clear. This doesn't think it.
But from this, they said from a possible sole purpose, so basically they said we can only see one interaction between the accounts, but obviously you mentioned that the reason for that is because you used your Katz account. Is that right?
Well, that's the only account I had at the time.
My account that I'm on right now that we're talking on was banned.
It got reactivated maybe six months ago.
Why did this account get banned?
What do you do, man?
Honestly, funny enough, it got banned because I posted a meme of Winnie the Pooh shooting an AR-15 at a honey hive.
And I was told that was a threat.
Oh my God.
All right.
Just, I want to go to that screenshot and tweet number four, Suley, man.
So I'm just going through it.
From an account perspective, the account fee the fluff deactivated the account, so he deactivated his own account.
We've reviewed the account did not see any linkage via our tools or similar profile signals to Rob Province.
Okay, hold on. Just checking something.
Okay, so you're listed there.
So people know it's you.
So you're listed in that screenshot, Rob Province.
No violations under multi-account or ban evasion policies.
This account was generally healthy and mostly conversational commentary nature.
No actions to be taken under majority abusive safety policies as well.
From a possible sole purpose harassment towards Taylor-Lorenz,
we can only see one interaction between the accounts.
No other mentions are signed from the other tweets flag.
No action to be taken for this angle as well.
No spamming or platform manipulation detected on the account as well.
So they're Salaiman, they're saying that the account is healthy.
Yeah, yeah.
And then they go to, okay, okay, okay,
okay, let me finish, let me finish.
Okay, let me finish.
From the tweets, so usually I kind of,
don't kind of dig too deep into those,
but this is getting interesting.
From the tweets flagged,
we have not seen any personal identifiable information shared
based on our posting,
based on our, the posting private information policy.
No action to be taken for the tweets below.
Okay, so based on the screenshot,
It says that Fluf's account hasn't broken any rules and seems to be a healthy account.
Correct, Sleiman?
That's right.
Okay, and Fluth said, the screenshot says that he deactivated his account.
Flouf said he deactivated his account because it kept getting suspended and then returned and then come back and they're suspended and come back.
And then Sarah asked a question.
She's like, how do we know this isn't just Taylor Lorenzo supporters, mass reporting that account?
So they mass report it, Twitter like Twitter system suspends it.
Goes through the check.
Like, hey, everything looks fine.
Brings it back.
Gets mass reported again.
Twitter's like it gets suspended.
And then you jumped in and said,
no, this screenshot proves otherwise.
If anything, this screenshot proves that theory more than anything.
And that theory now makes a lot of...
How quickly was that happening?
How quickly was what happening?
You mentioned that your account was getting suspended, then reinstated, then suspended, then reinstated.
So like what period?
Minutes.
It was stunning.
It was minutes.
Yeah.
So that's, then it's not your point.
Well, let me start my point.
If people, if it's actually going viral, people could be mass reporting it at scale.
I've seen this happen again before.
I've seen this happen before where an account, like when it's getting mass suspended, the system brings it back, but this because...
I can tell you I was getting mass.
I was telling you, I can tell you flat out I was getting mass reported because even when I reactivated, when I got it reactivated the next day, it was getting reported for the next seven days.
And I did finally get banned for, again, another very innocuous tweet that I still can't believe is what got that account banned.
So, Fluff, can I ask you a question?
Fluff, can I ask you a question?
You said that you were getting mass suspended.
Do you think it's a plausible scenario that you were getting mass reported and...
This is why your account kept getting suspended,
and you kind of got sick of this shit and just deactivated it.
So is it possible, then, that Taylor Lorenz did not directly instruct Twitter
to suspend your account?
Or maybe she did, and Twitter didn't suspend it for that reason,
but it's for the mass reporting.
I believe it was being mass reported.
I believe that I read that screenshot to say that she didn't go through the reporting process,
that she...
I read that as that it was so detailed.
I was like, I think she had somebody there that she was talking to and was like,
here's very, very detailed information that I'm going through that I would like you to look at this.
Okay, so I've got one more.
I think both things can be true, basically.
Okay, so Chief, two seconds.
Slyman, is there any other evidence other than this screenshot that Taylor Lorenz
it requested Twitter to suspend the account.
Number one.
Number two, do we have any evidence that Twitter acted
on requests from Taylor Lorenz from this thread?
Sleiman?
We just have that tweet there.
Okay, so can I ask you a question, Salaiman?
How based on that tweet is that evidence
that Twitter acted on Taylor Lorenz's request to suspend it?
And number two, when you said to Fluf,
you're like, hey, how quickly did your account
get suspended?
And then he's like within minutes.
Since when are you an expert in that stuff for you to conclude from this, it's not from mass reporting?
So I'll explain.
So obviously I can be wrong in terms of like how quickly it's being suspended and reinstated.
But I'll explain my argument.
So essentially what it looks like to me is she's got someone on the phone who and that person is basically manually suspended.
suspended that account and then when he's reporting it or he's basically appealing it
it's getting reinstated and so it's because it's happening in such a quick period of time
that's what it seems like it seems like it was actually somebody but it happened okay so let me
I got so I actually wanted to mention that theory because that theory does make sense
where it's someone that as you remember I said earlier it could be an internal struggle
within Twitter so yeah I think this is a plausible theory let me ask Fluf one more question
fluf when your account got suspended
and reinstated and suspended.
Over what period of time is that within a day,
within hours, the process of it...
No, no, let me ask my question again
and maybe focus on the question, Salam.
I'm not saying how quickly from getting suspended
did it get reinstated.
That reinstating suspension,
reinstation suspension,
being reinstated, being suspended,
over what period of time did that constantly happen?
It started at noon,
and I would say it went until about 5.30.
And around, I can't remember.
I think the time, I don't know if it's the time that I was in as far as Central or whatever,
I believe it was around 5.30 when I was finally able to get it activated and keep it active long enough to be able to deactivate it.
And how long were you able to keep it active?
It took me three attempts to keep it active long enough to deactivate it.
It kept trying to...
Deactivated.
From when it got activated,
how long was it activated for before you deactivated it?
Maybe four minutes.
Okay.
So...
Salaman, what you're implying, and I think that theory makes sense.
But I'm a bit annoyed and I'm criticising you with a lot of respect because you're usually really good at doing those things.
So it's just critical feedback.
I don't want to take a jab at you in this time.
But I want to say, what I got annoyed, like you immediately concluded before, after he said that, if you listen to the record, like, yeah, see Mario, exactly.
It was not mass reported.
Right.
whereas that's a very weird conclusion to come to you.
Now, Fluf, one, and the other thing is well, Sam, I think both explanations are plausible.
One of them is being mass reported, and other ones that internally someone is being
required, so, and it's a very logical explanation that Taylor Lorenz had someone within
Twitter suspended every time it got, it got brought back, okay?
Very, very possible scenario, and one I wouldn't be surprised by.
There's two things.
Number one, you expect that person to be not doing their job
and just sitting there refreshing Taylor Lorenzo's account every few minutes
whenever it comes back, he suspends it.
Which is unlikely and usually do it like they bring it back
and then half an hour later he spots it or she messages him
and then he deletes it, he suspends it again.
And then another thing I'd say is like if it was within Twitter, then that person would have probably left a note for others instead of suspending it every time again.
It just sounds, it seems odd.
We've never seen that scenario.
Rob, in them five hours, how many times were you suspended?
Oh, God, I lost count.
It was nonstop for five hours, five and a half hours.
See what I mean?
I could never have counted that many times.
So would you say more than 20 times?
I'd say it's closer to 100.
Okay, so that's a good point.
So Slaman, I think you'd agree with me that based on the information that Fluff just gave us now, Rob gave us now,
it's unlikely to be a person manually suspending it again and again and again for a hundred times,
which could have gone on for another hundred times.
And it seems to be just systematically just getting constantly mass reported, which is, it just takes,
Fix that box.
Even, I mean, even that side as well.
So, I mean, both, and I guess both that shows,
we need more information because what you're saying is,
for the five hours straight,
people who are mass reporting into such an extent
that it was kept on happening.
Yeah, that's actually relatively common.
So when you have, when something is going viral,
man, just when people,
I give you a more easy, simple example,
when a video is going viral,
people are clicking on it nonstop for days, weeks, months.
So for people to rematch reporting something constantly,
you know, I've been mass reported once on another platform
And it happens constantly.
You brought back in the mass report.
I won't mention the club, sorry, fuck, I just mentioned the platform.
It was on Clubhouse.
And when people with Mass Report an account, it comes back and gets suspended again,
comes back and suspends it again relatively quickly because people are sitting there mass reporting it.
And that wasn't close to, you know, Clubhouse was very small, nothing compared to Twitter.
So it just seems more logical.
It seems more logical than human,
that are human sitting there for a hundred times
over multiple hours doing it again and again.
It sounds humanly impossible.
You know, they do have a job to do.
They'll do it every hour.
So based on that, I want to first give credit.
One point, though,
What Paul is also reporting is that Taylor Lorenz wasn't like a normal user.
She had access to an internal system.
And he also reported that the Twitter engineers assisting her laughed and said, wow, she's a heavy user.
Yeah.
So I want to make sure I do two things.
Number one.
First, I want to applaud Sarah from asking a question saying that we don't have any proof.
And I think Slamany can give credit to Sarah here when she said we don't have proof.
Well, this is a perfect example of how us not having proof, of how we just prove that there isn't enough proof in this particular case.
So that's number one.
Number two is I want to give credit to this fucking space.
No, first Rob, you're coming up and being so honest about it.
Much respect, man, deserves a follow and you've just gained my respect and the respect to the audience.
Number three, this space is fucking epic.
This space is fucking epic.
this is how you do journalism
and Kim you were
you know
Kim this is how you fucking run the space
and break things down so
and Sleman you usually do this a lot
this time I was
If you weren't shitting on Suleiman
all the time
I think you're right
And Slaman, usually you're the one that breaks things down more than I.
This is like one of my first times where I do it.
I've got the patience to break it down myself.
And it's such a good feeling when you come to a conclusion.
But yeah, the conclusion from this,
and then we can kind of take a little jab at Paul with a big love heart that Paul...
I know that wasn't a story you really wanted to cover,
but we dug into it for you,
and maybe you can add a bit more information in the thread.
We'll crop that part for you, send it through to you,
and summarize it.
Slaman, you can do it with the team to help Paul out,
because I'm sure he seems like a very fact-based person,
and he'll want to add the information.
But yeah, man, I'm really happy as to how this concluded.
And last point, the most important point,
this does not discredit the entire thread whatsoever.
The thread had multiple points, multiple points of concern.
We just focus on one particular aspect, an important aspect nonetheless.
and it's still possible,
even though me and Slaman don't think it's plausible anymore,
we kind of changed our opinion,
but it's still very possible
that this was someone manually doing it within Twitter.
It wasn't mass reporting.
But yeah, this is my conclusion from what we just heard.
Yeah, I agree with that.
No, no, I agree with what you said.
The only thing I'd say is what it clearly shows is,
And it's still the point there that she was and had a position of power and she used her influence.
So even if it was a scenario where at the exact same time, which is probably more likely as well,
so I can see that that point's more stronger.
So even if it is more, what happened simultaneously at the exact same time where all of her fans were randomly all decided to report for continuously five and a half hours to do.
Right.
Even if that happened, and I assume that, because again, this is not my fault here, so I'm assuming there isn't like a button someone's pressing, but is someone, and it's not possible for someone.
Even, man, like, oh for, yeah, 100 plus times in a few hours.
Is that how it works?
So, no, just question to you, because you're like, you know about this stuff.
So is it that someone's pressing a button to basically reactivate or can someone write a, like, code to make sure it's happening?
It could be, no, there's still, that's what I'm saying, it's still possible that it was manually done.
It could be, not one person, but could be a tweet, a team within Twitter.
It could have been automated within Twitter system.
I definitely don't know enough.
We could talk to someone from censorship.
But it could, it kind of goes back.
Yeah, it could be automated.
So I'm saying, we wouldn't discount that.
I think, but when you have two possible explanations, I think it's important,
and I'm sure Paul will add it to the thread, to say, hey, there's two possible information.
So if it can be automated, again, like I'm saying, this is not my thought here, so I'm just...
based on. Yeah, if it can be automated, that's what I'm saying.
If it can be automated, I'm sure someone in Twitter,
someone in Twitter could have automated
the suspension, whenever the scant gets unsuspended,
suspended again. This is very, very
possible. If that's possible, then for me,
that's more likely. The issue, though,
that we're not discussing. Then why not make it
a permanent ban as Twitter can do?
Why would somebody sit there and do it
a hundred times? That's actually a very
good point, sir. No, no, no.
I'll explain it. I'll explain it.
So that one's an easy one because
Like I said, if it's the argument that someone's there pressing the button for five and a half hours, right, then I think your position's more stronger.
But if it is that you can automate it for five and a half hours to make sure that the person is continuously suspended, then I think her having that access, being a heavy user, having internal access is a more stronger plausible position.
In terms of permanent suspension, because, again, you, the process into it is you suspend.
to permanently suspend someone,
you're going to have to meet even more standards.
So essentially shows that they didn't go full
for the full permanent suspension.
No, but I'm sure that...
Look, we've gone through...
But, Simon, we've gone through so many suspension...
Examples of people are getting suspended throughout the Twitter files and other spaces we did and that's purely on the space.
I've seen it beforehand as well.
I know people that got suspended.
I've never seen an instance like this.
And again, we've gone through suspensions because of censorship and it was never like this.
We've never covered on the space a suspension based on mass reporting.
So this one is an anomaly.
The way this was suspended is very different to the others
that was suspended due to censorship.
But it could be, hold on, let me just add, let me add,
but let me finish.
For fuck's sake, bro, can I finish?
All I want to say is at the end is it's still very,
it's still plausible and I think we should make sure
we make this clear, it's still very plausible.
Someone put in something automatic within Twitter
to suspend it automatically every time it gets brought back.
What did you want to say, Slamanda,
it kept interrupting?
The only thing I was going to say was
but you clarified it anyways, so that's fine.
Okay, excuse me, that's
maybe good not to interrupt me.
Yeah, go ahead, Chief.
Yeah, Chief.
Just learning from you, bro.
Yeah, the one thing, like, we have
have the fact that the Twitter internal messaging showed that there was no violation with the account.
There is no spam.
There is no harassment, abuse, whatever.
The TOS on the account had no violation.
So the question goes, if Twitter internally said there were no violations for the account, why was the account?
ban. So there had to be, by definition, someone.
Yeah, but chief, chief, chief, chief, chief. We just gave you the two possible explanations.
One of them is someone requested by Taylor Lorenz, someone or a team of people to ban it.
That's one. So it was done because of corruption. And the second one is mass reporting.
So it was mass reported, but without an actual reason.
and that's why I kept getting suspended.
But I think Paul should have spoken to someone that deals with censorship
before writing such an incriminating thread.
And I think to incriminate Taylor Lorenz with requesting Twitter to ban this account,
Twitter acting on that request, and correct me if I'm wrong, trash or slammed,
but that's what I understand the thread implies,
to make such an implication without having direct evidence to back it up
um uh is uh is not uh fair and i'm not sure what you guys think trash i want
i agree with you to the extent that these questions that we're asking which he should
have asked those questions but um but again go ahead i was going to add okay yeah so uh i think
that your two summations are great and and to sarah's credit we do not have direct proof however i
I've gone through all the Twitter files.
I've seen how this works.
It's why I keep pointing out this global escalations team,
this United Escalations,
how they actually handle Taylor Lorenz.
Right?
So like she...
You're moving away.
So, I'll let you finish your point.
Sorry, bro.
I want to go back, I just want to get your thoughts on that first point and then I'll let you make this new point unless I'm misunderstanding, but sorry, just one question.
Do you think on that particular tweet, tweet number four, do you think we have enough information, if you were in Paul's position, do we have enough information to implicate Taylor Lawrence, just in this particular point of banning, of requesting Twitter to suspend?
floof and Twitter acting on her request.
Do we have information to imply such a scenario?
Sleigh man and trash.
Should that even be included in?
Should that scenario even be included in the thread based on the facts and the information that we have?
Trash, I'll let you answer, and I'll let you answer directly if that should be included in the first place.
So I think it should be, and here's why I think that you could say that there was direct reasoning.
And again, I'll answer you directly and I'll finish with what I'm saying because it'll back up what I'm saying.
If you look at number four and you look at tweet number two, for the record, Taylor Rens was born October 21, 1984, New York, New York, making her 37 years old.
She will be 38 and 16 days.
Wish her a happy birthday.
So I suspect this is what Taylor used to directly say that she was being doxed.
And this is why she was able to prioritize and escalate this to the escalations team.
The reason I'm bringing that up is,
is because of that she did have with kid gloves, as you can see right here in Tweet 13,
that they actually have this built out through their engagement center and their engagement team
that she is supposed to be handled as a special case.
So any request that she makes, boom, it's gone.
Now, I will say that Sarah's theory is probably more plausible as it went viral.
It became a mass reporting event.
But I think the impetus was-
So real question, Sarah, where's the evidence that when you must report an account, which hasn't violated any policies that automatically that account is suspended?
I can tell you that.
I can answer that.
I want evidence.
That's very common, Simon.
No, no, that's Simon, this is.
You guys are asking for minutia evidence.
Samma, Simon, Simon.
I'm being nicey, let me just do this nicely.
Saman, I'm just telling you, like,
we can go out and get evidence,
but I'm saying in general,
because I know this,
I've seen it so many times.
And I mean, it's not,
and I don't want to sit there butting heads with you,
and you're like, give me evidence.
I just mean it genuinely, man.
Like, this is something very, very common.
For an account there,
it doesn't have a lot of followers,
very common.
I've seen it happen all the time in front of my eyes.
I'm not.
It's very easy to get it suspended.
Very, very easy.
You get a bunch of people.
I want to ever do that, when you mass report an account over a period of time for it,
that it automatically suspends that account for five hours.
I can answer that, Lehmann.
I can answer that.
Yeah, go ahead.
You are, obviously, have never been mass reported.
I have been mass reported
That's why I'm asking the president
Then you would know
You maybe never wrote
You saw Sarah like you
You probably never written anything controversial
But I do it all the time
And you continue
And you know what
I don't write
Yeah but it doesn't go
It doesn't go
Maybe it doesn't go viral enough
To be mass reported
Because you're fucking nobody
He was being contacted by Tim Poole
And all these guys
My tweets
Bro Tim Poole bro
My tweets
I'll get millions and millions of views
What you're talking about?
Yeah you're talking about
Post Elon Musk yeah?
Yeah
Yeah, posto you lost.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Like you, Mario, post,
I don't know.
But,
to, like,
no, I never said me getting suspended.
I've used me as a,
oh, go ahead, Trush.
Yeah, yeah, thank you.
So tweet five, fear the flukes account is temporarily unavailable because it violates a Twitter media policy.
That specifically tells you the reason.
And that's why I believe that Taylor-Drenz got this whole train started, but it was a match report.
You didn't answer.
Yeah, I thought, yes, can you someone to tell trash about how, like how, sorry, tell Simon about how easy to Sebast report accounts?
Well, I was one of them.
Like I said, I've been banned all the time because I would engage into...
you know, trans arguments with like Stanford professors.
And that's when I got mass reported in mass death threats for just...
Yeah, but then, but then again, like, I can see why you would get suspended because
what I mean is if you're saying something against the trans community in the previous regime,
that would be something...
So, Simon, I know groups, Sam, I know groups that do that.
They do that for people.
You could pay them and they go mass report an account and get suspended.
And I've seen them, I've seen it happen to a lot of people.
There are...
And even if that...
Come on, guys.
And even, even, like, genuine question.
Like, even when that account doesn't, one sec,
even if when that account doesn't violate any policy.
Yeah, the procedure is.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Trash, yes.
You can, you can pay.
All right, guys, can we all stop talking for a second?
I'll ask you Simon
and then trash
is trying to make a point
I'll get trash
to make a point
right after that's time
and to ask you a question
yes Simon
it's very very very common
like I can connect you
Bob's talk to speak to Bob's
from the team man
he'll tell you how easy it is
and how unfair it is
I had my account
my Instagram account
got suspended for
eight months because of a fucker
that didn't like me for another reason
just for business purposes.
He banned my account for eight months because there was
an account I barely used and it was just a personal
Instagram account.
But anyway, and I don't know for a fact he requested
it because I've seen the requests. But this is
one, it's just so fucking comedy. Like talk to something
is very common knowledge. Trash, go ahead.
Yeah, thank you. So again, reading tweet five one more time. So you guys have the, it was a temporally unavailable because it violates a Twitter media policy. What the Twitter media policy actually is, is it's sharing graphic or violent adult nudity, sexual behavior within live video or profile header, listing banner images or community cover photos. So what it's saying is the reason that they use this in a mass reporting is because that.
That algorithm is set specifically after a certain number of reports to automatically suspend the account because they're afraid of like child, child graphic scenes or murder or sexual rape, things like that.
And so they want that taken down so they can evaluate it, which is why his account kept getting brought back because they were mass reporting under the media policy, even though it was not violating the media policy at all because they knew how the algorithm worked.
That's why I believe Taylor Lorenz was the emphasis that started all this, but a mass reporting was the end of this.
The question for Flirio, so how long was this?
Because I'm not sure if he answered this question before, but like how long was this mass reporting going on for?
Like, is it reasonable to say for an entire week he'd be mass reported and his count kept getting like banned?
Like what was a time period for this?
I'm not sure.
Yeah, so let me ask Rob, how long has you, have you been getting reported?
Sorry, suspended, unsuspended, unsuspended, suspended, unsuspended.
Well, that account is permanently suspended.
It was banned.
It is.
And I would say...
So, Edward, sorry, Rob, didn't you say that you deactivated it?
I did, and then I reactivated it the next morning.
Oh, okay.
Now you add this.
What a twist.
Okay, so you deactivated it, but then the next morning you reactivated it, and that's when it got permanently suspended.
Okay.
Uh, no, it was still active and getting reported not nearly at that rate or volume for the next.
I can't, I don't want to say how long because I want to be technically correct and I can't.
It was a period of days or weeks.
Weeks, weeks, weeks-ish.
Um, and then it got suspended because I made a joke about Anna Navarro from The View,
uh, tweeting out happy birthday anal.
Okay, so before going to the Happy Birthday Anal, sorry, I meant,
in those weeks before the Happy Birthday anal tweet that got suspended,
Of course you can't get suspended.
It's like you're asking, you're asking.
No, no, no, no.
She tweeted it.
She tweeted out a picture of somebody that wrote in the sand,
Happy Birthday Anna, and they put an explanation point,
and they clearly said anal.
Okay, okay, Rob, Rob, just going back to the point.
So within those weeks before you got permanently suspended
because of the anal tweet,
um how off were you still getting suspended on suspended still or kind of eased up near the end and stopped happening
it it wasn't like constant like every five minutes it was every few hours
There you go.
Okay.
Holy shit.
Okay.
So Sarah, you gotta stop doing that.
Okay.
So going back, how, and then did it ever go unsuspended?
So it didn't get suspended for like days on end or no?
Um, no, I believe I got a seven day ban at some point in there.
And I can't remember for what.
Um, the one that-
Something else as well.
Okay.
For something else as well.
One, I can remember I have.
I have a lot of them screencapped of just they said I violated the media policy but didn't say what it was.
One time they did tell me what it was because they made me delete it and it was my header image, which was my cat shooting a 249 saw.
No violence or anything. It's just a cat shooting a 249 saw and they said that's violence.
Yeah.
Okay, so one more question, Rob, is during that period, those few weeks, was the whole Taylor-Lorenz thing in that thread, which included Taylor-Lorenz, was that still going viral and gaining a lot of traction or it kind of died off and people moved on?
I deleted the thread.
It just, it was bringing way too much...
of everything.
When do you delete it?
Honestly, I don't know.
I think I deleted it when I reactivated my account or something.
So I either the next day or within a day or two.
One second.
So you deleted the post that was getting afterported.
Yes.
And even then your account was getting suspended and unsuspended for a week afterwards.
True.
Correct. And I deleted my entire timeline to try and alleviate that and it still was getting suspended.
All right. So suspension experts, do you want to guys explain that to me then, Sarah?
A mass report and how to do that? I don't know. I don't think Sarah's a special expert.
The mass reporting kept up.
Yeah, so it could be. So it could be, so it could be. Go ahead. Sorry.
No, I was going to say, like, if, so it could be still the mass reporting ongoing.
Like, when someone starts getting mass reported, it just starts putting like wildfire.
Or it could be something, the same explanation is plausible.
Someone put in something automatic, mass reporting is ongoing or someone doing it manually.
So there's the same reasons of there.
That could be, no, no, no, like, so what, one second.
So I can basically report your profile as opposed to, oh, yeah, you can, yeah.
Okay, no problem.
Okay.
I'll say, like, here's the same.
Well, I don't report people because it's lame, isn't it?
It's like weak-ass-all.
You don't need to report people to do one plus one equals two, bro.
But go ahead, Chief.
I'll say this, like, because, I mean, like, I was, so I was mass reported.
I was, like, banned for, like, a year or two, basically off Twitter.
So the mass reporting, that is...
definitely possible.
The question, though, it's like how,
because for me, when I was mass reporting, I was banned,
I had a permanent ban on it for like a year or two,
and then I got reinstated.
So whether or not this reporting was a long-term thing,
and if there's any, like, communication that directly shows.
Yeah, usually, yeah, Chief, if usually, usually, that's a fair point.
Like, if you get mass reported enough times, you get permanent.
get permanently. I don't know actually. Like I'm
some pretend, I just don't know. I don't know.
The moderating procedures will change over time.
This is one evidence from Sarah Paul, right?
This one evidence.
No, but we want, but Saman, we need evidence both sides because I can't tell you if you
get mass report. But hold on. Rob, you said, sorry to interrupt you, Chief, but just quickly,
Rob, you said that you were getting mass reported. How do you know you were getting mass reported?
Because my account would get locked.
I would have to go and find the email and it would say your account has been locked.
And the frustrating part of it was...
They almost never told me why.
I didn't get anything, even the policy, not alone what I did, but even the policy that I violated.
It was just, your account has been suspended.
Would you like to appeal this?
Yes.
And I would appeal it and say, you know, you get a free tech space.
And I would say, I don't know why I'm being reported.
I've, and I think on most of them after that first day,
I had deleted my entire timeline.
Like I had no tweets.
I went in and used it.
Back to,
so, Rob,
respect to the question,
but how did you know that you were getting mass reported?
Well,
because I would get it reactivated and then it would get,
it would get taken down again.
And my account would be locked.
I'd have to go into my email account.
Say,
it would say,
you violated the policy.
Would you like to appeal this?
So it was just that I was getting my account locked over and over and over.
Yeah, so I think the conclusion, I just, guys, I think the conclusion just seems, maybe Chief Sarah Dustin, quick thoughts on what we've heard so far and then we'll kind of conclude it.
Yeah, so the end for context, like, I kind of fear I was mass support because people were like replying to me who I had never like seen before and like a lot of them were negative.
Then I just saw like I was pretty much banned for like a year or two.
You know, I think that the short answer for this whole thing, it's that there, as of right now, there's no direct, like, you know, screenshot that shows Taylor communicating to the GET saying ban this account and that then comply.
We don't have that yet.
However, yeah, if there was, if there was that request, sorry, Chief, sorry, continue, I shouldn't have interrupted, sorry, man.
Yeah.
So like if there was, if we had that, that's one thing.
We don't have that.
But given that there is a GET relationship already that we can point to, that that's
kind of where suspicion kind of arises.
And the fact that the way, I guess, that it was getting, the way it was locked seems
different than when I was, when I was probably the, you know, getting that.
lockout. I don't have a lockout. I just got
one message saying I'm gone basically.
I mean, him and have his account getting back
at least, you know, then getting banned again,
back and then ban. That's different. That was my final
message, by the way. When it did get
locked, it was like, you're locked.
That's it.
When I lost my account.
Yeah, it just seems the way that, like, the way that...
Well, he just, Chief, he just gave the same example.
You said, like, hey, this is how I got suspended when I got mass reported.
And he's like, yep, I got suspended exactly the same way at the end.
Yeah, yeah.
So, I mean, regardless, unless we have direct, you know, picture of that communication...
Yeah, exactly.
I would say, you know what, Chief,
I'm actually going to push back this time on the other side
and say, I still think it's more plausible.
It was internal for the same reason, as you said,
it actually had that influence.
Yeah.
And then in the argument is like, hey, but we should have some sort of communication.
Yeah, but if it was an employee at Twitter, she could be just WhatsApping him privately.
Right.
We don't know.
If that employee is listening to us right now, shitting himself saying hopefully they won't expose me.
Hit me up.
Give me the proof that was you.
We can keep your identity anonymous.
Make this juicier.
But had this happened before.
But like, it's still very plausible.
I just, the reason I keep pushing towards the mass reporting is,
it just I think that that possibility was not included,
that context was not included in the thread,
and I think it should have,
and it's not as conclusive as the thread made it out to be.
And we all kind of went through the thread
and did not really question that part.
So I gave us credit, I'm going to take back that credit.
We should have questioned that part
before Rob came in and kind of gave us a story.
Sarah, Ryan and Dustin, your,
yeah, Sarah, okay, I just...
Mario.
No, but Sarah doesn't, but someone, yeah, go ahead.
Ryan, go ahead.
Yes, that's me,
Martin.
Hey, sorry.
I was getting disconnected, reconnected.
I just had up one of my buddies who worked at Facebook.
He was in a higher up position there,
and I asked him about this whole mass reporting
how it works on their platform.
And he said one of the,
there's a kind of a,
there's a auto trigger that happens.
If an account gets mass reported at a high volume,
just to protect it, they will suspend it automatically.
And then there'll be internal reviews that go on to be able to unsuspend it
or undo it or if you submit the right document,
there's auto triggers that happen.
So there are possibilities that the account kept getting suspended and unsuspended
because of these mass reportings.
And then this was the auto trigger going off.
I don't know what Twitter is, but on Facebook side of thing,
this is what we...
I know that.
Yeah, yeah, it's the same on Twitter.
But the reason I didn't mention is, like,
I don't know how it works.
Like, how many auto triggers can you have before it stops auto-triggering?
Because the way it would usually work is that when you get auto-triggered,
it...
Remember, we work with a lot of clients as well.
These businesses do this at each other.
Like, it's pretty fucking dirty.
But when it gets auto-triggered and then it gets manually checked,
next time there's a mass reporting, it won't be suspended as quickly.
But we also know that these, the censorship or the reporting procedures for all social media
media platforms are far from perfect.
That means it could easily be abused, mistakes could easily happen, system could easily crack, there could be glitches.
These are very, very common.
And there's multiple, like we're sitting there breaking this down.
There's examples of people getting suspended.
Rob, you gave us a few examples for stupid shit.
So sometimes you just got to give, you've got to just remind, remind, sometimes you've got to remember that the system itself, the reporting process, system, whatever, is very, very imperfect.
Right.
but I appreciate you mentioning that, Ryan.
Dustin and Sarah, Dustin, you're going to go first on who you've been waiting for a while?
Yeah, appreciate it.
So I'd be curious to ask Paul Sacker why he isolated Taylor Lorenz out,
like why he made that editorial decision?
Because I think as you guys have exposed...
right like it wasn't completely buttoned up and my guess is it was an engagement decision like an
editorial decision then it was like to showcase what he was given as far as the media's special
access and not just the media broadly but the censorship reporters like ben collins like uh
um taylororens like brandy zandrosny uh like oliver darcy at cnnnn right uh in the other thread that he did
it kind of encapsulates how they had special access within twitter so that the regular procedures
weren't followed, which causes the kind of confusion we're saying tonight, right?
When we're talking about Rob and these other situations, is that what's clear is that the regular procedures were overridden because these media sensors had special access.
And the really difficult part for the people who are being censored is that when those normal policies and procedures are overridden,
it's really hard to get the internal communications and what really happened in order to defend yourself from whatever suspension or shadow banning was the end result of being targeted by whether it was Ben Collin or Taylor Lorenz or somebody else.
And that's the...
Yeah, exactly.
I think it's a valid point, like, why Taylor Lorenz?
And now we've got a lot more questions to ask...
What's his name?
The journalist's name?
Paul.
So we got more information...
More questions, more direct questions we can ask Paul.
Maybe...
We'll see.
We'll talk to him behind the scene and see if it's worth covering this in a future space.
Why Taylor Lorenz?
Why didn't you cover that other scenario?
So, and I think I want to kind of criticize the team and, you know,
I'm not going to name them other than Slyman and the rest of the team and myself.
We've invited Rob Province ourselves.
He's in the fucking screenshot yet.
We didn't invite him until he reached out to us.
Usually we're pretty good at that.
So for the team, you got to, you know, we've got to step it up.
We made it a fuck up today.
I mean, just to back the team up that you're attacking,
we literally decided like 20 or 30 minutes before the space we were going to do it.
Oh bro, well I've got high standards.
So I said a China, you always want to be the guy that sounds good and just, fuck, stop chasing engagement.
Shit, I'm saying facts.
I'm a man of the people, bro.
I've got high.
Exactly, you're a man of the people.
You'll say whatever shit that people want to hear you see.
They engage with you.
I'll just give them facts.
If the people don't like it, they'll tell them the hard fucking truth.
My team doesn't like what I'm going to give them.
I'm going to encourage them if they made a mistake.
Say, hey guys, we made a fucking mistake.
but at least I'm not calling out their names
Jesus every time you have an opportunity
to get some clicks and say something that would go well
with the people even though it doesn't make any
fucking sense you jump there and get your soundbite
Fuck.
Sarah, any final words?
I think it was pretty epic.
And credit to you.
Saman says credit to Sarah because she said,
hey, we don't have proof.
Yeah, but people do this in our space every time.
You just landed a lucky one maybe, but I don't know.
I mean, I do think that happened because I think it would back on her argument was quite weak at the beginning.
Exactly.
I think she's got lucky.
She didn't go.
She didn't.
She didn't.
Sarah, you didn't go, guys.
We don't have proof.
Look at tweet number four.
It doesn't really show any direct correlation with Taylor-Reynes making the this.
And let's reach out to Paul directly so we can better understand the story.
What if he was mass reported?
That would have been a good argument.
Either way, though, you're probably the closest to it.
So more credit than any of us.
completely stand by it that it was mass reporting. I don't believe it was Taylor Lorenz on the phone
with some Twitter employee that was hitting a button a thousand times. That's absurd. The fact that Paul
Thacker didn't even reach out to Rob when Rob was...
That's crazy. Hold on Rob Rob, Rob, yeah, did Paul Tucker reach... Hold on. Rob, did Paul Tucker reach out to you?
No, he didn't reach out to me, but I mean...
Yeah, I mean...
No, no, hold on.
My fear the proof of account is banned.
Yeah, yeah, but not about you're in the...
Guys, guys, you're in the screenshot.
Yeah, that's true.
Slaman, he's in the screenshot.
Hold on.
Sarah, let me...
Slaman, he's in the screenshot.
You talk about journalism integrity.
Salaman, what do you have to say about that?
Slaman.
No, which screenshot?
Which screenshot you're talking about?
Screenshot number four.
Are you really asking which screenshot, man?
Hold on, no, no, no, guys, guys, hold on, hold on.
Are you asking which screenshot?
I even said it in the space and I...
Did you even read screenshot four?
Yeah, I've read four, yeah.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I don't think you have.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I get you know, he was that, yeah.
You're right, you're right, sorry, I've been too focused on managing the space, but yeah.
It's okay, I won't give you shit because I would give, it's an easy one for me, but I won't because you're usually really good at this stuff.
No, no, I accept respect.
I like, I like, you know what I like the most?
Like what really, I'm not going to make a silly jokey, but what really, you know, makes me happy is when you actually own up to a mistake because you're, and you do it behind it, you do it.
Let me finish, let me finish, let me give you credit.
Yeah, I know, I know, but let me finish.
You rarely do it.
and you do it more behind the scenes than you do it publicly.
But knowing your ego and how intelligent you think you are,
and I'll let you stay in that bubble,
it just makes it hard.
For someone with really high ego and they think they're the smartest person in the world,
which again, that's you.
It's very hard for them to admit mistakes.
So when you admit it, it just takes more courage than a person like Rob
that is a realistic person, is not living in a delusion
and knows like, hey, he's just the average Joe.
Anyway, moving away from your delusion, Slaman.
Your thoughts on Paul, can I ask you?
I'll let your comment, I'll let you comment, but can I ask you a question, though.
I'll let you respond.
I'll let you respond.
No, no, I'm going to respond to this first because you're going to derail it.
So, first of all, I do admit I'm wrong.
but I'm rarely wrong.
In this scenario, it was real time.
We're trying to figure things out.
That's the only difference.
Go ahead, Mario.
Yeah, it's in real time.
You couldn't see fucking air-pitch.
Anyway, I don't want to criticize you for this.
These slip-ups happen.
But silly, the question I have,
what do you think of Paul himself,
who wrote the thread,
who had all the time in the world?
Why do you think,
and he put the screenshot there?
For Paul not to reach out to Robb is concerning, no?
it's disappointing to be honest
so if you even
even when you look at it like some of the
these points that we've figured out
like what I normally do is when I write things
I'll write and then I'll leave it for like a day
except when I'm doing it for you because it's like a rush
but my own ones I write it and then leave it for a day or two
and just think about what all the counter arguments
all the weak spots in it and then come to that
so he's obviously not done that because
Sarah was saying so this is the point so what Sarah was saying look
We don't see the words from Twitter saying, now, now, you're okay, Taylor, we now accept you and we're going to ban.
I believe that was a weak argument.
But for example, the mass banning one, the argument that came much later when in the conversation, that one is a more stronger argument.
And that's the point.
So it took us about like an hour or so to get to that argument.
And again, it was discussions.
And we had Robin here, so it made it easier.
But.
Ordinarily, that's what journalism is.
You're literally trying to figure out what the weaknesses are.
So I believe that he did fail in doing that.
Yeah, and I, and draw, sorry, not Paul.
Paul, just, we're giving you very open feedback here.
I think you've looked at your work before and you do great work.
And he seemed like a really genuine honest guy.
So slip-ups do happen with any journalist.
And we're saying this is a slip-up, by the way.
We don't know.
Maybe Paul has more information we don't have.
but I think I'm you know I like how we break things down we don't follow things blindly and I think we did a good job we did an average job we should have spotted this before before Rob but for Rob not have been contacted even if it comes out that Taylor Lorenz and there is proof that Taylor Lorenz did send that request the proof shouldn't been in that thread and the most basic thing to do is reach out to the main person in the story which is Rob
Millie, any thoughts?
Suddenly everyone's up on stage.
Millie, Ari, everyone's up, Texas, Lindsay.
What happened, everyone?
Millie.
Hello, everyone.
So I want to draw your guys' attention to something I noticed on tweet number six.
So if you look at what's happening here in this email, it seems to be that there's a person
named Liriel who's contacting Twitter.
And she's citing Taylor Lorenz as a reporter at one of her partners.
So that's interesting.
When you look at who is Liriel, and notice she signs down there,
Liriel Higa News Partnerships.
Which tweet, sorry, which tweet is that?
Number six.
So if you look up Lirial Higa and that news partnerships,
What you find, just Googling it, journalist.org, Liriel Higga, she's a senior partner manager for U.S. News at Twitter, responsible for strategic partnerships with digital and print newsrooms in the United States.
She was previously deputy director of audience at New York Times opinion where she established their Twitter spaces and live video chat.
So she does seem to be somebody, given that she was a senior partner manager for U.S. News at Twitter, she does seem to be somewhat affiliated with Twitter on a professional level.
But it is interesting that when she's noting in this email...
is that Taylor Lorenz, a reporter at one of my partners.
So she does seem to have some kind of relationship with Taylor Lorenz
And she seems to be reaching out to flag content that Taylor's pushing into her direction.
And she does seem to have pull at Twitter.
So even though I don't think there's a direct communicate, I think you have a person who clearly has a relationship with Twitter that Taylor is...
pushing info to to then get it banned if that makes things so yeah yeah we've we've talked about
like we've talked about it a lot that um it's it's unquestionable taylor did have too much influence
and my concern is the the the imperfections in in the social media platforms the ability to and that's in
in any really any system that we build
corruption will exist and I think social media platforms have that.
We've seen that in the Twitter files.
We saw that today in Taylor Lorenz's influence on those
and I've seen it, even things outside Twitter files
where people have too much influence in those social media platforms.
It's actually an example of a guy, I don't want to name it,
but there's an influencer that you all know got an account suspended.
That account did wrong things, but they got suspended just out of Vendetta,
out of a business issue they had.
And the story is very, very public.
And we know how he did it.
We know who he contacted on Twitter,
paid him a lot of money to get an account suspended.
And that's recent.
When I say recent, I mean, last couple of months, not a couple of months,
probably five months ago, post-Elon Musk.
And these things will continue to happen.
So, yeah, and he's a valid point.
And it's though it just doesn't apply to the concern we're kind of wrapping up with,
which is why Rob wasn't contacted and there isn't enough evidence to say Taylor Lorenz got fluf,
the fluke account suspended.
I agree with the mic to Chief and Sarah.
Yeah.
If anybody knows Elon, can somebody try and get my cat account back?
That'd be great.
I don't think that Taylor was able to necessarily get it.
As far as we know, we haven't seen the evidence.
Yes.
that we can state that that's a fact.
But what I say is we can state that Taylor.
So I worked with Paul.
Had too much info.
So everyone speaking, yeah, Texas, I'll let you jump in.
So yeah, Millie, I agree.
I think the point of Taylor Lorenz having too much influence
is pretty evident from what we've seen.
And Savalek, even Sarah is putting 100% emoji, so agrees there.
Texas, you were jumping in, and I think Ari was jumping in.
Go ahead, Texas.
Yeah.
Yeah, so I actually worked, I went with Paul multiple times to Twitter and worked on the Twitter files with him.
And I did recommend to Paul that he reached out to our contact to get your account unsusended.
I don't know if he did that, but I'm happy to reach out to the engineer that we worked with to help get your account back.
I remember seeing your thread when it went viral.
And I know you were in the queue earlier in spaces, but we wrap before I could bring you up.
So I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was you in the audience.
But yeah, so it.
The thing about the news partnerships is they selected a handful of journalists to partner with them to report misinformation.
So when that email sign, she's not one of my โ that woman saying she's not one of my partners.
She has a network of partners that they all โ
reach out to one person at Twitter to report misinformation. They have reporters that they're using as
like field agents to report misinformation and censor people. So that's what was going on. It's so
shocking that you would have the media being tattletels on the public. I just, that to me is
unbelievable to discover.
Texas, just quick question. First, I know you did a space on this before and hats off to you.
I know you've been involved in the Twitter files and, you know, other aspects of fighting censorship.
So I want to give you kudos here as well. And thanks for coming up.
Question to you, Texas, do you know why Paul, and I don't want to keep pushing that too far, you know, we've kind of butchered that point.
But do you know why Paul didn't contact, you or Paul didn't contact Rob while doing this piece?
Um, well, that's what I kind of the point I was trying to make. I, I, I didn't know who fear the, the, the, the, the, the fluke was. I know Paul has the name somewhere in a screenshot, but, it's in the screenshot, yeah, it's a screenshot and tweet for, but you go ahead.
Right, right. So, yeah.
I pull the, I help pull the files and put everything together.
Paul is the one doing, the journalism aspect by reaching out to sources.
He wanted to keep that separate for me when I was working with him so that we can operate in our own role.
You just, you threw Paul under the bus, Texas.
You're doing what Slyman would do.
I'm joke, I'm joking, I'm joking, I'm joke.
I joke, I joke, I joke.
You know, he, he, he,
He was the one invited to do it, so he wanted to, because I've offered to reach out to you sources, but he wanted to be the person that handles that.
So, you know, he has his own way, an approach of handling it, and then I have mine.
So, but I can definitely reach out to.
Oh, good.
I'll pick him.
All good.
I'll never throw anyone under the bus, but I've got question for you.
I was joking.
I know, you do the opposite.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah. But Texas, I've got a question for you.
You know, I don't know if you heard the debate that we were having, whether this was mass reporting or whether someone, based on what Taylor Lorenz was saying, had basically coded it in where he was continued to be suspended.
Based on your experience of being in Twitter and, like, the research you're doing, do you have any more information on what it could be more, or what's more plausible?
So, um...
people got suspended and censored for various reasons.
Sometimes they were just suspended for straight-up AI,
and there was no human interaction.
But in some cases, people did have a backdoor, so to speak,
or contacts friends at Twitter that they would reach out to,
and then those emails would get forwarded along to trust and safety.
And as Paul hinted in the files that he dropped,
for Taylor was she had, you know, each person has an account with all their emails and everything attached to it in the Twitter system.
And she has a long track record of reporting or complaining or whatever attached to her account.
So that's why she was seen as a mass reporter, so to speak.
So Sarah, quick final, well, thank you, Texas.
Sarah, quick final words.
I want to ask Patrick a question.
Let me bring Patrick up.
Patrick, come up.
I've got one question for you before I'm this space.
Come up, bro.
Yeah, so go ahead, Sarah.
Great point, Sarah.
It wouldn't let me unmute.
I'm so sorry.
That's fine.
You met Sarah?
It wouldn't let me unmute.
I love this point.
All right, now that Sarah's done, let me get Patrick up.
I'm joking.
Go ahead, Sarah.
Oh, my gosh.
Sarah, we can't hear you.
Sarah, we can't hear you, Sarah.
I don't know why.
This is the best point,
I'm joking.
Just for the audience,
I've just been
muting Sarah nonstop.
Sorry, go ahead, Sarah.
Thank you.
If you mute me again,
I swear I'm going to docks you.
I just want to point out that
didn't Elon say,
wait, wait, wait,
don't be a talk of my boy like that.
Only I'm a lot of smacking.
Don't be jacked.
There's nothing to docks about him.
How do you know I was talking about Mario, bro?
I could have been talking about you, trash.
You don't know.
There's nothing to docks about me.
I'm open.
Everyone knows anything about me.
I don't hide nothing.
Yeah, yeah, you're the top G.
Everybody knows.
I wanted to point out that didn't Elon Musk say in his interview the other day that
when a journalist, when community notes hits a journalist, they should be embarrassed.
Something to that effect?
Somebody correct me?
All right, Seth.
We know where you're going with this.
Yeah, he got community noted.
And so I think that's important that there was a tweet that was community noted.
And they didn't reach out to Rob.
I think that was important.
And Rob himself said that he could not definitively say if it was mass reporting or Taylor Lorenz.
I think it was lazy journalism.
Yeah.
Oh, it wasn't because he was mass reported.
It was because Taylor's direct email to Twitter requesting that they look into it and then it was gone.
Hold on, Texas.
No, it came back.
Hold on, hold on. Hold on.
You're saying Taylor Lorenz directly requested Fluf's account to be suspended, Texas, Lindsay?
I digress.
I don't...
I feel like something has transpired in this conversation before I got here.
Yeah, yeah, you did, you did.
He's so nice.
I don't want to put you on the spot and destroy you.
Yeah.
Slaman will just go.
Slaman is like a line.
He'll just go for the attack whenever you're seeing someone too nice or too weak.
Please.
So I'll back you up, don't worry.
So on tweet, no, no, no, I won't pass.
You're too kind.
You know, you've been too kind to us for the last few months.
So, so Lindsay, just on tweet number four, that's why we've been critical of Paul.
On tweet number four, he does say, and he implies throughout the tweet,
throughout the thread that Taylor Lorenz is the reason that the account flove,
that did the whole thread,
got suspended.
Taylor Lorenz requested the suspension.
But then there's no proof at all of that.
And Flouf, who's Robb here below,
was never contacted by Paul to kind of confirm that.
And Flouf, which is Rob,
says that he thinks the reason he got suspended
is actually mass reporting.
A lot of indications that is very plausible
was mass reporting.
So it wasn't Taylor Lorenz directly requesting it.
It's still possible,
but it's not, we don't know it as a fact
and not enough homework, no.
Rob wasn't contacted. No one from Twitter censorship team was contacted to kind of confirm this out.
This looks like someone behind the scenes doing it. So that was the discussion for the past hour and that we were a bit critical of Paul.
And yeah, Mario.
Does this one of us, Taylor?
I'm going to be critical, Paul.
I gave him a hard time all the time.
So. Okay, thanks, Lizzie.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Trush.
Absolutely.
Yeah, yeah.
So let me clear this up.
So here's what I think actually happened.
I said this earlier, and I'm standing by.
And the general consensus in the backgrounds, they probably agree with me, is that Taylor initiated this.
She was the actual impetus to get the account originally taken down.
It was shooting around.
She was making statements about.
being said. Once that initial reporting happened, then there was mass reporting as it went viral,
as it was picked up. We don't know, but we don't, but trash. We don't. I mean, yes, I mean,
yes, that's what you see there. I disagree. That's more weaker than Sarah's argument, because
what you're basically saying is, I know, but I'm not trying to say Sarah's arguments were weak as well,
but what I'm saying is, um, because you're basically saying that she, uh, basically she reported and,
you know,
immediately after that,
because he's saying within minutes,
then people are mass reporting,
and so therefore you have a scenario
where she reports,
it gets suspended,
it comes back,
and then after that,
it's not her,
and then it's the mass reporting
can be due to happen.
I think that's the least plausible scenario.
I don't think so at all.
She was the one that picked it up.
So she was the one that actually picked it up.
But this is...
It's not, but there's no, but Trash, there's no proof.
That's the thing that what we're saying is that there's no proof of the story you have.
There's no proof of the story that Sarah has or anyone, everyone's speculating,
but the thread makes it seem like this is a known fact that Sarah, Taylor-Lorenz did it.
And I think the thread should have, could have, Lindsay was where there?
She saw the fire.
Then Lindsay, can you say that it was definitive?
Yeah, hold on, no.
Is there any proof that Taylor Lorenz directly requested for Fluf's account to get suspended?
Because the thread doesn't include any such evidence.
No, no, we have proof of that.
We have proof of that.
So, hold on, hold on, because...
Oh, okay, okay, that's important. Hold on. Okay, okay. So, Simon, where is that proof? Sorry. So I'm glad you mentioned that. Where is that proof, Saman? Which, look, what we, what we have is on? On tweet number four, she's asking for that account to be suspended. Now, and Sarah's initial argument was...
Where is, hold on? Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, two seconds, sorry, sorry, sorry. Where does that request direct, where is that request from Taylor?
It says on there. It says, tweet number four, can you see where it says assign all? And then it says Taylor Lorenz.
Assignee or Taylor Lorenz?
Yeah.
So she made a request.
All right.
So we know that Taylor Lawrence, yeah.
So we know that Taylor Lawrence made a request, but yeah.
Okay, hold on.
I don't know who's talking, but two sexes.
So we know that Taylor Lorenz requested,
what you're about to say, Simon, is that we don't know that this is the reason that Twitter,
because Twitter is, when you look at it, in Twitter system,
it says that they don't agree with that request.
So the only, so that's why it could, that's why that,
we don't know that actually Taylor Lorenz is the reason.
It could, her report could have just gone, ignore, but the mass report.
So we know Taylor Lorenz, based on her special situation,
and her special access that she had is basically asking for this account to be suspended.
We knew that all the way throughout.
What the contention was that.
No, no, no, hold on, no.
It's not, sorry, sorry, so many, before you continue.
No, no, there's a reason.
You may, no, just for fuck sake.
There's a statement you made, let me correct the statement.
Anyone could report.
She didn't report because she had special access.
She could have just reported using Twitter's reporting feature.
What are you saying, bro?
That's not right.
That's not right.
Wait.
Hold on guys, guys.
If everyone asks at the same time, I can't ask her.
So let Slaman explain to me.
Go out Slaman.
We know she has special access.
We've criticized it.
That is obvious.
And I've said it many times.
But saying in that particular tweet,
when you got a signet Taylor Lorenz,
that is just so she reported,
but did she use a special access to report?
Yes.
Slaman?
Uh, we've got to.
Marrival.
Let me describe the crime scene for you.
It's a very quickly.
It's a very simple crime scene.
There's a dead kitten on the floor, bathed in blood,
and there's Lorenz standing with a shotgun,
and you are asking,
could it have been a thunder that struck the cat?
Yeah.
No, that's a silly comparison.
That doesn't make any sense.
We've kind of gone much deeper past that.
Let me ask a question again.
That's my point, Maude.
It makes no fucking sense.
It's not...
I'm saying your example makes no sense.
You know, for that...
No, it does make sense because there's a crime scene that has a clear connection between Lorenz and the account being disabled, and you're trying to find some imaginative third part.
No, we're looking.
What's, but it's not third party imagine, hold on.
Kim, have you been listening to the conversation we've had for the last few hours?
Yeah, I have. He talks about mass reporting and all kinds of other things.
Yeah.
I mean, the connection here is obvious, isn't it?
There's one person that is on record requesting for the takedown of that account,
and the account is taken down the same day.
I mean, come on.
Who else should be responsible?
So just the, and remember, this was my argument,
but what Rob was saying, the person whose account it is,
that what was happening to his account was,
it was,
it was coming,
it was being suspended and then he was,
and then immediately he was getting reactivated
because he was like appealing it.
And then it would immediately get suspended.
And then with it for five hours,
it happened hundreds of hundreds of times.
And,
And then after that, what happened was he deactivated, deactivated the next day,
and it continued to happen.
And he deleted his post until they continued happening.
So their argument is that essentially either you've got somebody who's coded it in
where it's automatically suspending, which then is possible that was happening because of Taylor Lorenz,
or it's an automatic system that was occurring.
So I don't know how this works because I'm not like, I'm not, IT's not my thing, but that's the argument.
So what would be your counter to that?
Well, my IT is my thing.
My account gets reported all the fucking time.
In Germany, for example, they need to write to you if your account has been reported.
I get like 12 emails from Twitter, Germany, every day about my account being reported.
And it has been like this all the time because I'm a controversial tweeter, you know?
This stuff happens.
I don't think there was ever a system...
Yeah, but wait a minute.
I don't think there was ever a system in place where automatically an account gets banned for mass reporting.
That has never occurred.
So, so Kim, if it's a small account, like a nobody account, and I think if there's someone
mentioned it on stage or someone, the DM you got Sleighman, but I know this already, is that
what they do is they, someone mentioned on stage, they automatically ban it, review it
manually and then decide whether to bring it back or not.
So that, that I know, but when it's, but that doesn't apply for all accounts.
Like if my account or your account or most people on the panel gets reported, you know,
it's not treated as the same as like a tiny account
and it sounds unfair
so to ban you Kim a very active account
that has a lot of a high social score
whatever score they have internally
it needs a lot more than mass reporting
because obviously you're a big target
you have a lot of followers
but a very small account
it's much easier to get it suspended
what's a small account Mario
for you like doing
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know exactly how many followers.
I don't know.
It's not the number, it's not the, wait a minute.
It's not only the number of followers.
It's not, hold on, sorry, Kim, Kim.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
didn't you say you had 15,000 followers?
Okay, let me, let me, Kim, see what I'm saying, yeah, if I was just about to say.
To clarify, it had 15,000 when it started, just to clarify, it had 15,000 when that all started.
By the time I was gone, it had 22, 500.
Yeah, so what I wanted to say is...
What I wanted to say...
And was at Twitter and nobody let her speak.
That's what I'm just so confused about.
Like, she wrote the Twitter file.
So, Ari, what do I mean?
Ari, what do you mean?
No one let her speak?
We wanted her to speak.
I was actually said...
I would love her to speak.
No, I...
She was up on stage.
That was Texas.
And...
Yeah, she didn't speak.
Yeah, she didn't speak yet, but I was...
Yeah.
Yeah, because me and I was trying to understand something from Slyman before going in Texas.
We asked her a lot of questions.
No, but that's not true.
Well, that's her own.
Yeah, okay, she left.
You can message her.
I don't know.
Hold on, no.
You don't have to.
I don't know what you tell the gas she left.
My impression was that she was trying to like explain how.
No, no.
Yeah, I don't know.
She was.
One second, Mario.
We asked her a lot of questions.
I even asked her.
And then she said, oh, maybe I don't understand.
And maybe I had jumped in the conversation a bit later.
And that's fine.
Right, after that, though, she was...
No, but that's my point.
So once, well, I'll be honest with it,
while I was asking her questions and she wasn't given, like,
very good clarifying points, then I thought, you know what,
there's not much going on here, and then I moved on.
I think she didn't have context to everything that was going on.
Yeah, I know.
Ari, I believe she was trying to say that, yes, there was a direct line.
Yeah, I know.
I know.
So what happens some ends that she was jumping in to say there was a direct evidence.
I'm like, cool.
That was like, this is a, I want to end it on that point.
Okay.
But there was something I was trying to understand from,
I don't have to explain this shit.
There's something I was trying to explain,
I understand from Slayman before,
because he pointed out that the request was,
the assignee was Taylor Lorenz.
So I was trying to understand that before going to,
to Lindsay to kind of conclude it with any direct evidence,
because that's the most important thing.
But then she didn't want to wait for that
and she jumped off, but,
I've sent her a message as soon.
She dropped us like,
hey, I'd love you to come back
because I've got that question for you.
But you can message her about that,
not us, because I'd love her back.
But then Kim, what I wanted to say earlier...
And I want to end this. Like, I think this is, you know, we're not talking about, you know,
a massive corruption case here that we should spend more, any more hours on it.
But what I want to say, Kim, is like, the, the, the accounts, not only how many followers it has,
how many followers it has, how long it's been around for, how many times it's been suspended,
how many times it's been reported, it's a whole list of indicators.
But I'm not an expert. Like, my knowledge is very basic, what I'm telling you.
But to conclude, I think I just, I do want to conclude, um,
We know that it's very plausible that Taylor Lorenz is the reason her,
she had someone internal at Twitter that kept banning the account.
We also know, as Rob said, the account that got banned saying it was mass reported.
You know, this is also a plausible explanation as well.
were critical and we mentioned that to Lindsay and she laughed and said that you know I give him a hard time that Paul should have at least contacted Rob and then Lindsay said there is direct evidence that Taylor Lorenz is the person that is the reason that's spent of the account so yeah Lindsay just I think tweet that out or let us know send it through to us let me see if she replied to my DM but also Paul should have included that in the thread if he's making these allegations should have included that direct evidence that would have been probably the most important evidence and
But I think that's a good summary.
I was trying to end the space earlier.
But I think that's a pretty good summary of where we're at.
I don't think I missed anything.
Millie, Sarah, any additional points?
Slaman, I'll give you the final word.
Millie, Sarah, any additional points before we wrap up?
Yeah.
So I think the key here is we have to think about this Twitter files also in correlation with the previous Twitter files.
So in the previous Twitter files, we saw how the election integrity partnership was partnering, and essentially DHS was using that partnership, which consisted of journalists in other media outlets and Stanford Research Observatory people all to target and then send...
flags to Twitter in order to get content pulled and removed.
Now, in that context, when we see, and I keep going back to the Twitter, the tweet number six,
where it shows Lereal, who works for Twitter News at Twitter News Partnerships,
so that's like somebody officially working for Twitter.
And I don't even understand why Twitter had a news, Twitter news, but they do.
And apparently the purpose, what they say, was to spotlight the best practices in journalism and kind of, so they worked with other partners in journalism in order to highlight what they consider to be real news, right? And then you have.
these relationships growing between people like Lereal and Lorenz, and then you have this clear,
what appears to be a clear hookup, right?
Like, oh, I'll hook you up, or are I will...
report things on your behalf because Taylor was a partner. It is said in that email that she was a
partner. So what does that mean? Just like what we saw in the previous Twitter files with the EIP,
those partners were to flag content and push it up the chain of command. Now this person who's
hired in the chain of command at Twitter News, she pushed it and forwarded it up so that it could get
dealt with. Now, we don't have the smoking gun. But
We don't, sorry, we don't have the actual proof.
Like, no one has the tweet in which we see someone saying,
you need a ban and pull this person's account, particularly because Taylor said so,
in the case of educated hillbilly, right, in his whole situation.
So you're right on that, Mario.
We don't have that exact thing.
But I do think that we have enough...
surrounding evidence to where you could actually draw that conclusion.
And most people would naturally, using common sense, draw that conclusion.
So you're right, Mario, and I do agree with you sticking to journalistic ethics
and saying we can't say it as a fact if we don't have that evidence.
But I think most people are just drawing the conclusion because we've seen so much other evidence
of basically impropriety, you know, things that just don't seem right.
Thanks, Millie. And Lindsay is here so we can ask you that all-important question as we wrap up. I think that'll be the final question.
We do have Walker Bragman, by the way, from tweet 6. He sent me a DM saying the following. He allows us to quote what he said.
He said, it's funny that he's the journalist Elon Musk is curating for now, really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Thanks for the invite and feel free to quote me. So that was from Walker Bragman from tweet number six.
But Lindsay, the question that we had, Osama, do you want to ask Lindsay the question?
Yeah, yeah, Lindsay.
So the question is, Lindsay, the question is this.
And let me explain it because I did ask you this before
and then people got upset when you didn't answer it in detail before.
Just ask a question, bro.
Bro, let me ask, bro.
Just keep quiet.
So, Lindsay, the issue is this.
We all know that Taylor Wren sent this email
based on her special privileges.
And based on that, we assume that it was the reason
for the person getting banned.
But Rob is saying that what happened was
immediately after that, he was getting suspended
and then reinstated,
and then he was applying and getting reinstated.
And this happened continuously for almost five and a half hours.
And then, sporadically, continue to happen for weeks.
So the question is this on what the panel are trying to find out is,
Is it that this was happening because Taylor-Renz requested and then somehow someone was continued to ban him and whenever he was reinstated, they can't to ban him or there was some kind of code that continuously banned him or is it that actually this happened because of mass reporting and it was just coincidental that Taylor-Renz made the application to have him suspended?
They reviewed the request internally about whether or not he violate any rules.
They found out that he did not violate any rules that they could find that would
equate to suspending his account, but then he got suspended.
I didn't, I was not aware that he got reinstated and over and over.
That was not in the files.
What was in the files was that this request was attached to Taylor's file at Twitter.
So for people that bash...
Paul and say that he's not a good journalist or scrape the bottom of barrel.
He is a former pill investigator and won an award from the British Medical Journal for his
investigative work.
And he's pretty objective with his approach and things.
But I think it is relevant.
I mean, bottom of the barrel could be argued both ways for...
You know, the people I would ignore the, so the criticism of him of Paul was just a response from someone in the, I would, yeah.
I think it's worth defending since he's not here.
Yeah, yeah, definitely different.
And I would just want to say, I would say the person that is part of the Twitter files, so just take that with a grain of assault for anyone listening.
But just to say, I mean, they're insulting.
Yeah, exactly. And, you know, I've looked into Paul before this, seems like, and also had him on the stage. And this is him, seems like a very nice guy and definitely tries to be objective. The, just concern we had, and we mentioned earlier, that he didn't reach out to Rob directly. But Sully, did you want to respond back? I think Lindsay answered your question, your thoughts.
Yeah, so Lindsay, so can you see where you basically said, and we've seen the tweet is tweet number four, where she makes the request based on her special privileges and tries to get him suspended for sure.
The question becomes, though, as you said, they reviewed it and felt like he didn't breach the policy, but then he was still suspended.
So now the question is, and this is what they asked everyone's trying to ascertain, that was he suspended based on that request or because of mass reporting?
Because he wasn't only suspended then, but he was suspended and then as I explained, he kept on getting reactivated.
So based on your knowledge of being inside Twitter and Aerea said that you may have this knowledge.
What process do they have in place?
For example, when someone's mass reporting, is this what happens?
Is there like an automated system which continues to suspend him?
Or what is it?
I'm not sure if you have that information,
or if you have any,
and I'll ask the question again,
if there's any direct evidence
that the suspension was,
and I know of Vassas before I'll ask you one last time,
was based on Taylor's request,
or it's one possibility,
but there's no direct evidence
that they acted on Taylor's request.
Right. They were, they appeared to say it did not meet the standards for him to be suspended on that. So mass reporting could have been what led to his account being suspended. There was no direct thing saying that this is what happened and they acted on it because she requested that. So I that we found that might be the case. But, you know, just seeing.
that this was one of them.
And we weren't just like going in there.
Nobody went in and typed in like Taylor Winston's names.
We were looking at bigger,
bigger accounts and,
and what led to their suspension.
Like,
like,
like what led to Dr. J. Bottachari's suspension and that's what led us to Taylor.
So that's what led down that road.
It wasn't like we were out to get Taylor Lorenz.
Like that's never been on my radar or Paul's.
We wanted to uncover like what how were these people and why were these people suspended and what was going on and what were the communications that took place?
Sarah, do you believe...
I think it's a good summary.
Sarah, do you believe that...
No, bro, let's stop going in circles, man.
I think we've butchered it enough, please.
Ari, I'll give you the final words.
No, no, so, Mara, it's a fair question, actually,
because I don't want this space to end where...
Well, you can't answer it then.
So do you think she was the reason for the Dr. Batichariah getting suspended?
I don't know, man.
You're asking you, Lindsay. Go ahead, Lindsay.
So she did request...
help with that because that reporter complained about being doxed, even though technically he
docks himself by retweeting the same information or sharing a screenshot of the information,
but it technically wasn't doxying in this case because this was all public information for a journalist.
So, but yes, that is what directly led to,
him and I believe Dr. Koldorf being locked out of their accounts.
They weren't suspended.
They were just temporary locked out, and it was because of the direct request from Taylor.
Just, okay, so just two, one quick question.
Walter Braggman is the person that did the tweet with the information of Dr. Baratacharya.
I could not be able to pronounce his name of the doctor.
So he...
So that person, Walter Bragman, can you say, man, I'll go to you on this one because we've read the thread.
Why did Walter Bragman tweet the contact details?
No, Walter Bragman.
He's the one who's the one who's the one who's messaging read out, isn't it, Mario?
Because he was the one who, who on, it was on his behalf that Lorenz got him suspended saying that Bacchiarah had left Bragman's contact details.
Oh, okay, okay, yeah, so I got it, my bad.
Cool.
I think we've butchered enough, man.
You agree before giving Ari the mic to kind of quick wrap up?
Yeah, yeah, so just to quickly wrap up.
No, no, no.
I didn't tell you to wrap up.
I said, Ari, any quick words before Slaman wraps up?
Thanks, Mario, and I really enjoy your spaces.
Thanks for having me up here.
I just, I guess...
I just wanted to say that, you know, I think something that really stood out to me with these files is just that, you know, the influence that Taylor had within Twitter and that other people sort of knew that she had that influence.
I think the number 13, it said Lorenz had more than special reporting access to get accounts banned when, oh, sorry, no, it wasn't that one.
Yeah.
it was um oh my gosh i can't find it now but it's one where that's
Yeah, it's one just talking about how she was able to reach out on other people's behalf.
And I think that, you know, when people in the industry know that somebody has that kind of power,
that kind of connection with the platforms, it just makes everybody not want to ruffle her feathers.
At least, you know, that's my impression is that...
Other people are like, okay, Taylor has this access.
And so when you're talking about people in social media who she reports on, you know,
typically journalists are not allowed to, you know, give money in exchange for a story or they're not allowed to have these conflicts of interest.
And when you look at something like access to the,
to the platforms, the level that Taylor had, in my eyes, that could be looked as something of value, like, you know, an exchange.
If you get, you know, I'm not saying that she did this, but I'm saying like if you have a connection to get someone verified at Twitter or Facebook back when it was, you know, the holy grail for influencers, and they know that.
and you're asking them for information,
and they give you that information,
potentially because they think they're gonna get something
in return, which is a verified account
or un-banned their account, whatever it may be.
That's just a special kind of privilege that I think, you know,
it makes sense to me why people treated her the way they did in my eyes,
which was that she had a lot of influence,
and that could be wielded to her in whatever favor she wanted.
So that's just what I got out of it.
So thank you for letting me speak.
Thanks a lot.
I appreciate it coming, Ari, and Lindsay as well, well done with the thread.
I'm so burnt out, Slaman, I thought we'll do a quick space today for a couple hours.
But yeah, man, wrap it up.
Yeah.
We did pretty good, man.
I know I keep blowing smoke up our ass.
We don't need more, but...
Yeah, we did good.
Another one.
And there's like two this week.
We had the Lev Parnas one with the whole Rudy Giuliani.
We'll tweet about it tomorrow.
We'll do a thread about it.
You get all the credit for that one.
And then we just did this one, but that one's not that big of a, you know,
it's not that major news.
But we kind of broke it down pretty well.
And we're objective about it.
A good job.
I don't want to take the credit myself.
I was saying we, but okay, thanks.
I agree.
Thank you.
I mean, probably Sarah, probably more than you.
But let's just coming back to the...
Just to wrap up, yeah, it was...
I thought it was a really good space.
And just to be clear,
even though we don't specifically know
whether Taylor-Renz was the direct cause
of getting the account ban for Rob,
the other people, so for example,
and something which is a lot more monumental,
and that's why I asked that question
before we ended about Dr. Bacchiarra.
She clearly was...
And from it again, and remember, we do reading this and read time, so I've not read it on Reddit over a day and contemplated it.
But it looks like she was the direct cause for getting him suspended for a period of time.
And that is monumental because he was somebody who spoke out against COVID and one of the very few.
So I would say that's much more worse and much more impactful than any other thing.
And that shows her direct impact.
contact with Twitter and basically using her influence and her power to basically silence people.
Great summary. Thank you very much everyone. Another great space we're doing. We're planning to do,
what's funny is that we read that thread and we thought it's, it's interesting, but it's not that major to cover.
We thought we'll cover it, like in the next Twitter files, we'll cover two or three at a time.
And we're planning to do Trump versus DeSantis.
To be honest, I think the reason we didn't do it, Slaman, I think we got our own up to it.
The reason we did do is like, fuck, we had everything planned for Trump versus DeSantis or DeSantis space, because he's announcing next week, his run for presidency.
And we're like, oh, we planned everything for this and we don't want to change everything.
And it's just such a difficult thing to do.
And we ended up not wanting to cover it.
And then 30 minutes before the space were like, probably should.
It's actually interesting story.
And it could lead to a good debate.
And we saw some updates about it.
And then, you know, trash and Slyman and Sonsored men all work together with the team with Mariana and everyone else to prepare.
We prepared a pretty good space.
We're a job by the team to do in such a short period of time.
Well done, guys.
You know, you're taking your position as a course for granted, man.
You're not really appreciated it.
You've earned it, and now you're about to throw it away if you keep doing this, your little snippets.
Not snippets, what do you call them?
Highlights.
But, yeah, trash.
Final words, man, before I go into space.
Sound bites, yeah.
I really, I really, I'm glad we did this one.
I, I kind of missed the boat where we did not include Ben Collins into this.
Because again, this is what I was talking about earlier in the space, where it is all related.
I wish we would have done that.
But no, I really appreciate you pivoting when you asked me.
Like, what do you think?
I'm like, oh, no, we need to do this one.
Tate is a hot commodity on Twitter.
We definitely need to do this one.
So I was glad that we did it.
Tatee.
Is that Taylor Lorenz?
Taitay.
Yeah.
Who has more hate?
Who's hated more?
Taylor Lorenz or the Krasenstines right now?
Who's getting more hate?
The Krasnstein's.
Taylor.
I don't know, man.
They don't like that.
I want to do a whole space on the cross side.
Can we find?
Why?
Who really?
Who's really?
Oh no, no, no.
No, no.
Kim's here.
All right.
I'm not going to go down that path.
We'll do it in another space.
Really appreciate it.
I didn't see Kim here because I know that'll take another couple hours.
We'll do another space where we really dig into this story because I'm getting so many DMs about it.
But,
Great space.
Thank you so much, everyone.
Thanks to all the panelists, and thanks for Kim and Lindsay, our two special guests for coming on.
And thanks for Rob Province for jumping in.
I mean, just for you brought your up.
No, I've already wrapped up.
I've already wrapped up.
Thank you so much.
I've already wrapped up.
No, nope.
And thank you, thank you, Suleiman, for co-hosting.
What are you guys doing?
Hold on, what is going on here?
Simon, come up.
Someone was about to back up Kim.
Kim just backed up Slime Man.
This is the shit that I have to deal with.
This is all the politics and deals done behind the scenes.
Look at what I have to deal with.
Got to have a peaceful day.
Yes, Slimmer.
What were your final words?
Thank you very much.
So this is the issue you see, Mario.
You're censorily.
Slimy, man.
Slimy.
Backstabbing snake you.
I knew it.
I knew there's a mutiny here.
I told you not to drop me as co-host.
I told you that, isn't it, bro?
Anyway, Saman, I do want to give you the mic.
Final words, I think it's important.
The importance of integrity in journalism.
Can you give us a quick soundbite on the importance of integrity and journalism?
Because I know this is something you're very passionate about.
Slaman?
I already know this is a trap, so I'm not going to finish.
It's not a trap, man.
I'm giving you the mic as a responsible.
Leave a message for the audience, bro.
I want to always leave with one message for everyone to go out with.
So can you share that message?
Yeah.
It's a trap.
What it means to you to be a journalist.
Bro, I know you're going to switch space off, so no, it's a trap.
Joa, Joe, are you there?
Yeah, I'm here, I'm here.
Can you tell me, Joel, why do you join our spaces and give us your time?
You know, we're not paying you.
No one's asking you yet.
You still give us your time to really bring light to certain important issues.
Why do you do that, man?
Please share with us.
Because it was the first, it was, I had actually.
Speaker
๐น๐๐๐
from
BUZZ
