Time for another round of the TWITTER FILES!
By 
I am beginning to reluctantly conclude that Elon Musk is not a principled defender of free speech:
X is preventing users from posting links to a newsletter containing a hacked document that’s alleged to be the Trump campaign’s research into vice presidential candidate JD Vance. The journalist who wrote the newsletter, Ken Klippenstein, has been suspended from the platform. Searches for posts containing a link to the newsletter turn up nothing.
[…]witter, before it was bought by Elon Musk, had a policy regarding hacked materials — but the page is no longer available. A pre-Musk version of the policy, dated 2019, stated that posting or linking to hacked content is prohibited. Under this policy, links to a story by The New York Post about Hunter Biden, the current president’s son, were banned. But in October 2020, Twitter changed its policy to say that it would no longer block hacked materials, after an outcry about how the company had handled the Post story. “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix,” wrote then-CEO Jack Dorsey.
Musk was one of the people who was unhappy with the decision to ban links to the Post’s story. “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate,” Musk wrote of the decision on the story in April 2022. He even invited former Rolling Stone pundit Matt Taibbi to examine internal documents showing how Twitter handled the decision. (In the course of tweeting his conclusions, Taibbi exposed the email addresses of Dorsey and Representative Ro Khanna.)
Wow, Taibbi and Greenwald are going to be FURIOUS about this attack on free and open dis…sorry, I can’t keep up this bit.
As for the dossier itself, the decision by news organizations not tp publish stories about it given the provenance of the material is 1)entirely defensible in the abstract and 2)not defensible given the standards applied by every major news outlet in 2016, decisions most of the editors involved have ever renounced.
If Iran sent The New York Times the Biden campaign's 2020 vetting docs on Kamala Harris yesterday, the paper would have published them on today's front page — and you all know that's true.— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) September 26, 2024
Here is The New York Times in June, 2024 — just three months ago! — still citing Wikileaks material about Democrats.
They are *lying* to you when they say "we've learned from 2016!" Nope! They're just covering for Trump. pic.twitter.com/LS9mU8SKR7— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) September 26, 2024