Loud Silence
Elvis has left the building?
Notice when an obvious question isn’t asked or answered.
The release of the Twitter files continues, and it becomes increasingly clear that the FBI has intervened aggressively and persistently in social media narrative-making — to a degree that made even pro-censorship Twitter executives uncomfortable.
And see this new piece from Jonathan Turley, describing a disturbing demand letter to Facebook leaders from Democratic members of Congress: “…we write to urge Meta to maintain its commitment to keeping dangerous and unfounded election denial content off its platform. To that end, we also urge Meta and its leadership to continue the suspension of former president Donald Trump’s Facebook account beyond January, and to carefully monitor and counter the spread of harmful election misinformation, including the Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election, on Facebook.” Here’s the whole letter:
Trump has declared his candidacy for the presidency, so — whatever you think of him — the reality of this letter is that elected officials from one political party are threatening and pressuring a corporation with a demand that they silence a political candidate from the other major party.
All of this is well-covered and much-discussed elsewhere, and I have nothing to add right now on the topic of federal interference in Twitter and Facebook.
However.
The question that needs to be asked is: Where else? What other platforms?
Most importantly, several companies have started new media platforms on the explicit promise of providing an alternative to the major social media companies. Here you are on Substack, using one of those platforms. Several companies also aim to provide an alternative to Twitter: Parler, Truth Social, and Gab on the right, Mastodon on the eyeroll-woke left. Does the FBI, or other federal agencies, have teams of officials who are working to try to limit the information shared on those alternative platforms?
I appreciate Substack more than I can say, and I’ve been asking them that question for months — without a hint of an answer. We know that Elvis Chan, an ASAC in the FBI’s San Francisco field office, had frequent contact with Twitter executives, warning them off content like news stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Can it even be possible that Substack, which is headquartered in San Francisco, hasn’t heard from ASAC Chan, or from people in his office?
Do you believe that the FBI — and other federal officials, including members of both houses of Congress — have constantly worked to shape the permissible narrative on Twitter and Facebook, but have made no comparable attempts with Substack or Gab?
Matt Taibbi: “The FBI has agents — lots of them — analyzing and mass-flagging social media posts.” What is the full scope of that effort, and what is the full list of targeted websites, posts, and writers?
I have asked this question. No one will answer.
There's literally nothing in the Twitter Files that suggests this is a Twitter-only thing. In fact, that's the real story of the Twitter Files -- government is deciding what we can and can't say on every single media outlet on every single story. Remember when the Gold Star mother was banned from Facebook for being critical of Joe Biden?
Substack should answer this immediately.