Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 44
1/31/2024, 5:19:42 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
730d
16. "THEY WANT JACK TO ANNOUNCE TOMORROW..." In another example, an outside PR firm gave Twitter the bad news that 12 state attorneys general were demanding immediate action from then-CEO Jack Dorsey on accounts identified as Covid misinformation sources.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
730d
15. The CCDH appeared often in #TwitterFiles documents. A typical scenario saw the company receive a query from a media outlet, asking why this or that account identified as hateful/bigoted/inaccurate by the CCDH had not yet been banned:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
730d
14. Outlets reporting on CCDH’s high-profile takes on say, X, or @rustyrockets, or @RobertKennedyJr never bring up its ties to Labour, or note the coincidence that CCDH targets are invariably critics of centrist Labour policies.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
730d
13. Press outlets unfailingly refer to the group using neutral terms like “online hate watchdog," “anti-hate campaigners," “hate-speech watchdog," “anti-hate group," or even just “disinformation researchers," never mentioning its political affiliation.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
730d
12. "STEVE DISCUSSED HIS WORK WITH... THE CENTRE FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE..."

There are also minutes of a meeting between MP Reed, the Community Service Trust, and the Jewish Leadership Council:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
730d
11. "LABOUR TOGETHER HELPED SET UP..." Labour Party documents also show CCDH was created under the auspices of Labour MP and Shadow Minister Steve Reed, using resources of the Labour Together think tank.

This is from a memo called “Steve’s record on fighting antisemitism.”

The statement is critical of certain media outlets for not disclosing the political affiliations of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and suggests that these outlets should inform their readers about the organization's ties to a political figure and its charitable status. The tone is accusatory and implies negligence or bias on the part of the media outlets. The images provided are screenshots of articles related to Keir Starmer and the Labour think tank, which are relevant to the context of the statement.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to correct what the author perceives as a lack of transparency, which could be seen as an effort to prevent harm caused by misinformation. However, the accusatory tone could be perceived as confrontational rather than constructive.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others; it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement promotes understanding by highlighting the importance of disclosing potential biases in reporting, but the tone may not foster empathy or constructive dialogue.
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement calls for media outlets to acknowledge a potential oversight, which aligns with the principle of correcting mistakes. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement encourages media outlets to use their platforms responsibly by providing full disclosure of political affiliations, which aligns with using influence for the betterment of society. [+1]