Matt Taibbi

Rank 25 of 47
|
Score 11
1/12/2025, 12:19:29 AM
X
In reply to:
kate
@real_katela
·
257d
@mtaibbi Why did it have to stop when it became difficult?
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
257d
@real_katela My site had 10 people working on it - we were trying to make a list of “anti-disinformation” NGOs and had to stop once it got past 350 or so. I’m sure it could be done, but it would be a difficult project, because of the secrecy and because the landscape is changing so fast.
kate
@real_katela
·
257d
@mtaibbi Maybe not by one person, but by a team?
There seems to be so much ego in investigative journalism. It seems no one wants to team up & not get all the credit.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
257d
I totally agree. Do you work in it? At one point I thought it would be possible to map the whole thing. But there are so many NGOs working with so many government “stakeholders” on content, and so many new laws in different jurisdictions, I’m not sure it can be captured.
Sage
@SageXRPL
·
257d
@mtaibbi Matt, the layers of bureaucracy in platform censorship are staggering. It’s a tangled web designed to obscure accountability and stifle innovation. We need to dissect this machinery and expose the players behind it.

The statement is part of a broader conversation about the challenges of investigative journalism, particularly in mapping the complex network of NGOs and government entities involved in platform censorship. The tone is explanatory, addressing the practical limitations faced by journalists.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is focused on explaining the constraints of the project, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by explaining the challenges faced in investigative journalism, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+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 engages in constructive dialogue by addressing a question about the difficulties of the project without resorting to personal attacks, adhering to the principle of constructive criticism. [+1]