Michael Schellenberger

Rank 36 of 47
|
Score -58
4/1/2025, 10:31:56 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
And so the FBI's former general counsel, turned Twitter's deputy counsel, Jim Baker, swung into gear, arguing forcefully that the NY Post story had, somehow, violated Twitter's Terms of Service, and should be censored.

Roth reversed his position.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
852d
35. In response to Roth, Baker repeatedly insists that the Hunter Biden materials were either faked, hacked, or both, and a violation of Twitter policy. Baker does so over email, and in a Google doc, on October 14 and 15.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
But when the NY Post story about the laptop came out on October 14, the FBI still had more work to do. Twitter's Roth, at first, said the story had not violated any of Twitter's terms of service. There was no evidence of Russians anywhere.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
852d
34. On Oct 14, shortly after @NYPost publishes its Hunter Biden laptop story, Roth says, “it isn’t clearly violative of our Hacked Materials Policy, nor is it clearly in violation of anything else," but adds, “this feels a lot like a somewhat subtle leak operation.”
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
To a large extent the FBI's efforts worked. Twitter's top censor, Yoel Roth, admitted that the FBI's prebunking had worked on him.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
852d
24. Recently, Yoel Roth told @karaswisher that he had been primed to think about the Russian hacking group APT28 before news of the Hunter Biden laptop came out.

When it did, Roth said, "It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leap campaign alarm bells."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
This isn't your grandparents psy-op. This is a next-level "information operation" — precisely what FBI falsely accused the Russians of doing. The facts suggest that the FBI, which knew the laptop was authentic, brainwashed (fine — "prebunked") reporters and social media.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
What FBI and its apparent intermediaries or "cut-outs," the Aspen Institute and Stanford Cyber Policy Center, did was orchestrate an elaborate and sophisticated "pre-bunking" campaign aimed at discrediting the Hunter Biden Laptop before it was ever released.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
It is a violation of journalistic ethics to coordinate media coverage. The Stanford authors anticipated this and created talking points to respond to various concerns, e.g., "We can't/won't/don't collaborate with other news organizations on breaking news."

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the FBI's alleged involvement in influencing media narratives related to Hunter Biden. It suggests a coordinated effort by the FBI and other institutions to manage information, raising concerns about transparency and media ethics.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies potential harm by suggesting manipulation of information, which could undermine public trust. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It questions the privacy and integrity of the involved parties, potentially leading to reputational harm. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding of alleged information operations, but it may lack empathy towards those accused.
  4. 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 criticism of the FBI and associated institutions, but it could be seen as lacking constructive dialogue by not providing a balanced view. [-1]