Michael Schellenberger

Rank 36 of 47
|
Score -58
4/1/2025, 10:34:02 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
In sum, we have still not gotten to the bottom of the FBI's information operation relating to Hunter Biden, but we are making progress.

It's increasingly clear that the FBI began the information operation in the Spring of 2020 and asked Aspen and Stanford to help.
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.

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the alleged involvement of the FBI, Stanford, and Aspen in an information operation related to the Hunter Biden laptop story. It suggests a coordinated effort to manage the timing and secrecy of the operation, which was later exposed by the Twitter Files.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement implies wrongdoing by the FBI and other organizations, which could potentially harm reputations without concrete evidence. This may violate the principle of striving to do no harm. [-1]
  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 privacy to some extent by not naming individuals directly involved, but it does imply misconduct by organizations, which could be seen as a form of public accusation. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on exposing alleged misconduct without providing a balanced view or considering the perspectives of those involved. [-1]
  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 other organizations but does not provide a constructive dialogue or evidence to support its claims, which could be seen as a form of ad hominem argument. [-1]