Michael Schellenberger

Rank 36 of 47
|
Score -59
4/1/2025, 10:39:42 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
And it appears that the FBI had a holistic strategy for spreading disinformation from the spring until the fall about the Hunter Biden Laptop. The briefing of Johnson and Grassley appears to be the start of it. Reply here if you have info that it began earlier.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
18d
We don't know what the Stanford and Aspen operators did or did not know about the laptop.

What we know is that they knew the operation had to occur precisely when it did, and that it had to be kept hush-hush.

And it worked — until the Twitter Files revealed it.
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.

The statement critiques the Aspen Institute and Stanford Cyber Policy Center, suggesting they were involved in an FBI information operation. It implies misuse of funds and questions the integrity of these organizations. The tone is accusatory and suggests a conspiracy involving government agencies and think tanks.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could potentially cause harm by making serious allegations without providing evidence, which may damage reputations. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It does not respect the privacy and dignity of the organizations involved, as it accuses them of being tools in an information operation without substantiated evidence. [-2]
  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 presents a one-sided view without encouraging dialogue or considering alternative perspectives. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism, as it makes accusations without offering a platform for dialogue or rebuttal. [-1]