Notes on the Twitter Files (9)

Matt Taibbi delivered part 9 of the Twitter Files as a Christmas Eve special last night. Part 9 is an important contribution to the series. I think readers can access the thread beginning with the tweet below, although I can only pull up the first 30 tweets at this point.

When I read the thread last night, it was rendered in reverse, running from numbers 51 (at the top) through 2 (at the bottom). I can’t say I understand how it works or what is going on. I can’t even be sure it has 51 parts (as I found the thread last night and as I see it given on Taibbi’s Substack site, linked below). I find them running through number 56 this morning. I can only say I’m doing the best I can and urge you to review it with your own eyes. It is worth your time.

I found the Twitter format a particularly difficult way to go on this thread. Take it in here via the Thread Reader App, or here as posted by Taibbi at his TK News site on Substack.

At his Substack site Taibbi calls his post of the part 9 thread “The spies who loved Twitter.” He sums it up in the subhead of his post “What we’ve learned so far.” The subhead obviates the need for my usual notes: “The bottom line? Federal law enforcement asserted primacy over all media distribution, a situation normally only found in tinpot regimes.”

The CIA is identified as the “OGA” (Other Government Organization or Other Government Agency) that is involved with “helping” Twitter moderate its platform. The CIA emerges as a prominent player in this respect. Still, it wasn’t the only one. It was only one of the many agencies from the government to “help” Twitter.

Here are a few tweets that caught my attention in the 56-part thread — beginning with Taibbi’s response to the drivel issued by the FBI last week.

The conclusion of Taibbi’s thread (the conclusion, I think) is particularly important.

Just to make it a little more complicated, Taibbi’s Twitter account includes additional notes and comments on his numbered thread.

Here is one more.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.