Media reports have come out and revealed that an engineer working at the company had come up with a plan to ban a certain way of talking.
Opposing views say that the engineer never referred to conservatives while discussing the plan.
A certain James O’Keefe has actually managed to make quite a name for himself as a conservative activist.
Most of his fame has come from his hidden camera investigations which he carried out against liberal organizations supposedly.
Last week though, James thought his Twitter should receive some of his attention as well.
James published a series of posts, or rather videos, which he managed (or got someone else) to secretly record of some Twitter employees.
James also got hold of some former Twitter employees in his secretly recorded online videos.
The content of the videos?
More specifically, the videos contained discussions that Twitter employees had with each other and other partners about the company’s political culture and content moderation policies.
With the videos in hand, James now claims that he has uncovered somewhat of a smoking-gun evidence.
Evidence about what?
Evidence about a conspiracy.
A big far-reaching conspiracy whose sole aim is to suppress all forms of conservative speech on the company’s online platform, Twitter.
As expected, conservative media outlets have jumped on the story and have not gone away from that frame even for a second.
Instead, they have run wild with it.
Some voices in the media feel that the video have a lot less content to them than what James is suggesting.
They think that the two videos that James released earlier last week via Project Veritas had a lot less to them than what meets the eye.
Let’s take an example to further explain that point.
James has used his Twitter platform to repeatedly highlight the fact that a Twitter engineer by the name of Steven Pierre made an anti-conservative comment.
Additionally, James mentioned that Steven commented in one of his videos that Twitter indeed had started to work on a software which would ban a certain way of talking.
James points towards a strong implication that Pierre wanted to ban conservative speech regarding politics when he talked about banning a certain way of talking.
Is that true?
Most think not.
Because if someone has actually had the time to watch the whole of the actual video one would see that Pierre clearly did not mean conservative political speech when he talked about banning a way of talking.
Pierre said (in the video) that whether it was negative or positive doesn’t look for content.
Further, he added, it was (referring to the project and what it would do) more like if someone showed aggressive behavior or not.
And finally, Pierre also said in the video something about the project handling someone just cursing at another person.
In other words, the Twitter employee in question did not mean to destroy all forms of conservative talk on Twitter.
Pierre only described a new project for Twitter which would allow the site to filter out objectionable activities such as,
James had every opportunity to make this matter clear.
On the other hand, James could have easily left that particular clip on the related cutting room floor.
Then again, James isn’t an ordinary person.
He is a bona fide political activist.
And he often tries to cast the unfortunate targets of most of his investigations in the most negative and worst possible light.
Because of his tendency to do that, he is also prone to using smoke and mirrors to prove his point.
Always Take James O’Keefe’s Secret Investigations With A Huge Grain Of Salt.
It is worth it.
And this isn’t the first time Jame O’Keefe has come up with something like this.
He has basically used a familiar and basic playbook for the past many years.
Nine in fact.
James started his “work” in 2009.
As mentioned before, he made a name for his brand and himself by catching various representatives that belonged to various now-defunct organizations.
Most of these organizations belong to the liberal community.
Groups such as ACORN.
James caught their representatives advising some of their clients on various ways they could conceal their illegal businesses.
Illegal businesses such as the prostitution business.
As it turns out, one of those clients was actually a close associate of James O’Keefe who just posed as a prostitute.
Back in the year 2010, James O’Keefe actually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.
Apparently, James carried out an “attempted” string operation and managed to break into the offices of a Democrat from Los Angeles Senator Mary.
But that didn’t matter though.
James O’Keefe has managed to grow his fame even more since then.
He has even raised money for his various activities.
Moreover, he also has a pretty decent recruiting agency of software which as basically grown into an army of staffers.
All of them help out James O’Keefe to carry out a wide array of string operations.
And the targets of these operations are as varied as the sting operations themselves.
For example, in the last couple of months, Project Veritas, James’s organization has tried to exclusively focus on the many elite media institutions.
He has carried out various activities which have enabled him to come out with various exposes that have focused on publicans such as,
- New York Times
- Washington Post
So how do James and his group do it?
For the most part, they take advantage of a basic approach to knowing things.
That is, talking to people.
But not just any people.
A wide range of different people who are connected to a given organization.
James and his fellow crusaders hope that at least some of them would tell them things about the given organization which would sound bad.
And that is really all that they need.
When it comes to picking the right things from the wrong stuff, Project Veritas isn’t all that picky.
It doesn’t think hard about who it should target when it wants to carry out a sting operation.
To take an example, let’s talk about the recent expose that James organization published regarding the New York Times.
James O’Keefe specifically mentioned, actually quoted, an IT consultant who worked for the Times.
In the report, James mentioned that people working in the newsroom at Times actually hated Trump.
What is wrong with that equation?
Except for the fact that it is never hard to find people who agree with something and anything that you have to say.
All one has to do is talk to enough number of people at any given organization.
And if we’re talking about an organization that has thousands of employees such as the TIMES, it is absolutely inevitable that you would soon catch a few of the given organization’s staff saying some stuff which is bad.
Or at least doesn’t sound good.
And that’s what James is a master at.
Talking to a lot of people and re-arranging lots of ideas, that’s his deal.
No one can confirm the number of people or Twitter employees that James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas (his organization) talked to.
And no one really knows how many of them said something embarrassing.
We don’t even know if some of them made statements which directly contradicted James O’Keefe’s initial thesis.
What is that thesis?
It’s a rather simple one:
Twitter is a company that systematically censors conservatives.
Okay, So Let’s Talk About what Those Twitter Videos Didn’t And Did Show
If we are talking about the total number of employees that James showed talking about something in his videos then that total comes to about eight.
That is, Project Veritas has managed to published eight Twitter employees’ comments.
The other thing we need to keep in mind here is that apparently none of the employees know that someone is making a video of them.
Everything that happens, apparently happens without any of the Twitter employees’ knowledge.
It is also clear that none of the Twitter employees had consented to any of the stuff James had carried out.
But does that matter to James O’Keefe?
He has portrayed all of what he had captured in those clips as sound evidence.
Evidence about what?
Evidence that Twitter employees are trying to push a secret anti-conservative and anti-Trump agenda.
However, if one spends a bit of time and looks at the videos, one is bound to found that most of the clips that James O’Keefe has provided or published in the media fall apart.
But to explain that one has to carry out a close examination of what James O’Keefe has to offer.
Let’s talk about a few of the people that feature in James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos.
That is, the videos that have come out so far.
We’ll also take a look at what these Twitter employees actually said.
And didn’t say.
“There Is A Reason Why We Have A Subpoena Process” By Clay Haynes
Clay Haynes is just one of the eight Twitter employees that James O’Keefe targeted via his secret videos.
And the first of those secret videos exclusively focused on this Twitter employee, Clay Haynes.
Clay Haynes works for Twitter (obviously) as a senior network engineer.
So what does the video focuses on?
Well, it focuses on a lot of stuff, but firstly it focuses on what Haynes said via a headline.
The headline for that Haynes’ video said (quoting Haynes) something about how Twitter would be more than happy to actually go ahead and help out Department of Justice in one of their many little investigations.
Apparently, we must believe that Haynes was talking about a Department of Justice investigation against Donald Trump.
Moreover, James, via the video also tries to suggest that Haynes would have helped the Department of Justice by turning over Donald Trump’s private information and direct messages
But what do we get when we actually watch the video?
The tape doesn’t show much other than the fact that when someone urges Haynes to actually go ahead and look at some of the private messages belonging to Donald Trump and Donald Jr. (Donald Trump’s son) he laughs it off nervously.
Then Haynes continues to mention that for that very reason they had access to the subpoena process.
What does that tell you?
To put it in simple terms, Haynes hasn’t said anything wrong.
In fact, his comments fall entirely in line and consistent with the company’s official policy.
Twitter is very clear on this issue.
The company would only disclose its users’ private information if the company receives a valid court order urging it to do so.
“You Need To Have A Control Of Your TimeLine” By Olinda Hassan
Olinda Hassan works at Twitter as the company’s official policy manager.
Part of Hassan’s job is to help the company develop regulations for online issues such as hate speech.
So what does the video show?
The video shows a person belonging to Project Veritas, telling Olinda Hassan that he tried to block some people such as Cernovich.
The person also tells that he has tried to mute such people and “stuff like that”.
Then the same person tells Olinda and none of those actions have worked that people like Cernovich still show up in his feed.
To that, Olinda Hassan replies that the company was working hard on the mentioned problem.
Hassan also mentioned that Twitter had a goal to not allow “shitty” users/people to show up on other people’s feed.
In other words, Olinda Hassan never specified what she meant by “shitty” people.
She could be talking about anyone if that matters.
Again, James O’Keefe doesn’t care.
He naturally insinuated that Olinda Hassan definitely referred to the official Twitter blacklist which consists of all the conservative pundits who use the platform to reach out to their followers.
Here is the interesting part though.
If we take a closer look at the same conversation, we would find that Hassan specifically stressed that people needed to have a strict control of their timeline.
To put it another way, the conversation did not indicate that the “shitty” users feature only applied to one type of partisan affiliation and/or ideology.
That also means that if a Twitter user is a conservative user and that user wants to block several of the annoying liberal twitter pundits, then Twitter’s technology should have no problems in allowing that.
For clarity’s sake Hassan did not ask about banning anyone, let alone conservatives.
The video shows that the Project Veritas staffer actually made that request.
Moreover, the video in no way showed Olinda Hassan implying that Twitter’s feature to ban someone was only limited to people who belonged to the conservative side.
“That Is A Thing” By Conrado Miranda
This time we had Project Veritas associated woman talking to Conrado Miranda.
Conrado Miranda doesn’t work for Twitter.
Not anymore at least.
Miranda used to work for Twitter as an engineer in the company.
The Project Veritas women while talking to Miranda mentioned that she had heard some talk about a new feature which would a lot of good things.
Good things such as ban people like,
- Trump supporters
Then the Project Veritas women continue to say she doesn’t really know if the feature would come in the near future.
Or whether it was just that, talk.
Miranda then replies to the Project Veritas women that Twitter indeed had that kind of a feature. So what’s the problem here then?
Miranda clearly agreed with the Project Veritas women that Twitter had a feature to ban conservative and pro-Trump voices, didn’t he?
Well, it turns out, the Project Veritas video had a small problem.
The organization actually edited the above-mentioned segment.
Hence, no one really knows that the Project Veritas said before the actual exchanged happened between her and Miranda.
More simply, we have no idea who is “they” in the conversion and who is “it” in the conversation.
Miranda and the Project Veritas women could easily be talking about the technology which Twitter vices to the user in order to enhance the user’s ability to filter out unwanted tweets.
Or other tweets which the user finds annoying.
The technology is available to block both liberal and/or conservative voices.
Moreover, Miranda didn’t actually mention any political filtering.
He just gave a high-level technical description of Twitter’s content filtering feature.
Project Veritas Videos: Conclusion
The point is, there is not an organization on earth which wouldn’t look bad if a group like Project Veritas with lavish funding, talked to dozens of the organization’s employees by taking them out for dinner or whatever but under false pretenses.
There is always a chance of success when you try to get an organization’s employee talk dirty about their own employers.