Hey everyone Me: Kevin here. Welcome back to the third installment of the Twitter files. It is the third Me Kevin installment of the Twitter files. First, we had dump number one where we had, uh, quite revealing outcomes.

like particularly this one, this is probably one of the most critical ones and you can watch my part one video on this. just meet Kevin Twitter files. Uh, you can type that in the YouTube and see the other parts, but let me give you a quick little catch up to speed here and then we'll go into the new part that's just now dropping. So video one: We talked about how basically political parties either Democrats or Republicans could submit tweets that they wanted removed from Twitter and the more contacts you had at Twitter the more likely you were to see uh, tweet removal requests actually uh fulfilled.

And this made me wonder gee, I wonder when I ran for governor and my posts got censored how badly this was? exactly what was going on with the Gavin Newsom campaign in California in that video I called for hey, you know what we need for Twitter We need a full list of anybody who's reported any tweet ever. when you click on a tweet sort of like a blockchain style Ledger and then you need all the action taken. Then we caught wind in the second installment of the series that the FBI or former FBI Mr Jim Baker here former member of the FBI who had worked with Uh looking for potential Russia collusion evidence with Donald Trump during the 2016 uh, uh and the Alpha Bank event during the 2016 Presidential election ended up getting hired by Twitter and he was actually moderating the first batch of the Twitter Files release when Elon Musk found out about this Elon Musk Found this guy's explanation unconvincing and he gave this guy the quote-unquote exit Well folks, and now we have Oops Now we have made it to my third video on the Twitter files and this third video is going to be our review of part two of the Twitter file. So it's even though it's the third video, it's technically the second dump because we had that sort of interim news about the FBI.

So let's get right into the second or Twitter files. reveal Part 2.0 Here we go. So we've got Uh Barry covering this one. Twitter Files Release Number one: A new Twitter Files investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees built blacklists, prevents, uh, prevented disfavored uh' tweets from trending, and actively limited the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics all in secret without informing the people who were being limited or the public.

In other words, Twitter had entire departments dedicated to specific censorship. That is, if they did not like you, they could choose your account and label your account as not to be promoted not to Trend not to be Amplified and we'll see those details in a moment. But it just starts off already with a completely disgusting truth. And it's a truth that we've pretty well already known existed.

but it is one that is now crystal clear in our face. Even more crystal clear than an expiring coupon code on December 9th. That's tomorrow after I Ring the bell for the coupon code PB Number two Twitter Once had a mission to quote: give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. along the way, Barriers nevertheless were erected.

I Joined Twitter in 2009. Uh, it was way less popular obviously then, but I imagine that was probably more of the raw. Twitter Anyway, take for example: uh Santa Stanford's Dr J I'll call him Dr J Okay, Dr J by the way, Uh, well. I'll first read this who uh, who argued that coveted lockdowns would hurt children Twitter secretly placed him on a Trends blacklist which prevented his Trends uh or his tweets from trending.

So take a look at this. Here's a: Stanford Doctor Who has an opinion. The Stanford doctor has an opinion. that and and I I Know this Stanford Doctor His opinion has been let Covid go in low-risk communities.

Four, five, six-year-olds ten-year-olds Uh, young adults are generally at a substantially lower risk than let's say, a population over 60 years old of death from Covid, Right? And so this Doctor had a thesis that you should allow Covid to to essentially spread through those communities and let natural immunity take over because those are low risk groups. Well, Twitter did not like that and so for this particular doctor, they labeled his account as Trend blacklisted. Which means he could his tweets no matter how popular they got, no matter how much support they got from the people. It was impossible for this doctor to go trending because Twitter chose.

No, we don't like the idea that this doctor suggests it might be okay for Kovid just to spread in certain low risk age groups, which is a very, very fair perspective. certainly. Now looking back, very, very reasonable perspective. In my opinion, this would be like somebody going into a stock community and saying something like hey, did you know that investing in Ape is probably a really bad idea and this is an eight dollar stock that could go under a dollar within the next six months and then lo and behold, that's literally exactly what happens.

But that Community then blacklists you because now we don't want to hear it. Well, that's not right, because that's not how perspective and education should be shared, right? It's the same thing here with Covet. If people have valuable opinions, we should be able to hear those opinions. But Twitter went out of the way to Trends Blacklist A Stanford Doctor Who Had an opinion on coven and one that was reasonable.

It's pretty harsh. Here's another one. this is Uh Mr Dan Over here he's a right-wing talk show host. Uh, he was once slapped with a search Blacklist now I believe this is uh, he used to work for the NYPD whom I highly respect I'm pretty sure Dan uh Twitter did not like Dan because he called uh masks face diapers and honestly most masks that people wore during covid were face diapers.

they were stupid bandanas cloth masks Etsy Mass Complete garbage only properly fitted. You know, surgical masks gave you like a 60 protection. Uh, you know, an N95? maybe? Uh, unless you had a bunch of facial hair or improperly fitted or used it too much. Probably closer to like an 80 85 percent protective element, right? So good masks work.

But our government was too stupid to educate people about the difference of the quality of masks because Dr fauci came out and what'd they first tell us no, no, no, nobody should get masks. don't buy N95s because they needed to protect the supply for nurses and it's kind of like, well, way to set a bad, you know, standard for everyone. uh or a bad expectation. Anyway, this particular user was labeled uh on a search Blacklist uh apparently also got labeled not safe for work and uh, a notification Spike I I believe that label.

although they don't go into that clarification here I believe that is a throttle now I'm not sure about that because again, they don't provide that perspective here. but uh, also on planet banned by YouTube uh this, um when I see a notification Spike What? I expect that means because obviously I'm a Creator uh I believe That means when you post, you might ordinarily get uh, 10 000 people or a hundred thousand people who in the first minute get your notification right? However, it is possible that a company like Twitter can go in and put a cap on that and say no, no, we're going to reduce that by 90 so you'll only get one thousand or ten thousand, right and notifications instead. Uh, that was probably what a notification strike there is. Here's another one: Twitter Set the account of conservative activist Charlie Kirk to do Not amplify now Charlie he's 29.

not that the age matters I I relate to that because I'm 30, right? and I'm like dude, this guy's a year younger than I'm anyway. uh, like I'm so used to seeing people in media that are older than me and I'm like, oh okay. Anyway, so this person uh, I don't know much about this person. However, they did get a do Not amplify label and I believe this person uh, was involved in, uh, some some of the stop the Steel rallies after January 6th.

so uh, some some of the Uh election fraud you know claims this. You know this is a little further but still labeled by Twitter Okay, still labeled by Twitter Twitter And then here's the worst part here. This is where it's ugly. Twitter Denied that it does such things in 2018.

Twitter's then head of Legal Policy and Trust and Trust and the head of product said quote. we do not Shadow ban And we certainly do not Shadow Ban based on political viewpoints or ideology. Well, let me just point out that all three of the accounts that we just showed are all conservatives. All of them And they all had conservative stances, fewer lockdowns, masks that suck, don't work, and then of course election fraud.

which you know. Okay, this was a little further: I Don't think it deserves to be censored? Uh, but but that's that's. probably. you know if you're kind of going on a slippery slope of claims I Guess you could put them in that order.

uh, in a big gap between some of them. But anyway, moving on here. what many people call Shadow Banning Twitter Executives and employees call visibility filtering VF Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning. Now what I think is interesting here is basically what they're doing is: they're they're they're talking through loopholes here, right? They're suggesting that oh no, we don't Shadow ban people.

We just do visibility filtering. So if you ask them bluntly, hey, do you conduct visibility filtering they'd either have to lie or say no, right or yes because obviously they did uh no would obviously be lying because clearly they were doing that if, uh, if if you hear uh oh, do you Shadow band oh no no, we we don't use that phrase, no, we don't do that. It's just a lie, it's just lying. By Omission is really what it is because you're asking the same thing.

Shadow Ban is synonymous with visibility filtering. It's nonsense. and and basically the way this would work is you post a tweet that rather than going out to a million people, goes out to a hundred thousand people or or even less ten thousand people. And all of a sudden it's like it's just not getting shown, it's not getting the engagement.

And what's remarkable about this is actually what comes up here. Uh, think about Well Here she explains: think about Visibility Filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see, uh to different levels. It's a very powerful tool. Yeah, of course it's a very powerful tool.

Visibility filtering refers to Twitter's control over user visibility. It used VF to block searches of individual users, limit the scope of a particular tweet's discoverability. So in other words, if I tweet something that all of a sudden is really really popular and then it might enter into different communities. like maybe it enters into a Tesla Community but then it spreads into uh I don't know Arabian community and then it spreads into you know a Mercedes Community right? That's virality is is the natural spread of a very popular topic or tweet is virality.

But if you have visibility filtering, you can stop that virality in its tracks. And this was interesting here. All of this obviously without users knowledge here. Number 11 Quote: we control visibility quite a bit and we control the amplification of your content quite a bit and normal people do not know how much we do when Twitter Engineer told us, two additional Twitter employees confirmed number 12.

The group that decided whether to limit the reach of certain users was known as the SRT Strategic Response Team and then they had an additional name here Global Escalation Team. So SRT get just remember the SRT part because that becomes useful here in a moment. It often handled up to 200 cases a day, but they're existed a level. Beyond Official Ticketing Beyond the rank and file moderators following the company's policy on paper, that is the site Integrity Policy Policy Escalation Support known as Sip PES Some crazy acronyms here Anyway, Sip so you got SRT and Sip.

You just want to know that there's a differentiation between these two. The SRT people are kind of like, okay. you deal with the reported cases, right? Sip: They're the ones who want all of sort of the policy of Twitter Twitter's political Google's probably enforced. That's roughly what I believe you can gather from this.

This secret group included the head of Legal Policy and Trust the global head of Trust and safety. Uh, both of these people are no longer at Twitter and eventually Jackie and Perog, as well as others. This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made. Think High follow High Follower count Controversial Any or another Twitter employee uh told us so basically any big name on Twitter that they just wanted to put their finger on, this was the team to do it.

The Sipis that's what we're going to call it. the Sip piss. For these, there would be no ticket or anything. so in other words it was all done in secret.

kind of like a Sam Bankman Freedian kind of approach or should I say fraudian. Anyway, one of the accounts that Rose to this level of scrutiny was Libs of Tick Tock. Rose. To this level of scrutiny, My goodness.

Okay, Libs of Tick Tock is a a Channel or I should say a page on Twitter that uh posts a lot of things about. Well, I'll I'll give you sort of my synopsis in the nicest way possible. Um, they want to make ordinary Americans aware that uh, some people uh are very comfortable in a certain belief of uh, gendering or identifying uh in in a different way and they want to spread that belief uh or the awareness that certain people who want to identify as different genders or conduct certain you know teachings or whatever lives of Tick Tock tries to spread awareness that there are people who will spread those messages sometimes to children. Project: Veritas Just did one of those where a high school principal was on a hidden camera talking about how certain sexual toys were being introduced in high schools to girls between 14 to 18.

right? roughly along similar lines of some of the content you'll see at Lives of Tick Tock. anyway. Um, I'm trying my best to be neutral here, but it's it's obviously hard. Some things are going to lean a little bit in some ways.

I'm just going to do my best and try to be transparent with my bias. But anyway, so this Lives of Tick Tock I Think the probably the best thing to do is just go look at their page and you'll see a little bit anyway. Uh, and then of course they like to make fun of liberals as well, but that seems to be one of the core things that they cover. So um, an account that was on the trends Black List Uh, Lives of Tick Tock was also designated as do Not Take Action On User without consulting Sipis.

Now, what's interesting about that is that basically means this account was so important for them to moderate that it actually Rose to almost the level of the CEO's Secret Group of Censorship. That's pretty dang incredible. So so there we're on Part 16 here. Let me see, there should be some more parts by now.

Uh, let's see here. Oh I think Actually, we might be uh, it at 16. so we'll uh we'll We'll keep talking on that for a moment and oh no, Well, yeah, okay, we've gone a little further. 124.

one second, it just hadn't loaded. There we go. All right, Number 17. here we go, number 17..

here's another account: An account that began in November 2020 that now boasts over 1.4 million followers was subject to six suspensions in 2022 alone, and each time the person was blocked from posting for as long as a week. Twitter repeatedly informed the account that or account holder that she had been suspended for violating Twitter's policy against hateful conduct. But an internal oh, interesting, they actually kept memos this is this is quite. uh, uh, quite shocking, but an internal sipis Memo from October 22 22 After her seventh suspension, the committee acknowledged that the individual has not directly engaged in Behavior violative of the hateful Conduct policy.

site policy recommendation: Oh, this is for Libs of Tick Tock. Okay, fine. uh. okay.

so site policy recommends placing Libs of Tick Tock in a seven day timeout at the account level meaning not for a specific tweet based on the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's hateful conduct policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions that support Lgbtq communities. At the time, the site policy has not found explicitly violative tweets which would result in a permanent suspension of the account. This type of enforcement Repeated seven-day timeouts of the account level will not lead to a permanent suspension, However, Should LTT Libs of Tick Tock engage in any other direct tweet level violations of site policies, we will move forward with a permanent suspension assessment since its most recent timeout. While LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the hateful conduct policy, the user has continued targeting individuals and supporters of the Lgbtqia.

Plus Community for allegations, conduct the targeting of one of these institutions. Okay, then it runs up. Anyway, What's really interesting here is it looks like the the dialogue at Twitter was hey, you've got Libs of Tick Tock posting things that that are leading other people to feel harassed, right? Because I mean let's let's be real. What happens here is lives of Tick Tock.

Post something that maybe ninety percent of people find ridiculous, but ten percent of people find perfectly normal. Well, those 90 percent of people could potentially then gang up on on somebody who posted something like this, right? And it looks like Twitter And I mean that's the internet. That's just the internet. That's the way the internet works.

This is why there's hashtag, unpopular opinion. Okay, if you say something and a lot of people are gonna like it, they're gonna let you know. That's what we get in the comment sections I Get it all the time. Look at this.

Josh here. uh says Kevin Doesn't want to make some of his viewers upset because he says quit minimizing what Libs of Tick Tock does They post that truth and the truth makes the left very mad. Don't be scared to call it. I I I I Okay there.

Anyway, so uh, it's really interesting though, because when we when we just pause for a moment and think about this at the corporate level, this means that at the corporate level, you had an executive body in the hands of the uh, uh, the CEO essentially able to uh, shape the kind of speech that they want on Tick Tock. In my opinion, that is clear censorship. If there is a group of people that jump up and down and say hey, we want more Lgbtq stuff, fine, you know you should be able to have your opportunity to speak about that in your community. And if other people come in and hate, that's the Internet.

On the flip side, if letters of Tick Tock wants to post their anti-commentary or make fun of certain things or whatever, it would be entirely fair for other people to come over to Libs of Tick Tock and hate on Libs and Tick Tock lives of Tick Tock if they wanted to, right? That's the whole premise of Free Speech. But what blows my mind here is that you actually had a corporate executive level uh, body that in secret plotted to censor specific topics that that I that's not okay for a platform that's supposed to be all about Free Speech right now I Mean this. This is this isn't it. And I mean they even say it here.

They're not engaging in behavior that violates hateful conduct. So the account's not even violating any kind of policies. yet. It's almost like they're still looking for reasons to put this person, a person's account in a Perpetual uh, a loop of of bands.

It it. Personally, it just. it seems very dangerous because you know, as somebody who ran for Governor I think to myself, this is so dangerous because what if what if I have a policy I'm just going to make this up. Okay, let's just say I have a policy and it says I want every single four-year-old to pass a financial Education test Okay, that's obviously a very stupid policy because you know before your old, some of them can't even identify all the letters of the alphabet, right? Well, so there should be criticism for that.

Well, let's have debate. why don't we make it eight years old instead of four, right? But everybody should be able to have their commentary on that. But if there was a secret body that said oh no no no Financial Education in schools. let's just try to seven day ban Kevin over and over and over again.

even though he's not violating any rules that would totally f with your campaign and your ability to actually bring change that a lot of people might support. which is financial education in schools that's now I'm I'm using Financial education as a way to I think very fairly. Escalate this into what this kind of censorship could turn into. If you can censor LTT even when they're not violating policies at Twitter then you can Finance Then then you could censor uh, election based discourse.

That's really, really bad. Number 20: The Committee Justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of hospitals and medical providers by insinuating that gender affirming Health Care is the equivalent to child abuse or grooming I mean the hashtag grooming shows up like every day on Twitter right? And and that's just what it is is people. There are a lot of people that don't want their children exposed to certain ideas and parents should have that right? Uh, However, if people want to discuss one thing uh, you know one side of that argument or the other, they should be free to be able to do that. The Committee should.

There should not be a secret committee justifying suspensions because somebody is getting upset that somebody else is making a, you know, a more popular opinion about a certain topic. All right, number 21. compare this to what happened uh with the individual herself. she was doxxed uh, the the person who runs the account.

a photo of her home with her address was posted in a tweet that has garnered more than ten thousand likes. When the individual told Twitter that her address had been disseminated, she says Twitter Support responded with the message. We reviewed the reported contact, the content and didn't find it to be in violation of the Twitter rules. no action was taking taken.

The doxing Tweet is still up Now This is. This is shocking because so here you have the individual who runs the LTT account saying hey, look, here's somebody who's saying this that I think is ridiculous Twitter bans that person for having an opinion that's effed up. Then their safety actually gets violated by having their address leaked. They're doxed on the internet which is totally private information and totally against the terms of services.

And what does Twitter do? Nothing Absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Uh, when the individual told Twitter that her address had been disseminated, she says Twitter Support responded with this message. We reviewed the report and took no action.

Cheese man, that's crazy in internal slack messages. Twitter Employees spoke of using technicalities to restrict the visibility of tweets and subjects. Here's y'all Roth this is somebody who was actually a right-hand person for Elon Musk for a while at Twitter and uh, they got they. they either left or got fired I would guess more likely pleasantly exited.

If we'll put it that way, Twitter's then Global Head of Trust and Safety in a direct message to a colleague. Okay, so Twitter employees spoke of using technicalities to restrict visibility. Okay, A Lot of times SI has used, uh, the technicality of spam enforcements as a way to solve a problem created by safety under enforcing their policy which again, isn't a problem per se. But it keeps us from addressing the root cause of the issue, which is that our safety policies need some attention.

Wow. So in other words here, here's basically an expose showing that even when Twitter took action where they should not have taken action, they covered it up under the idea that oh, well, let's just call it spam When real action should have been taken like protecting somebody who's been doxxed, they did, uh, they did. They did nothing. That's pretty disgusting.

That's pretty disgusting. That's pretty dang incredible. That is really incredible. Six days later, in a direct message with an employee on the Health Misinformation, Privacy and Identity research team, the same individual requested more research and support expanding non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagement and deamplification.

All right, let's see one of the biggest areas I'd love to I'd love research support on is colon non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagements and deamplification, visibility, filtering. The hypothesis underlying much of we've implemented is that if exposure example given to misinformation causes harm, we should use remedies remediations to reduce that exposure. I mean like, who's to say it's misinformation right? Like that's and I think that's the important thing because now all of a sudden Twitter is trying to be the Arbiter of what is misinformation because the reality is during coven, there were a lot of things that were called misinformation that ended up being true that weren't misinformation and limiting the spread. Uh, Slash virality of content is a good way to do that.

So in other words, censorship is a good way to do your social justice work by just reducing the prevalence. Overall, we got Jack on board. Oh no, they finally did it. They finally threw Jack Dorsey under the bus.

Oh, it finally happened. We got Jack on board with the Implement with implementing this for civic Integrity in the near term, but we're going to need to make a more robust case to get this into our repertoire of policy recommendations remediations, especially for other policy domains. So I'd Love Wreaths research's point of view on that. Holy moly, that's pretty incredible.

That is really, really incredible. Okay, so let's uh, let's see what other posts we have here. So so far, this is some pretty damning stuff on how much content, moderation, and censorship was really going on. Uh, over at Twitter and it's it's a lot subject.

Oh okay. Anyway, all right, let's keep going here. Roth The Hypothesis: Oh, we already read that one. Okay, let's go to the next one.

26 he added. we got Jack on board. Okay, well, we read that one. There's more to come on the story which was reported by these others.

Keep up with the story unfolding at a brand new website. Okay, Uh, okay. that's fine. The authors have brought in expanding access to the Twitter files.

The only condition we agreed upon was that the material would first be published on Twitter Okay, well so far that seems to be the content that we have that we're probably going to be getting today. At least this was the last one here in the last four minutes. But let's just do a let's let's just do a a uh a recap here of some of the things that we've seen we have in this: Twitter 2.0 files seen directly how censorship Uh was was conducted by two levels of teams at Twitter A one team that was sort of the the case Response Team probably the ones that would respond to escalations from politicians, right? That was one team. Well, then there was a second team.

oh I have a laser pointer. Uh. then there was a second team that Uh was much closer to the CEO Jack Dorsey and apparently had had Direct authorization to to do what they were doing from Uh from Jack Dorsey or at least to proceed as they were. and these teams together could label accounts to conduct visibility filtering which is another way of saying Shadow Banning but not saying Shadow Banning And because of that, they were able to loophole out of interviews and say oh no we don't Shadow ban we just visibility filter But then they didn't say that, part right And and that would prevent uh Stanford doctors from trending on Twitter with ideas that were actually quite reasonable uh, but ideas that were not necessarily what the um, uh Democratic agenda called for.

Then you had uh uh, censorship on people's accounts D promoting notifications and deep promoting reach for people who called masks, face diapers. uh I mean this. This really is clearly political censorship, right? And then the Banning of Libs of Tick Tock over and over and over again. even though they specifically said the account didn't violate any rules, but they just essentially continued to ban the individual because it led to some mean comments within certain communities.

Is pretty surprising. Pretty surprising that that Twitter basically conducted censorship on accounts that did not violate Twitter policies and then you had individuals within Twitter going. Hmm, Well, we can't kids just keep calling them spam. Maybe we need to come up with a better explanation for how we can censor people.

Let's get together and Center people more. It's really surprising now. Look, some things don't belong in the world of free speech. Obviously if like, you're doxing somebody like the libs of Tick Tock account owner and their address is plastered on the internet, you know that should be removed for their safety.

Somebody's like hey, you know, meet me at 5 pm and we're gonna go storm the Federal Reserve and we're gonna go handcuff and beat up Jay Powell you know, that that's the kind of stuff that violates law and that shouldn't be present, right? But but this is. this is pretty disgusting Crypto lifer. Thank you so much for the 20 donation Let It Rain uh this is this is pretty pretty disgusting. It's it's It's almost as disgusting as this person that I thought was a friend I thought was a friend and I quietly I don't publicize this stuff donated to them and I make a joke for an hour I'm like hey, now that you've turned into a hater, can I have my donation back People like do I really want my thirteen hundred thirty seven dollars back Like so stupid people who actually think I want my donation back, it's like are you serious like that's stupid uh but but then, but then now hater communities are like oh, let's circulate Kevin's uh, you know and uh, you know it was.

It was not the best joke it was. It was an insensitive joke. But you know the person turned into hater I'm like man, there is so much Hayden Envy in this world. and I honestly I think that really directly relates to this Twitter Censorship is there's so much hate and envy for other people, other people who are succeeding or other people who have a different Viewpoint that people have to go out of their way to try to drag others into their nasty, dirty, disgusting swamp.

And it's just so sad. It's so sad. What? I want to tell you all this is I Think it is so critically important that no matter who we are. first of all, thank you for watching this channel.

But I want you to think to yourself when I go ring the bell of the Stock Exchange tomorrow at 4pm I want you to think about how when I was 17 years old I stood clueless in front of that Stock Exchange and I had haters I had failures I had made mistakes even at 17. and I made a lot more the next 13 and a half years because now 30. But it doesn't mean you can't succeed. The only way you lose in America or in many First World countries is if you give up.

If you look at that mud on your feet, you look at that envy and that hate and that swamp and you say you're right I'm just gonna. you go get sucked into the hate and envy and vitriol of the Internet it's so bad it's so toxic. and the more you pay attention to hate, the less money you'll make. Ooh that should be a quote.

More hate the less you make, the more you hate the less you make. Oh oh we are dropping bombs today. We need to make t-shirts on that. the more you hate the less you make I like I don't know I like it.

Thank you all very much. Have a wonderful evening! These Twitter files are disgusting and folks goodbye.