Elon Musk Had Fun With Dogecoin Also an X IPO, online banking, hedge fund pay and temperature arbitrage. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...9.aMx0lvVvUlDuWa2nmbVTge3p-klu9g9GTowkp3-mYGs
The amount of child exploitation material on Twitter has never been higher. Musk's leadership brings the number of accounts spamming child abuse material to new peaks. Stanford Internet Observatory raises alarm over 'serious failings with the child protection systems at Twitter' Researchers find 100,000 accounts spamming child abuse material https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/06/stanford_internet_observatory_csam/
Twitter’s own lawyers refute Elon Musk’s claim that the ‘Twitter Files’ exposed US government censorship https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/tech/twitter-files-lawyers/index.html For months, Twitter owner Elon Musk and his allies have amplified baseless claims that the US government illegally coerced Twitter into censoring a 2020 New York Post article about Hunter Biden. The foundation for those claims rests on the so-called “Twitter Files,” a series of reports by a set of handpicked journalists who, at Musk’s discretion, were given selective access to historical company archives. Now, though, Twitter’s own lawyers are disputing those claims in a case involving former President Donald Trump — forcefully rejecting any suggestion that the Twitter Files show what Musk and many Republicans assert they contain. In a court filing last week, Twitter’s attorneys contested one of the most central allegations to emerge from the Twitter Files: that regular communications between the FBI and Twitter ahead of the 2020 election amounted to government coercion to censor content or, worse, that Twitter had become an actual arm of the US government. In tweets last year, Musk alleged that the communications showed a clear breach of the US constitution. “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” he said of a screenshot purportedly showing Joe Biden’s presidential campaign in 2020 asking Twitter to review several tweets it suggested were violations of the company’s terms. Some of the tweets in question included nonconsensual nude images that violated Twitter’s policies. In another push to promote misleading allegations of government malfeasance stemming from the Twitter Files, Musk also claimed that the “government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public.” Legal experts have said the claim of a constitutional violation is weak because the First Amendment binds the government, not political campaigns, and Trump was president at the time, not Biden. The Twitter Files also show the Trump administration made its own requests for removal of Twitter content. And the payments to Twitter have also been identified as routine reimbursements for responding to subpoenas and investigations, not payments for content moderation decisions. “Nothing in the new materials shows any governmental actor compelling or even discussing any content-moderation action with respect to Trump” and others participating in the suit, Twitter argued. The communications unearthed as part of the Twitter Files do not show coercion, Twitter’s lawyers wrote, “because they do not contain a specific government demand to remove content—let alone one backed by the threat of government sanction.” “Instead,” the filing continued, the communications “show that the [FBI] issued general updates about their efforts to combat foreign interference in the 2020 election.” The evidence outlined by Twitter’s lawyers is consistent with public statements by former Twitter employees and the FBI, along with prior CNN analysis of the Twitter Files. Altogether, the filing by Musk’s own corporate lawyers represents a step-by-step refutation of some of the most explosive claims to come out of the Twitter Files and that in some cases have been promoted by Musk himself. Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Even as the filing undercuts Musk’s effort to portray the Twitter Files as a smoking gun, the filing may still work to his benefit because, if successful, it may save Twitter from a costly re-litigation of its handling of Trump’s account and others. The communications in question, some of which also came out in a deposition of an FBI agent in a separate case, were invoked last year as part of a bid to revive litigation over Twitter’s banning of Trump following the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol. The lawsuit had been dismissed last summer, after the federal judge overseeing the case said there was no evidence of a First Amendment violation. Musk’s release of company files has given lawyers for Trump and other plaintiffs in the case another shot. If the court decides the new evidence is enough to suspend the prior judgment, the lawyers for Trump and others said in May, then they might decide to file a fresh amended complaint. But Twitter argued last week that the judge should not allow the case to be reopened because nothing in the Twitter Files supports the already dismissed claim of federal coercion. Even the FBI’s flagging of specific problematic tweets were merely suggestions that they might violate Twitter’s terms of service, not a request that they be removed or an implication of retribution if Twitter failed to take the tweets down, Twitter’s lawyers said. Citing another case, Twitter wrote: “The FBI’s ‘flags’ cannot amount to coercion because there was ‘no intimation that Twitter would suffer adverse consequences if it refused.’” Twitter also objected to the claim, amplified by Musk, that Twitter was paid to censor conservative speech when it sought reimbursement for complying with government requests for user data. “The reimbursements were not for responding to requests to remove any accounts or content and thus are wholly irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ joint-action theory,” Twitter wrote. It added: “The new materials demonstrate only that Twitter exercised its statutory right—provided to all private actors—to seek reimbursement for time spent processing a government official’s legal requests for information under the Stored Communications Act. The payments therefore do not concern content moderation at all—let alone specific requests to take down content.”
Did you read the WSJ article? They deleted 400K accounts. It says they found 40 out of 100,000 .... not 100,000 Does the word "dozens" go right over your head? Twitter Missed Dozens of Known Images of Child Sexual Abuse Material, Researchers Say Social-media platform has now improved its detection system, Stanford Internet Observatory was told For the month of January, Twitter said it suspended about 404,000 accounts that created or engaged with child sexual exploitation material. Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg By Alexa Corse June 5, 2023 10:00 am ET Twitter failed to prevent dozens of known images of child sexual abuse from being posted on its platform in recent months, according to Stanford University researchers who said the situation indicated a lapse in basic enforcement. The researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory, who were investigating child-safety issues across several platforms, said they told Twitter staff about their findings, and that the problem appeared to have been resolved in May. The researchers said Twitter told them last week it had improved some aspects of its detection system, and asked the researchers to alert the company if they ever notice a spike in such cases in the future. Twitter didn’t comment in response to an email from The Wall Street Journal about the researchers’ report. In just over two months, from March 12 to May 20, the researchers’ system detected more than 40 images posted to Twitter that were previously flagged as child sexual abuse material, based on a data set of roughly 100,000 tweets, said David Thiel, chief technologist of the Stanford Internet Observatory and a co-author of the report.
They detected "40 hash matches in 100,000 tweets". This means that 40 out of every 100,000 Tweets are child exploitation material. Based on this sample --- this means that child exploitation material on Twitter is reaching new heights. As outlined in the article, Twitter has no mechanism or channel for reporting this child exploitation material -- all those people in the CSAM team were fired by Musk. The researchers had to go to great lengths to get a meeting arranged with Twitter to get the abusive material they found removed.
No. This: "based on a data set of roughly 100,000 tweets" That sounds like they looked at 100,000 tweets to me. But more importantly this: "and that the problem appeared to have been resolved in May." Like I said, he bought a BUSINESS that was hemorrhaging cash. He came in and cut drastically and is building it back up. Why are you so obsessed with this? Case closed.
As I stated — in the sample, 40 out of the 100,000 tweets were child exploitation material. This is a very high level — especially when considering extending the ratio in the sample across the platform. I believe everyone should be concerned with what Musk has done with Twitter—- it is now a platform full of hate, child exploitation material and disinformation with nearly no moderation and no way to effectively report violations of Twitter’s own content policies.
As mentioned the researchers had to go to extraordinary lengths to resolve the issue and get the 40 items taken down because all the CSAM team at Twitter have been fired by Musk. Resolving a mere 40 instances of child exploitation material is not fixing the problem.