A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,322
6,826
118
Country
United States
...putting aside what should actually obviously happen (charges, prison time, the whole shebang)... knowing that won't happen, wouldn't it be the ultimate fuck-you move to the Trumpets for Biden to pardon him?

Immediately pisses off his entire base by making him look like he needed Biden's good graces. Tars Trump with any brush he wants to use against Biden. I can genuinely think of nothing that would piss Trump's supporters off more.
Except that they think it's a sham anyway. "Lmao, Biden could prosecute because they already didn't have anything and the committee is made of lying pedophiles" would be the likely reaction
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,338
8,834
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Immediately pisses off his entire base by making him look like he needed Biden's good graces. Tars Trump with any brush he wants to use against Biden. I can genuinely think of nothing that would piss Trump's supporters off more.
You're vastly underestimating the average Trump supporter's capacity for self-delusion. "Biden's just running a long con to defend the baby-eating lizard people!"
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,671
3,587
118
Nah I think it'll just sorta muddle around, with every couple of months some vague statement about it progressing and Trump being almost charged. But nothing will really happen until GOP get back in full control and they drop the entire thing because it would just look bad for them. Trump is old and will eventually die, at which point every MAGA fan will claim that they never really liked him and instead will move on to the new insane person they'll claim is totally their champion.
This. Though, I imagine that many people on both sides see him as a personal threat and are unhappy he's not being punished, politics makes strange bedfellows.

You're vastly underestimating the average Trump supporter's capacity for self-delusion. "Biden's just running a long con to defend the baby-eating lizard people!"
And, also this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
994
1,297
98
Country
Wales




WASHINGTON — On Dec. 19, 2020, the day that then-President Donald Trump sent a tweet summoning his supporters to a “wild” protest in the nation’s capital on Jan. 6, one of the FBI’s own confidential sources warned the bureau that the far-right considered Trump’s message “a call to arms,” according to an email reviewed by NBC News.

That tip to the FBI, from a source who is still used by the bureau and spoke on the condition of anonymity, warned there was a “big” threat of violence on Jan. 6. It was among hundreds of pages of reports viewed by NBC News that this source sent to the FBI in the weeks before the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol. The email, which has not been previously reported, warned that the Trump tweet was “gaining hold” on social media.


“Trump tweeted what people on the right are considering a call to arms in DC on Jan 6,” the confidential source wrote on the afternoon of Dec. 19, the day of Trump’s 1:42 a.m. “will be wild” tweet.

The information the source sent to the bureau in the weeks before the attack, pulled from extremist chatter on a variety of social media forums, included discussion of civil war, talk of hanging traitors and calls for militias to take up arms. It highlighted messages like “war is inevitable”; “hell is going to break loose”; “locked and loaded”; “my powder is dry, my guns are clean”; and “I’m not afraid of death and I’ll gladly take lives for the preservation of our country.” It included information on a “boogaloo” extremist who was prepared to die in D.C.



“We all must join/link forces and be ready to leave our lives behind,” that extremist wrote in a message relayed to the bureau by the confidential source. “We must pool resources and fight like there’s no tomorrow! The Constitution still lives and we must preserve it. Blood is the price of freedom.”

The additional information reviewed by NBC News adds to the growing pile of evidence that the bureau received intelligence that indicated Jan. 6 was a major threat and that pro-Trump extremists wanted to kill members of Congress. It illustrates that the warnings weren’t just coming from average Americans sending information into the FBI tip line, but from at least one trusted source vetted by the bureau.

The FBI confidential human source who sent that information spoke to NBC News after the Jan. 6 committee released a summary of its investigation, which avoided criticizing law enforcement failures in the lead-up to the attack because, as NBC News first reported last month, committee leaders decided to keep the focus on Trump. The full report is set to be released Wednesday.

The confidential human source has provided information that the FBI has used in Jan. 6 cases before. NBC News was able to verify their work with the bureau by reviewing documents, and by confirming their role with another person familiar with the source’s work with the FBI. The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The source said they were perplexed by the committee’s efforts to avoid reaching what seemed to them, and to many experts, as an obvious conclusion: that law enforcement failed to adequately respond to the intelligence in its possession ahead of the Jan. 6 attack.

“My first response was, like, what the f---?” the confidential human source said in reaction to NBC News’ reporting this week on the committee’s decision to avoid criticizing law enforcement in their summary.

“The bureau saw this coming,” they said. The source said they were frustrated that law enforcement’s failures in the lead-up to Jan. 6 “would be relegated to a footnote or glossed over” and that the committee had suggested there wasn’t adequate time to put together an analysis.

A separate source familiar with the Jan. 6 committee’s work confirmed that the Dec. 19, 2020, tip to the FBI was in the possession of the committee and was among many examples of intelligence the FBI received ahead of the Jan. 6 attack. That source expected that the Dec. 19 tip would be excluded from the Jan. 6 committee’s full report. A committee spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


The FBI confidential source said that they had “put together hundreds of pages of reports over the two weeks proceeding Jan. 6” for the bureau leading up to the attack.

“This didn’t go down the black hole of a web form or a tip line, this went to an agent directly,” the source said, who added they were confident the information was passed onto FBI officials in D.C. “To me, there’s no excuse to say, ‘We didn’t see this coming.’”

In the nearly two years since Jan. 6, the public has learned a decent amount about the tips the FBI received ahead of the Capitol attack, including one from the son of a Capitol rioter on Christmas Eve 2020 and from a member of the Oath Keepers who recorded a call in November 2020 that had him concerned the organization was going to take up arms against the government. The threat of violence on Jan. 6 wasn’t exactly a secret to anyone looking at the chatter from pro-Trump figures on social media before the attack: “Violent threats ripple through far-right internet forums ahead of protest,” read an NBC News headline on Jan. 5, 2021. But the newly revealed emails show that the bureau was warned by at least one of its own confidential sources about the potential for violence on Jan. 6 and that Trump’s rhetoric was having a radicalizing effect.

The Jan. 6 committee itself has highlighted Trump’s “will be wild” tweet as a major inflection point. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said during a committee hearing over the summer that Trump’s “will be wild” tweet had galvanized his followers, unleashed a political firestorm and had changed “the course of our history as a country.” As NPR documented, the tweet has been cited in numerous cases against Jan. 6 defendants.

The FBI, which will receive an increase of more than half a billion dollars under the government budget expected to pass Congress this week, has made several changes since the Jan. 6 attack. In a statement to NBC News in August, the FBI said it had “increased our focus on swift information sharing” and “improved automated systems established to assist investigators and analysts” since the Capitol attack. Months after the attack, FBI Director Chris Wray created the position of intelligence analyst in charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, giving an intelligence analyst a leadership title typically reserved for FBI special agents.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, which is running an investigation into the FBI’s handling of Jan. 6, said in an annual report issued this week that domestic terrorism was a particularly challenging issue for law enforcement given the importance of “preserving individuals’ First Amendment right to free speech or activity while protecting against the threat to national security.” Because of the volume of threats online, Wray has said, the bureau spends “an enormous amount of time” trying to figure out whether the “unbelievably horrific, angry, combative things” that people say online “reflect intention as opposed to aspiration.”

Striking that balance is difficult, says Bill Fulton, a contract intelligence analyst and former FBI confidential source.

“I think what the FBI has learned is that we have to be a little more proactive in how we deal with these people,” Fulton told NBC News. “But on the flip side of that, every time we are, people scream. And every time we don’t, people scream.”

The FBI confidential source who alerted the bureau about the far-right’s reaction to Trump’s “wild” tweet thinks there’s a lot more that could have been done. They said they were in regular communication with the bureau in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6. Two days after their email on Trump’s tweets, a bureau official thanked them for the information they provided about extremists headed to D.C. in January.

t’s good to be able to help DC get their ducks in a row before anything happens,” the FBI email stated.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,224
3,362
118





The pdf link from above paper: https://t.co/lsql6uMyiY

Conclusion

Our study supports the thesis that the QAnon movement poses a risk to national security, particularly in
English-speaking countries. The high prevalence of identity fusion indicators along with external threat nar-
ratives, violence-condoning group norms as well as demonising, dehumanising and derogatory vocabulary
in several QAnon groups are a particularly concerning warning sign that points to an increased proneness
of group members to commit acts of political violence. This assessment is further supported by the higher
occurrence of calls for violence we detected in QAnon channels when compared with our non-violent con-
trol group.

Taken together, the findings from the three groups offer support for the fusion-plus-threat model and illus-
trate how the proposed narrative and linguistic framework can be employed effectively for a computational
NLP analysis of large datasets when this is followed up with a manual review of representative samples.

Our holistic framework seeks to provide a better way of assessing risk of violence than simply taking calls
to violence at face value. Apart from the fact that cases of high risk for violence might be missed when only
measuring calls to violence, the fusion-plus-threat approach adds to our understanding of how to manage
the threats posed by today’s online spaces. With increasingly strict removal policies adopted by the big tech
platforms for social media, we have seen that violent extremist movements have skillfully adapted their lan-
guage to evade detection and deletion of their accounts and content. This means that even the most violent
groups and individuals have started to refrain from making explicit calls to violence and would therefore
easily go under the radar in most conventional monitoring systems. Even if it appears that there is a correla-
tion in our study that looks at end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, this might no longer be the case when
groups operate in spaces where they purposefully seek to cover up their willingness to commit violence.

Our findings have direct implications for research and policy. QAnon’s proneness to extreme violence points
to the need for a new definition of violent extremism. The movement’s confusing ideological composition,
post-organisational structures and wide-ranging membership [71] means that it does not fit into existing
counter-terrorism frameworks. Many national and international terrorism strategies tend to list specific ji-
hadist, right-wing or left-wing extremist groups, neglecting movements that transcend clear-cut ideological
and organisational boundaries.[72] As mentioned in the introduction, the UN Designated Terror Groups
list is almost exclusively focused on ISIS and Al-Qaeda related threats.[73] Broad categories such as “right-
wing extremism” and “Salafi-jihadist extremism” are insufficient in an era of ideologically fluid movements
with the potential to resort to violence – a growing phenomenon the FBI described as “salad bar ideologies”.

[74] Reflecting on this trend, the German intelligence agency introduced a new category for the monitoring
of anti-government and anti-democracy extremist groups (“Staatsdelegitimierer”) in 2021 to include vio-
lent extremists who no longer fit into the traditionally applied framework.[75] We could even ask whether
radicalisation towards violence should be viewed as a phenomenon entirely distinct from ideological indoc-
trination, driven not by group doctrines but by identity fusion. From the perspective of security services,
despite the important limitations discussed above, we contend that the analytical approach outlined in this
article could help with resource allocation, as it can help narrow down at-risk populations. Follow-up proj-
ects could take a user-centered approach, although this would inevitably raise ethical concerns that would
need to be navigated carefully. Ultimately, our research might open new doors for potential intervention
approaches, such as de-fusing [76] members of violent extremist groups.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to express their gratitude to Philip Kreißel, data scientist at
University of Bamberg, Hateaid and Volksverpetzer for his tech expertise, mentoring and advice in the
NLP coding process.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,205
1,710
118
Country
4
Committee refers Trump to Justice Department
The House committee lays out a number of criminal statutes it believes were violated in the plots to stave off Trump’s defeat and says there’s evidence for criminal referrals to the Justice Department for Trump, Eastman and “others.”

The report summary first released Monday says there’s evidence to pursue Trump on multiple crimes, including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make false statements, assisting or aiding an insurrection, conspiring to injure or impede an officer and seditious conspiracy.

The panel says it also has the evidence to refer Eastman on the obstruction charge, and it names him as a co-conspirator in other alleged criminal activity lawmakers have gathered evidence on.

The committee alluded to evidence of criminal obstruction of the House investigation but the summary does not go into detail about that evidence.

Trump’s false victory declaration was ‘premeditated’
The committee outlines 17 findings from its investigation that underpin its reasoning for criminal referrals, including that Trump knew the fraud allegations he was pushing were false and continued to amplify them anyway.

“President Trump’s decision to declare victory falsely on election night and, unlawfully, to call for the vote counting to stop, was not a spontaneous decision. It was premeditated,” the report states.

The committee also revealed emails from Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, from before the 2020 presidential election that say Trump should declare victory regardless of the outcome.

It notes that Trump’s top allies, including those who testified before the committee, acknowledged they found no proof to back up the former president’s claims.

“Ultimately, even Rudolph Giuliani and his legal team acknowledged that they had no definitive evidence of election fraud sufficient to change the election outcome,” it adds, referring to Trump’s then-personal attorney.

“For example, although Giuliani repeatedly had claimed in public that Dominion voting machines stole the election, he admitted during his Select Committee deposition that ‘I do not think the machines stole the election,’” it states.


Trump refused to act as riot unfolded
The committee lays out Trump’s failure to act as the riot unfolded, noting that as he watched the riot on television, he made no calls for security assistance and resisted efforts from staffers asking him to call off his supporters.

“President Trump did not contact a single top national security official during the day. Not at the Pentagon, nor at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the F.B.I., the Capitol Police Department, or the D.C. Mayor’s office,” the committee writes. “As Vice President Pence has confirmed, President Trump didn’t even try to reach his own Vice President to make sure that Pence was safe.”

Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee he had this reaction to Trump, “You know, you’re the Commander in Chief. You’ve got an assault going on on the Capitol of the United States of America. And there’s nothing? No call? Nothing? Zero?”

White House staffers, meantime, described being appalled that as the Capitol was under attack, Trump fired off a tweet criticizing Pence.

Hicks texted a colleague that night to say, “Attacking the VP? Wtf is wrong with him,” according to the committee’s summary report.

“No photographs exist of the President for the remainder of the afternoon until after 4 p.m. President Trump appears to have instructed that the White House photographer was not to take any photographs,” the committee writes, citing testimony from former White House photographer Shealah Craighead.

In the aftermath, on the evening of January 6, Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale told Katrina Pierson, one of the rally organizers, that he felt guilty helping Trump win, the report states.

The events of the day, Parscale said, resulted from “a sitting president asking for civil war.”
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,671
3,587
118
Huh, that time of year again? Seems like no time has passed, judging by the total lack of meaningful response.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,224
3,362
118
As if there were any doubt this would be the case.



The Jan. 6 committee spent months gathering stunning new details on how social media companies failed to address the online extremism and calls for violence that preceded the Capitol riot.

The evidence they collected was written up in a 122-page memo that was circulated among the committee, according to a draft viewed by The Washington Post. But in the end, committee leaders declined to delve into those topics in detail in their final report, reluctant to dig into the roots of domestic extremism taking hold in the Republican Party beyond former president Donald Trump and concerned about the risks of a public battle with powerful tech companies, according to three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the panel’s sensitive deliberations.

Congressional investigators found evidence that tech platforms — especially Twitter — failed to heed their own employees’ warnings about violent rhetoric on their platforms and bent their rules to avoid penalizing conservatives, particularly then-president Trump, out of fear of reprisals. The draft report details how most platforms did not take “dramatic” steps to rein in extremist content until after the attack on the Capitol, despite clear red flags across the internet.

“The sum of this is that alt-tech, fringe, and mainstream platforms were exploited in tandem by right-wing activists to bring American democracy to the brink of ruin,” the staffers wrote in their memo. “These platforms enabled the mobilization of extremists on smaller sites and whipped up conservative grievance on larger, more mainstream ones.”

But little of the evidence supporting those findings surfaced during the public phase of the committee’s probe, including its 845-page report that focused almost exclusively on Trump’s actions that day and in the weeks just before.

That focus on Trump meant the report missed an opportunity to hold social media companies accountable for their actions, or lack thereof, even though the platforms had been the subject of intense scrutiny since Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016, the people familiar with the matter said.


Rep. Zoe Lofgren, left, a Northern California Democrat, resisted efforts to focus more of the committee’s report on social media companies, interviews indicate. (Shuran Huang/For The Washington Post)

Confronting that evidence would have forced the committee to examine how conservative commentators helped amplify the Trump messaging that ultimately contributed to the Capitol attack, the people said — a course that some committee members considered both politically risky and inviting opposition from some of the world’s most powerful tech companies, two of the people said.

“Given the amount of material they actually ultimately got from the big social media companies, I think it is unfortunate that we didn’t get a better picture of how ‘Stop the Steal’ was organized online, how the materials spread,” said Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism nonprofit. “They could have done that for us.”

The Washington Post has previously reported that Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the committee’s co-chair, drove efforts to keep the report focused on Trump. But interviews since the report’s release indicate that Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat whose Northern California district includes Silicon Valley, also resisted efforts to bring more focus in the report onto social media companies.

Lofgren denied that she opposed including a social media appendix in the report or more detail about what investigators learned in interviews with tech company employees.

“I spent substantial time editing the proposed report so it was directly cited to our evidence, instead of news articles and opinion pieces,” Lofgren said. “In the end, the social media findings were included into other parts of the report and appendixes, a decision made by the Chairman in consultation with the Committee.”

Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), did not respond to a request for comment. Thompson previously had said that the committee would examine what steps tech companies took to prevent their platforms from “being breeding grounds to radicalizing people to violence.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who sat in on some of the depositions of tech employees, did not comment.

Understanding the role social media played in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol takes on greater significance as tech platforms undo some of the measures they adopted to prevent political misinformation on their platforms. Under new owner Elon Musk, Twitter has laid off most of the team that reviewed tweets for abusive and inaccurate content and restored several prominent accounts that the company banned in the fallout from the Capitol attack, including Trump’s and that of his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Facebook, too, is considering allowing Trump back on its platform, a decision expected as early as next week.

“Recent events demonstrate that nothing about America’s stormy political climate or the role of social media within it has fundamentally changed since January 6th,” the staffers’ draft memo warned.

Social media moderation also has become a flash point in the states. Both Texas and Florida passed laws in the wake of Trump’s suspension to restrict what content social media platforms can remove from their sites, while California has imposed legislation requiring companies to disclose their content moderation policies.

But the Jan. 6 committee report offered only a vague recommendation about social media regulation, writing that congressional committees “should continue to evaluate policies of media companies that have had the effect of radicalizing their consumers.”

Did Twitter give Trump a pass?


Some of what investigators uncovered in their interviews with employees of the platforms contradicts Republican claims that tech companies displayed a liberal bias in their moderation decisions — an allegation that has gained new attention recently as Musk has promoted a series of leaked internal communications known as the “Twitter Files.” The transcripts indicate the reverse, with former Twitter employees describing how the company gave Trump special treatment.


Twitter employees, they testified, could not even view the former president’s tweets in one of their key content moderation tools, and they ultimately had to create a Google document to keep track of his tweets as calls grew to suspend his account.

“ … Twitter was terrified of the backlash they would get if they followed their own rules and applied them to Donald Trump,” said one former employee, who testified to the committee under the pseudonym J. Johnson.

The committee staffers who focused on social media and extremism — known within the committee as “Team Purple” — spent more than a year sifting through tens of thousands of documents from multiple companies, interviewing social media company executives and former staffers, and analyzing thousands of posts. They sent a flurry of subpoenas and requests for information to social media companies ranging from Facebook to fringe social networks including Gab and the chat platform Discord.


Yet as the investigation continued, the role of social media took a back seat, despite Chairman Thompson’s earlier assertion that how misinformation spread and what steps social media companies took to prevent it were “two key questions for the Select Committee.”

Committee staffers drafted more subpoenas for social media executives, including former Twitter executive Del Harvey, who was described in testimony as key to Twitter’s decisions regarding Trump and violent rhetoric. But Cheney never signed off on the subpoenas, two of the people said, and they were never sent. Harvey did not testify. At one point, committee staffers discussed having a public hearing focused on the role of social media during the election, but none was scheduled, the people said.

The long debate about social media

The role of social media has been a central topic of American politics since the 2016 presidential campaign, when hackers accessed emails from Democratic Party servers and leaked the contents onto the internet, and Russian trolls posing as Americans posted misinformation on both Twitter and Facebook, without detection. Concern about the impact of social media grew in the aftermath of the 2020 election, with Facebook and Twitter suspending hundreds of accounts for spreading false information about the result as well as baseless conspiracy theories about balloting irregularities.

In the days before Jan. 6, 2021, media reports documented Trump’s call on Twitter for people to rally in Washington — it’ll be wild, he tweeted — and there was growing talk of guns and potential violence on sites such as Telegram, Parler and TheDonald.win.

The Purple Team’s memo detailed how the actions of roughly 15 social networks played a significant role in the attack. It described how major platforms like Facebook and Twitter, prominent video streaming sites like YouTube and Twitch and smaller fringe networks like Parler, Gab and 4chan served as megaphones for those seeking to stoke division or organize the insurrection. It detailed how some platforms bent their rules to avoid penalizing conservatives out of fear of reprisals, while others were reluctant to curb the “Stop the Steal” movement after the attack.

But as the committee’s probe kicked its public phase into high gear, the social media report was repeatedly pared down, eventually to just a handful of pages. While the memo and the evidence it cited informed other parts of the committee’s work, including its public hearings and depositions, it ultimately was not included as a stand-alone chapter or as one of the four appendixes.

In the weeks since the report was released, however, some of that evidence has trickled out as the committee released hundreds of pages of transcripts of interviews with former tech employees and dozens of documents. The transcripts show the companies used relatively primitive technologies and amateurish techniques to watch for dangers and enforce their platforms’ rules. They also show company officials quibbling among themselves over how to apply the rules to possible incitements to violence, even as the riot turned violent.

The transcript of Anika Collier Navaroli, one of the longest-tenured members of Twitter’s safety policy team, describes in detail how the company’s systems were outmatched as the pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.

When the #ExecuteMikePence hashtag started trending on Twitter on Jan. 6, 2021, Collier Navaroli was sitting in her New York apartment, scrolling through thousands of death threats and other hateful messages and trying to remove them one by one.

Her main way of finding tweets calling for Vice President Mike Pence’s execution was by pasting the hashtag into the Twitter website's search box, manually copying each tweet's details into an internal flagging tool, and then returning to the timeline as more tweets poured in.

“I was doing that for … hours,” she testified, saying only a few other people that day were doing the same work. “We didn’t stand a chance.”


As the hashtag #ExecuteMikePence trended on Twitter on Jan. 6, one staffer was trying to take down such tweets one by one. Above, the Jan. 6 committee and a photo of a gallows on the Capitol grounds. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Collier Navaroli also faulted top executives, including Twitter’s Harvey, for blocking potential rule changes that would have allowed company moderators to take a more proactive stance to reduce calls for violence. At one point, Collier Navaroli said she pushed the company to enact a policy that would have restricted tweets using hashtags like #LockedandLoaded, which moderators had seen being used by people boasting they were armed and ready to march on the Capitol. Harvey, Collier Navaroli said, had pushed back, arguing that the phrase could be used by people tweeting about self-defense and should be allowed.

Harvey, who is no longer with Twitter and advertises herself as a public speaker, did not respond to requests for comment sent to her email or LinkedIn.

The Purple Team’s draft outlines how extremism and violent rhetoric jumped from platform to platform in the lead-up to Jan 6. In the hours after Trump’s tweet about how Jan. 6 would be wild, the chat service Discord had to shut down a server because Trump’s supporters were using it to plan how they could bring firearms into Washington, according to the memo.

The investigators also wrote that much of the content that was shared on Twitter, Facebook and other sites came from Google-owned YouTube, which did not ban election fraud claims until Dec. 9 and did not apply its policy retroactively. The investigators found that its lax policies and enforcement made it “a repository for false claims of election fraud.” Even when these videos weren’t recommended by YouTube’s own algorithms, they were shared across other parts of the internet.

“YouTube’s policies relevant to election integrity were inadequate to the moment,” the staffers wrote.
The draft report also says that smaller platforms were not reactive enough to the threat posed by Trump. The report singled out Reddit for being slow to take down a pro-Trump forum called “r/The-Donald.” The moderators of that forum used it to “freely advertise” TheDonald.win, which hosted violent content in the lead-up to Jan. 6.

Facebook parent company Meta declined to comment. Twitter, which has laid off the majority of its communications staff, did not respond to a request for comment. Discord did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

YouTube spokeswoman Ivy Choi said the company has long-established policies against incitement, and that the company began enforcing its election integrity rules once “enough states certified election results.”

“As a direct result of these policies, even before January 6 we terminated thousands of channels, several of which were associated with figures related to the attack, and removed thousands of violative videos, the majority before 100 views,” she said in a statement.

Reddit spokeswoman Cameron Njaa said the company’s policies prohibit content that “glorifies, incites or calls for violence against groups of people or individuals.” She said that the company “found no evidence of coordinated calls for violence” related to Jan. 6 on its platform.

Former Facebook employees who testified to the committee reported their company also resisted imposing restrictions. Brian Fishman, the company’s former head of dangerous organizations, testified that the company had been slow to react to efforts to delegitimize the 2020 election results.

“I thought Facebook should be more aggressive in taking down ‘Stop the Steal’ stuff before January 6th,” Fishman said. He noted, however, that broader action would have resulted in taking down “much of the conservative movement on the platform, far beyond just groups that said ‘Stop the Steal,’ mainstream conservative commentators.”

He said he did not believe such action “would have prevented violence on January 6th.”

The committee also spoke to Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, whose leaked documents in 2021 showed that the country’s largest social media platform largely had disbanded its election integrity efforts ahead of the Jan. 6 riot. But little of her account made it into the final document.

“It’s sad that they didn’t include the intentional choices that Facebook made,” she said in an interview. “At the same time, you’re asking them to do a lot of different things in a single report.”

Deference to Trump

A large part of Twitter’s failure to act, multiple former Twitter employees, including Johnson and Collier Navaroli, told the committee was deference to Trump.

Trump’s account was the only one of Twitter’s hundreds of millions that rank-and-file officials could not review in one of their main internal tools, Profile Viewer, which allowed moderators to establish a history and share notes about an account’s past tweets and behaviors, the employees testified.

The block prevented moderators from reviewing how others had assessed Trump’s tweets, even as his following grew to 88 million and his tweets drove conversations around the world. Trump “was a unique user who sat above and beyond the rules of Twitter,” Collier Navaroli testified.

“There was this underlying understanding we’re not reaching out to the President,” she told the committee. “We’re not reaching out to Donald Trump. There is no point in doing education here because this is how this individual is. So the resolution was to do nothing.”

Collier Navaroli and a few others inside the company had worked to push executives to action long before Jan. 6, she said, citing internal memos and messages. In the week after the November 2020 election, she said, they began warning that tweets calling for civil unrest were multiplying. By Dec. 19, she said, Twitter staff had begun warning that discussions of civil unrest had centralized on Jan. 6 — the day that Trump had called his supporters to mass in Washington, saying it “will be wild!”

By Dec. 29, she and members of other Twitter teams had begun warning that Twitter lacked a coordinated response plan, and on Jan. 5, she said, she warned a supervisor directly that the company would need a much more robust response the following day.

When asked by a committee staffer whether Twitter had adopted a “war footing,” having seen the warnings, Collier Navaroli said her U.S. team had fewer than six people, and that “everybody was acting as if it was a regular day and nothing was going on.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,338
8,834
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Lock 'em up and throw away the jail.


They're lucky I don't get to decide their fate, because I'd treat them as the enemies of the United States of America that they are.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where