s on Twitter Files, cont’d // (Scott Johnson).

I have been following the Twitter Files threads posted by Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss on Twitter. I have previously posted here (December 6th) and hier (December 11.). Weiss posted Part 5 (“The Removal of Trump from Twitter”) — a 30-tweet thread. I apologize for the repetitive nature of my observations. These are my comments on Part 5:

* I believe Twitter has many uses, but it is not conducive for long-form journalism. This is a cumbersome and inefficient way to proceed.

* Each of the five Twitter Files that have been posted thus far would benefit from topic sentences and summaries.

* Weiss’s Part 5 addresses the “removal of Trump from Twitter” — as stated at her thread’s top. She also refers to Trump’s banning elsewhere in the thread. This is how I would describe it.

* Trump was not banned for violating any Twitter policy. Staff and management concluded that Trump had not violated any policy. The antipathy of Twitter employees, and management, led to his removal.

* Weiss compares Twitter’s treatment for Trump to that of other heads of state in tweets 19-25. It could be called a double standard but Trump’s treatment was not consistent with any standard.

* Twitter staff and management used their power without principle or in violation their stated principles. Everything they said was pretextual. This is how I interpret Trump’s banning of Twitter’s management’s landing on “coded calls to violence” See tweets 27-30.

* How did Musk acquire and allocate the documents? What was the scope of the review done before the documents were distributed? What is the scope for the documents Musk withheld from distribution? Do reporters have the same set of documents or different sets? It’s not clear to me.

* It is important to determine the scope of documents being reviewed and/or withheld. The documents should be made online.