Notre instance Nitter est hébergée dans l'Union Européenne. Les lois de l'UE s'y appliquent. Conformément à la Directive 2001/29/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 mai 2001 sur l'harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l'information, « Les actes de reproduction provisoires visés à l'article 2, qui sont transitoires ou accessoires et constituent une partie intégrante et essentielle d'un procédé technique et dont l'unique finalité est de permettre : une transmission dans un réseau entre tiers par un intermédiaire, […] d'une oeuvre ou d'un objet protégé, et qui n'ont pas de signification économique indépendante, sont exemptés du droit de reproduction. » Aussi, toutes les demandes de retrait doivent être envoyées à Twitter, car nous n'avons aucun contrôle sur les données qu'ils ont sur leurs serveurs.

13. But there 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.”
403
9,531
231
57,427
14. This secret group included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust (Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust & Safety (Yoel Roth), subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.
1,560
12,758
1,153
66,122
15. This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made. “Think high follower account, controversial,” another Twitter employee told us. For these “there would be no ticket or anything.”
561
10,204
211
60,424
16. One of the accounts that rose to this level of scrutiny was @libsoftiktok—an account that was on the “Trends Blacklist” and was designated as “Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES.”
1,566
15,533
1,524
74,023
17. The account—which Chaya Raichik began in November 2020 and now boasts over 1.4 million followers—was subjected to six suspensions in 2022 alone, Raichik says. Each time, Raichik was blocked from posting for as long as a week.
541
9,578
232
60,049
18. Twitter repeatedly informed Raichik that she had been suspended for violating Twitter’s policy against “hateful conduct.”
585
8,367
155
55,220
19. But in an internal SIP-PES memo from October 2022, after her seventh suspension, the committee acknowledged that “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy." See here:
820
11,421
806
62,201
20. The committee justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of “hospitals and medical providers” by insinuating “that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.”
994
9,393
517
58,527
21. Compare this to what happened when Raichik herself was doxxed on November 21, 2022. A photo of her home with her address was posted in a tweet that has garnered more than 10,000 likes.
912
9,633
372
58,728
22. When Raichik told Twitter that her address had been disseminated she says Twitter Support responded with this message: "We reviewed the reported content, and didn't find it to be in violation of the Twitter rules." No action was taken. The doxxing tweet is still up.
1,325
12,080
743
63,583
23. In internal Slack messages, Twitter employees spoke of using technicalities to restrict the visibility of tweets and subjects. Here’s Yoel Roth, Twitter’s then Global Head of Trust & Safety, in a direct message to a colleague in early 2021:

Dec 9, 2022 · 1:18 AM UTC

470
8,302
306
48,847
24. Six days later, in a direct message with an employee on the Health, Misinformation, Privacy, and Identity research team, Roth requested more research to support expanding “non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagements and deamplification/visibility filtering.”
719
8,344
514
47,857
25. Roth wrote: “The hypothesis underlying much of what we’ve implemented is that if exposure to, e.g., misinformation directly causes harm, we should use remediations that reduce exposure, and limiting the spread/virality of content is a good way to do that.”
489
7,174
265
45,485
26. He added: “We got Jack on board 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 remediations – especially for other policy domains.”
932
7,733
483
46,828
27. There is more to come on this story, which was reported by @abigailshrier @shellenbergermd @nelliebowles @isaacgrafstein and the team The Free Press @thefp. Keep up with this unfolding story here and at our brand new website: thefp.com.
626
9,219
267
51,156
28. The authors have broad and expanding access to Twitter’s files. The only condition we agreed to was that the material would first be published on Twitter.
744
6,950
209
49,872
29. We're just getting started on our reporting. Documents cannot tell the whole story here. A big thank you to everyone who has spoken to us so far. If you are a current or former Twitter employee, we'd love to hear from you. Please write to: tips@thefp.com
768
7,989
180
55,207
30. Watch @mtaibbi for the next installment.
2,476
7,786
276
57,467
Replying to @bariweiss
How does ANY of this rise to the level of scandal or 1st Amendment Violations? The Twitter staff were doing their job.
39
2
41
Replying to @bariweiss
You mean enforce their policies. Have you ever worked corporate before?
1
Replying to @bariweiss
This is so misleading. You’re framing this as though they were using anything to restrict accounts. These accounts were violating the rules. Requesting that actions taken against the violating user have the actual rule violation attached isn’t newsworthy. It’s a tech request.