Truth, Justice, and "Twitter Rules"

March 22, 2022

(rough, may be edited)

It's clear that following Russia's invasion of Ukraine a month ago, the range of independent thought and public discourse is being narrowed in unprecedented ways. Many media outlets and people's social media accounts are suspended or deleted, views are filtered and banned like never before, or drowned out by moronic shouting from "self-appointed" mobs of anti-Putin heroes "standing with Ukraine." 

I'm far from the first or worst-off, but on Sunday I was suspended from accessing my Twitter account for "violating" the Twitter rules. Someone reported a tweet, an unusually popular one by my lowly standards, that scored more likes and retweets than usual, including by the widely-followed Stephen McIntyre, bringing a lot more views than usual (for content, see below). It's now blanked out with a demand to delete it, and I'm suspended until I do so.

The complaint, they said was filed under the "engaging in targeted harassment" rule. As explained:

"On Twitter, you should feel safe expressing your unique point of view. We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. 

In order to facilitate healthy dialogue on the platform, and empower individuals to express diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that harasses or intimidates, or is otherwise intended to shame or degrade others. In addition to posing risks to people’s safety, abusive behavior may also lead to physical and emotional hardship for those affected." 

I didn't harass anyone or silence any voices. Whoever accused me, I'd say, targeted me for harassment and to silence my voice which .... mattered enough to warrant that effort, anyway. 

At first, it seemed like Twitter made a mistake, but a convenient one; act like these false complaints are true by default and hide them, only undo the error after a wait, hoping the target deletes the information, just to get back to work and communicating their usual way. But as it happened, a break from Twitter was a good idea, and I took one while I waited on my appeal. 

It didn't take long before I heard back that it was no error: 

Our support team has determined that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision.

You will not be able to access Twitter through your account due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around: 

The space after was left blank, just like that. The rule I broke ... is unwritten? I have to guess what part of the harassment rule I supposedly broke, and on review, I suppose it's based on the recently-added rule against "Denying mass casualty events took place." As explained:

"We prohibit content that denies that mass murder or other mass casualty events took place, where we can verify that the event occured [sic], and when the content is shared with abusive intent. This may include references to such an event as a “hoax” or claims that victims or survivors are fake or “actors.” It includes, but is not limited to, events like the Holocaust, school shootings, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters." (emphasis mine)

This troublesome rule might require us to play along with hoaxes or even false-flag massacres of innocents; if violence is involved and Twitter's censors buy into a false explanation for it, and then use a super-broad definition of "abusive," the truth would be deemed "denial" and disallowed. That's obviously problematic, even if the rule serves a good purpose on most other counts.

Still, I didn't break that rule. I'm not sure if they misunderstood my arguments even upon review, or if there's an unwritten rule to never question claims from Ukrainian authorities. 

In case it's the former, I'll explain: In this case, it's clear a bombing occurred at Mariupol's central drama theater on March 16th, and I've never remotely denied that. I also haven't seen absolute proof to rule out or deny Russian forces did it with an airstrike, as alleged. Therefore, I did not deny it. But I did seriously question the allegation, proposing the ultra-nationalist / neo-Nazi Azov Battalion might have done it instead. I never said as fact that they did it, even though I do suspect that. And I don't think I raised these questions in an "abusive" way, though I'd have to see Twitter's working definition to be sure.

See the text of it here and judge for yourself:

I linked to this blog post https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2022/03/mariupol-theater-bombing-3172022.html collecting my works and thoughts on the theater bombing - unexplained points below are explained there. Mainly I noted the odd lack of rescue video aside from one I showed (and show again here - improved to show characters for CHILDREN still under the dust)  - at the site of a very real bombing.

This aspect might be central to Twitter's decision; it sounds like I'm calling this a fake rescue effort. All I meant to do is say is it might be, and to improve the record by pointing to at least one rescue-themed video, whereas we had seen none at all before (raising doubts in many minds, often even sharper than my own).

In that sense, I don't think I broke the written rule on either count specified - denial or abusive intent -  whereas the rule wording makes it sound like both are required. And still, I "acknowledged" violating the rules, just to have my account back. So was I forced to lie AND censor myself, or what rule DID I break? None that are written down. 

And yet, I ran into this problem suggesting there is an unwritten rule that we aren't allowed to question Kyiv's wartime propaganda - it's all to be accepted as factual. And conversely, there might be an unwritten rule we MUST deny any explanations or possibilities that run counter to Kyiv's claims, regardless of the evidence or the gravity of the denial required. 

People including myself have still questioned Kyiv's claims without censure, and I've seen people flat-out deny them too, and logged-out I can see people have continued. But when someone reports it, as someone did here, any of us might find the same unwritten rule applying. 

Consider: Mariupol locals are credited with reports, passed on by separatist-linked source, that bombs had been rigged in the theater by Azov Battalion, ready to detonate on top of the hundreds sheltering there, and to be blamed on a Russian airstrike. That claim may be legitimate or not, but it was publicized 4 days before the Russians were reported as bombing the drama theater, trapping 1,200 people in the basement shelter. 

Are we required to deny that alleged false-flag provocation just because whoever at Twitter is sure Russians dropped that bomb? Even with Russian denial, no radar track or other proof, nor even a rational motive, widely-accepted claims from Ukrainian officials sufficed to convince them, so they should be good enough for all of us? 

Some locals also said Azov Battalion "allowed" all the shelter inhabitants to leave prior to the blast, as if changing their mind about the false-flag plan that was just revealed. I had read that as saying they HAD all left, but it's not clear this has even been alleged. And other stories suggest or are clear at least some remained there after some left on their own accord. If the former story was true AND the shelter was emptied, we might expect no rescue efforts (if they knew there was nothing to find), or efforts that might find no one, or  - grim but possible - there might be no effort because Azov wanted those people dead. That's not so crazy - whatever you think "Ukrainians" would never do to "their own," Azov Battalion in their last days occupying Mariupol is where that will apply the least.

Considering all that, any claims or shows of rescue could be false or legitimate, and either one seems possible here. The lack of rescue footage or even news of progress adds to the questions, but the dangerous situation, lack of electricity and communications, and by the 19th reported street battles right there, might partly or totally explain the lack of progress, or any published video of it. And so I have advised against certainty either way; the number of people left trapped beneath the rubble is somewhere between zero and ~1,300. Zero is less suggested than I had thought, but it's at least hyopthetically possible. If I were an Azov planner with that much blood set on a plot that was just publicized, I might change plans. 

I was always unsure but now, I personally suspect a sizeable number of people somewhere in between 0 and 1300 were in there at the time. A few sources have cited UP TO 700 to 800 left near the end, hopefully before quite a few left in the days before. The same sources gave 500 as a low estimate, hopefully dated and even lower. However many were stuck there still alive, sadly, they will be dead and dying about now, 6+ days on, unless someone has gotten them out. It may be up to a post-conflict Russian-led effort, with urban combat slowing it for days still, and when and if hundreds of dead people are found, Russia alone will be blamed - but only after the eyewitnesses had all died. 

I've also advised from the start against declaring no one died just because no deaths were confirmed yet, even when that went on 2, 3 and 4 days. 4x unclear just means unclear, especially as things have gotten worse as the days go by. Even with the Art School shelter 500 meters away reportedly bombed by the Russians 3 days later, trapping another (or maybe the same?) 400 or so people (for 16-1700 total, per official claims), and this time zero images at all 3 days on ... still, there is a war going on, so it's hard to say how suspicious that is. I guess I'm not supposed to mention that it even could be suspicious, and a possible clue to a reality that physically matters?

There's much we don't know. In fact, there's almost nothing we know for sure. But someone at Twitter thinks they know it well enough to decide what cannot be "denied"?

So in review, I got in trouble because either: 

A) Twitter determined the Russians bombed this shelter, all 12-1300 people were still in there, and the rescue efforts including the one I panned were definitely legitimate, and the way I questioned that counted as "denial" in their book, and somehow that denial appeared "abusive" to them.   

B) They're looking for excuses and ways to silence voices that challenge the dominant paradigm. 

I've deleted the offending tweet and am preparing to do some catch-up. But they warn me further violations may result in suspension, as I'm still left guessing just what I need to avoid repeating. I guess I need to engage in the stand-with-Ukraine news charade, or just keep quiet, or keep going as I see fit and hope to get reported as little as possible. I'm going with that last one, and we'll see how it goes.