Apparently Suing Non-Profits That Highlight Terrible Shit On ExTwitter Isn’t Scaring Off More Non-Profits From Reporting On Terrible Shit On ExTwitter

Last summer Elon Musk sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) over its report about a rise in hate speech on ExTwitter. A few months ago, he sued Media Matters for their report about how ads can appear next to neoNazi content on the site. If he thought those two SLAPP suits would intimidate other groups pointing out the sketchiness of ExTwitter these days, it appears he was mistaken.

As I've highlighted in the past I'm not a huge fan of CCDH (or, really, Media Matters), as I think they both tend to exaggerate and remove context. CCDH's research can be downright shoddy. But that doesn't mean they should be sued for their speech. Of course, the intent was to scare off researchers from looking too closely at ExTwitter.

It doesn't appear to be working, as the Tech Transparency Project (TTP - another non-profit I find to be pretty awful, and which falsely calls us a Google shill because Google sponsored a few of our events years ago, even as we regularly call out Google for being awful) has now released a report that highlights that ExTwitter may have violated US anti-terrorism laws in doing business with US-sanctioned entities, in that it found multiple paid for verified" accounts on ExTwitter associated with terrorist-designated or sanctioned entities.

The accounts identified by TTP include two that apparently belong to the top leaders of Lebanon-based Hezbollah and others belonging to Iranian and Russian state-run media. The fact that X requires users to pay a monthly or annual fee for premium service suggests that X is engaging in financial transactions with these accounts, a potential violation of U.S. sanctions.

A blue checkmark account that bears the name and profile image of Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, also indicates it is ID verified," a service that X offers to premium subscribers as a way to prevent impersonation. X requires users to submit a government-issued ID and a selfie to get verified in this way, though it is unclear if Nasrallah did so. X says these accounts get prioritized support."

Two other accounts for U.S.-sanctioned entities, Iran's Press TV and Russia's Tinkoff Bank, had gold checkmarks. A gold checkmark indicates the account is a Verified Organization," and at the time of TTP's research, cost $1,000 per month. (X has since introduced a Basic tier that costs $200 per month.) Gold checkmark accounts get all the benefits of X's Premium+ tier plus a $1,000 ad credit per month.

Yikes? Yikes!

There isn't much of a way to twist this one. Even as I have my issues with TTP, this one seems pretty straightforward. It sure looks like ExTwitter conducted financial transactions with sanctioned entities. And, also, kudos to TTP for not being chilled by Musk's bogus lawsuits against those other orgs.

This is the kind of thing that a functioning trust & safety team prevents. Maybe Elon shouldn't have fired all of them.

Anyway, ExTwitter tried to defend this by... removing the checkmarks from the individuals (though not the $1000/month media orgs) and trying to insist there was nothing to see here:

If you can't see that, it says:

X has a robust and secure approach in place for our monetization features, adhering to legal obligations, along with independent screening by our payments providers. Several of the accounts listed in the Tech Transparency Report are not directly named on sanction lists, while some others may have visible account check marks without receiving any services that would be subject to sanctions. Our teams have reviewed the report and will take action if necessary. We're always committed to ensuring that we maintain a safe, secure and compliant platform.

Yeah, but if they weren't named on sanction lists, why did you now suddenly take away their checks after they were called out? TTP also pointed out in response that it's not at all clear what the claim that some others may have visible account check marks without receiving any services that would be subject to sanctions" even means, given that since nearly a year ago, to get a checkmark, ExTwitter now requires you to purchase a subscription, which would be a transaction that is likely barred by the sanctions. TTP also points out that some of the orgs are clearly listed as sanctioned by OFAC.

I mean, all of this could have been avoided, as tons of experts had suggested early on, if Elon didn't mix up verification (which means a specific thing) with premium subscriptions, which are very different. But, of course, Elon didn't bother listening to any experts. Instead he fired them.

There's a separate issue in all of this as well. As you may recall, just a year ago, the Supreme Court heard a case that dated back to pre-Elon Twitter, about claims that Twitter should be held liable under anti-terrorism laws for providing accounts to those associated with terrorists, and filed by the family of a victim of terrorist attacks. As the Supreme Court correctly found last May, this was clearly way too attenuated a connection. The ruling, written by Clarence Thomas is pretty clear why simply having an account isn't enough to trigger liability.

But... also, it leaves open the possibility that doing more could very much trigger liability under anti-terrorism laws.

Because plaintiffs' complaint rests so heavily on defendants' failure to act, their claims might have more purchase if they could identify some independent duty in tort that would have required defendants to remove ISIS' content. See Woodward, 522 F. 2d, at 97, 100. But plaintiffs identify no duty that would require defendants or other communication-providing services to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends. See Doe, 347 F. 3d, at 659; People v. Brophy, 49 Cal. App. 2d 15, 33-34 (1942).14 To be sure, there may be situations where some such duty exists, and we need not resolve the issue today.

It seems pretty easy to read that paragraph to read the laws against engaging in economic transactions with sanctioned entities as triggering just that sort of duty...

You see, sometimes, trust & safety isn't just about stopping idiots from harassing people on your site. Sometimes it's there to help you avoid violating laws about aiding terrorists.