Newsom and Team Go Lower than Squid Poop on the Bottom of the Ocean

Newsom’s flip on trans kids is just more of Gavin attempting to reinvent Gavin

History will not be kind to Gavin Newsom. But it will be accurate.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

This week, Gavin flipped on the trans kids position he took in his first podcast with Charlie Kirk. On his podcast last March with Kirk, Newsom agreed that he thinks that it was “deeply unfair” to have trans athletes competing against women in sports. But after the podcast, Newsom did nothing about biological males who identify as female competing against female athletes.

Now – he’s all-in on trans everything. Because as he said this week, “I want to see trans kids… I have a trans god son… There’s no governor that’s done more pro trans legislation than I have,” he said indignantly during the Erza Klein show.

Right. And that qualifies you on a 90/10 issue to be President of the United States?

Newsom’s press office reposted his statement, and commented, “Correct. We’re sorry your daughter hates you, Elon.”

Whoa Nellie. Where did that come from?

This is just evil and rotten behavior. Or as my dad used to say, “He is lower than squid shit on the bottom of the ocean.”

Elon Musk replied:

I assume you’re referring to my son, Xavier, who has a tragic mental illness caused by the evil woke mind virus you push on vulnerable children. I love Xavier very much and hope he recovers. My daughters are Azure, Exa (she goes by Y) and Arcadia, and they do indeed love me very much.

Newsom’s flip on trans kids is just more of Gavin attempting to reinvent Gavin –  trying to distance himself from himself before America figures out who he really is.

It’s really politically curious why he’d go all-in on the trans issue… Most Americans find transgender surgeries abominable and evidence of mental illness.

Gavin Newsom has decades of really bad policy positions and spending scandals that the rest of the country will not accept from a potential president.

In June, as a distraction, Gov. Newsom introduced a new Substack site to “break through the noise,” and combat “disinformation” from the right.

Pot, meet kettle. Gavin Newsom is a walking, talking disinformation machine. Yet he’s trying to control the narrative – like flipping on the trans issue.

What noise is Gov. Newsom speaking of? The “noise” coming from the White House and Congress overturning his gas-car ban, and all-electric vehicle mandate? His power struggle with President Donald Trump over the National Guard? Newsom’s gas-car ban, his soft-on-crime policies, his homeless-rights initiatives, his boys-in-girls sports absurdity, his pro-trans-kids policies, his illegal-immigrant Medi-Cal insolvency disaster, his very costly climate-change grift… what does any of this have to do with running the State of California?

Most Californians care about the failing public schools, the disastrous roads and highways, the state-induced water shortages, unaffordable energy costs, public safety and crime (as all 58 counties passed Prop. 36 to make crime illegal again in CA), high personal taxes, high corporate taxes, highest-in-the-nation gas taxes, kids being trans-groomed at school, government overreach… where do we stop?

Newsom, with two podcasts, and a Substack, is throwing up distractions creating busy work for himself, rather than actually paying attention to the issues California residents are concerned about. But we’re use to that… America is not, and wants no part of it.

Newsom’s record is disastrous, as is his wife’s – the “First Partner.”

Gov. Newsom’s wife makes “gender justice” movies and sells them to the state public education system through her non-profit, The Representation Project. By 2023, she had charged the state $1.5 million for her “gender justice” movies. That’s a screaming example of a conflict of interest. If that’s not enough, the governor requested nonprofits and private corporations to contribute to his wife’s charity before taking their side on state issues.

Newsom and his press team taunting Elon Musk goes back several years, and most recently to July 2024 when billionaire Musk announced he would relocate the headquarters of X Corp (formerly Twitter), and SpaceX to Texas from California.

Prior to 2024, in 2020, during Newsom’s Covid lockdowns, “Tesla CEO Elon Musk threatened to move both Tesla company headquarters and production facilities to Texas or Nevada if they were not allowed to reopen as soon as possible,” the Globe reported.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Shelley: DOGE is subjecting the bureaucracy to death by humiliation

I’m just sorry that P.T. Barnum isn’t alive to see this.

The Greatest Show on Earth is the new Department of Government Efficiency. If it started as a joke (DOGE was an internet meme of a dog and then a sardonically named crypto coin), it’s no joke now. An elected billionaire and an appointed billionaire are demonstrating that any enterprise running a nearly $2 trillion annual deficit could use an audit.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Years ago, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, Charlie Peters, coined a phrase, “Fire the firemen first,” to describe how the bureaucracy reacts when a fresh crop of elected officials proposes budget-cutting.

Immediately the bureaucrats would announce that the cuts inevitably mean death and suffering, because every dollar in their department was spent so well and efficiently that there was not one single thing that could be cut before the blade sliced into essential life-support services.

Every budget item had its constituency and its congressional defenders, all giving interviews and posing for photos. News coverage would alarm the public with a drumbeat of the horrors that would be unleashed by the first dollar of budget cuts.

By the time a government efficiency task force was appointed, hired its teams of staffers and settled into its new office space, the next congressional election campaign was beginning and that was the end. Only the 750-page report a year later remained to mark the final resting place.

Not this time.

If you followed the saga of Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, you’ll remember that he promptly fired about 80% of the employees, called the company a “crime scene,” invited reporters to view internal company communications, battled a shadowy effort to incite advertiser boycotts, and publicly told the people trying to “blackmail” him with advertising to “go (expletive) yourself.”

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

California’s 250,000 federal employees await fate as Trump roils civil service

Job cuts, hiring freezes, return-to-office mandates among early moves by new administration

In his first days in office, President Donald Trump signed executive orders that sent many federal employees reeling: looming layoffs, a freeze on federal hiring and and new back-to-office expectations for many remote workers. On Wednesday, he announced that employees in diversity, equity and inclusion roles would be put on paid leave.

He’s vowed to do much more, tapping Tesla CEO Elon Musk to run a new Department of Government Efficiency.

While the White House sits more than 2,000 miles from the Golden State, the commander-in-chief’s actions stand to affect plenty of Californians. About 250,000 federal workers live in California, including tens of thousands in the Bay Area.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Only Virginia and the District of Columbia had more civilian federal workers than California last year, according to data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, closely followed by Maryland.

“It’s the great unknown,” said Bobbie Scopa, a retired firefighter and former chief with decades of experience in the U.S. Forest Service. She now advocates for federal firefighters. While past hiring freezes have not affected the fire services directly, “everything seems to be a little bit different this time,” she said.

The federal government is one of the largest employers in the country, with just over 3 million employees. They work for federal agencies such as the Forest Service, NASA, FEMA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Postal Service.

An estimated 38,000 federal workers live in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, according to data from California’s Employment Development Department.

Many of those local workers are watching the news, waiting to see how the next executive order might affect them. At least one local veteran of the federal government isn’t too worried, however.

“This is all kind of a PR game right now,” said Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense and current chairman of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy, based at CSU Monterey Bay. Trump “can make it uncomfortable for federal employees, but I don’t think he can take a lot of the steps that he’s threatening to take.”

Panetta, also former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, described Trump’s move as “campaign hoopla… to convince the American people that he’s getting things done.”

Trump has often vowed to cut federal spending and eliminate some agencies entirely, but he made many of the same promises before his first term as president, and the federal workforce actually grew from 2.81 to 2.88 million employees during his term.

“Reagan came in and said he was going to get rid of the Department of Education and a bunch of other things, and ultimately was unable to do it,” Panetta said, referring to former Republican President Ronald Reagan. He said the same thing could happen with Trump’s new promises.

Already controversy is swirling around Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, dubbed DOGE.

The commission, which formally joined the government within the Executive Office of the President, has been tasked with finding ways to reduce the federal budget, though Congress would get the final say. Within hours of the new administration taking office, unions and government watchdog groups had sued over the commission, asserting there must be public input and transparency to comply with the law.

“If you really want to focus on efficiency in government, if you really want to focus on reducing the debt and trying to implement fiscal order, there are better ways to try to accomplish those goals,” Panetta said, adding that real change at the federal level takes time and cooperation.

The fear, and the reality, of a Musk-induced termination is familiar for thousands of Bay Area residents, including around 6,000 former employees of Twitter, which Musk acquired and turned into X. Some whom are suing Musk over their abrupt terminations.

Click here to read the full article in the Mercury News

California Coastal Commission Faces Growing Backlash for Denying SpaceX Launches

Adding to the growing storm was Gov. Newsom coming out on the side of Musk

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

The California Coastal Commission faced growing backlash this week for their decision earlier this month to deny SpaceX more rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base because of commissioners disagreeing with comments made by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.

Earlier in 2024, SpaceX and the U.S. Space Force planned for additional launches from Vandenberg SFB – as many as 50 launches per year. However, in order to do that, state permissions were needed, even if the federal government had already signed off. As it is near the coast, the Space Force needed permission from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for the increased number of launches.

Earlier this month, the CCC voted 6 to 4 during a meeting in San Diego against more launches. Officially, the reason was that Space X wouldn’t have to get their own permits for a military launch, even if nothing from the military was being launched.

“I do believe that the Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense,” said CCC Commissioner Dayna Bochco on Thursday.

However, two commissioners said Elon Musk’s comments on X and his recent political activities influenced the denial.

“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” said Commissioner Gretchen Newsom, who is not related to Governor Gavin Newsom. “It appears that rather than prioritizing the welfare of SpaceX employees and the environment, the focus has been on profit maximization.”

Commission chairwoman Caryl Hart added, “You could argue that it’s bringing in politics, but this is a political matter to some extent because it involves the US government, it involves the Coastal Commission. We are dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race.”

Musk immediately vowed to sue the CCC for first amendment violations and did so last week. Others also called out the CCC, including Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Riverside) who demanded all communications about Elon Musk and SpaceX from the CCC in a formal public records request. Adding to the growing storm was Governor Newsom coming out on the side of Musk last weekend, agreeing with Republican colleagues that politics should not have played a decision in the vote. It was also the first time on record that Newsom came out in opposition his own hand-picked coastal commissioners.

A rare Newsom, Musk agreeance

“I’m with Elon,” said Newsom during a Harris/Walz campaign event in North Carolina. “I didn’t like that. Look, I’m not helping the legal case. You can’t bring up that explicit level of politics. These are friends of mine that said that. These are good commissioners. But you got to call balls and strikes. And trust me, I’m not big on the Elon Musk bandwagon right now. So that’s me calling balls and strikes.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Elon Musk’s SpaceX Sues California Coastal Commission

Assemblyman Bill Essayli defends Musk’s protected free speech; demands communications between commissioners

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

The California Coastal Commission is living up to its dodgy reputation, and is now getting sued by the world’s richest entrepreneur for it.

Last week, the CCC voted to deny more launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County because of Space X founder Elon Musk’s comments on X and his recent political activities.

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is an unelected commission of political appointees that lords over locally elected city councils in cities and counties on the California coast.

The Globe reported:

“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” expressed Commissioner Gretchen Newsom, who is not related to Governor Gavin Newsom. “It appears that rather than prioritizing the welfare of SpaceX employees and the environment, the focus has been on profit maximization.”

Commission chairwoman Caryl Hart added, “You could argue that it’s bringing in politics, but this is a political matter to some extent because it involves the US government, it involves the Coastal Commission. We are dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race.”

This not only ruffled Musk – Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R-Riverside) sent a letter and California Public Records Act request to the coastal commissioners demanding all communications about Elon Musk and SpaceX.

In his letter and CPRA, Essayli said:

Representatives from the U.S. Department of the Air Force and U.S. Space Force testified that SpaceX’s operations at Vandenberg are integral to advancing our national security interests, including SpaceX launches for commercial purposes, and therefore constitute federal agency activity.

The comments made by commissioners during the October 10 hearing revealed a clear and concerning politicization of a critical national security interest and retaliation for the engagement in protected free speech under the First Amendment. It is inappropriate for the Commission to consider the private activities of any executive, including Elon Musk, especially those unrelated to the management or oversight of SpaceX. The political bias of the individual Commission members should never influence the determination of any decision, especially at the expense of California’s and our nation’s best interest.

Essayli didn’t mince words:

The politically motivated decision to reject SpaceX’s submission threatens not only the national security interests of the United States, but also severely undermines public trust in the Commission and its members who voted against concurrence.

Neither did Musk in his lawsuit mince words.

“In the lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, Musk’s SpaceX accuses the commission of ‘unconstitutional overreach’ after members criticized his political leanings during a meeting about whether to approve more frequent SpaceX launches off the California coastline,” Business Insider reported.

“The lawsuit says the commission unfairly asserted regulatory powers because it disagreed with Musk’s politics.”

The miserable Sacramento Bee characterized Assemblyman Essayli’s letter and CPRA request as “Essayli rides to Elon Musk’s defense,” when his letter makes quite clear that the coastal commissioners are interfering in national security interests over their own petty political biases.

Click here to read the full article in California Globe

What the ‘Twitter Files’ Say About the Future of Journalism

Twitter owner Elon Musk’s decision to share internal records with a trio of independent journalists spawned stories about how Twitter executives worked to invent justifications for content decisions they’d already made on ideological grounds.

But it also feeds into a story about how Twitter itself, and other platforms, like the subscription service Substack, have decentralized the media so effectively that individual voices can drive the news in ways once reserved for legacy outlets .

Journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger each combed through reams of Twitter emails, message chains from the workplace communication tool Slack, and screenshots to publish five sets of analyses on Twitter. Their final products took the form of lengthy Twitter threads about how Twitter suppressed stories on Hunter Biden’s business dealings during the 2020 election and how the company ultimately decided to ban former President Donald Trump permanently.

JACK DORSEY GIVES PUBLIC MEA CULPA FOR CENSORSHIP

The journalists all had several things in common: They all run popular Substack pages, they have all written pieces in the past for legacy media outlets like the New York Times, and they all have large Twitter followings.

The least-followed of the three, Shellenberger, still had more than 357,000 Twitter followers before he posted his batch of the so-called Twitter Files. He now has more than 480,000. Taibbi started December with less than 750,000 Twitter followers and now boasts more than 1.5 million.

And perhaps most importantly, all three have been outspoken about what they see as the excesses of the Left on cultural issues such as speech and corporate influence.

“To me, the media’s response to the Twitter Files is itself a scandal,” Charles Lipson, political science professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, told the Washington Examiner.

“First, they are covering up their own failure to report the story in the past,” Lipson said, referring to the story about Hunter Biden’s business dealings. “And they are undoubtedly disturbed by Twitter choosing journalists not associated with their papers or TV networks to cover the story now — and in the case of Bari Weiss, someone who famously departed from the New York Times over, essentially, political censorship.”

Some prominent commentators and news outlets moved quickly to characterize the recipients of the records as right-wing ideologues — despite each of their affiliations with liberal ideas and publications.

The Washington Post labeled Taibbi and Weiss as “conservative journalists” in a report on Monday about the publication of the Twitter Files. Commentators across the ideological spectrum slammed the Washington Post for the label, which inaccurately describes both writers.

Taibbi has described himself as a “run-of-the-mill, old-school ACLU liberal” who for years championed ideas on the Left as a celebrated writer for Rolling Stone.

Weiss quit her opinion editor post at the New York Times in 2020 after encountering what she said was a culture of censorship and socially enforced ideological conformity that had devolved into bullying from her colleagues.

“I’m called alt-right. I’m called an apologist for rape culture. I’ve been called everything,” Weiss said in 2019 in an interview on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. “I’m a centrist. I’m a Jewish, center-left-on-most-things person who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and, you know, is super socially liberal on pretty much any issue you want to choose.”

The Washington Post later removed the conservative label for Taibbi and Weiss from its Monday story without adding an editor’s note, according to Fox News, in a process known as stealth editing.

“Anybody who falls afoul of the left-wing orthodoxy immediately gets called a conservative,” Batya Ungar-Sargon, deputy opinion editor at Newsweek, told the Washington Examiner. “It’s very funny because the Left thinks it’s an insult. It’s not an insult. It’s just inaccurate.”

Musk’s choice of the independent, but like-minded, journalists as the recipients of key records represented a departure from years of powerful people choosing to leak their stories to legacy news outlets first.

Even distinctly right-wing figures, from members of the select committee empaneled to investigate Benghazi years ago to aides in the Trump White House, have placed records and information they want to disseminate in the hands of legacy media reporters at papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

“Elon Musk is proposing a new way to dump documents — a huge departure from past leaks of this magnitude,” Brian Stelter, a veteran media reporter who previously anchored CNN’s Reliable Sources and is currently a Harvard University media fellow, told the Washington Examiner. “Leakers — in this case, Elon Musk and his brain trust — have an ever-increasing number of outlets and options. The traditional playbook, which entails leaking to a national newspaper, is just one of many now.”

Sharing records with legacy publications often conferred legitimacy on storylines that may not have reached as wide an audience had they debuted in conservative media first. It also reflected the market domination of outlets that no longer necessarily have exclusive rights to the most talented and high-profile reporters in political media.

“I have to say, there are no more legacy independent journalists than Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi. These guys are at the top of their field and decided to go independent, but they took their legacy-ness with them,” Ungar-Sargon said. “In a way, I don’t think this really represents a break.”

Taibbi said he had to follow two conditions to gain access to the Twitter records: He had to use the requested attribution “sources at Twitter,” and he had to publish the information first on Twitter itself.

“I was actually hesitant about the Twitter aspect of it because I’m a writer. I like doing long-form and explaining things,” Taibbi said during an appearance this week on Glenn Greenwald’s Rumble program, System Update. “But I actually think it wouldn’t work otherwise. There’s also a sort of delicious irony to using Twitter to basically defenestrate Twitter and also to sort of drop this enormous, fetid stink bomb in the middle of what used to be the private garden of mainstream journalists.”

The Twitter revelations generated intense interest in conservative media but stirred far less coverage at legacy outlets and networks.

A number of prominent journalists either ignored the story or argued its insights about Twitter’s decision-making did not reveal anything the public didn’t already know.

“It’s hard to think that those are legitimate news judgments as opposed to political judgments by the editors, publishers, and reporters,” Lipson said.

Stelter noted how little of the underlying material from Twitter was available for other reporters to examine.

“One factor that has hindered the Twitter Files is the relatively limited amount of raw information that has been released,” he said. “Journalists are trained to seek as much raw material as possible — for instance, the context of Slack conversations before and after the parts that were screengrabbed and shared in the Twitter Files.”

“That said, the parts that were shared are newsworthy on their own,” he added.

Still, the news brought significant attention to the reporters who broke the news.

Weiss, who started a Substack newsletter after leaving the New York Times, used the attention as an early launching pad for a media outlet, the Free Press, that will roll her existing subscribers into a new product with a larger staff and broader mission.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“I think there’s a lot of people in this country who are politically homeless, who feel like the old labels — Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal — no longer fit them or no longer mean what they used to,” Weiss told Axios this week in an interview about her startup.

Ungar-Sargon said she believes there’s a market for hard reporting from independent journalists either self-publishing or building up from small teams on platforms like Substack.

Click here to read the full article in the Washington Examiner

Second Installment of Twitter Files Reveals Platform’s Push to Silence Conservatives

Twitter maintained a suite of tools to silence conservative viewpoints on the platform, placing talk show hosts, activists and even respected doctors on blacklists to limit the visibility of their accounts, newly released company documents show.

The documents revealed Thursday in Twitter owner Elon Musk’s second installment of the “Twitter Files” further expose the platform’s left-wing bent that led to its suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story just weeks before the 2020 presidential election.

Despite previous denials by company executives, screenshots of back-end tools show that Twitter employees applied a variety of tags to users’ accounts to stifle contrarian and often conservative voices without their knowledge.

Twitter had been accused for years of habitually “shadow banning” conservatives but always denied it. Liberals derided the charge as tinfoil-hat talk.

The new documents prove the charges were often true.

Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and an outspoken opponent of pandemic lockdowns, was placed on a “Trends Blacklist.”

Twitter employees put conservative talk show host Dan Bongino on a “Search Blacklist” and set conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s account to “Do Not Amplify,” the documents show.

“What many people call ‘shadow banning,’ Twitter executives and employees call ‘Visibility Filtering’ or ‘VF,’” Bari Weiss, a former New York Times opinion editor, wrote in a lengthy Twitter thread revealing the finding.

Ms. Weiss was one of two independent journalists given access to Twitter’s internal files. 

“Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning,” she said.

Ms. Weiss showed in the thread how Twitter executives denied accusations that they tamped down certain accounts.

“We do not shadow ban.” Twitter’s head of legal policy, Vijaya Gadde, said in 2018. “And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”

Mr. Musk began releasing a deluge of internal documents giving the public a behind-the-scenes look into the platform’s work with well-connected political actors, most of them left-leaning.

After teasing his followers with a promise to disclose “what really happened with the Hunter Biden story suppression,” Mr. Musk last week linked to a lengthy Twitter thread by independent journalist Matt Taibbi, the first installment of the “Twitter Files.”

That thread showed the behind-the-scenes deliberations to suppress the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, going to extraordinary lengths to suppress the story and even the Post itself, labeling it “unsafe” and blocking users from sharing links to the story via direct message.

“By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine,” Mr. Taibbi wrote. “One executive would write to another: ‘More to review from the Biden team.’ The reply would come back: ‘Handled.’”

The Biden campaign branded the now-authenticated laptop as Russian disinformation in response to the Post’s reporting.

That explanation was also peddled in an open letter by more than 50 former U.S. senior intelligence officials and by social media platforms that, acting on FBI warnings on the authenticity of the laptop computer, began censoring online discussion of the laptop ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

Twitter executives decided that the content should be blocked because they could not determine whether the materials on the laptop had been hacked.

“‘They just freelanced it’ is how one former employee characterized the decision,” Mr. Taibbi wrote. “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it.”

The initial release ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill and drew fresh scrutiny to the censorship alliance between Big Tech and the Democratic Party.

It has rekindled charges that political censorship by Big Tech helped President Biden win the 2020 election. It has also added fuel to House Republicans’ plans to address this collusion.

“Now we need to start looking at Facebook, at Google. These now have become arms of the Democratic Party, arms of the Biden administration,” House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy of California said on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Mr. McCarthy said the deluge of documents Mr. Musk made public late Friday called into question the roles of the dozens of current and former intelligence officials who dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as a “Russian information operation.”

Mr. Musk, who closed on his $44 billion buyout of the social media platform in October, has vowed to rein in Twitter’s censorship policies.
The pledge has ruffled feathers, especially among some who warn that unfettered Twitter posts spell doom for democracy.

Mr. Biden this month lamented Mr. Musk’s takeover of Twitter and accused the platform of spreading disinformation around the globe.

Click here to read the full article in the Washington Times

Elon Musk Restores Trump’s Twitter Account After 51.8% Vote in Favor of Reinstatement

Elon Musk reinstated Donald Trump’s account on Twitter on Saturday, reversing a ban that has kept the former president off the social media site since a pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was poised to certify Joe Biden’s election victory.

Musk made the announcement in the evening after holding a poll that asked Twitter users to click “yes” or “no” on whether Trump’s account should be restored. The “yes” vote won, with 51.8%.

“The people have spoken. Trump will be reinstated. Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” Musk tweeted, using a Latin phrase meaning “the voice of the people, the voice of God.”

Shortly afterward Trump’s account, which had earlier appeared as suspended, reappeared on the platform complete with his former tweets, more than 59,000 of them. However his followers were gone, at least initially.

It is not clear whether Trump would actually return to Twitter. An irrepressible tweeter before he was banned, Trump has said in the past that he would not rejoin even if his account was reinstated. He has been relying on his own, much smaller social media site, Truth Social, which he launched after being blocked from Twitter.

And on Saturday, during a video speech to a Republican Jewish group meeting in Las Vegas, Trump said that he was aware of Musk’s poll but that he saw “a lot of problems at Twitter,” according to Bloomberg.

“I hear we’re getting a big vote to also go back on Twitter. I don’t see it because I don’t see any reason for it,” Trump was quoted as saying by Bloomberg. “It may make it, it may not make it,” he added, apparently referring to Twitter’s recent internal upheavals.

The prospect of restoring Trump’s presence to the platform follows Musk’s purchase last month of Twitter — an acquisition that has fanned widespread concern that the billionaire owner will allow purveyors of lies and misinformation to flourish on the site. Musk has frequently expressed his belief that Twitter had become too restrictive of freewheeling speech.

His efforts to reshape the site have been both swift and chaotic. Musk has fired many of the company’s 7,500 full-time workers and an untold number of contractors who are responsible for content moderation and other crucial responsibilities. His demand that remaining employees pledge to “extremely hardcore” work triggered a wave of resignations, including hundreds of software engineers.

Users have reported seeing increased spam and scams on their feeds and in their direct messages, among other glitches, in the aftermath of the mass layoffs and worker exodus. Some programmers who were fired or resigned this week warned that Twitter may soon fray so badly it could actually crash.

Musk’s online survey, which ran for 24 hours before ending Saturday evening, concluded with 51.8% of more than 15 million votes favoring the restoration of Trump’s Twitter’ account. It comes four days after Trump announced his candidacy for the presidency in 2024.

Trump lost his access to Twitter two days after his supporters stormed the Capitol, soon after the former president had exhorted them to “fight like hell.” Twitter dropped his account after Trump wrote a pair of tweets that the company said cast further doubts on the legitimacy of the presidential election and raised risks for the Biden presidential inauguration.

After the Jan. 6 attack, Trump was also kicked off Facebook and Instagram, which are owned by Meta Platforms, and Snapchat. His ability to post videos to his YouTube channel was also suspended. Facebook is set to reconsider Trump’s account suspension in January.

Throughout his tenure as president, Trump’s use of social media posed a significant challenge to major social media platforms that sought to balance the public’s interest in hearing from public officials with worries about misinformation, bigotry, harassment and incitement of violence.

But in a speech at an auto conference in May, Musk asserted that Twitter’s ban of Trump was a “morally bad decision” and “foolish in the extreme.”

Earlier this month, Musk, who completed the $44 billion takeover of Twitter in late October, declared that the company wouldn’t let anyone who had been kicked off the site return until Twitter had established procedures on how to do so, including forming a “content moderation council.”

On Friday, Musk tweeted that the suspended Twitter accounts for the comedian Kathy Griffin, the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and the conservative Christian news satire website Babylon Bee had been reinstated. He added that a decision on Trump had not yet been made. He also responded “no” when someone on Twitter asked him to reinstate the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ account.

In a tweet Friday, the Tesla CEO described the company’s new content policy as “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.”

Click here to read the full article at the OC Register

Changes Begin At Twitter After First Full Day Under Musk

Musk tweets that many will be unbanned for minor offenses soon

Many changes coming to Twitter were teased by the company on Friday, a day after billionaire Elon Musk took over the company. Many who had previously been banned or temporarily banned by the social media site praised the changes while employees had a more mixed reaction.

The sale of Twitter to Musk for $44 billion was made official on Thursday, completing one of California’s largest company ownership transfers ever. Many users who had been banned in the past over certain tweets made called the sale  a victory for freedom of speech and noted that a huge shift was already being felt.

Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro simply tweeted a gif of Champagne popping as well as “We can only hope that other social media bosses (cc: Mark Zuckerberg) follow Musk’s lead.”

Others tweeted that they hoped that the sale meant that former President Donald Trump, radio show host Alex Jones, and commentator Milo Yiannopoulos would be allowed back to the platform.

Later on Friday Musk announced that Twitter would be forming a content moderation council similar to the one in place at Facebook to stop automatic bans and to go through them when needed. But he also said that anyone frozen from Twitter for minor or ‘dubious’ reasons would be unblocked as soon as possible and hinted at fewer bans in the future.

“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints,” said Musk in a series of tweets on Friday. “No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes. Anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons will be freed from Twitter jail.

“Comedy is now legal on Twitter.”

The news led to Twitter’s largest bannee, Donald Trump, to send out a message on his own social media site, Truth Social, praising Musk and the sale of Twitter.

“I’m very happy that Twitter is now in sane hands following Musk’s takeover,” said Trump on Friday. “Truth Social has become somewhat of a phenomena. It also looks and works better to my eye. I like Elon and I wish him a lot of luck. I hope he does well with it.”

However, he also confirmed via a Fox News interview later on Friday that he would be staying on Truth Social for now, adding, “I am staying on Truth. I like it better, I like the way it works, I like Elon, but I’m staying on Truth.”

Twitter employees in San Francisco had a different view of the sale on Friday, with many now divided in the way that the company is now going.

“Some people are really happy that Musk now owns us while others are now updating their resumes and getting ready to bail,” explained  “Morgan,” a Twitter employee who wished to remain anonymous, to the Globe on Friday. “A lot of people also think that Musk is insane and think he is going to drive Twitter off a cliff.”

“I can’t say for sure what the split is, but since this has been what we’ve been talking about for a lot of the year, I’d say that more here are worried about this than not. I mean, they’ve fired a lot of management in the past few days, so it’s hard to know where exactly we’re going.”

“And we’re in San Francisco, so a lot of people are seeing right-wingers praise this deal and are horrified at that. Others have pushed for Twitter to be more open with view points too. Policies are shifting, and I can bet you’ll be seeing the type of employee shifting here too. Something the party has ended, others think its now beginning, others think that the party is back after it was shut down for awhile.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Conservatives Notice Thousands of Twitter Followers Restored After Elon Musk Purchase Announcement

Is a complaint against Facebook next?

The purchase of Twitter for $44 billion by Tesla CEO and billionaire Elon Musk announced Monday caused a huge ripple across media and social media. And almost immediately, Pundits and news hosts on conservative media, politicians and candidates announced their suspended accounts were restored, or if not suspended,  tens of thousands of followers reappeared.

One of the first was Fox News host Tucker Carlson, whose Twitter account was suspended in March after the social media company said he violated its fluid rules by referring to Biden Administration Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine, as a man rather than a transgender woman.

Carlson’s “We’re back” Tweet earned him 375,000 “likes,” 41,000 “retweets,” and 20,000 “replies.”

Chanel Rion with One American News Tweeted out the analytics of her Twitter account:

“At one point I was growing 100k/month. Each post would get thousands of responses in minutes. Biden’s inauguration: Lost ~200k followers in a week – impressions cut 70%. Something clearly happened last night – not full stride but we’re #inthegreen

The list of those claiming shadow banning on Twitter is long.

Radio talk hosts Clay Travis and Buck Sexton, who took over the Rush Limbaugh Show following Rush’s death, also reported they each have regained tens of thousands of Twitter followers just since Musk’s Twitter purchase was announced Monday. Clay Travis Tweeted:

“I’ve added 20k Twitter followers in the 48 hours since Elon Musk bought Twitter. Probably a coincidence:

Perhaps one of the biggest Twitter accounts, Donald Trump Jr., reported he gained 87,000 followers since Monday.

“While I’m awesome and totally deserving of 87,000 new followers a day it seems that someone took the shackles off my account. Wonder if they’re burning the evidence before new mgmt comes in?”

Click here to read the full article at the California Globe