Brian Fung | @[email protected]

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

More Twitter: “We may not take action on and cannot respond to each report in the experiment, but your input will help us identify trends so that we can improve the speed and scale of our broader misinformation work.” — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

In its response, YouTube also told us this is a longstanding approach. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@issielapowsky Just to close the loop on this, if helpful — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

NEW: YouTube tells me that Afghan Taliban accounts are banned from the platform after all and will be "terminated" when found, because the group is named on the OFAC SDN list. The company's statement: https://t.co/i6HxnlJYhx — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

!! Subscribed. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@issielapowsky This brings us back to the distinction between the State and Treasury lists. Going by what YouTube told you, and if YouTube factors in OFAC sanctions, then perhaps the Taliban is eligible for such a speaker-level ban. But if YouTube only goes by the State Department FTO list... — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@eilperin This is amazing, congrats! Looking forward to reading. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @NatashaBertrand: Multiple sources told CNN US officials overestimated the Afghan security forces' will to fight and the risk of a full… — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Oh, one more thing about this: In its follow-up, YouTube did link to a Treasury notice (implying it *does* account for OFAC guidance) but YouTube did not specifically say anything about OFAC and the notice was totally unrelated (IDing an al Qaeda person). https://t.co/wzaUpUgcGl — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Anyway, that was basically a dump of my entire notebook from the last 18-24 hours. You now know what we know, as well as what we don't. Hope you found it helpful! — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Worth noting: In March, Twitter said it's reviewing its world leaders policy and asked for public comment. The Taliban's resurgence on the world stage probably amplifies the urgency of this review but the feedback window is now closed. Will they reopen it? https://t.co/FMp19v5iJf — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

And then there is the exception to the world leader policy. World leaders don't get the benefit of the doubt if their account(s) promote terrorism or threaten specific people. At what point does Twitter invoke this rule? https://t.co/WMLJShSssi — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Twitter has long given world leaders greater leeway on the platform due to the public-interest value of their tweets. This same policy allowed President Trump to skirt Twitter's rules for years. So does Twitter recognize all Taliban accounts under this policy? Some? None? — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

So Twitter's approach seems more in line with YouTube's here. But now that the Taliban controls the levers of power in Afghanistan, we have the world leaders policy to contend with. Does this policy apply to the Taliban? I haven't gotten an answer on that yet. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

When Twitter has taken down extremist content en masse in the past, it typically focuses on the content shared by an account rather than an account holder's affiliation or identity. Here's an example of an ISIS-related takedown in 2016. https://t.co/bcjHElvD73 https://t.co/FLdzSwn1UT — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Twitter has rules on: Graphic media https://t.co/6tENSWHgZV Violent threats/glorification of violence: https://t.co/H39QKq5az4 Hateful conduct: https://t.co/OTFbAcV7SZ It also has a world leaders policy; more on that momentarily. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

YouTube seems to be threading a very small needle here, but OK. That's their approach. Twitter seems to be the least prepared to address the Taliban issue; they declined to comment to us at all. But we can probably make some inferences based on their other platform policies. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Stuff like terrorist promotional videos, recruitment videos and hostage videos are prohibited on YouTube, and so if a Taliban account is seen posting that stuff, it's supposed to get enforced against, but hypothetically, a Taliban account not posting those things could be fine. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

YouTube didn't answer our question about whether it factors in the Treasury sanctions list in its enforcement decision-making, but said the company has a bunch of rules around violent criminal organizations and that those rules apply to the Taliban. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

In its initial answer to our questions, YouTube said it relied on governments to define FTOs, and linked to the State Department FTO list. Which seemed to suggest — because the Afghan Taliban is not on that list — YouTube actually is fine with the Taliban. We asked for clarity. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Similar to Facebook, YouTube also told CNN that it relies on government definitions of terrorist groups to inform its enforcement decisions. But unlike Facebook, YouTube does not appear to have a blanket ban on the Afghan Taliban. The platform's answers were tougher to parse. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

You can find the full Treasury list here: https://t.co/mv6Iz4E8lS — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

State's FTO list does not include the Afghan Taliban, though it does name the Pakistani Taliban. Instead, Facebook is relying on a Treasury Department sanctions list that identifies the Afghan Taliban as a specially designated global terrorist entity. https://t.co/C61V2k4cLU — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

Facebook told us that for years, the Taliban has been banned from its platform because it's "sanctioned as a terrorist organization under US law." You might think this refers to the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations, but it does not. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

As the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan, social media platforms are having to grapple anew with the organization's online presence — and their handling of it is basically all over the place. Our story, plus a bit of story about the story below. https://t.co/PIN9ZcNskI — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

@markscott82 @wexler I spent a while fact-checking all this last night. The Afghan Taliban is not on State's FTO list but is named on OFAC's current SDN list. OFAC lists it as a specially designated global terrorist entity (SDGT) but not as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). https://t.co/RDV0iq6BtS — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

More here on T-Mobile's data breach: https://t.co/3QSZntSdsO — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @CNNPR: @tedcruz @CNN Rather than running off to Cancun in tough times, @clarissaward is risking her life to tell the world what's happe… — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

New: T-Mobile confirms a data breach but says it's still unclear whether any customer PII was accessed. The company says it's working with "the highest degree of urgency" on its ongoing investigation. — PolitiTweet.org

Brian Fung | @[email protected] @b_fung

RT @brianstelter: Memo from @VOADirector: "VOA management is doing what it can... to keep our Afghan colleagues and their families safe." A… — PolitiTweet.org