If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.

Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {link} Why?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

(more…)

Alex Jones did not warrant the scale of deplatforming and censorship that he received.  In the free market, independent people can choose not to engage with, tune out or block anyone they find is not in alignment with their value system.

In the era of defined information (dis, mis and mal), a slippery slope is created where information itself is suppressed, and ultimately this erodes the principle of speech.  Just because information, even significantly contrary information, is provided, that does not mean anyone is required to believe it.  As I have previously shared, when we allow definitions imposed by others to define and ultimately control information, we become subjects to the censors.  The decision to permit Jones to return to Twitter was the correct decision.

All of that said, the action taken by Musk will likely only worsen the revenue side of the X/Twitter financial situation.  With staunch opposition groups now using the reinstatement of Alex Jones as a targeting arrow in their quiver, and with approximately $1.5 billion in annual debt service, even 10 million paid subscribers ($8/mo) cannot offset the scale of revenue drop from a lack of advertisers.

It remains to be seen how X/Twitter can remain viable in the longer term with $12.5 billion in debt.

(more…)

Elon Musk has polled the users on the Twitter/X platform about reinstating Alex Jones’ account. So far, 70% of the 1.8 million responses have been yes, reinstate the account. [POLL HERE]

Alex Jones responded to the question with a short video, see below.

(more…)

At dinner last night, I was questioned about Twitter and the recent remarks of Elon Musk.  My opinion is somewhat out of variance with the mainstream considerations.

I believe the demise of Twitter was essentially determined long ago.  Musk stepped into a scenario that was tenuous at best, and the government control of the platform was always the fulcrum issue.  Musk’s prior intent with the platform may be up for debate; however, against his recent remarks, I would argue Musk is presenting the potential collapse of the platform as a martyr scenario.

Musk said recently the platform may collapse without advertisers, but he will not acquiesce to corporate blackmail.  Sounds great, but keep in mind that Musk has known about the fulfillment of the DOJ search warrant for user data since January of this year; we only recently discovered it.  Put that background reality into the overlay of your opinion, given the year of comments about users shared by Musk, and the known lack of platform privacy.

Musk knew as an outcome of the platform fulfillment of the court order, the release of all user metadata who supported, followed, liked, or shared the tweets of Donald Trump, that the government created the “his kind” list earlier this year.   Yet, he never discussed the issue of compromised privacy throughout his commentary; he did exactly the opposite while assuring people the platform would protect users.  [Ex. How did the encrypted DM promise work out?]

Now Musk positions himself as the martyr, the victim of leftist targeting…. and his hired CEO Linda Yaccarino is doing the same thing [SEE HERE].  What better way to guide the platform into a controlled collapse than to be a martyred hero as the Twitter platform potentially disappears.  Just think about it.

Simultaneously, all prior DOJ/FBI/IC datamining and intelligence gathering operations against conservative or liberty-minded Americans becomes legal when contrast against the fulfilled subpoena.  That’s the same DOJ/FBI/IC motive behind the Carter Page FISA application.   All prior surveillance legalized ex-post-facto, history rhymes.

(more…)

In response to a media lawsuit for information being withheld by the DOJ, a heavily redacted search warrant was revealed {SEE pdf HERE}.  Within the warrant issued to Twitter-Xcorp, Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded the information on every account that engaged with the Donald Trump Twitter account.

[Source]

The ridiculously overbroad warrant and demand for information, was initially fought by Twitter; however, it appears the courts ultimately demanded compliance and Twitter acquiesced.  That is a stunning amount of information included in the search warrant.

(New York Post) –  Special counsel Jack Smith’s comprehensive search warrant for information related to former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account sought the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner’s search history, drafted tweets, blocks and mutes.

The special counsel also demanded a list of all devices used to log into the account and information on users interacting with Trump, heavily redacted court filings show. 

(more…)

Several people have pointed out this conversation between Joe Rogan and Twitter owner Elon Musk.   There are a couple of interesting aspects to the conversation; one of the more interesting is not generally being noticed.

The primary point, raised by many, is how Elon Musk discusses the scale and scope of U.S. government involvement in the operation of Twitter as an information and discussion platform.  Almost all of those making this note are unfamiliar with our multi-year research and outlines long before Elon Musk entered the picture.

As affirmed during the conversation, the FBI and various government agencies, under the auspices of the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), were in a direct relationship with Twitter offices to control information on the platform.  This is not a surprise to CTH readers.  The instructions on content removal, content moderation, and demands to remove accounts, were part of the DHS broader initiative to control information.  This part of the discussion begins at 05:46, prompted. WATCH:

.

While the govt involvement in the operation of Twitter is interesting, readers here will not be surprised.  However, there is a statement by Joe Rogan, at 11:40, that seems to fly under the radar, even to Elon Musk, that deserves an equal amount of attention.

In response to Musk saying the ratio of censorship on the Twitter platform was a multiple of 10 times greater for “right-wing” or centrist views, Rogan ponders how and why accounts like the Taliban were not removed.   Thus, yet again, the issue that brought me to the political sphere many decades ago surfaces.

The Taliban, as a totalitarian ideology, is not on the right side of the political continuum.  Totalitarianism, or the presence of big oppressive government, falls on the left side of the political continuum.  The far-left is totalitarianism.  The furthest right is the absence of government.  This is an ideological mistake that happens frequently and needs to be addressed when the mistake is made.

(more…)

I wasn’t going to write about this, but so many requests and contacts have come in, and considering that my background conversations with people are leading to actionable positioning, that I feel it is only fair to share publicly what I am analyzing privately.

The predicate for all assumptions is several fold: {Go Deep One} and {Go Deep Two}. Most of the financial groundwork for analysis already exists. In summary, Elon paid $44 billion for the platform. Current valuations are around $15 billion.  Current debt service is $1.5 billion/yr (roughly $100m/mo).  Current expenses include $100m/yr AWS, $100m/yr Goog cloud (both contracts), +payroll and misc.

Approximately 9 months ago, Musk had $1 billion in cash reserve for Twitter.  The burn rate deficit was roughly $100m/month. That put timeline estimates for an inflection point on/around October 2023.  It is now October 2023.

Approximately a week ago, Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino made a bold statement.  Yaccarino stated that from her review of the current status, Twitter would start to turn a profit in the first quarter of 2024 {link}.  However, with $100 million per month in debt service alone, this statement seemed too far of a stretch.  At pre-musk levels of revenue, maybe; but that $1.5 billion debt service is a heavy nut to carry.

Timing – Remember, it’s October.  Last Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) gave special regulatory approval to Bill Ackman’s firm, Pershing Square (hedge fund), for a new investment vessel called SPARC, whose purpose is to invest in private companies in order to take them public.  As noted by CNBC, “In a SPARC, investors will know what company the financing vehicle would be used to merge with before they have to pledge their investments.”  The financial mechanism avoids some of the issues with typical IPO’s.

•It’s October, inflection time.  •Yaccarino says a strategy is underway for profitability in Q1 2024.  •Ackman gets SPARC approval, and then suddenly:

(more…)

The issues around the Twitter platform (X Corp) are important for several reasons, including the anticipated tech moves around the 2024 election.

Many people are holding up Elon Musk as a tech figurehead who might just be able to push back against the tide of totalitarianism.  However, a more realistic look at Musk shows he is participating in the control space just as much as any other platform.  Additionally, Musk has threat and influence vectors just like any other person or social media company.  The most obvious influence vector is the cost of operating his X platform.

Earlier today Musk outlined the current status of Twitter revenue generation.   The baseline here is the prior peak of revenue for the company, which was around $3.8 billion, prior to Musk acquisition.  Musk shares today that revenue is down 60% from that point.

That would put current revenue around $1.52 billion/yr.

Service on debt is around $1.25 billion/yr.  Amazon and Goggle services around $1 billion/yr.  That’s an operational loss of around $1.6 billion/yr when you factor in subscription revenue.  In essence, Twitter loses around $130 million every month.

With the latest revelations we shared about the financial position of Twitter {Go Deep on FINANCIALS}, all of the moves now underway make sense.  Musk was on track to hit a date in/around October of this year where Twitter would be insolvent. If you had read those previous “Go Deep” links, you will easily see the problem. Musk needs another infusion of cash, and he is limited on his Tesla stock as an option.

(more…)

The use of Enhanced Artificial Intelligence to control information and communication is a subject that too few people understand.  This is why I have spent time trying to share information so that people can see into the future of their internet reality.  Everything will change.

As you should know by now, the X platform (Twitter) is designed to produce a different user experience based on “definitions” of the user.  The definitions are applied by the platform, to create unique identifying characteristics of the user.  The result is that each user gets a completely different platform experience, based on their definitions.

“Twitter is a different platform for each user.”  Repeat that phrase as often as needed to understand the evolution of what is coming to the American internet.

You might ask, how is applying all of these granular definitions even possible?  The answer is through the use of AI.  Humans will no longer be assigning the definitions of you; an autonomous system will take on the job of assigning the definitions.  Now, keep referencing the word “definitions,” because that is your identity and gateway pass into the platform content.  If you carry a particular definition, you will be blocked, throttled, shadow-banned or experience friction applied to your user id.

Remember when Elon Musk restricted users and claimed it was because the platform content was being “scraped” by organizations who were using the content to train their Enhanced AI systems?  Remember, Musk saying that, and expressing his concern?   Well, now the platform is telling users in a new X Corp privacy policy, that X corp itself is going to do exactly the thing Musk said he abhorred.

(more…)

Prior to Elon Musk taking control of Twitter, the social media company entered a consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission putting a neutral arbiter from Ernst & Young in an oversight position for the company’s privacy, data collection and information security protocols.  Given what we know about DHS and FBI control and influence over Twitter content, there is a certain irony in the prior position of the FTC regarding user privacy.

That said, Twitter’s new parent company X Corp filed a court motion Thursday [PDF HERE] asking a federal court overseeing the settlement to either throw out the consent decree entirely, or put it on hold until the FTC turns over documents to Twitter showing historic bias against the company. Twitter is also seeking to bar the FTC from deposing CEO Elon Musk over issues that preceded his arrival.

Within the filing, Twitter presents some alarming information as shared by Ernst and Young about the FTC pressure applied to them.

[SOURCE LINK]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan questioned FTC Chair Lina Khan about this issue today during a congressional hearing.

(more…)