[Thread] Twitter updates Hacked Materials Policy, says it won't remove content unless shared by hackers themselves and will label tweets instead of block links
Over the last 24 hours, we've received significant feedback (from critical to supportive) about how we enforced our Hacked Materials Policy yesterday. After reflecting on this feedback, we have decided to make changes to the policy and how we enforce it.
@vijayaVijaya Gadde
Context & Ripple Effects
This is a fast retreat: one day after Twitter blocked links to the NY Post's Biden story under its Hacked Materials Policy, policy head Vijaya Gadde is rewriting the rule itself, citing 'significant feedback' both critical and supportive. The reversal converts a content decision into a definitional one — material now stays up unless it was shared by the hackers themselves.
The fix leans on a tool Twitter had already been building: Gadde has since 2019 been testing labels that explain why a tweet wasn't removed, so the platform swaps blocking for annotation rather than inventing new machinery under fire.
First-order effects
Links to the disputed reporting become shareable again immediately; only direct distribution by hackers triggers removal, so ordinary users sharing the material are no longer treated as violators.
Second-order effects
Enforcement burden shifts to labeling at scale — every future hacked-material flashpoint now requires Twitter to determine provenance (who obtained the files) in near real time, with labels carrying the explanatory load that removal used to.
Third-order effects
If this holds, Twitter's governance model consolidates around annotate-don't-remove for contested political content, making each label a published judgment users can dispute — gatekeeping that is visible and contestable rather than silent.
The trend: Platforms are converging on labeling over takedown as their default answer to politically charged content disputes, with Twitter's own label experiment supplying the mechanism.
Facebook and Twitter are private-sector companies and they have no obligation to pass along possible Russian disinformation. That's not “censorship.” It's editorial judgment, and it's something we need more of online. @PostOpinions https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
So, what's changing? 1. We will no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them 2. We will label Tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter
Twitter should never let people share hacked materials! Right? Wait, what then about the police docs this past June? Or the Panama Papers? The company's confusing backpedaling is not a help. But there is a tough line to define here. https://www.wired.com/...
Facebook/Twitter restricting the New York Post's Hunter Biden story is a mess, so I tried to break down the important pieces of it. https://www.theverge.com/...
Breaking WaPo: U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Rudy Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence, according to four former officials familiar with the matter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
Wrt censoring information on social networks, I strongly agree with @benthompson idea of solving the problem with “more speech.” Allow others to tag, highlight, challenge. Asking companies to censor makes them more powerful, not less. Quite ironic considering other concerns.
Trump aides delivered stark warning to the president in December: “Your friend Rudy has been worked by Russian assets in Ukraine” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
The warnings led national security adviser O'Brien to caution Trump in a private convo that any info Giuliani brought back should be considered contaminated by Russia. The message was, “Do what you want to do, but your friend Rudy has been worked by Russian assets in Ukraine.” ht…
Russian intelligence worked Trump's personal lawyer to feed him disinformation and the White House has known about it since last year. Trump shrugged it off when warned about it. Our democracy will not survive four more years of this. #VOTE https://twitter.com/...
“Several senior admin officials ‘all had a common understanding’ that Giuliani was being targeted by the Russians, said the former official who recounted O'Brien's intervention. That group included A.G. William Barr, FBI Director Christopher Wray and White Counsel Pat Cipollone.”…
The warnings were based on multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intel during a 2019 trip to Ukraine. The intel raised concerns that Giuliani was being used to feed Russian misinformation to Trump.…
But! Twitter will still continue to block links to the NYPost story under a *separate* policy, because the story contains links to email addresses and personal information, which are not allowed on the site. tune in tomorrow for our next installment https://www.nytimes.com/...
the NYP*st story raised a fresh round of rancor between conservatives, Twtr and FB, and has raised questions concerning content moderation policies — all a mere 19 days before the most consequential election in years w/ @kateconger https://www.nytimes.com/...
This is an admirable reversal consistent with 1st Amendment principles that allowed for the publication of the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks Iraq War logs. Appreciate your willingness to engage in a deliberative process. @jack @vijaya @ryangrim @ggreenwald https://twitter.com/...
This will make no one feel assured weeks ahead of a major election about how much this is happening in real time — as I wrote about Facebook, it's random and its chaotic: Twitter changes policy that blocked a New York Post story about Biden's son https://www.washingtonpost.com/ .…
This is such a hard job but I have total faith @vijaya and the Twitter team are acting in a principled manner, listening to the feedback, and transparently evolving. https://twitter.com/...
Vijaya has had one of the hardest jobs in tech for years. You may not always agree with her, but I can vouch that she (and her team) considers every issue carefully, and they care deeply. Props for sharing their thoughts clearly and quickly. This is not easy. https://twitter.com/…
This seems like a reasonable change. It's appropriate for social media platforms to prevent themselves from being used as the initial distribution point for a hack-forge-leak, but not once the stories hit the press. Twitter and Facebook can't fix bad journalism. https://twitter.c…