Law and Order: TVU (Twitter Victims Unit)
In the criminal justice system, Twitter-based offenses are considered especially heinous.
Often when dealing with a tough problem one is trying to pin down, the process begins with inductive reasoning and at some point, later transitions to deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is where a general principle is derived from a body of observations. It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations.
Let's use the Twitter situation as an example.
We have generally known for several years that conservatives have been routinely punished for simply expressing views contradictory to the "approved" narrative and "The Science".
We didn't know to what extent, but it seemed clear through self-reporting that the silenced conservative voices far outnumbered the Silence of the Left, mostly due to the fact we knew those on the left supported the narrative and The Science and there were very, very few complaints from the left about being banned in one form or another.
Nothing specific, just a large body of anecdotal evidence of what was going on.
Of course, inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we have receipts. There are concrete pieces of evidence, puzzle pieces, we assemble to form a complete puzzle, so we clearly see the picture depicted on the puzzle.
If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is merely probable (it could be strongly probable), based upon the evidence given - but not iron clad.
Twittergate is a lot like a criminal investigation in process. You can almost hear the "Da Dum" music of Law and Order.
Every investigation begins with something that allegedly happened to a victim, then begins the gathering of a large pool of generalized bits of information that eventually narrows to hard evidence and witness testimony. Eventually that leads to a cause and a perpetrator.
It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out and how the “crime” is classified because criminal and civil infractions have wildly different standards of proof. Criminal activity requires guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” (aka deductive) and enforcement of penalties is far more certain than in civil matters where the standard is “a preponderance of evidence” (inductive).
Think of the OJ trial – he got off in the criminal trial only to lose in a subsequent civil trial. While he escaped a life sentence for murder, Simpson lost the civil trial and was required to pay $33.5 million dollars, though very few people believed he even possessed that sum or would be capable of earning that much in the future. Ultimately plaintiffs received about a half million from the auction of some of Simpson's belongings – a fraction of what the court had awarded them.
So, what happens now?
Most certainly there were people harmed by Twitter’s actions. Some lost actual revenue, if not their entire businesses due to the direct actions of Twitter management. Is that actionable and if it is, who do they go after? If they go after Twitter the corporation, they are attacking the good guy who is revealing all this malfeasance.
Do they go after former Twitter senior management? The are likely to say that Twitter is a private business and making bad decisions is not a crime.
What about the government involvement? They are going to say they were just “advising” based on national security concerns and never legally mandated that Twitter do anything – or claim it was just some “rogue actor in the Cincinnati” who did it.
They will make the argument that free speech only applies to government and it was a private company that did it.
Maybe we get some Martha Stewart situation where people get charged with lying to the feds. Maybe there will be some successful civil suits – but again, no guarantee of any payouts or punishments. Maybe the higher-ups at the old Twitter find it hard to find moral arbiter jobs that pay $17 million (former Chief Legal Officer and Secretary Vijaya Gadde) to $30 million (former CEO Parag Agrawal) a year (never fear, some lefty organization will hire them).
In years past, shame of being such bad actors would have been at least some punishment – but we now live in shameless times, so little comfort to be drawn there.
I hate to break it to people, but while it is supremely satisfying to have proof of what we intuitively knew and had inductively deduced, it is hard for me to see how anyone, or any entity, gets punished for what has happened for the past several years.
Twittergate is rife with evidence of broken principles, but principles are not laws.
Da. Dum. Da. Da. Da. Da. Dum.
Edit: *hate* to break it tou you...
A perfect description of precisely what will happen. On another note, it is not a crime for Twitter to enforce unethical censorship on its users NOR is it even a crime for Twitter to unfairly censor one user over another breaking their own internal organization policies. The real crime here is that all these fools have known for years that Twitter (and Facebook) are bias against conservatives, but the moron conservatives continue to frequent these platforms supplying them with free revenue from their presence.