Twitter is under fire for its double standards. The site featured an article that relied on hacked materials to out police officers who donated to a crowdfunding campaign. This is the same site that banned a Hunter Biden story for allegedly using hacked materials.
The Guardian based its reporting on information from a “data breach at a Christian crowdfunding website” GiveSendGo by Distributed Denial of Secrets, a notorious hacking group.
The Guardian named two officers who donated to a fund aimed at protecting police officers targeted by Black Lives Matter. The report included the names of two Wisconsin officers who donated to the fund of Rusten Sheskey, an officer under investigation after the shooting of Jacob Blake. Sheskey was subsequently cleared of wrongdoing.
The report also featured the names of officers who donated to a legal defense fund for Kyle Rittenhouse, a Wisconsin teenager charged with murder after he fatally shot two protestors and injured one. Rittenhouse has since pleaded not guilty to all charges.
“Two $20 donations to Sheskey’s fund were associated with email addresses of a pair of lieutenants in Green Bay, Wisconsin’s police department. One, given under the name, ‘GBPD Officer’, was tied to an address associated with [name redacted by NewsBusters], a training lieutenant in the department; another anonymous donation was associated with [name redacted by NewsBusters], who is listed as a school resources officer lieutenant.”
Previously, the social media giant banned the New York Post article exposing the contents of Biden’s laptop over unfounded allegations that the story relied on hacked materials. Now, Twitter is changing course. The company originally claimed the story was a violation of its Terms of Service that could “incentivize” hacking, though Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently admitted that banning the story was a “total mistake.”
GiveSendGo co-founder Jacob Wells was flabbergasted by the platform’s double standard.
“When we started GiveSendGo, we let people give anonymously because people had such a big heart they didn’t want credit,” Wells said. “Now where we’re at in this country, they have to give anonymously because we’ve seen what happens when their name gets out there. It makes me sick to my stomach. … The point of this was to weaponize this information against the individuals who gave. There’s no other value other than to make them fearful.”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact Twitter at (415) 222-9670, on Facebook, on Twitter or by mail to 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, and demand that the platform provide equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.