The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what happens?

The HB laptop story is Russian disinformation. Literally anyone trying to peddle in it is doing Putin's bidding.

The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that their sources had authenticated a number of emails, including one that was the subject of the New York Post reporting.

22,000 of the on the hard drive were confirmed as authentic in 2022 by two forensic analysts who independently examined the data for The Washington Post.

Nothing illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what happens?

The HB laptop story is Russian disinformation. Literally anyone trying to peddle in it is doing Putin's bidding.

The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that their sources had authenticated a number of emails, including one that was the subject of the New York Post reporting.

22,000 of the on the hard drive were confirmed as authentic in 2022 by two forensic analysts who independently examined the data for The Washington Post.

And ever since, the best anyone can come up with is Twitter muzzling dick pix.

[Anonymous]

Jeff honest question — why are so such a pro-biden crusader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff honest question — why are so such a pro-biden crusader?

Why do Republicans lie and distort everything?

Fact-checking is unavoidably pro-Biden, pro-Democratic.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Was Hunter’s peen running for president?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff honest question — why are so such a pro-biden crusader?

I'm surprised at that question and why it would be relevant to this thread. In terms of this topic which is "The Twitter Files", is there anything that Biden has done that is illegal? Is there anything he has done that you believe merits criticism? If so, please reply with a specific answer with a link to supporting evidence (I don't want to waste time tracking down your fantasies). Basically, all I am doing is pointing out inaccurate information. If that is seen as crusading for Biden, then I guess the truth is pro-Biden.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff honest question — why are so such a pro-biden crusader?

I'm surprised at that question and why it would be relevant to this thread. In terms of this topic which is "The Twitter Files", is there anything that Biden has done that is illegal? Is there anything he has done that you believe merits criticism? If so, please reply with a specific answer with a link to supporting evidence (I don't want to waste time tracking down your fantasies). Basically, all I am doing is pointing out inaccurate information. If that is seen as crusading for Biden, then I guess the truth is pro-Biden.

To be fair, when we have 35% of the public falling for psychotic BS, and the rest of us are trying to show them the error of their ways, and the fate of our republic is at stake, I can see why this is cast as it was.

Keep up the good work, Jeff!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:They do no such thing. It is one of the biggest nothingburgers in recent history. Please, in specific detail, list anything that was illegal or even unethical that was revealed.

For example, the White House Press Secretary had her account frozen for tweeting about a New York Post article about Hunters laptop in the month before the 2020 election. I would say that was an abuse of power and an unethical decision by twitter.

Twitter made a decision that the laptop story violated its terms of service. The White House Press Secretary violated the terms of service and had her account frozen until she removed the tweet in question. That is not unethical. To the contrary, it would have been unethical to allow the Press Secretary to violate terms of service to which others were held to account.

But why did the media decide to suppress the laptop story? Did the Biden campaign request they suppress it? Did the media/twitter want Biden to win and suppress/manipulate the facts? Is that OK?

Even Taibbi didn’t find evidence that the Biden campaign was involved in the laptop story decision.

They didn't find John Podesta was involved in the "Russia Dossier" until he admitted in deposition under oath
that the DNC and the Clinton campaign each paid 50 percent of the cost to purchase it.

BTW, not everything is in writing. That's why you investigate and perform discovery.

Do you really believe what you've seen so far is the totality of what went on?

Discovery? You seem confused and are acting like what was released was somehow under adversarial circumstances. That is not the case. Elon Musk has control of all of Twitter's internal correspondence and that's what he handed over to Taibbi.

Maybe he can use neuralink to hack Biden’s brain too.

Maybe the Biden admin FCC should fine Twitter for wrongdoing over suppressing the Biden laptop story and helping Biden get elected. Sounds about right. Companies need to be held accountable.

Accountable for what? What law or regulation did Twitter break?

Let's see if their suppression and selective dissemination of information at Democrat request, is considered to be election interference.

But there was suppression by the request of the Trump White House as well. Is that also election interference?

Also, what is illegal with a private company selectively publishing information? Do you deny that Fox News or any other media outlet is selective? If not, where is my prime time show on Fox? Why is Fox interfering with elections by not broadcasting my opinions?

If they are selectively publishing then they are not a platform, and lose Sec 230 protection.

It appears lower level employees banned the laptop story and links to NY Post to protect Biden, coming up with an excuse of hacking, and after they realized this was bogus, no one was willing to undo the decision, again because they wanted to protect Biden.
The Democrats in the FBI knew the laptop story was likely to come out, and preemptively went to tech companies and told them Russian disinformation was likely to come out.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:They do no such thing. It is one of the biggest nothingburgers in recent history. Please, in specific detail, list anything that was illegal or even unethical that was revealed.

For example, the White House Press Secretary had her account frozen for tweeting about a New York Post article about Hunters laptop in the month before the 2020 election. I would say that was an abuse of power and an unethical decision by twitter.

Twitter made a decision that the laptop story violated its terms of service. The White House Press Secretary violated the terms of service and had her account frozen until she removed the tweet in question. That is not unethical. To the contrary, it would have been unethical to allow the Press Secretary to violate terms of service to which others were held to account.

But why did the media decide to suppress the laptop story? Did the Biden campaign request they suppress it? Did the media/twitter want Biden to win and suppress/manipulate the facts? Is that OK?

Even Taibbi didn’t find evidence that the Biden campaign was involved in the laptop story decision.

They didn't find John Podesta was involved in the "Russia Dossier" until he admitted in deposition under oath
that the DNC and the Clinton campaign each paid 50 percent of the cost to purchase it.

BTW, not everything is in writing. That's why you investigate and perform discovery.

Do you really believe what you've seen so far is the totality of what went on?

Discovery? You seem confused and are acting like what was released was somehow under adversarial circumstances. That is not the case. Elon Musk has control of all of Twitter's internal correspondence and that's what he handed over to Taibbi.

Maybe he can use neuralink to hack Biden’s brain too.

Maybe the Biden admin FCC should fine Twitter for wrongdoing over suppressing the Biden laptop story and helping Biden get elected. Sounds about right. Companies need to be held accountable.

Accountable for what? What law or regulation did Twitter break?

Let's see if their suppression and selective dissemination of information at Democrat request, is considered to be election interference.

But there was suppression by the request of the Trump White House as well. Is that also election interference?

Also, what is illegal with a private company selectively publishing information? Do you deny that Fox News or any other media outlet is selective? If not, where is my prime time show on Fox? Why is Fox interfering with elections by not broadcasting my opinions?

If they are selectively publishing then they are not a platform, and lose Sec 230 protection.

It appears lower level employees banned the laptop story and links to NY Post to protect Biden, coming up with an excuse of hacking, and after they realized this was bogus, no one was willing to undo the decision, again because they wanted to protect Biden.
The Democrats in the FBI knew the laptop story was likely to come out, and preemptively went to tech companies and told them Russian disinformation was likely to come out.

You are wrong about Section 230. If you were correct, nobody could moderate anything. Platforms absolutely have the right to enforce their terms of service.

You have no way of knowing the motivations of the Twitter employees beyond what is mentioned in their emails saying that they viewed the Post story as violating their TOS regarding hacking. You are simply making things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:They do no such thing. It is one of the biggest nothingburgers in recent history. Please, in specific detail, list anything that was illegal or even unethical that was revealed.

For example, the White House Press Secretary had her account frozen for tweeting about a New York Post article about Hunters laptop in the month before the 2020 election. I would say that was an abuse of power and an unethical decision by twitter.

Well it was a a totally fake story made up by Rudy.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:They do no such thing. It is one of the biggest nothingburgers in recent history. Please, in specific detail, list anything that was illegal or even unethical that was revealed.

For example, the White House Press Secretary had her account frozen for tweeting about a New York Post article about Hunters laptop in the month before the 2020 election. I would say that was an abuse of power and an unethical decision by twitter.

Twitter made a decision that the laptop story violated its terms of service. The White House Press Secretary violated the terms of service and had her account frozen until she removed the tweet in question. That is not unethical. To the contrary, it would have been unethical to allow the Press Secretary to violate terms of service to which others were held to account.

But why did the media decide to suppress the laptop story? Did the Biden campaign request they suppress it? Did the media/twitter want Biden to win and suppress/manipulate the facts? Is that OK?

Even Taibbi didn’t find evidence that the Biden campaign was involved in the laptop story decision.

They didn't find John Podesta was involved in the "Russia Dossier" until he admitted in deposition under oath
that the DNC and the Clinton campaign each paid 50 percent of the cost to purchase it.

BTW, not everything is in writing. That's why you investigate and perform discovery.

Do you really believe what you've seen so far is the totality of what went on?

Discovery? You seem confused and are acting like what was released was somehow under adversarial circumstances. That is not the case. Elon Musk has control of all of Twitter's internal correspondence and that's what he handed over to Taibbi.

Maybe he can use neuralink to hack Biden’s brain too.

Maybe the Biden admin FCC should fine Twitter for wrongdoing over suppressing the Biden laptop story and helping Biden get elected. Sounds about right. Companies need to be held accountable.

Accountable for what? What law or regulation did Twitter break?

Let's see if their suppression and selective dissemination of information at Democrat request, is considered to be election interference.

But there was suppression by the request of the Trump White House as well. Is that also election interference?

Also, what is illegal with a private company selectively publishing information? Do you deny that Fox News or any other media outlet is selective? If not, where is my prime time show on Fox? Why is Fox interfering with elections by not broadcasting my opinions?

If they are selectively publishing then they are not a platform, and lose Sec 230 protection.

It appears lower level employees banned the laptop story and links to NY Post to protect Biden, coming up with an excuse of hacking, and after they realized this was bogus, no one was willing to undo the decision, again because they wanted to protect Biden.
The Democrats in the FBI knew the laptop story was likely to come out, and preemptively went to tech companies and told them Russian disinformation was likely to come out.

You are wrong about Section 230. If you were correct, nobody could moderate anything. Platforms absolutely have the right to enforce their terms of service.

You have no way of knowing the motivations of the Twitter employees beyond what is mentioned in their emails saying that they viewed the Post story as violating their TOS regarding hacking. You are simply making things up.

Please take the time to educate yourself about the import and parameters of Section 230.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:They do no such thing. It is one of the biggest nothingburgers in recent history. Please, in specific detail, list anything that was illegal or even unethical that was revealed.

For example, the White House Press Secretary had her account frozen for tweeting about a New York Post article about Hunters laptop in the month before the 2020 election. I would say that was an abuse of power and an unethical decision by twitter.

Twitter made a decision that the laptop story violated its terms of service. The White House Press Secretary violated the terms of service and had her account frozen until she removed the tweet in question. That is not unethical. To the contrary, it would have been unethical to allow the Press Secretary to violate terms of service to which others were held to account.

But why did the media decide to suppress the laptop story? Did the Biden campaign request they suppress it? Did the media/twitter want Biden to win and suppress/manipulate the facts? Is that OK?

Even Taibbi didn’t find evidence that the Biden campaign was involved in the laptop story decision.

They didn't find John Podesta was involved in the "Russia Dossier" until he admitted in deposition under oath
that the DNC and the Clinton campaign each paid 50 percent of the cost to purchase it.

BTW, not everything is in writing. That's why you investigate and perform discovery.

Do you really believe what you've seen so far is the totality of what went on?

Discovery? You seem confused and are acting like what was released was somehow under adversarial circumstances. That is not the case. Elon Musk has control of all of Twitter's internal correspondence and that's what he handed over to Taibbi.

Maybe he can use neuralink to hack Biden’s brain too.

Maybe the Biden admin FCC should fine Twitter for wrongdoing over suppressing the Biden laptop story and helping Biden get elected. Sounds about right. Companies need to be held accountable.

Accountable for what? What law or regulation did Twitter break?

Let's see if their suppression and selective dissemination of information at Democrat request, is considered to be election interference.

But there was suppression by the request of the Trump White House as well. Is that also election interference?

Also, what is illegal with a private company selectively publishing information? Do you deny that Fox News or any other media outlet is selective? If not, where is my prime time show on Fox? Why is Fox interfering with elections by not broadcasting my opinions?

If they are selectively publishing then they are not a platform, and lose Sec 230 protection.

It appears lower level employees banned the laptop story and links to NY Post to protect Biden, coming up with an excuse of hacking, and after they realized this was bogus, no one was willing to undo the decision, again because they wanted to protect Biden.
The Democrats in the FBI knew the laptop story was likely to come out, and preemptively went to tech companies and told them Russian disinformation was likely to come out.

You are wrong about Section 230. If you were correct, nobody could moderate anything. Platforms absolutely have the right to enforce their terms of service.

You have no way of knowing the motivations of the Twitter employees beyond what is mentioned in their emails saying that they viewed the Post story as violating their TOS regarding hacking. You are simply making things up.

Please take the time to educate yourself about the import and parameters of Section 230.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter

I don't know if you replied to me by accident, but that article fully supports what I wrote. Thanks for the supporting source, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The influence of the White House on social media is disgusting and needs to limited. Imagine if Trump becomes President again!

The White House telling a private company what to publish and what not to publish is, indeed, a violation of free speech

No such allegation was made. Again, be very specific. If you are going to make an allegation, link to the tweet that supports the allegation.

Most of you clearly did not read the tweet thread and are relying on second-hand accounts that distort was was posted.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064?s=61&t=aUZt8e42lvWSjWIjG2gqFw

You realize even Seb Zorka is saying this is a nothing burger, right?

The poster to whom you replied seems to believe that pictures of Hunter's penis would have changed the election outcome.

The information contained in emails would - I believe a poll said 30% of people would have not voted for Biden had they known about the contents. How soon we all forget that HB worked with his father and used his influence to get the jobs with Ukrainian and Chinese companies. Bobulinski's interview was interesting, and backed up with emails.

Would love to see that poll because that sounds like nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the argument being made by the far right in this thread, that Twitter should have left up photos of Hunter's penis?