The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

The receipt says data recovery on 3 Macbook Pros?

[Anonymous]

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.

Funny how THIS story violated its "terms of service" but other stories with information about actual hacked materials didn't......

Ms Devin is really trying to pretend that the word "hack" means something else...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The receipt says data recovery on 3 Macbook Pros?

The QTY says 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What repairs on a Mac cost just $85?

when the repair shop copies and sells your hard drive to offset their prices, they can offer cheaper services. The repair shop guy was probably disappointed there were no nudes or sex tapes to sell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the RWNJ explain why there are 3-4 laptops? No one has 3-4 laptops. It makes no sense.

I have several laptops.

The problem is that Biden only dropped off ONE laptop. And somehow from that, 3-4 somehow materialized out of thin air. It may be 3-4 drive copies that they are talking about - but the fact that the 3-4 drive copies all seem to contain differing versions of information shows that the whole story and narrative has been manipulated by the right wing.

The "laptop" that was dropped off was almost certainly not Biden's. It appears that a bunch of his files got hacked, and then the hackers started creating "laptops" using a mix of those files and fake ones, one of which was the one at the computer repair shop. The chain of custody is so messed up that I don't think anyone can be sure what is real and what is fake.

So, the people here still believe this was NOT Hunter's laptop?
You are still going with that argument? Despite the fact that recipients of emails and documents contained on the laptop have confirmed that they are authentic?

DP

What is clear is that Hunter was hacked, and the results of that hack ended up in the hands of Russians and Ukrainians, who are using the pretext of "hunter's laptop" to sell the story. No different than the DNC and RNC getting hacked before the 2016 election, and the DNC emails being weaponized while the RNC were used as blackmail.

OMG. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical.
Have you not seen the receipt that the has been posted for receipt of the laptop?



Or, the subpoena for the shop owner?

OMG photoshop!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the RWNJ explain why there are 3-4 laptops? No one has 3-4 laptops. It makes no sense.

I have several laptops.

The problem is that Biden only dropped off ONE laptop. And somehow from that, 3-4 somehow materialized out of thin air. It may be 3-4 drive copies that they are talking about - but the fact that the 3-4 drive copies all seem to contain differing versions of information shows that the whole story and narrative has been manipulated by the right wing.

The "laptop" that was dropped off was almost certainly not Biden's. It appears that a bunch of his files got hacked, and then the hackers started creating "laptops" using a mix of those files and fake ones, one of which was the one at the computer repair shop. The chain of custody is so messed up that I don't think anyone can be sure what is real and what is fake.

So, the people here still believe this was NOT Hunter's laptop?
You are still going with that argument? Despite the fact that recipients of emails and documents contained on the laptop have confirmed that they are authentic?

DP

What is clear is that Hunter was hacked, and the results of that hack ended up in the hands of Russians and Ukrainians, who are using the pretext of "hunter's laptop" to sell the story. No different than the DNC and RNC getting hacked before the 2016 election, and the DNC emails being weaponized while the RNC were used as blackmail.

OMG. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical.
Have you not seen the receipt that the has been posted for receipt of the laptop?



Or, the subpoena for the shop owner?

I don't know what you think that receipt proves.

[Anonymous]

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.

Funny how THIS story violated its "terms of service" but other stories with information about actual hacked materials didn't......

Ms Devin is really trying to pretend that the word "hack" means something else...

No. Miranda Devine is simply pointing out the "inconsistencies" in Twitter enforcing some policy that actually may or may not have existed.
Even some of Twitter's own employees questioned the censoring of the laptop story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the RWNJ explain why there are 3-4 laptops? No one has 3-4 laptops. It makes no sense.

I have several laptops.

The problem is that Biden only dropped off ONE laptop. And somehow from that, 3-4 somehow materialized out of thin air. It may be 3-4 drive copies that they are talking about - but the fact that the 3-4 drive copies all seem to contain differing versions of information shows that the whole story and narrative has been manipulated by the right wing.

The "laptop" that was dropped off was almost certainly not Biden's. It appears that a bunch of his files got hacked, and then the hackers started creating "laptops" using a mix of those files and fake ones, one of which was the one at the computer repair shop. The chain of custody is so messed up that I don't think anyone can be sure what is real and what is fake.

So, the people here still believe this was NOT Hunter's laptop?
You are still going with that argument? Despite the fact that recipients of emails and documents contained on the laptop have confirmed that they are authentic?

DP

What is clear is that Hunter was hacked, and the results of that hack ended up in the hands of Russians and Ukrainians, who are using the pretext of "hunter's laptop" to sell the story. No different than the DNC and RNC getting hacked before the 2016 election, and the DNC emails being weaponized while the RNC were used as blackmail.

OMG. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical.
Have you not seen the receipt that the has been posted for receipt of the laptop?



Or, the subpoena for the shop owner?

OMG photoshop!

OMG - Hunter himself was unable to deny that the laptop is his. Or, didn't you know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the RWNJ explain why there are 3-4 laptops? No one has 3-4 laptops. It makes no sense.

I have several laptops.

The problem is that Biden only dropped off ONE laptop. And somehow from that, 3-4 somehow materialized out of thin air. It may be 3-4 drive copies that they are talking about - but the fact that the 3-4 drive copies all seem to contain differing versions of information shows that the whole story and narrative has been manipulated by the right wing.

The "laptop" that was dropped off was almost certainly not Biden's. It appears that a bunch of his files got hacked, and then the hackers started creating "laptops" using a mix of those files and fake ones, one of which was the one at the computer repair shop. The chain of custody is so messed up that I don't think anyone can be sure what is real and what is fake.

So, the people here still believe this was NOT Hunter's laptop?
You are still going with that argument? Despite the fact that recipients of emails and documents contained on the laptop have confirmed that they are authentic?

DP

What is clear is that Hunter was hacked, and the results of that hack ended up in the hands of Russians and Ukrainians, who are using the pretext of "hunter's laptop" to sell the story. No different than the DNC and RNC getting hacked before the 2016 election, and the DNC emails being weaponized while the RNC were used as blackmail.

OMG. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical.
Have you not seen the receipt that the has been posted for receipt of the laptop?



Or, the subpoena for the shop owner?

OMG photoshop!

OMG - Hunter himself was unable to deny that the laptop is his. Or, didn't you know this?

One can drop a laptop off at a shop for repairs. But when the data ends up in the hands of Ukrainians and Russians, and then somehow to Rudy Guiliani, it kinda seems a little fishy, at least to those with a brain.

[Anonymous]

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.

Funny how THIS story violated its "terms of service" but other stories with information about actual hacked materials didn't......

Ms Devin is really trying to pretend that the word "hack" means something else...

No. Miranda Devine is simply pointing out the "inconsistencies" in Twitter enforcing some policy that actually may or may not have existed.
Even some of Twitter's own employees questioned the censoring of the laptop story.

Lol Fox News!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can the RWNJ explain why there are 3-4 laptops? No one has 3-4 laptops. It makes no sense.

I have several laptops.

The problem is that Biden only dropped off ONE laptop. And somehow from that, 3-4 somehow materialized out of thin air. It may be 3-4 drive copies that they are talking about - but the fact that the 3-4 drive copies all seem to contain differing versions of information shows that the whole story and narrative has been manipulated by the right wing.

The "laptop" that was dropped off was almost certainly not Biden's. It appears that a bunch of his files got hacked, and then the hackers started creating "laptops" using a mix of those files and fake ones, one of which was the one at the computer repair shop. The chain of custody is so messed up that I don't think anyone can be sure what is real and what is fake.

So, the people here still believe this was NOT Hunter's laptop?
You are still going with that argument? Despite the fact that recipients of emails and documents contained on the laptop have confirmed that they are authentic?

DP

What is clear is that Hunter was hacked, and the results of that hack ended up in the hands of Russians and Ukrainians, who are using the pretext of "hunter's laptop" to sell the story. No different than the DNC and RNC getting hacked before the 2016 election, and the DNC emails being weaponized while the RNC were used as blackmail.

OMG. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical.
Have you not seen the receipt that the has been posted for receipt of the laptop?



Or, the subpoena for the shop owner?

OMG photoshop!

OMG - Hunter himself was unable to deny that the laptop is his. Or, didn't you know this?

What the f does “unable to deny” mean? Sounds like right wing propaganda. Has anyone Rudy, Green, the white nationalists, etc shown any proof this is his laptop/s? By proof I want sworn testimony. Till that happens these are not his laptops.

Oh and you all really have to work on your bullsh#t more. This is the most confusing unbelievable propaganda ever put out. It is worst vs what the Soviets use to put out. I am sure you have heard this before …have some pride in your work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The receipt says data recovery on 3 Macbook Pros?

The QTY says 1

One unit of labor.
It says above 3 Macs.

I am saying this is a low price for repairs on a single Mac, let alone 3. I was charged that about 30 years ago for a floppy drive.

[jsteele]

Lots of issues are being brought into this discussion and possibly confusing it. So, let's return to the essence of "The Twitter Files".

Did Taibbi show unconstitutional pressure by the US government on Twitter to censure speech? Possibly, when Taibbi says that the Trump White House was able to have content removed. But, more than likely, Twitter voluntary complied with White House requests so this was not an 1st Amendment issue.

Did Taibbi demonstrate illegal or unethical involvement by Democrats in removing content from Twitter. No, Taibbi showed that the Democrats requested that pornographic material involving Hunter be removed. That data violated Twitter's terms of service and should have been removed regardless of who made the request.

Did Twitter block the New York Post article due to government pressure? No, Taibbi says that there was no government involvement in the decision. Based on his tweets, Twitter received a general briefing that US intelligence was expecting a Russian dump of hacked data, but the briefing did not mention Hunter or a laptop. Taibbi does not document any outside interference with Twitter's decision.

Why did Twitter block the Post story? Taibbi shows that internally Twitter was not sure how to respond to the Post laptop story but based on the belief that the story included hacked or stolen data, decided the article violated Twitter's terms of service.

Was Twitter's decision to block the Post article wrong? Content moderation decisions are almost always subjective and each individual is entitled to their own view. As noted above, even within Twitter there was never complete agreement on how to respond. Different staff members had different opinions and ultimately Twitter itself decided to reverse the decision.

Did Twitter violate the First Amendment? Ro Khanna, a very progressive Democrat, expressed such concerns. No, the First Amendment prevents the government from abridging the freedom of speech. Twitter is not the government and, as a private entity, can abridge speech in any manner in which it chooses.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Lots of issues are being brought into this discussion and possibly confusing it. So, let's return to the essence of "The Twitter Files".

Did Taibbi show unconstitutional pressure by the US government on Twitter to censure speech? Possibly, when Taibbi says that the Trump White House was able to have content removed. But, more than likely, Twitter voluntary complied with White House requests so this was not an 1st Amendment issue.

Did Taibbi demonstrate illegal or unethical involvement by Democrats in removing content from Twitter. No, Taibbi showed that the Democrats requested that pornographic material involving Hunter be removed. That data violated Twitter's terms of service and should have been removed regardless of who made the request.

Did Twitter block the New York Post article due to government pressure? No, Taibbi says that there was no government involvement in the decision. Based on his tweets, Twitter received a general briefing that US intelligence was expecting a Russian dump of hacked data, but the briefing did not mention Hunter or a laptop. Taibbi does not document any outside interference with Twitter's decision.

Why did Twitter block the Post story? Taibbi shows that internally Twitter was not sure how to respond to the Post laptop story but based on the belief that the story included hacked or stolen data, decided the article violated Twitter's terms of service.

Was Twitter's decision to block the Post article wrong? Content moderation decisions are almost always subjective and each individual is entitled to their own view. As noted above, even within Twitter there was never complete agreement on how to respond. Different staff members had different opinions and ultimately Twitter itself decided to reverse the decision.

Did Twitter violate the First Amendment? Ro Khanna, a very progressive Democrat, expressed such concerns. No, the First Amendment prevents the government from abridging the freedom of speech. Twitter is not the government and, as a private entity, can abridge speech in any manner in which it chooses.

I take exception to much of what you said but particularly the last point.

When people in government (whether they be the president, the president's staff, or government agencies) work with a private company to indicate which speech is censored, it is a violation of free speech.
I believe more will come out about who exactly was pushing for more censorship - both before the 2020 election and after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Lots of issues are being brought into this discussion and possibly confusing it. So, let's return to the essence of "The Twitter Files".

Did Taibbi show unconstitutional pressure by the US government on Twitter to censure speech? Possibly, when Taibbi says that the Trump White House was able to have content removed. But, more than likely, Twitter voluntary complied with White House requests so this was not an 1st Amendment issue.

Did Taibbi demonstrate illegal or unethical involvement by Democrats in removing content from Twitter. No, Taibbi showed that the Democrats requested that pornographic material involving Hunter be removed. That data violated Twitter's terms of service and should have been removed regardless of who made the request.

Did Twitter block the New York Post article due to government pressure? No, Taibbi says that there was no government involvement in the decision. Based on his tweets, Twitter received a general briefing that US intelligence was expecting a Russian dump of hacked data, but the briefing did not mention Hunter or a laptop. Taibbi does not document any outside interference with Twitter's decision.

Why did Twitter block the Post story? Taibbi shows that internally Twitter was not sure how to respond to the Post laptop story but based on the belief that the story included hacked or stolen data, decided the article violated Twitter's terms of service.

Was Twitter's decision to block the Post article wrong? Content moderation decisions are almost always subjective and each individual is entitled to their own view. As noted above, even within Twitter there was never complete agreement on how to respond. Different staff members had different opinions and ultimately Twitter itself decided to reverse the decision.

Did Twitter violate the First Amendment? Ro Khanna, a very progressive Democrat, expressed such concerns. No, the First Amendment prevents the government from abridging the freedom of speech. Twitter is not the government and, as a private entity, can abridge speech in any manner in which it chooses.

I take exception to much of what you said but particularly the last point.

When people in government (whether they be the president, the president's staff, or government agencies) work with a private company to indicate which speech is censored, it is a violation of free speech.
I believe more will come out about who exactly was pushing for more censorship - both before the 2020 election and after.

The Trump administration had people in the room when the decision was made. Maybe you should talk to them?