The Twitter Files

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

For you all thinking this story means anything, please google Rudy, Toensing, Digenova and Ukraine and see what comes up, and then you will understand how and why this is a totally manufactured 'story"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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

This are requests to remove pictures of Hunter's penis.

And?

Twitter’s terms of service, as well as laws in many of the places where it operates, ban posting pornographic material, particularly when the subject did not consent to that material being posted. It’s basically revenge porn and no one is treading on you because you don’t have a first amendment right to see the guy’s d|ck pics.

[Anonymous]

Weird to drop this story on a Friday evening. That’s the worst time of the week to drop “news”, as it typically gets buried by the weekend.

If you want a story to have an impact, you publish it on a Monday.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, Taibbi let slip that he found evidence that the Trump White House had Twitter censoring posts.

But somehow that's all ignored, the right wing focuses solely on the flaky laptop stuff (and even there, still nothing illegal, still nothing relating to any business dealings) and ignores that Trump was using Twitter to suppress and censor posts on Twitter that Donny didn't like.

[Anonymous]

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.

And if you read further there were several discussions within Twitter and even with a democrat politician in regards to the Terms of service violation. They questioned it. The politician even remarked how it violated the first amendment and how would make them look bad.

What Twitter did was unethical.

[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.

And if you read further there were several discussions within Twitter and even with a democrat politician in regards to the Terms of service violation. They questioned it. The politician even remarked how it violated the first amendment and how would make them look bad.

What Twitter did was unethical.

Twitter has a first amendment right to publish or not publish whatever it wants. Other than that the first amendment is completely irrelevant here.

[jsteele]

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.

And if you read further there were several discussions within Twitter and even with a democrat politician in regards to the Terms of service violation. They questioned it. The politician even remarked how it violated the first amendment and how would make them look bad.

What Twitter did was unethical.

The politician, whose heart is in the right place, was wrong about the first amendment which does not apply to a private company. Discussions about applying policies are normal within companies and organizations. What is clear is that the decision-makers decided what they did due to their evaluation that the Post story violated the TOS. There is nothing unethical about that. You might argue that their view of the Post article was wrong and, therefore, the decision to block the article was mistaken, but that's still not unethical.

[Anonymous]

jsteele 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?

Based on the internal correspondence that was published, Twitter made the decision based on its own terms of service and its belief that the Post article was based on hacked or stolen content. The correspondence does not detail how Twitter arrived at that conclusion, nor does the correspondence show any effort by the Biden campaign to block the Post story.

What a bunch of bs. They were told they were violating the first amendment. They still chose to violate it.

Can’t wait until they talk about how the FBI influenced the election, again. This makes three presidential elections in a row? People need to be reminded that Robert Hansen was able to give the Russians intel on the inner workings of the FBI.

[Anonymous]

Hunter's laptop right? What i gathered was that Twitter has had the laptop and never let Trump have it and when Trump sent Rudy to break in and steal it Twitter called Zelensky and Zelensky sent mercenaries to attack but Rudy escaped and then we found out that Joe Biden owned Twitter before Elon bought it and Elon wrote the declaration of independence giving us free speech from Apple who was trying to take our guns so we cannot protect ourselves from Transgender groomers that are trying to inject us with the Chinavirus to make us become pedophiles that force women to have abortions so George Soros can become dictator and puppet master and reinstall Barack HUSSEIN Obama as grand leader controlled by the Jews but thankfully God sent Trump to protect us since Jesus is busy. And something about a gate made out of pizza? That's whats going on, right?

Edit: LOCK HER UP!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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?

Based on the internal correspondence that was published, Twitter made the decision based on its own terms of service and its belief that the Post article was based on hacked or stolen content. The correspondence does not detail how Twitter arrived at that conclusion, nor does the correspondence show any effort by the Biden campaign to block the Post story.

And rightfully, Khanna called them out on it, called it a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Khanna did do that and I appreciate his commitment to free speech. However, the First Amendment has nothing to do with this situation and is a red herring. A private company does not have to comply with the First Amendment.

Yes they do. Otherwise the Constitution is no longer the law of the land. Stop making excuses for tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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?

Based on the internal correspondence that was published, Twitter made the decision based on its own terms of service and its belief that the Post article was based on hacked or stolen content. The correspondence does not detail how Twitter arrived at that conclusion, nor does the correspondence show any effort by the Biden campaign to block the Post story.

And rightfully, Khanna called them out on it, called it a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Khanna did do that and I appreciate his commitment to free speech. However, the First Amendment has nothing to do with this situation and is a red herring. A private company does not have to comply with the First Amendment.

Yes they do. Otherwise the Constitution is no longer the law of the land. Stop making excuses for tyranny.

No they don't. omg. The 1st amendment is about what the GOVERNMENT can and can't do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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?

Based on the internal correspondence that was published, Twitter made the decision based on its own terms of service and its belief that the Post article was based on hacked or stolen content. The correspondence does not detail how Twitter arrived at that conclusion, nor does the correspondence show any effort by the Biden campaign to block the Post story.

And rightfully, Khanna called them out on it, called it a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Khanna did do that and I appreciate his commitment to free speech. However, the First Amendment has nothing to do with this situation and is a red herring. A private company does not have to comply with the First Amendment.

Yes they do. Otherwise the Constitution is no longer the law of the land. Stop making excuses for tyranny.

OMG please do the bare minimum and READ the first amendment.

[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.

And if you read further there were several discussions within Twitter and even with a democrat politician in regards to the Terms of service violation. They questioned it. The politician even remarked how it violated the first amendment and how would make them look bad.

What Twitter did was unethical.

Twitter has a first amendment right to publish or not publish whatever it wants. Other than that the first amendment is completely irrelevant here.

Twitter users obviously do not according to you.

When it comes out that twitter silenced republicans over democrats will you agree with that too? Twitter is seen as a public square. Now the question is: will it behave as such and obey the constitution? Or it shall be dismantled?

[Anonymous]

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