The Twitter Files

[jsteele]

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.

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.

The First Amendment has no bearing on how a private company moderates information. You probably need to revisit your sources of information because you appear to be very misinformed.

[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.

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?

You’re finally getting it. No, Twitter users do not have a first amendment right to post whatever the F they want on Twitter’s platform.

[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?

GIVE ME HUNTER’S D|CK PICS OR GIVE ME DEATH!

[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.

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?

Twitter isn't a "public square." It's a private company.

[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.

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?

How about acknowledging that it DID come out that Twitter silenced Democrats at Trump White House request:

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752

Your outrage seems very selective.

[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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

How about acknowledging that it DID come out that Twitter silenced Democrats at Trump White House request:

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752

Your outrage seems very selective.

Keep up. All those tweets shared revenge porn which is against Twitter’s terms of service.

Say your daughter had sex with Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke got a hold of the tape. Would it be OK for him to disseminate pictures of your naked daughter without her consent? No, because Twitter has rules against that which every Twitter user agrees to when they sign up and continue to use the service.

[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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

We're not talking "fair and ethical" -- we're talking "first amendment violations." Twitter can ban all mention of BLM, Jeff can ban all mention of gardening, I can ban all mention of "Bridgerton" in my family's email list that I moderate. Whatev.

[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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

(That said, not sure "ethics" have anything to do with it. You can argue it's not fair to ban gardening on DCUrbanMoms but Jeff can just say, well, start your own message board then.)

We're not talking "fair and ethical" -- we're talking "first amendment violations." Twitter can ban all mention of BLM, Jeff can ban all mention of gardening, I can ban all mention of "Bridgerton" in my family's email list that I moderate. Whatev.

[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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

I would defend it to the extent that it is their right to do it. It would also be my right to stop using Twitter in response. Twitter, just like me on this website, can allow or not allow anything it wants. Welcome to private enterprise.

[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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

It wouldn't be illegal for them to do that.

[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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

I would defend it to the extent that it is their right to do it. It would also be my right to stop using Twitter in response. Twitter, just like me on this website, can allow or not allow anything it wants. Welcome to private enterprise.

Well, well, well, Jeff. I didn’t expect an impassioned defense from you of Twitter’s right to limit or allow whatever they want under their TOS. I trust your comments on Elon Musk’s stewardship of Twitter have been and will continue to be consistent with your robust defense of private enterprise.

[jsteele]

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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

I would defend it to the extent that it is their right to do it. It would also be my right to stop using Twitter in response. Twitter, just like me on this website, can allow or not allow anything it wants. Welcome to private enterprise.

Well, well, well, Jeff. I didn’t expect an impassioned defense from you of Twitter’s right to limit or allow whatever they want under their TOS. I trust your comments on Elon Musk’s stewardship of Twitter have been and will continue to be consistent with your robust defense of private enterprise.

You confuse facts with opinion. Fact: Musk can allow or prohibit whatever he wants. Opinion: Musk is an idiot who will probably destroy Twitter.

The only thing "LOL" about this is that you need it explained to you.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

How about acknowledging that it DID come out that Twitter silenced Democrats at Trump White House request:

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752

Your outrage seems very selective.

Keep up. All those tweets shared revenge porn which is against Twitter’s terms of service.

Say your daughter had sex with Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke got a hold of the tape. Would it be OK for him to disseminate pictures of your naked daughter without her consent? No, because Twitter has rules against that which every Twitter user agrees to when they sign up and continue to use the service.

"Keep up?" Are you actually trying to suggest the right wing has now stopped selectively whining and pretending they were the only ones targeted? Because, I'm totally NOT seeing any of that. So don't use condescending, patronizing terms like "keep up" until it's actually valid to do so.

But since you responded to me with an answer to a totally different comment by someone else, a.) yes, Twitter does have the right to determine their ToS, b.) it should apply regardless of whether it's left or right (and as Taibbi let slip, people on the left did in fact get suppressed by Twitter - my own left-leaning account, established 2009, with thousands of followers, was inexplicably permanently suspended without warning or explanation) c.) us simply not liking their ToS does not make it 'unfair' or 'unethical' d.) their ToS does not have to observe the First Amendment and e.) where the First Amendment comes in is only when the government steps in to censor content, which we now see evidence from Taibbi that the Trump White House did do - but which we do not yet see any evidence that the Biden White House did.

[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.

Ah. So, if Twitter decides that all mentions of BLM violate its terms of service and shuts down the White House Press Secretary’s account for talking about BLM, will you also defend that? Why or why not?

Your position seems to be that anything Twitter decides violates its TOS is fair and ethical to suppress.

I would defend it to the extent that it is their right to do it. It would also be my right to stop using Twitter in response. Twitter, just like me on this website, can allow or not allow anything it wants. Welcome to private enterprise.

Well, well, well, Jeff. I didn’t expect an impassioned defense from you of Twitter’s right to limit or allow whatever they want under their TOS. I trust your comments on Elon Musk’s stewardship of Twitter have been and will continue to be consistent with your robust defense of private enterprise.

You confuse facts with opinion. Fact: Musk can allow or prohibit whatever he wants. Opinion: Musk is an idiot who will probably destroy Twitter.

The only thing "LOL" about this is that you need it explained to you.

Those of you who see Trump as the next Hitler should view the new Twitter as his propaganda bureau, but I guess there is nothing wrong with that? Jeff?