Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think people are conservative because they don’t have a basic grasp of not only how government works, but are clueless about anything works.
That’s a sweeping statement. Government is a broad thing that runs on a national, state, and local level. What part are you concerned about?
Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.
This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.
It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.
There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.
It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.
Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.
I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.
99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.
Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.
That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.
This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.
Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.
It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.
Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.
You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.
Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.
This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.
It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.
There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.
It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.
Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.
I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.
99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.
Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.
That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.
This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.
Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.
But that is true of everything everywhere. Twitter is not the government. You don’t like that their employees contributed to Democrats but that is irrelevant. It is perfectly legal and transparent, unlike a lot of much larger corporate contributions to Super PACs.
Can’t really say it’s “irrelevant.” That’s an opinion, not an argument. What one could say is that it’s probative evidence, but unpersuasive.
It’s not illegal or unethical. You want everyone to be right-wing idiots but they aren’t. Your opinion of the employees is what is irrelevant. Your opinion is not the law.
Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.
This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.
It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.
There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.
It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.
Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.
I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.
99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.
Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.
That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.
This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.
Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.
It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.
Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.
You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.
Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.
This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.
It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.
There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.
It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.
Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.
I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.
99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.
Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.
That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.
This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.
Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.
It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.
Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.
You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.
Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think people are conservative because they don’t have a basic grasp of not only how government works, but are clueless about anything works.
+1
+2
And their style of discussion is to try and drag people down to the place they can understand things. It’s sad.
Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.
This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.
It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.
There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.
It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.
Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.
I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.
99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.
Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.
That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.
This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.
Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.
But that is true of everything everywhere. Twitter is not the government. You don’t like that their employees contributed to Democrats but that is irrelevant. It is perfectly legal and transparent, unlike a lot of much larger corporate contributions to Super PACs.
Can’t really say it’s “irrelevant.” That’s an opinion, not an argument. What one could say is that it’s probative evidence, but unpersuasive.
It’s not illegal or unethical. You want everyone to be right-wing idiots but they aren’t. Your opinion of the employees is what is irrelevant. Your opinion is not the law.
Swing and a miss, with the bat flying into the stands.
Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.
It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?
Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.
DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.
That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.
It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.
Of course it is.
It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.
There’s no record the government ever did that. Have you read this thread?
Would you like to amend your statement, in light of recent evidence to the contrary?
Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.
It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?
Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.
DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.
That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.
It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.
Of course it is.
It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.
There’s no record the government ever did that. Have you read this thread?
Would you like to amend your statement, in light of recent evidence to the contrary?
Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.
This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.
It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.
There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.
It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.
Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.
I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.
99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.
Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.
That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.
This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.
Strawman. No one is arguing that the contributions were not legal. What I think you’re trying to say is that there was a hermetically sealed wall that did not, in any way, shape or form, permit any political bias to trickle into anything.
It’s certainly possible. But Musk has given two right wing journalists unfettered access to internal twitter communications, and they haven’t found a single email that would support this. It’s actually pretty remarkable. You would think in a company with thousands of employees there would be some email somewhere that would support that theory, but apparently there’s nothing.
Again, yes, the drops have not delivered. I would not call Taibbi a right wing journalist. He has a body of work going back decades. Were his antiwar, anti-Wall Street, anti-Trump, anti-police brutality writings right wing? There are some journalists who, in their view, see a repulsive symbiosis between many Democrats and what they would call the national security state apparatus, the defense industry, and certain corporations. I’ll assume good faith in their arguments, just as I will in their opponents’.
You should look at Matt Taibbi’s work in the last six or seven years instead of the stuff he did decades ago.
Inventing a vast Deep State conspiracy in real time whilst threatening Twitter employee whistleblowers who can speak the truth with NDAs. Meanwhile foreign coders here on visas are trapped in HQ working 24/7. Dystopian hellsite.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}