The Twitter Files

[jsteele]

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.

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?

I am really impressed at your ability to spew nonsense. I've known some world-class nonsense spewers in my life and I must say that you are among the best. First of all, Trump has Truth Social and is not currently active on Twitter. I don't think he has even reactivated his account. So, no I don't think anyone, least of all me, should view Twitter as Trump's propaganda bureau.

But, just as Truth Social, GAB, Parler, and GTTR all exist as right-wing echo chambers, there is nothing legally wrong with Twitter joining them.

[Anonymous]

Some of the released info will be entered into evidence in congressional investigations.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

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?

I am really impressed at your ability to spew nonsense. I've known some world-class nonsense spewers in my life and I must say that you are among the best. First of all, Trump has Truth Social and is not currently active on Twitter. I don't think he has even reactivated his account. So, no I don't think anyone, least of all me, should view Twitter as Trump's propaganda bureau.

But, just as Truth Social, GAB, Parler, and GTTR all exist as right-wing echo chambers, there is nothing legally wrong with Twitter joining them.

What percent of Americans know what GAB, GTTR, and DCUM are?

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

[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.

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 neural ink to hack Biden’s brain too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the released info will be entered into evidence in congressional investigations.

I don’t think congressional republicans are going to be interested in how Donald trump used his position as president to pressure twitter to remove politically damaging tweets.

[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.

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.

[jsteele]

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?

[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.

No they do not...unless they follow the dictates of the Federal Government, which they did.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

I believe that's a reference to the rumor that the FBI was involved with the contents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There was more on there that was banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

There was no slip about it. I'm sure both parties and administrations were involved. I'm more concerned if anything illegal was suppressed. You don't know that.

[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.

No they do not...unless they follow the dictates of the Federal Government, which they did.

You people are so confused. Companies listen to guidance by the federal government all the time.