The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

[Anonymous]

My Twitterfiles nothingburger arrived cold, and the fries were soggy.

I'm not paying $8 for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Fox misleads people about the law, separation of powers and rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

Who decides what disinformation is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

Who decides what disinformation is?

How about NOT some far right incel making conspiracy videos in his mom's basement.
How about NOT some nutjob like Bannon who wants an armed re-do of the J6 insurrection.
How about NOT some guy named Sergei in Moscow telling you Ukraine is the most evil corrupt Nazi nation in existence.
How about NOT some person who barely finished high school who insists they "did their research" on COVID and know more than the experts.
How about NOT some fossil-fuel-industry shill from Heartland who insists climate change is a hoax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

Who decides what disinformation is?

How about NOT some far right incel making conspiracy videos in his mom's basement.
How about NOT some nutjob like Bannon who wants an armed re-do of the J6 insurrection.
How about NOT some guy named Sergei in Moscow telling you Ukraine is the most evil corrupt Nazi nation in existence.
How about NOT some person who barely finished high school who insists they "did their research" on COVID and know more than the experts.
How about NOT some fossil-fuel-industry shill from Heartland who insists climate change is a hoax.

How about not some Italian heretic who believes the Earth revolves around the sun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

Who decides what disinformation is?

How about NOT some far right incel making conspiracy videos in his mom's basement.
How about NOT some nutjob like Bannon who wants an armed re-do of the J6 insurrection.
How about NOT some guy named Sergei in Moscow telling you Ukraine is the most evil corrupt Nazi nation in existence.
How about NOT some person who barely finished high school who insists they "did their research" on COVID and know more than the experts.
How about NOT some fossil-fuel-industry shill from Heartland who insists climate change is a hoax.

How about not some Italian heretic who believes the Earth revolves around the sun?

Dp- I realize you think you are clever, but you are just proving pp’s point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

Who decides what disinformation is?

How about NOT some far right incel making conspiracy videos in his mom's basement.
How about NOT some nutjob like Bannon who wants an armed re-do of the J6 insurrection.
How about NOT some guy named Sergei in Moscow telling you Ukraine is the most evil corrupt Nazi nation in existence.
How about NOT some person who barely finished high school who insists they "did their research" on COVID and know more than the experts.
How about NOT some fossil-fuel-industry shill from Heartland who insists climate change is a hoax.

I think you should watch Bannon - that’s not what he’s dishing out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

Who decides what disinformation is?

How about NOT some far right incel making conspiracy videos in his mom's basement.
How about NOT some nutjob like Bannon who wants an armed re-do of the J6 insurrection.
How about NOT some guy named Sergei in Moscow telling you Ukraine is the most evil corrupt Nazi nation in existence.
How about NOT some person who barely finished high school who insists they "did their research" on COVID and know more than the experts.
How about NOT some fossil-fuel-industry shill from Heartland who insists climate change is a hoax.

I think you should watch Bannon - that’s not what he’s dishing out

Oh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

You have no right to free speech on Twitter.

But does the gov't have the right to collude with Twitter to suppress it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

You have no right to free speech on Twitter.

But does the gov't have the right to collude with Twitter to suppress it?

Did the Trump administration have the right to collude with Fox News to promote their propaganda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

You have no right to free speech on Twitter.

But does the gov't have the right to collude with Twitter to suppress it?

That’s not a thing. The government is within their rights to provide information.
Twitter is within their rights to consider the info.
That is not collusion.
We are right back to “ conservatives don’t understand how anything works”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Differences of opinion were not suppressed. Disinformation, threats, bullying, hoaxes, and fraud are not protected manners of speech. Learn how to persuade someone with a fact-based argument. Of course, if you could do that you wouldn’t be conservative.

Who decides what disinformation is?

When the FBI and other authorities are telling you that a supposed laptop recovered in Ukraine, or Wilmington or Rudy's ass is disinformation, you should probably believe them. When attorneys file lawsuits and specifically say "this is not about fraud" then claiming fraud on social media is a lie. These are facts, and facts matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

You have no right to free speech on Twitter.

But does the gov't have the right to collude with Twitter to suppress it?

Where did the government do that? Where did Twitter do that? Because that isn't what "the twitter files" says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

You have no right to free speech on Twitter.

But does the gov't have the right to collude with Twitter to suppress it?

Twitter has the right to decide what content it will host on its platform. The government can offer input into that decision making process without running afoul of the First Amendment. It would really only become problematic if the federal government was coercing Twitter into restricting certain speech such that Twitter felt it had no choice but to comply with the government’s demands. There is nothing in the Twitter Files to suggest this happened.