The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who is Phillip Bump?

Is your Google broken?

So we are to believe a WaPo writer is neutral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That is the most ridiculously slanted article I've ever read.

They just quoted what the fascists said. The truth is always against you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Bari Weiss just finished another installment of The Twitter Files. This one seems to be free of gross misrepresentations or significant errors. But, it is very boring. Essentially, lots of Twitter staff wanted Trump to be banned. A few Twitter staffers opposed banning him. There was also lots of external pressure on Twitter to ban him. Twitter executives could not identify a specific policy violation that could justify banning Trump, but they decided that taken in the aggregate, his tweets violated the spirit of the rules. Once he was banned, Twitter staff was happy and a bunch of world leaders expressed disappointment.

Weiss's view is that Trumps banning was inconsistent and capricious. That is a perfectly justifiable opinion. However, it is fully within Twitter's rights to do.

Where was the external pressure coming from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who is Phillip Bump?

Is your Google broken?

So we are to believe a WaPo writer is neutral?

He didn’t write the linked report. He just retweeted a quote from it. The article was written by SPLC correspondents who were there and had photos and videos of all your favorite fascists saying fascist things. Then the reporters got kicked out for asking questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bari Weiss just finished another installment of The Twitter Files. This one seems to be free of gross misrepresentations or significant errors. But, it is very boring. Essentially, lots of Twitter staff wanted Trump to be banned. A few Twitter staffers opposed banning him. There was also lots of external pressure on Twitter to ban him. Twitter executives could not identify a specific policy violation that could justify banning Trump, but they decided that taken in the aggregate, his tweets violated the spirit of the rules. Once he was banned, Twitter staff was happy and a bunch of world leaders expressed disappointment.

Weiss's view is that Trumps banning was inconsistent and capricious. That is a perfectly justifiable opinion. However, it is fully within Twitter's rights to do.

Where was the external pressure coming from?

The entire sane universe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bari Weiss just finished another installment of The Twitter Files. This one seems to be free of gross misrepresentations or significant errors. But, it is very boring. Essentially, lots of Twitter staff wanted Trump to be banned. A few Twitter staffers opposed banning him. There was also lots of external pressure on Twitter to ban him. Twitter executives could not identify a specific policy violation that could justify banning Trump, but they decided that taken in the aggregate, his tweets violated the spirit of the rules. Once he was banned, Twitter staff was happy and a bunch of world leaders expressed disappointment.

Weiss's view is that Trumps banning was inconsistent and capricious. That is a perfectly justifiable opinion. However, it is fully within Twitter's rights to do.

Where was the external pressure coming from?

Everyone who isn’t a fascist. Trump was continually tweeting insane conspiracies and threats. He had at least 50 yellow cards before they finally gave him a red.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who is Phillip Bump?

Is your Google broken?

So we are to believe a WaPo writer is neutral?

Facts have a liberal bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who is Phillip Bump?

Is your Google broken?

So we are to believe a WaPo writer is neutral?

You can believe mild-mannered reporter Phillip Bump quoting direct sources or fascist conspirator Steve Bannon making shit up to incite up delusional lunatics. How could anyone know which one to believe?

[Anonymous]

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.

Jeff, respectfully, do you ever not toe the party line? It's sort of embarrassing. Are you getting paid by the Democratic Party, or do you do it gratis?

[jsteele]

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.

Jeff, respectfully, do you ever not toe the party line? It's sort of embarrassing. Are you getting paid by the Democratic Party, or do you do it gratis?

It’s funny that you think I am following a party line when I am simply asking that allegations be supported. If you wanted to expose me as a party hack, you would link to tweets that demonstrated illegal or unethical behavior and make me look foolish. But obviously, you can’t do that. So, you expose yourself as intellectually vapid and resort to ad hominems.

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to think this is about a right wing addiction problem.

They are addicted to their lies.

After all, look at the behavior...

Like a drug addict, they go batshit if the source of their lies is threatened.

Like a drug addict, they go batshit if their ability to indulge in their lies is threatened.

Like a drug addict, they will try to keep on doing it no matter how many times they have been caught and called out for it (all the RWNJs out there who have dozens of twitter accounts because they keep getting banned)

Like a drug addict, they don't care about the consequences, don't care if it destroys lives, including their own.

Like a drug addict, they deny they have a problem, they will deflect, dodge and attack if questioned about their problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who is Phillip Bump?

Is your Google broken?

So we are to believe a WaPo writer is neutral?

Facts have a liberal bias.

Weird. I thought facts were apolitical. At least those that do not relate to politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who is Phillip Bump?

Is your Google broken?

So we are to believe a WaPo writer is neutral?

Facts have a liberal bias.

Weird. I thought facts were apolitical. At least those that do not relate to politics.

That one went over your head. Facts have a liberal bias = generally speaking, facts turn out to be as as stated by liberal sources.

[Anonymous]

Again, where was the external pressure to delete Trump from the platform coming from?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Again, where was the external pressure to delete Trump from the platform coming from?

Ask Barri: