The Twitter Files

[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.

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.

The politician, whose heart is in the right place, was wrong about the first amendment which does not apply to a private company. Discussions about applying policies are normal within companies and organizations. What is clear is that the decision-makers decided what they did due to their evaluation that the Post story violated the TOS. There is nothing unethical about that. You might argue that their view of the Post article was wrong and, therefore, the decision to block the article was mistaken, but that's still not unethical.

Again, this went further than private company when Twitter decided to do the bidding of the Feds.

[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.

Really? So the Trump administration told twitter to do this. Any evidence of that?

[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.

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.

The DNC and the Biden campaign are not and were not the Federal Government. The only dictates that might be said to come from the Federal Government came from the Trump White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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.

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.

And in this case the federal government was run by Donald Trump!

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

The politician, whose heart is in the right place, was wrong about the first amendment which does not apply to a private company. Discussions about applying policies are normal within companies and organizations. What is clear is that the decision-makers decided what they did due to their evaluation that the Post story violated the TOS. There is nothing unethical about that. You might argue that their view of the Post article was wrong and, therefore, the decision to block the article was mistaken, but that's still not unethical.

Again, this went further than private company when Twitter decided to do the bidding of the Feds.

And we’re back to “I don’t know who was President in 2020.”

[Anonymous]

There is nothing illegal on the laptop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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.

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.

The politician, whose heart is in the right place, was wrong about the first amendment which does not apply to a private company. Discussions about applying policies are normal within companies and organizations. What is clear is that the decision-makers decided what they did due to their evaluation that the Post story violated the TOS. There is nothing unethical about that. You might argue that their view of the Post article was wrong and, therefore, the decision to block the article was mistaken, but that's still not unethical.

Again, this went further than private company when Twitter decided to do the bidding of the Feds.

And we’re back to “I don’t know who was President in 2020.”

But but Deep State!!! Derp derp.

[jsteele]

Anonymous 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.

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.

Really? So the Trump administration told twitter to do this. Any evidence of that?

Taibbi says that requests from the Trump White House were honored:

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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?

Let's see if their suppression and selective dissemination of information at Democrat request, is considered to be election interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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.

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.

Nope, not like this. There will be more coming out today. Let's wait and see what's released. Again, even Dorsey was concerned - a lot of this was being done behind his back.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

Let's see if their suppression and selective dissemination of information at Democrat request, is considered to be election interference.

But there was suppression by the request of the Trump White House as well. Is that also election interference?

Also, what is illegal with a private company selectively publishing information? Do you deny that Fox News or any other media outlet is selective? If not, where is my prime time show on Fox? Why is Fox interfering with elections by not broadcasting my opinions?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous 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.

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.

Really? So the Trump administration told twitter to do this. Any evidence of that?

Taibbi says that requests from the Trump White House were honored:

Ah so it was Trump who was trying to suppress the laptop. I bet the right wingers will be super angry about that.

[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.

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.

The DNC and the Biden campaign are not and were not the Federal Government. The only dictates that might be said to come from the Federal Government came from the Trump White House.

It doesn't matter in this case. Biden isn't the 'My Pillow' guy. Biden was the official DNC party candidate for President, and the DNC takes money from the people. I'm hoping the DNC and Biden campaign didn't actively work with Twitter to suppress information with the purpose of influencing an election. That would be really bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

Let's see if their suppression and selective dissemination of information at Democrat request, is considered to be election interference.

Care to point me to the law banning “election interference”? I’ll wait.