The Twitter Files

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more Taibbi and company “drop,” the less coherent the Twitter Files become.

+1000

Definitely no Woodward and Bernstein

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more Taibbi and company “drop,” the less coherent the Twitter Files become.

+1000

Definitely no Woodward and Bernstein

I imagine the twitter file reporters could compile their findings into a book. Their work, which is now being sneered at by many, will age well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more Taibbi and company “drop,” the less coherent the Twitter Files become.

+1000

Definitely no Woodward and Bernstein

I imagine the twitter file reporters could compile their findings into a book. Their work, which is now being sneered at by many, will age well.

Well go ahead and compile it, Cletus. I betcha it doesn't hold up well.

[Anonymous]

Read the twitter thread....the twitter files are just another right wing nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Thankfully, Elon Twitter now coordinates Twitter policies with Saudis and China and Russia and racists and fascists and other trolls, and not any mean old fact-checkers or security experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Read the twitter thread....the twitter files are just another right wing nothingburger.

Original take!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more Taibbi and company “drop,” the less coherent the Twitter Files become.

+1000

Definitely no Woodward and Bernstein

I imagine the twitter file reporters could compile their findings into a book. Their work, which is now being sneered at by many, will age well.

Well go ahead and compile it, Cletus. I betcha it doesn't hold up well.

I won’t write the book, but the reporters have synthesized their findings into easy to read summaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thankfully, Elon Twitter now coordinates Twitter policies with Saudis and China and Russia and racists and fascists and other trolls, and not any mean old fact-checkers or security experts.

And vaccine conspiracy theorists and other nutjobs that are even too weird for Joe Rogan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more Taibbi and company “drop,” the less coherent the Twitter Files become.

+1000

Definitely no Woodward and Bernstein

I imagine the twitter file reporters could compile their findings into a book. Their work, which is now being sneered at by many, will age well.

Well go ahead and compile it, Cletus. I betcha it doesn't hold up well.

I won’t write the book, but the reporters have synthesized their findings into easy to read summaries.

Yeah, I've read those "summaries" by Taibbi. A lot of specious extrapolation and breathless headlines not actually all that well-supported by the actual releases. Along with far more NOT included, outright omitted, which would have contradicted the narrative and clarified the actual role of the government's involvement with Twitter.

Ah well, maybe we'll see the rest when the lawsuits hit. I certainly hope Twitter doesn't destroy anything after Taibbi's sham "expose." Legal discovery can be enlightening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more Taibbi and company “drop,” the less coherent the Twitter Files become.

+1000

Definitely no Woodward and Bernstein

I imagine the twitter file reporters could compile their findings into a book. Their work, which is now being sneered at by many, will age well.

Well go ahead and compile it, Cletus. I betcha it doesn't hold up well.

I won’t write the book, but the reporters have synthesized their findings into easy to read summaries.

Yeah, I've read those "summaries" by Taibbi. A lot of specious extrapolation and breathless headlines not actually all that well-supported by the actual releases. Along with far more NOT included, outright omitted, which would have contradicted the narrative and clarified the actual role of the government's involvement with Twitter.

Ah well, maybe we'll see the rest when the lawsuits hit. I certainly hope Twitter doesn't destroy anything after Taibbi's sham "expose." Legal discovery can be enlightening.

But discovery can work both ways. And even if you don’t agree with Taibbi’s concerns about excessive govt entanglement, Lee Fang’s drop speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

It may shock people to learn actual newspapers sometimes withhold information at the request of governments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It may shock people to learn actual newspapers sometimes withhold information at the request of governments.

There are many legitimate reasons why newspapers should withhold information at the government's request - for example, an ongoing investigation. Having newspapers leak infomation could result in suspects fleeing or destroying evidence before LEOs can get to it, preventing a successful arrest and prosecution. Or have a terrorist group change their timing and tactics if their plot is exposed before they are captured resulting in a terror attack that could have been prevented. Or having newspapers leak classified national security information that could put the nation at risk. There are MANY legitimate reasons.

Stop acting like there are no legitimate reasons. And stop acting like the reason was "to suppress conservative viewpoints" because that's not what it was about.

[Anonymous]

Apart from a naive ideal of unfettered free speech are there legitimate reasons why information that gets innocent lives killed be freely shared on social media platforms?

For example, all of the anti-vax disinformation, which was responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess deaths?

[Anonymous]

Allowing total brazen lies from political campaigns? Look at Santos. Everything about the guy was a lie. And now he's in office.

[Anonymous]

Should we allow false and fraudulent claims about products and services to flourish? Should we allow people to falsely hold themselves out as attorneys giving bad legal advice? Falsely hold themselves out as physicians giving bad medical advice? Allow people to blackmail, bully and threaten by falsely holding themselves out as police?

What's the line you draw where it comes to social media? Or do you not even have any line at all?