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.

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?

Because it was disinformation. Have you heard of chain of control? There is nothing on the laptop that can be considered valid or uncorrupted. So we have no idea what is real and what has been manufactured. Further, what is the crime? That Hunter is or was a drug addict? Great, he shouldn't be president. Are you concerned about the $640M that Jared and Ivanka made while being white house employees? Are you concerened about the $2B that Jared made from the Saudi's upon leaving tghe white house? Because those are actual scandals.

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?

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.

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?

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.

And the FBI told the White House that Hunter's laptop was russian disinformation. Why is is important for the White House to put disnifiormation out in the public realm on behalf of Russia during the 2020 election cycle?

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.

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.

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

Did you check the dates of these activities? Because I am pretty sure Biden wasn't president in 2020.

Reading is fundamental.

Also, why are Hunter's dick picks so important to you?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The influence of the White House on social media is disgusting and needs to limited. Imagine if Trump becomes President again!

Trump was president when the events being discussed occurred.

Yes, that’s true. And?

And, this discussion involves events that occurred when Trump was president and you seem to be concerned the what was described includes influence on Twitter by the White House. Therefore, we don't have to imagine the situation if Trump becomes president. We are already discussing such a situation.

This escalated during the run up to the 2020 election. I don’t recall a story being buried about Trump Jr.

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.

Taibbi's thread was a major yawner for me.

And, nowhere near as outrageous as the fact that Elon Musk just reinstated the head of the notorious Daily Stormer, which is one of the biggest neo-Nazi sites on the internet, which is also linked to numerous murders and hate crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The influence of the White House on social media is disgusting and needs to limited. Imagine if Trump becomes President again!

Trump was president when the events being discussed occurred.

Yes, that’s true. And?

And, this discussion involves events that occurred when Trump was president and you seem to be concerned the what was described includes influence on Twitter by the White House. Therefore, we don't have to imagine the situation if Trump becomes president. We are already discussing such a situation.

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?

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.

“Handled”

Please explain. The more that you have to rely on oblique allusions, the clearer it is that you are not being truthful.

Posted a link