Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.

There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.

It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.

Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.

I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.

99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.

This is not new or controversial. Individual contributions have always been required to be entirely separate from corporate contributions. Corporations are not permitted to force their employees to contribute or to bundle contributions from their employees. Individual contributions must come from personal funds, not business or partnership funds, and it is illegal for an employer to reimburse an employee for a political contribution. MAGAs are continually surprised by completely legal transactions because they have no clue how transparency and accountability rules work and can never understand them now matter how slowly and simply it is explained to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.

Why not?

When misinformation threatens lives, as rampant covid misinformation did, it should be the government's business.

When misinformation becomes a national security threat, as happened when the US Capitol was attacked as a result of misinformation, it should be the government's business.

The Furst Amendment protects false statements and hyperbole as explained in NYT v. Sullivan. Are you content to have a MAGA administration attempt to restrict speech that it deems to be a threat? Because they would be happy to silence groups like BLM or other critics of the regime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.

There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.

It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.

Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.

I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.

99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.

There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.

It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.

Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.

I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.

99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

That’s slicing the onion, really, really thin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.

There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.

It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.

Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.

I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.

99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.

Individual contributions are not corporate contributions. The same table showed that 93 percent of political contributions from Tesla employees went to Democrats. Why didn't Elon say the same stupid shit about Tesla? The record shows that Twitter very reluctantly flagged disinformation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.

Why not?

When misinformation threatens lives, as rampant covid misinformation did, it should be the government's business.

When misinformation becomes a national security threat, as happened when the US Capitol was attacked as a result of misinformation, it should be the government's business.

The Furst Amendment protects false statements and hyperbole as explained in NYT v. Sullivan. Are you content to have a MAGA administration attempt to restrict speech that it deems to be a threat? Because they would be happy to silence groups like BLM or other critics of the regime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.

Why not?

When misinformation threatens lives, as rampant covid misinformation did, it should be the government's business.

When misinformation becomes a national security threat, as happened when the US Capitol was attacked as a result of misinformation, it should be the government's business.

Anonymous wrote:The Twitter files selective release and disingenuous spin by Elon and his hired guns is blatant political manipulation by Twitter that is much more egregious than anything they have alleged from the previous Twitter management.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good piece from Steve Vladeck explaining Musk’s fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. A number of posters here would benefit from reading it too.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna61025

This is correct, as far as it goes. But if, as the twitter file people seem to allege, federal agencies were working alongside twitter to help determine what should or should not be seen, that changes the dynamics. So far, I haven’t seen convincing evidence of that in the drops.

It’s all bullshit. Twitter practiced minimal content moderation.

There’s one more drop, but I’d guess it’ll be uninteresting as the first three. To sum up: twitter leaned left; wow, shocker, like anyone didn’t know that.

It didn’t even lean left. It reluctantly and belatedly enforced minimal moderation.

Conceding that it leaned left—as every sentient person can see—would not detract from the key point that the drops have been nothing burgers. No need to oversell.

I feel fairly sentient, but I am having trouble seeing what you claim I should see. On what basis are you seeing this? Taibbi simply points to campaign donations, which may be evidence of personal political leanings, but are meaningless in terms of professional behavior. Is there any evidence that conservatives were treated more harshly than liberals? The Twitter Files actually demonstrate that Twitter staff repeatedly made exceptions to their rules for conservatives. None of the Twitter Files documents how liberals were treated, so there is no way to make a comparison.

99 percent of twitter employees’ online political donations went to Democrats in 2021, reportedly. Anyone was able to look that up. That’s what I meant. Taibbi indicated further drops would address whether conservatives were “amplified.” As far as I know, that hasn’t yet been addressed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.

It’s not up to the government to decide what is and is not misinformation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this story considered new? In a podcast Zuckerberg confirmed the FBI asked Facebook to suppress certain stories.

It was known in 2020 that the "biden laptop" was Russian disinformation. The FBI asked platforms not to propogate disinformation. Why is this hard to understand?

Because Facebook is not a news company but a social media platform.

DP, but so? Why does that distinction matter.

That aside, you still haven’t answered the question of what new information has been revealed in the Twitter files give that it has been long-known that the FBI was contacting social media companies it’s about disinformation campaigns in the run-up to the 2020 election.

It is not the job of a social media company to police disinformation.

Of course it is.