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.

This is a really weird way to “lean left.” They bent over backwards to accommodate one of the most racist things that Trump ever tweeted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😆

Well, well, well. Taibbi's narrative of far left liberal ideologues at Twitter working overtime hand in hand with a far left deep state just keeps blowing up. As does Elon's whole demented "woke mind virus" crap.

The focus on requests is hilarious. It’s not about requests - it’s about what was done with those requests. Iranian and ISIS accounts left up. Conservative accounts taken down. And the labeling on conservative accounts that could not be seen by the account holder that indicated to Twitter how much to censor. Even better was the admission of algorithms that suppressed accounts. The ‘not hard-coded’ part cracked me up. As if that matters?

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.

This is a really weird way to “lean left.” They bent over backwards to accommodate one of the most racist things that Trump ever tweeted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😆

Well, well, well. Taibbi's narrative of far left liberal ideologues at Twitter working overtime hand in hand with a far left deep state just keeps blowing up. As does Elon's whole demented "woke mind virus" crap.

The focus on requests is hilarious. It’s not about requests - it’s about what was done with those requests. Iranian and ISIS accounts left up. Conservative accounts taken down. And the labeling on conservative accounts that could not be seen by the account holder that indicated to Twitter how much to censor. Even better was the admission of algorithms that suppressed accounts. The ‘not hard-coded’ part cracked me up. As if that matters?

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.

So you agree that Trump was wrong to try to suppress Chrissy Teigen’s right to call Trump a pu**y a** b***h?

NP. The language in her tweet is a true violation of Twitter’s policies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😆

Well, well, well. Taibbi's narrative of far left liberal ideologues at Twitter working overtime hand in hand with a far left deep state just keeps blowing up. As does Elon's whole demented "woke mind virus" crap.

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.

So you agree that Trump was wrong to try to suppress Chrissy Teigen’s right to call Trump a pu**y a** b***h?

Anonymous wrote:You’d think the “non-consensual” part in the question would have hinted at the answer, but no.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, Trump continues to be a Russia colluder and Putin asskisser.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I just spent a few minutes scrolling back through the last month of twitter posts by Joe Lauria.

I can see how Joe Lauria might get flagged as a Russian bot. Like Tucker Carlson, he churns out a ton of anti-NATO, anti-US, anti-Ukraine propaganda. At least 30 posts in the last month alone. And lest ye say "well he's anti-war" NOT ONE post actually critical of the war, let alone critical of Russia or Putin - in fact he posted two items in the last month that PRAISED Putin. So, he is NOT "anti-war." I have no doubt that Russian trolls and bots would be prolifically reposting and reusing what Lauria posts, just as Russian propagandists like Simonyan and Solovyev do with Tucker Carlson clips on prime-time Russian TV.

An algorithm looking for Russian bots and trolls would easily pick Lauria up as he is the exact kind of source material they'd want to use. If Lauria isn't overtly working on behalf of the Russians he is at the very least undeniably a useful idiot supplying ammunition for the Russians.

There's you, a DCUM nobody, and then there's Lauria - who is a veteran journalist who has covered UN for 20+ years for the WSJ, Boston Globe, the Times etc.

...a guy who maybe used to be known and respected, but who's more recently gone Randy Quaid. Seems to be happening a lot, like Glenn Greenwald and others. Maybe it's a mental break, maybe it's early onset dementia. Either way, he's clearly no longer an objective or reliable source of information.

Taibbi, Greenwald, and others have just seen how incredibly biased the MSM has become in recent years and have called them out on it. And, these Twitter files are showing just how bad things have gotten.
We see you don't like that.