all 9 comments

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

But it's not news.

Taibi just showed that both candidates could email twitter to check whether a tweet was breaking twitter's policies. It's not really exciting. Why did you get so excited by it?

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Just so everyone knows, this account consistently covers for the powerful and punches down on the little guy. Which, of course, is exactly why the mainstream media is deliberately refusing to cover the story.

From thehill.com:

These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship. As I have previously written, the administration cannot censor critics and cannot use agents for that purpose under the First Amendment.

That is precisely what Musk is now alleging. As the documents were being released, he tweeted, “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is.”

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ok thanks chipit.

Chipit, you've just linked to an opinion column which opens with this disclaimer

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

The opinion column's author is Jonathan Turley.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would have a lot of questions about Turley. He seems to be wheeled out by Congressional Republican handlers every time a president is being impeached - it says he testified in favor of impeaching Clinton, and twice opposed to impeaching Trump.

If that was all the information I needed to go off, then I would make a collusion theory that Turley is now being wheeled out to prepare an impeachment of Biden on the grounds of Hunter, which is exactly what congressional republican leader Kevin McCarthy said they were going to do a few weeks ago.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/07/politics/kevin-mccarthy-interview-border-security/index.html

So let's put aside our theorising and look at The Hill article which chipit has linked. Let's look closely at the allegations therein and what evidence Turley uses to support his claims.

I'd say that Turley's first indictment of twitter is that Jim Baker removed Hunter-related material too hastily. Turley writes:

There was no evidence the Post’s Hunter Biden material was hacked — none. Yet Baker found a basis for a “reasonable” assumption that Russians or hackers were behind it.

Okay, that's fair.

It's a million miles from DNC collusion or Biden collusion. But it's a fair statement that, by that point in the timeline, twitter were operating on suspicion and not hard evidence. It's not really that damaging to Twitter IMO. If you think it is, please can you explain why.

The second indictment from Turley:

These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship

Wake me up when you have something stronger than the Taibi leaks. I don't think Elon is holding out on the good stuff. And that's not in the Taibi leaks.

That's all the Turley has to personally say about twitter. He has a lot of links to past grist that I didn't delve into, but those links are not used to support the thrust of his argument in this Hill article.

So u/Chipit are you willing to engage on the content with me or just more namecalling

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh look, a personal attack.

US federal government officials ordered Twitter to censor. They obeyed. This is a serious miscarriage of justice and must result in long prison terms for all responsible.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Let's stick to the content.

US federal government officials ordered Twitter to censor. They obeyed.

Where did you read this? Because in the detailed post I wrote, which you ignored, we saw how TheHill's opinion column author wasn't sure that that was true. So where are you seeing that?

Also nothing we've looked at yet said twitter were censoring, only that they were conducting policy reviews. So please link to that too

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When the government is ordering a private company to delete tweets, and that private company responds with "handled" - that's collusion. That's censorship. The government may not censor, nor order others to do so on their behalf.

Everyone: this is a paid poster defending the powerful. Pay no attention, click the "block user" button above.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

When the government is ordering a private company to delete tweets, and that private company responds with "handled"

That's not in any of the documents I saw. I think you're just making that up. What I read about from Taibi was a glorified version of the "report this tweet" button.

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Comments are open for the usual suspects on this site to bypass questions about how these news sources are:

  • hopelessly entangled with government,
  • their independence eroded by decades of overreach by all parties including things like the Patriot Act, and,
  • how foreign news orgs may be fearful of getting on their own governments' bad sides by triggering scorn from a meddling American government,

...and to instead take the low effort, mentally expedient route and just blame the Jews.

[–]Bigs 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great roundup, thanks