He and his family were targeted by the MAGA crowd. Those are people he works with and is genuinely concerned about their safety. d******d doesn't recognize that concern and go straight to politic.
All of this is meaningless because Donald Trump stood up for free speech and everyone knows that Truth Social is the platform of choice for free speech, truth and intellectual discourse. Twitter doesn’t even matter.
See # 10 would be a First Amendment violation by Trump since he was the PRESIDENT. Joe Biden was a candidate. Therefore a private citizen. No First Amendment violation.
So, after reading the whole thing in sequence — it looks like Twitter decision makers were concerned that this might have been the result of a foreign hack and didn’t want a repeat of 2016 where they are unwittingly contributing to a foreign-backed disinformation campaign right before an election. But they didn’t have hard evidence that it was a hack, although it was the personal data of a private citizen that was being published which seems wrong in itself. Once it became clear that there would be blowback against them for their decision, and the story was already out in the open and being circulated elsewhere, it made little sense to continue to restrict it on Twitter (even if it was hacked data). All of that is pretty much consistent with how I thought it went down. There’s nothing in the documents that I see that shows this was a decision made specifically to help Biden win the election. Khanna at one point questions the wisdom of the policy of not allowing links to a published article that contains hacked information. What if it’s from a whistleblower revealing criminal behavior that the public should know about? That’s a fair point. Maybe it’s not a good policy, or at least it needs to be more clearly delineated under what scenarios publication of hacked data would be considered off limits to share on Twitter.
He was referring to #8. He could as easily also refer to #10 - "honored". This is one of those usual tactics of something possibly mischievous and therefore it must be this conclusion. 8. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.” 10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.
I'm sure it will be riveting tomorrow as it was today. Wednesday: neurolink [production code EMS101] Thursday: Tesla Semi [production code EMS 102] Friday: Twitterleaks - The Hunter Biden Story [production code EMS103] Saturday: Twitterleaks 2.0 Q&A [production code EMS104] Sunday: TBD [production code EMS105] I hope you all are enjoying the Elon Musk Show
gotta rely on the Post I guess https://nypost.com/2022/12/02/twitter-invented-a-reason-to-help-joe-biden-win-in-2020/ Finally, the proof Twitter invented a reason to help Joe Biden win in 2020 By Post Editorial Board December 2, 2022 10:21pm Updated “We’re erring on the side of including a warning and preventing this content from being amplified,” Twitter’s safety chief Yoel Roth said of why The Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020 was censored. He attached a “generic unsafe message” to the Tweet — “not ideal,” he wrote, “but it’s the only thing we have.” In other words — we have to stop this, reasons be damned. Roth’s message is part of a shocking collection of inside correspondence released by new Twitter owner Elon Muskthrough journalist Matt Taibbi. The messages reveal a small group of busybodies — a group that didn’t even include CEO Jack Dorsey — making their own decisions on what to delete or block based on their own liberal biases. “They just freelanced it,” an employee says. “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it.” The Post’s reporting wasn’t just blocked, it was suppressed. “They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child p*rnography,” Taibbi writes. Even internally, the logic was seen as weak. “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” Brandon Borrman, vice president of global communications, asked. As the backlash grew, not just from Republicans but Democrat lawmakers worried about the implication of such censorship, “everyone knew this was f–ked,” says an employee. But it was taking a long time to “unf–k” it. Twitter was directly involved in tilting an election. Everyone could see it, but because they were desperate for Donald Trump to lose and Joe Biden to win, that the media barely made a peep. Even after Hunter Biden’s former business partner gave a public press conference backing up exactly what The Post had reported. After it became untenable to say the laptop wasn’t real, Twitter told us we could have our account back — we just had to delete the original Tweet. We could even put up a new Tweet linking to the Hunter Biden story, one that wouldn’t be censored, but we had to delete the original one. The logic behind this blackmail escaped us. The Post refused. It would be 17 days before Twitter finally backed down and unfroze our account. The bias was clear. After all, no one flagged The Times reporting on Trump’s private tax documents as “hacked materials.” The knee-jerk censorship only happened in one direction. And, by the way, nothing really changed afterward. Twitter went right back to censoring those who didn’t toe the line on COVID and any other number of topics. As Taibbi also outlines, The Democratic National Committee and the Biden administration were in direct email contact with the Twitter content team, pointing them exactly to the Tweets they wanted destroyed. It took a very expensive change of ownership for these details to come to light, and for the promise of less censorship in the future. That’s why the left is losing their minds.
I presume you read the thread (it was reproduced here to make it easier to read). Do you think this is an accurate portrayal of what we learned from it? I think using a series of Tweets to report what happened is a pretty crummy way of handling this. It encourages people to promote only the parts that are convenient to the narrative they’ve already constructed in their minds. No need to link to the full piece, just retweet the parts you consider “damning” with some editorial color added to it. I don’t think Taibbi’s tweet report uncovers that the reason for the initial censorship was due to naked partisanship, and concerns over it being hacked was just an “excuse” they made up as cover. That’s what this editorial really wants the reader to believe, but that wasn’t what I saw from his report.
Russia was literally sowing discord in the 2016 election… Russia was literally pushing Brexit behind the scenes…. Trump goes to Ukraine to get dirt on Biden’s and lo and behold…. Conservatives seems to have a “ends justify the means” view of things…. “So what Russia is trying to influence in their favor to sow discord and get outcomes preferable”. Conservatives aren’t going after the venerable WSJ who also choose to not publish the story initially. Why is that?
Lol…. Which is what they want. Essentially you’d have to ignore or be okay with Russian meddling to hand wave away what happened.
