5 ms·

I think this is actually kind of a dangerous equivocation to make, and I see it frequently and increasingly. It's very easy to be cynical and say everyone is ju

• sattoshi 7y ago
  Can you explain the difference? Is it just because Russia is a foreign entity? What if Twitter had a major Russian investment? What if Twitter was fully operated by the Russian government? What if it was operated by the german government? What if it was operated by the american government? What if it was operated by a man named Jack who has clear political interests? What if Jack only cares about the bottom line? What if Russia supported Hillary instead of Trump? Does your answer vary between the questions? To me, they are all the same.
  • enneff 7y ago
    One major difference is that the Russian operation was covert while Twitter is just now announcing their intent to do something before they do it, and it will be clear when they have done it.
  • lowtolerance 7y ago
    One is literally an adversarial nation hellbent on weakening the West’s influence in the world, enacting a strategy straight out of the modern fascist playbook, renowned fascist and political theorist Aleksandr Dugin’s The Foundations of Geopolitics with horrifying efficacy. But yeah, it’s understandable that someone might equate that with a social media platform being transparent (however belatedly) in their efforts to enforce their own rules. The problem with centrist lines of thinking such as yours is that it’s all predicated on fallacious logic: the demonstrably false notion that a compromise between two opposing positions is inherently superior to either.
    • mmjaa 7y ago
      Pray tell, what sort of playbook is America's destabilizing of multiple democratic governments derived from? What playbook was used to lie to the American people and commit war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen? This perspective that American interference in democratic political processes around the globe is "righteous and justified" must be coming from some book, somewhere. Which one?
      • andreigheorghe 7y ago
        Changing the subject seems to be a common tactic when you've run out of good faith arguments.
        • mmjaa 7y ago
          The subject is "oppressive regimes which negatively impact the politics of other countries for their own gain" - and the USA is definitely on-topic in that regard. Selective outrage over political machinations that don't originate from within your own political in-group is also a common tactic - when you've run out of good faith, arguments or otherwise ..
          • andreigheorghe 7y ago
            Nope, the subject is "Twitter controlling the discourse is different than the Russian government controlling the discourse", nothing to do with what you're trying to deflect to. Try to focus on that.
            • mmjaa 7y ago
              Twitter, an American company, attempts to control the discourse - just as most other American media companies attempt to control the discourse, in order to deflect from attention on American's gargantuan list of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Twitter is just one in a long line of goose-stepping corporations doing the bidding of the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex which stands to profit greatly from its efforts ..
• djsumdog 7y ago
  ...but .. they are. Just because you hate something doesn't make it untrue. Twitter CEOs are probably more aligned with foreign interest than you might think. It barely even matters considering how insignificant an impact the average American has on policy decisions. The system has evolved to give the richest the strongest voice .. and what rich Russians want is probably not so different than what the top 1% of industry leaders in America want. I made a video about this a few years back: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/video/does-voting-make-a-difference/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/video/does-voting-make-a-...