3 ms·

From the text: // Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been rep

From the text: // Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets. // As far as executive orders go, this one strays pretty far from the legalese into just making a bunch of wild accusations.

ccleve 6y ago
Yes, this isn't legalese, but in what sense are these accusations "wild"? They're factually accurate. And even if you disagree (perhaps you believe there was some form of Russian collusion, despite the Muller report) the accusations are certainly well within the bounds of mainstream debate. Nothing wild here.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > the accusations are certainly well within the bounds of mainstream debate This is subjective. “Wild” could mean out of the mainstream or false. Vaccine effectiveness and the Earth being a sphere are within the bounds of mainstream debate. They contain sides that are wildly inaccurate. Sometimes a mainstream debate levels wild accusations.
- jopsen 6y ago
  It's seems a wild accusation that Twitter is abusing their power, and engaging in "deceptive or pretextual actions". Their "get the facts" link is not deceptive. Suggesting that it's a pretext of silencing Trumps viewpoints is a wild accusation.
- aea19 6y ago
  Following your position to completion, you’ve just admitted that you’re willing to be personally targeted on social media, mentioned in an order of the United States government, and pilloried in the liberal media for the actions of your employer because that’s “within the bounds of mainstream debate,” right? Should someone take that as a cue to scan your company’s LinkedIn until they find a job title close to their gripe, then drag that person through the media before they’ve had a chance to get their boots on? You glanced at a Node dependency of the particular gripe once, so your skin in the game under these rules of mainstream debate is sufficient to dox you and threaten you and your family with death based on job title alone. Am I understanding your position correctly? If so, are you perhaps molding your definition of mainstream debate to suit your political beliefs? Bold of you to dismiss that aspect so out of hand when you advertise your employer on HN, as if it couldn’t happen to you.
  - ccleve 6y ago
    I have no idea what you're talking about, or how you got any of that from my comment.
    - aea19 6y ago
      ...the end of the very quote you replied to under three hours ago and your direct, blanket assertion that the entirety of the described allegations are, quote, “well within the bounds of mainstream debate” and “nothing wild”? Including the personal attack on a complete random at Twitter? Who, by the way, got death threats because one dude trolled Twitter employees on LinkedIn, found a job title close enough to “guy who runs fact checking,” and put his name and resume all over conservative media then said “gee willikers, Norma, inciting a mob online makes people read about their children being murdered before their eyes? I had no idea. Gosh, when has that ever happened before?” No? Nothing? Not a clue? That’s not ringing any bells whatsoever? I read someone else’s comment? k.
sammalloy 6y ago
> this one strays pretty far from the legalese into just making a bunch of wild accusations And for those who haven’t been paying all that much attention to the news, or aren’t familiar with Trump’s reference to “the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax”, that’s another blatant lie that needs fact-checking. So here it is: “A bipartisan investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee has validated the January 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment describing Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election — including Russian efforts to help Donald Trump — describing it as accurate, thorough, and untainted by political bias.“ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisan-senate-report-says-2017-intel-assessment-about-russian-interference-n1188696 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisa... I’m afraid that President Trump has lost the ability to tell facts from fantasy and is no longer capable of performing his duties as president.
- inerte 6y ago
  As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion.
  - sammalloy 6y ago
    > As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion Trump specifically uses the word “collusion” because neither investigation addressed it. It’s a tactical strategy. Mueller: > In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]”…has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. This is Roy Cohn 101. When Trump says he didn’t do something, you can be quite certain that he did worse. https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/ https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loan...
beirut_bootleg 6y ago
I didn't think I'd ever see whataboutism or the word hoax in an executive order, but here we are.
Simulacra 6y ago
But what force of law does it have? People seem to be responding to the executive order as if it has the force of law.

ccleve 6y ago

Yes, this isn't legalese, but in what sense are these accusations "wild"? They're factually accurate. And even if you disagree (perhaps you believe there was some form of Russian collusion, despite the Muller report) the accusations are certainly well within the bounds of mainstream debate. Nothing wild here.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> the accusations are certainly well within the bounds of mainstream debate This is subjective. “Wild” could mean out of the mainstream or false. Vaccine effectiveness and the Earth being a sphere are within the bounds of mainstream debate. They contain sides that are wildly inaccurate. Sometimes a mainstream debate levels wild accusations.
jopsen 6y ago
It's seems a wild accusation that Twitter is abusing their power, and engaging in "deceptive or pretextual actions". Their "get the facts" link is not deceptive. Suggesting that it's a pretext of silencing Trumps viewpoints is a wild accusation.
aea19 6y ago
Following your position to completion, you’ve just admitted that you’re willing to be personally targeted on social media, mentioned in an order of the United States government, and pilloried in the liberal media for the actions of your employer because that’s “within the bounds of mainstream debate,” right? Should someone take that as a cue to scan your company’s LinkedIn until they find a job title close to their gripe, then drag that person through the media before they’ve had a chance to get their boots on? You glanced at a Node dependency of the particular gripe once, so your skin in the game under these rules of mainstream debate is sufficient to dox you and threaten you and your family with death based on job title alone. Am I understanding your position correctly? If so, are you perhaps molding your definition of mainstream debate to suit your political beliefs? Bold of you to dismiss that aspect so out of hand when you advertise your employer on HN, as if it couldn’t happen to you.
- ccleve 6y ago
  I have no idea what you're talking about, or how you got any of that from my comment.
  - aea19 6y ago
    ...the end of the very quote you replied to under three hours ago and your direct, blanket assertion that the entirety of the described allegations are, quote, “well within the bounds of mainstream debate” and “nothing wild”? Including the personal attack on a complete random at Twitter? Who, by the way, got death threats because one dude trolled Twitter employees on LinkedIn, found a job title close enough to “guy who runs fact checking,” and put his name and resume all over conservative media then said “gee willikers, Norma, inciting a mob online makes people read about their children being murdered before their eyes? I had no idea. Gosh, when has that ever happened before?” No? Nothing? Not a clue? That’s not ringing any bells whatsoever? I read someone else’s comment? k.

sammalloy 6y ago

> this one strays pretty far from the legalese into just making a bunch of wild accusations And for those who haven’t been paying all that much attention to the news, or aren’t familiar with Trump’s reference to “the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax”, that’s another blatant lie that needs fact-checking. So here it is: “A bipartisan investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee has validated the January 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment describing Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election — including Russian efforts to help Donald Trump — describing it as accurate, thorough, and untainted by political bias.“ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisan-senate-report-says-2017-intel-assessment-about-russian-interference-n1188696 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisa... I’m afraid that President Trump has lost the ability to tell facts from fantasy and is no longer capable of performing his duties as president.

inerte 6y ago
As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion.
- sammalloy 6y ago
  > As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion Trump specifically uses the word “collusion” because neither investigation addressed it. It’s a tactical strategy. Mueller: > In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]”…has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. This is Roy Cohn 101. When Trump says he didn’t do something, you can be quite certain that he did worse. https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/ https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loan...

beirut_bootleg 6y ago

I didn't think I'd ever see whataboutism or the word hoax in an executive order, but here we are.

Simulacra 6y ago

But what force of law does it have? People seem to be responding to the executive order as if it has the force of law.