3 ms·

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 s

by 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.

by ccleve 6y ago

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.