2 ms·

>That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are

by throwaway20875 6y ago

>That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story. So the "Collateral Murder" video, by that standard, would be suppressed too? And any mentions of it, even in private messages, would also be suppressed? And then comes the double standards - "allegedly hacked" - Trump's tax returns and his wife's phone conversations were published and not suppressed shortly before the story on HB broke. And to be clear, because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction here will be to default to team politics, Trump's tax returns absolutely deserved to be published. Whatever your stripe of politics, you're eventually (and painfully) going to realize that you're being systematically fed a wave of lies. WMDs (no one jailed), GFC (no recovery, no one jailed), Guantanamo (still open), drone strikes in 75+ countries (still going), NSA spying (still going), Snowden (still innocent, still a political refugee), Epstein (didn't kill himself). Crickets from the media, zero accountability. Wake up.

NearAP 6y ago
>>because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction<<< You don't have to be rude. I have engaged in a polite conversation with you. >>And then comes the double standards <<< Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published. Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked. They were provided (though without his knowledge) by someone who had legal access to it (like Mary Trump and she did say she provided it) but again you can argue a double standard. His wife's phone conversations were not hacked. One of the participants in the call recorded it and released it (and the state she was in allows one participant to record a call)
- throwaway20875 6y ago
  >Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published. It absolutely is relevant. There is clear coordination between these organizations to suppress information. You can't look at the bannings occurring across multiple media platforms simultaneously (multiple instances) and not draw this conclusion. Further, there's a revolving door between government agencies and media companies - this industry is carrying water for the powers that be. >Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked What is social engineering? You're arguing in trivial semantics and missing the forest for the trees. Hacked was never a legitimate threshold for suppressing information before someone in power was threatened.

NearAP 6y ago

>>because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction<<< You don't have to be rude. I have engaged in a polite conversation with you. >>And then comes the double standards <<< Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published. Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked. They were provided (though without his knowledge) by someone who had legal access to it (like Mary Trump and she did say she provided it) but again you can argue a double standard. His wife's phone conversations were not hacked. One of the participants in the call recorded it and released it (and the state she was in allows one participant to record a call)

throwaway20875 6y ago
>Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published. It absolutely is relevant. There is clear coordination between these organizations to suppress information. You can't look at the bannings occurring across multiple media platforms simultaneously (multiple instances) and not draw this conclusion. Further, there's a revolving door between government agencies and media companies - this industry is carrying water for the powers that be. >Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked What is social engineering? You're arguing in trivial semantics and missing the forest for the trees. Hacked was never a legitimate threshold for suppressing information before someone in power was threatened.