4 ms·

Lol that’s not true at all. There’s no retroactive interpretation of the first amendment. Twitter was not asked by the current government to do anything. They’r

Lol that’s not true at all. There’s no retroactive interpretation of the first amendment. Twitter was not asked by the current government to do anything. They’re a private company and are allowed their free speech. If you’re not just some Russian droid living in a shit hole maybe go back to school. This is embarrassing for you.

yucky 4y ago
You must be replying to the wrong comment. Nothing you have said is related to my post.
- s3p 4y ago
  Allow me. The tweets violated Twitter's hacked items policy and they removed them. The internal staff had a debate as to whether it fell under the policy and they came to the agreement that it did. They later agreed to update the policy and not remove tweets that referenced it. I don't understand what is so problematic here.
  - yucky 4y ago
    That policy was never used to remove content published by NY Times, WaPo etc. that had originated from hacks or stolen material. In fact, this was the only time they used this policy in that manner to restrict content published by legitimate investigative journalists. That's the entire crux of their argument, selective enforcement when it fit their political desires. Also, the emails weren't hacked. The laptop was abandoned at a repair shop and they tried to turn it over to the FBI twice but the FBI declined. That's when they turned it over to Giuliani who sent them to the NY Post.
    - ttyprintk 4y ago
      “Hacked” nowadays could include impersonations like deep fakes. The modifications made between Isaac and Giuliani need to be explained before we can use the word legitimate.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > tried to turn it over to the FBI twice but the FBI declined. That's when they turned it over to Giuliani who sent them to the NY Post. This is not quite accurate. The FBI did take the laptop, but Isaac (the repairman) made a copy and sent it to Rudy Giuliani as some sort so assurance because he feared the laptop would be black holed by the FBI.

yucky 4y ago

You must be replying to the wrong comment. Nothing you have said is related to my post.

s3p 4y ago
Allow me. The tweets violated Twitter's hacked items policy and they removed them. The internal staff had a debate as to whether it fell under the policy and they came to the agreement that it did. They later agreed to update the policy and not remove tweets that referenced it. I don't understand what is so problematic here.
- yucky 4y ago
  That policy was never used to remove content published by NY Times, WaPo etc. that had originated from hacks or stolen material. In fact, this was the only time they used this policy in that manner to restrict content published by legitimate investigative journalists. That's the entire crux of their argument, selective enforcement when it fit their political desires. Also, the emails weren't hacked. The laptop was abandoned at a repair shop and they tried to turn it over to the FBI twice but the FBI declined. That's when they turned it over to Giuliani who sent them to the NY Post.
  - ttyprintk 4y ago
    “Hacked” nowadays could include impersonations like deep fakes. The modifications made between Isaac and Giuliani need to be explained before we can use the word legitimate.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > tried to turn it over to the FBI twice but the FBI declined. That's when they turned it over to Giuliani who sent them to the NY Post. This is not quite accurate. The FBI did take the laptop, but Isaac (the repairman) made a copy and sent it to Rudy Giuliani as some sort so assurance because he feared the laptop would be black holed by the FBI.