3 ms·
> There are sufficiently prominent cases where scaling doesn't matter a damn, eg the decision to suspend or not the president Does @LoTT belong to such disting
by sangnoir 4y ago
> There are sufficiently prominent cases where scaling doesn't matter a damn, eg the decision to suspend or not the president
Does @LoTT belong to such distinguished company? I don't know, but I know this is not an instance of Twitter "silencing the voices on the right" despite the context of the reporting
- harry8 4y agoBelong? Will they clearly were being treated as a special case. This is clearly a case of a tipping the scales against a non-liberal voice and is being provided as an example of how these things worked. Was the treatment deserved, justified, correct or not? This is the question. How arbitrary is it? How could that be abused to lose Hillary an election? (Or whoever). Was it? Most importantly how does this process fare when government officials and politicians make direct threats when making censorship demands? I find this case a lot less interesting than finding out about the involvement of the fbi etc. I'm far more interested to see if and how Wikileaks stories were de-boosted or not as one controversial example. People claimed that blogging about Assange's court case suddenly got no Twitter referrals. Possible? If so, was it true? If so Why? Did Twitter employees put their thumb on the same to boost (or bury) Bernie? All these things, i guess we'll see. I strongly doubt Taibi would be in on a cover up unless the CIA had him by the balls or similar, don't know much about Bari. We'll have a lot more confidence whatever comes out. Perhaps some of the people repeating (on twitter) how uninteresting it all is are worried it's too interesting? I'm fascinated to see how much or little was going on, how and why.