3 ms·

I am not interested in the laptop story, but I am very interested in political parties having contacts on social media sites to promote or hide content. This is

I am not interested in the laptop story, but I am very interested in political parties having contacts on social media sites to promote or hide content. This isn't trivial fact at all. People suspect this to be the case in the media too and hence have very low trust. As they of course should! Your explanation of freedom of speech is very insufficient, even for non-US standards. Of course a company can do what it wants for that matter in a legal sense. You are not concerned that the two parties in your country have influence on the topics shared on social media? To me this is the most essential part here. Yes, pundits made it about the laptop story. They are not the brightest star in the sky and will never amount to much. If you don't understand why such a story is not important in the grand scheme of things, there is little hope for you ever grasping anything complex. I doubt the republican media needs any more criticism here. But this wasn't restricted to them. For the laptop story specifically there is even reason to censor it in my opinion. Why should people be interested here in the first place? Even the family of a president deserves privacy. Still there was collusion between officials and Twitter and you should expect this to be the case for most media publications aside from a handful with more integrity.

Festro 4y ago
Political parties do no have contacts at social media sites to promote or hide content. The White House has contacts to discuss content that relates to national security. Suspect? It's public fact. And of course that should erode trust. No citizen should trust their government 100%. That's just sensible. But have they overstepped any sensible line here? Not that I can see, not that most people can see. General consensus is that this is a nothing burger. My country? Nope. This is media theatre from another country. Of course governments should have influence on topics shared on social media. Child pornography is one topic they should have influence over for starters. Hacked materials. Revenge porn. Those last 2 are the ones that are important here specifically. Not that the White House actually made any kind of request to influence Hunter's hacked dick pics on Twitter - Twitter did this all by themselves, fearing legal repercussions. No government body, or political party, ovestepped any line - AND your entire premise is terrible. Of course government should influence these topics. Good you think privacy is important. There was no collusion. The Twitter officials literally say this in their thread. Twitter made the decision by themselves.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Have they overstepped any sensible line here? On the internet? That is a very suggestive question. That doesn't mean the criticism about media honesty is not relevant or a "nothing burger". Do you think these interventions were because of child pornography? To answer with another suggestive question, you don't believe that yourself, do you? And another one that I already stated, don't you have a problem with political parties curating content on social media? It isn't relevant if that happened or not, just for the sake of the general argument. You probably wouldn't like that, would you?
- adamsb6 4y ago
  Some of the messages in the Twitter Files are Twitter employees blocking content at the request of the DNC.

Festro 4y ago

Political parties do no have contacts at social media sites to promote or hide content. The White House has contacts to discuss content that relates to national security. Suspect? It's public fact. And of course that should erode trust. No citizen should trust their government 100%. That's just sensible. But have they overstepped any sensible line here? Not that I can see, not that most people can see. General consensus is that this is a nothing burger. My country? Nope. This is media theatre from another country. Of course governments should have influence on topics shared on social media. Child pornography is one topic they should have influence over for starters. Hacked materials. Revenge porn. Those last 2 are the ones that are important here specifically. Not that the White House actually made any kind of request to influence Hunter's hacked dick pics on Twitter - Twitter did this all by themselves, fearing legal repercussions. No government body, or political party, ovestepped any line - AND your entire premise is terrible. Of course government should influence these topics. Good you think privacy is important. There was no collusion. The Twitter officials literally say this in their thread. Twitter made the decision by themselves.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
Have they overstepped any sensible line here? On the internet? That is a very suggestive question. That doesn't mean the criticism about media honesty is not relevant or a "nothing burger". Do you think these interventions were because of child pornography? To answer with another suggestive question, you don't believe that yourself, do you? And another one that I already stated, don't you have a problem with political parties curating content on social media? It isn't relevant if that happened or not, just for the sake of the general argument. You probably wouldn't like that, would you?
adamsb6 4y ago
Some of the messages in the Twitter Files are Twitter employees blocking content at the request of the DNC.