3 ms·

I think it's because they've largely proven to be uninteresting or unsurprising. The two big reveals early on were: - The Biden family tried to get what is eff

by smcl 4y ago

I think it's because they've largely proven to be uninteresting or unsurprising. The two big reveals early on were: - The Biden family tried to get what is effectively revenge porn taken down from Twitter before he was elected. - Twitter had labels for high-profile accounts like libsoftiktok that meant "don't ban this person without some higher-up approval" In both cases they were deliberately presented in a misleading way. When the first one was revealed it was suggested this was evidence that the White House was censoring Twitter - but Donald Trump was the president at the time. In the second case (quite amusingly, tbh) Weiss suggested Twitter was suppressing libsoftiktok, when in fact it was deliberately treating the account with kid gloves - i.e. she got it completely backwards. I think people switched off after this, if there was anything truly scandalous they would have lead with it and wouldn't have bothered trying to stoke outrage with the two I mentioned. What I do find interesting is something that isn't really getting much coverage - that Bari Weiss seemingly has access to some internal admin tool. In some screenshots she's posted this tool has a "Direct Messages" section, suggesting she has been able to read private DMs - a bit alarming.

jacquesm 4y ago
That would be a GDPR violation right there.
yanderekko 4y ago
I think it's interesting that the senior leaders did not seem to have an internal non-partisan justification for quashing the Hunter Biden story, though that obviously lends evidence to prior suspicions. >In the second case (quite amusingly, tbh) Weiss suggested Twitter was suppressing libsoftiktok, when in fact it was deliberately treating the account with kid gloves - i.e. she got it completely backwards. I think you're the one that's getting it completely backwards - since Twitter's "kid gloves" treatment lacks any semblance of due process, it was seen as a brand risk to engage in repeated high-profile bannings. It's like having a law that you know is unjust and advising against enforcing it against anyone powerful so you don't get called out - you can call that "kid gloves" treatment but that's papering over the underlying problem.... if your moderation policies are defensible you shouldn't need to carve out exemptions like this.
- smcl 4y ago
  You seem very confused, I think you're maybe a little too invested in there being some grand conspiracy behind this
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    You seem very confused, nothing I said alleges a "grand conspiracy" or anything of the sort.
    - smcl 4y ago
      Come on :)
      - yanderekko 4y ago
        I'm happy to affirm for you that I don't believe that there's a "grand conspiracy", just routine groupthink dynamics. :)
gadders 4y ago
adamsb6 4y ago
> The Biden family tried to get what is effectively revenge porn taken down from Twitter before he was elected. I don't understand why this gets so oft repeated. The Post article (https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...) contains nothing resembling porn. There are some pictures of Hunter with a crack pipe, but that's not even a revelation. We already knew he had a drug problem. What is a revelation is what could be official corruption, where Hunter gets paid exorbitant salaries to hold jobs he's not at all qualified for, and then funnels a portion of that money on to Joe. There's a possibility of quid pro quo that needs to be taken seriously and investigated further. The evidence here is at least as strong as Whitewater and Russian collusion, and we appointed special prosecutors to investigate those. We should do the same here. Who else could be "the big guy" that Hunter is to hold 10% for?
- xadhominemx 4y ago
  You’re talking about the contents of the laptop. Everyone else is talking about the tweets the Biden campaign asked Twitter to remove. The Biden campaign did not ask Twitter to remove all content regarding the laptop, they asked Twitter to remove a few specific tweets which contained pornographic images of Hunter Biden non-consensually posted to the internet.
  - adamsb6 4y ago
    Who is providing this information on the content of the tweets that were asked to be removed? We don't have a comprehensive list of tweets the campaign and the DNC forwarded. I looked at archive.org for the tweets linked here: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 2 of these include Hunter nudity, one is a video that doesn't play, one was never archived. One, from GuySquiggs, is a Hunter photo with the nudity mspainted out, but questioning the age of the woman in the photo. Also, is that a legal use of campaign funds to have staffers try to scrub the candidate's son's nudes from Twitter?
    - 4y ago

by smcl 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago

That would be a GDPR violation right there.

yanderekko 4y ago

I think it's interesting that the senior leaders did not seem to have an internal non-partisan justification for quashing the Hunter Biden story, though that obviously lends evidence to prior suspicions. >In the second case (quite amusingly, tbh) Weiss suggested Twitter was suppressing libsoftiktok, when in fact it was deliberately treating the account with kid gloves - i.e. she got it completely backwards. I think you're the one that's getting it completely backwards - since Twitter's "kid gloves" treatment lacks any semblance of due process, it was seen as a brand risk to engage in repeated high-profile bannings. It's like having a law that you know is unjust and advising against enforcing it against anyone powerful so you don't get called out - you can call that "kid gloves" treatment but that's papering over the underlying problem.... if your moderation policies are defensible you shouldn't need to carve out exemptions like this.

smcl 4y ago
You seem very confused, I think you're maybe a little too invested in there being some grand conspiracy behind this
- yanderekko 4y ago
  You seem very confused, nothing I said alleges a "grand conspiracy" or anything of the sort.
  - smcl 4y ago
    Come on :)
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      I'm happy to affirm for you that I don't believe that there's a "grand conspiracy", just routine groupthink dynamics. :)

gadders 4y ago

adamsb6 4y ago

> The Biden family tried to get what is effectively revenge porn taken down from Twitter before he was elected. I don't understand why this gets so oft repeated. The Post article (https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...) contains nothing resembling porn. There are some pictures of Hunter with a crack pipe, but that's not even a revelation. We already knew he had a drug problem. What is a revelation is what could be official corruption, where Hunter gets paid exorbitant salaries to hold jobs he's not at all qualified for, and then funnels a portion of that money on to Joe. There's a possibility of quid pro quo that needs to be taken seriously and investigated further. The evidence here is at least as strong as Whitewater and Russian collusion, and we appointed special prosecutors to investigate those. We should do the same here. Who else could be "the big guy" that Hunter is to hold 10% for?

xadhominemx 4y ago
You’re talking about the contents of the laptop. Everyone else is talking about the tweets the Biden campaign asked Twitter to remove. The Biden campaign did not ask Twitter to remove all content regarding the laptop, they asked Twitter to remove a few specific tweets which contained pornographic images of Hunter Biden non-consensually posted to the internet.
- adamsb6 4y ago
  Who is providing this information on the content of the tweets that were asked to be removed? We don't have a comprehensive list of tweets the campaign and the DNC forwarded. I looked at archive.org for the tweets linked here: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 2 of these include Hunter nudity, one is a video that doesn't play, one was never archived. One, from GuySquiggs, is a Hunter photo with the nudity mspainted out, but questioning the age of the woman in the photo. Also, is that a legal use of campaign funds to have staffers try to scrub the candidate's son's nudes from Twitter?
  - 4y ago