3 ms·

Sorry? You think he fabricated documents?

by harry8 3y ago

jmye 3y ago
I’m not sure where my comment suggested that he fabricated documents, and I think the linked story stands for itself. The Twitter files were a sham that certain people have badly misinterpreted, intentionally. Sort of like Barr’s memo.
- harry8 3y ago
  He provided the source documents for clear first amendment breaches. The story corroborates it further with facebook as well as twitter. How's google doing? Perhaps you think the first amendment is rubbish, should be abolished and so systemic violations not worth reporting on? You're entitled to that opinion but the story is not nothing whatever your opinion on that. It happened and probably continues. I doubt the "nothingburger" "Taibbi is Elon PR" "Grift the right" shooting the messenger can hold. Too many Democrat leaning people don't like it when they see the original docs. Of course most Republicans really do cock an eyebrow when they find out the "disinformation laptop" was table-top wargamed by the fbi with social media companies prior to the suppression and blatant crude censorship of the story when it came out. Literally wargamed a "disinformation laptop." It's now well acknowledged by the Bidens that the laptop has nothing to do with russia, is real and the contents genuine. Lot of people who hate trump and republicans might not like that much. It's worth reading in the original and worth checking your pulse if you just swap out Republican for every Democrat and vice versa. Shouldn't matter but partisan loyalty & loathing seems to be a really good cover for appalling crappy behaviour nowadays. https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industrial-complex https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industria... You're still allowed to hate the "Insane Clown President" and Jared, Ivanka and all the crooked cronies. That's completely allowed. Just imagine if Ivanka got paid by Ukranian oligarchs! Laptop full of skeletons censored. How would you feel about it? You'd think that's fine? Well not me.
  - jmye 3y ago
    I’ve posted a clear article outlining places the “Twitter files” were more noise than signal. Just saying “no” and then pointing at the entirety of the documents is an absurd response. And that’s without account for the unhinged rant that had little to do with anything I’ve said or posted.
    - harry8 3y ago
      nymag article is really embarrassing. Reminded me of this: https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-twenty-seven-most-embarrassing-reactions-to-taibbi-thread-about-twitter-censoring-hunter-biden-tweets/ https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-twenty-seven-most-embarr... Zero quotes from Taibbi's article. Zero accurate paraphrasing of any Taibbi argument or claim. Zero claim of factual error with details. Zero links to the original. Zero mention of Shellenberger or /any/ of the other journalists involved. Just so appallingly bad! It's like Aunt June reporting to you what her sewing circle thinks about what they say is being said in Shelbyville and why they are so wrong to hate Jebediah Springfield. How did you go reading just /one/ of the original articles with its source docs? Did you try it? Did /you/ find a problem in the reporting Taibbi actually /did/ in that article or indeed any other? Did you find it a very different experience reading it to reading about it places like "nymag?" I really did. And first amendment violations are a story and not nothing.

Sorry? You think he fabricated documents?

by harry8 3y ago

Sorry? You think he fabricated documents?

jmye 3y ago

I’m not sure where my comment suggested that he fabricated documents, and I think the linked story stands for itself. The Twitter files were a sham that certain people have badly misinterpreted, intentionally. Sort of like Barr’s memo.

harry8 3y ago
He provided the source documents for clear first amendment breaches. The story corroborates it further with facebook as well as twitter. How's google doing? Perhaps you think the first amendment is rubbish, should be abolished and so systemic violations not worth reporting on? You're entitled to that opinion but the story is not nothing whatever your opinion on that. It happened and probably continues. I doubt the "nothingburger" "Taibbi is Elon PR" "Grift the right" shooting the messenger can hold. Too many Democrat leaning people don't like it when they see the original docs. Of course most Republicans really do cock an eyebrow when they find out the "disinformation laptop" was table-top wargamed by the fbi with social media companies prior to the suppression and blatant crude censorship of the story when it came out. Literally wargamed a "disinformation laptop." It's now well acknowledged by the Bidens that the laptop has nothing to do with russia, is real and the contents genuine. Lot of people who hate trump and republicans might not like that much. It's worth reading in the original and worth checking your pulse if you just swap out Republican for every Democrat and vice versa. Shouldn't matter but partisan loyalty & loathing seems to be a really good cover for appalling crappy behaviour nowadays. https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industrial-complex https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industria... You're still allowed to hate the "Insane Clown President" and Jared, Ivanka and all the crooked cronies. That's completely allowed. Just imagine if Ivanka got paid by Ukranian oligarchs! Laptop full of skeletons censored. How would you feel about it? You'd think that's fine? Well not me.
- jmye 3y ago
  I’ve posted a clear article outlining places the “Twitter files” were more noise than signal. Just saying “no” and then pointing at the entirety of the documents is an absurd response. And that’s without account for the unhinged rant that had little to do with anything I’ve said or posted.
  - harry8 3y ago
    nymag article is really embarrassing. Reminded me of this: https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-twenty-seven-most-embarrassing-reactions-to-taibbi-thread-about-twitter-censoring-hunter-biden-tweets/ https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-twenty-seven-most-embarr... Zero quotes from Taibbi's article. Zero accurate paraphrasing of any Taibbi argument or claim. Zero claim of factual error with details. Zero links to the original. Zero mention of Shellenberger or /any/ of the other journalists involved. Just so appallingly bad! It's like Aunt June reporting to you what her sewing circle thinks about what they say is being said in Shelbyville and why they are so wrong to hate Jebediah Springfield. How did you go reading just /one/ of the original articles with its source docs? Did you try it? Did /you/ find a problem in the reporting Taibbi actually /did/ in that article or indeed any other? Did you find it a very different experience reading it to reading about it places like "nymag?" I really did. And first amendment violations are a story and not nothing.