3 ms·

Want to rephrase that without the straw man? And again, this was all presented to congress, and wasn't meaningfully challenged. Only buried and handwaved away,

Want to rephrase that without the straw man? And again, this was all presented to congress, and wasn't meaningfully challenged. Only buried and handwaved away, as you're attempting to do here.

notavalleyman 2y ago
I can rephrase, but that wasn't a strawman argument. You're citing the general life's works of Matt Taibi as proof of your original claim, that sophisticated soviets are behind the OP story. What precise item of Matt Taibi's corpus would you like to cite, to back up your claims? I don't think pointing me to a three hour youtube video is a good response.
- refurb 2y ago
  The government was asking for tweets to be taken down, that violates the first amendment. People were being "flagged" and/or shadow banned for what they said on Twitter because the government didn't like it. The government of course claimed it was fighting "disinformation" which is irrelevant - the 1st amendment protects all speech, true or not. Then to add on top they were banning "disinformation" that was actually true, just politically inconvenient. The old Twitter management was generally happy to play along since they're all on the same team, and hey "what's a constitutional right between friends"? This was captured in emails and texts between government agencies (FBI, etc) and Twitter employees. Musk happily released it all when he bought X. None of this is contested. How anyone can see that and say "yeah, that hack Taibi" is frankly shocking. He's one of the few journalists who actually bothered to report on it.
  - notavalleyman 2y ago
    You are wrong in a way which I can directly prove. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-... As for the rest of your allegations, please provide evidence, as has been requested multiple times in this comment chain
    - refurb 2y ago
      Read the emails from the Twitter Files - "Hi team, can we get your opinion on this? This was flagged by DHS" is pretty straight forward. I'm not sure how you think a Scotus decision is proof it didn't happen. That's not what the decision was at all - it was simply that the government can discuss moderation.

Want to rephrase that without the straw man? And again, this was all presented to congress, and wasn't meaningfully challenged. Only buried and handwaved away, as you're attempting to do here.

notavalleyman 2y ago

I can rephrase, but that wasn't a strawman argument. You're citing the general life's works of Matt Taibi as proof of your original claim, that sophisticated soviets are behind the OP story. What precise item of Matt Taibi's corpus would you like to cite, to back up your claims? I don't think pointing me to a three hour youtube video is a good response.

refurb 2y ago
The government was asking for tweets to be taken down, that violates the first amendment. People were being "flagged" and/or shadow banned for what they said on Twitter because the government didn't like it. The government of course claimed it was fighting "disinformation" which is irrelevant - the 1st amendment protects all speech, true or not. Then to add on top they were banning "disinformation" that was actually true, just politically inconvenient. The old Twitter management was generally happy to play along since they're all on the same team, and hey "what's a constitutional right between friends"? This was captured in emails and texts between government agencies (FBI, etc) and Twitter employees. Musk happily released it all when he bought X. None of this is contested. How anyone can see that and say "yeah, that hack Taibi" is frankly shocking. He's one of the few journalists who actually bothered to report on it.
- notavalleyman 2y ago
  You are wrong in a way which I can directly prove. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-... As for the rest of your allegations, please provide evidence, as has been requested multiple times in this comment chain
  - refurb 2y ago
    Read the emails from the Twitter Files - "Hi team, can we get your opinion on this? This was flagged by DHS" is pretty straight forward. I'm not sure how you think a Scotus decision is proof it didn't happen. That's not what the decision was at all - it was simply that the government can discuss moderation.