Discussion in 'Current Events' started by TheAngryLiberal, Dec 2, 2022.
So, his claim is good enough for you?
Weak. Almost as weak as the melatonin in Elon Musk's skin.
I said nothing happen and you're still not happy?
Yes, except that your claim rests upon one guy's claim. "Umm, yes. I made Elvis Chan admit all sorts of stuff. I won the deposition!"
Pretty weak stuff. Post the deposition transcript. Pronto.
Umm, huh? English next time, my southern chum. Maybe mix in some facts?
Your post was the equivalent of the written version of Pauly Shore.
Where's the deposition transcript? "Uhh, I kicked ass IN A DEPOSTION" (*LOL*) is stupid and meaningless.
How many depositions have you boys taken?
With this, I agree.
Did you read the article? As I knew of no evidence of any cover up, prior to reading this, it is my only source. If you know what it says, then you know what I know about it. Here, I will avoid a semantic struggle with you, by quoting the article, verbatim:
He then quickly pivoted to the "Twitter Files" regarding the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Taibbi tweeted "there’s no evidence - that I've seen" that the federal government had a role in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story but that "the decision was made at the highest levels of the company, but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, with former head of legal, policy and trust Vijaya Gadde playing a key role."
So, it was without the knowledge of the CEO, yet supposedly "at the highest levels" of the company which, for no reason I can think of, other than to build suspense, he does not qualify, except to name the "former head of legal, policy and trust."
"'They just freelanced it,' is how one former employee characterized the decision. ‘Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it,’" Taibbi wrote..
Replying to @mtaibbi
http://25.You can see the confusion in the following lengthy exchange, which ends up including Gadde and former Trust and safety chief Yoel Roth. Comms official Trenton Kennedy writes, “I'm struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe”:
So, some people knew, and some didn't. My sense, without going back & forth to bring every little snipped exchange here, was that there were others "at the highest levels," who were also kept in the dark. Among the lower level people, it sounds as if they did not feel comfortable, challenging their bosses. Even among some execs, who went along with this, after others had "freelanced it," there were probably some who were not partisans, but who were very cautious and, to whom it felt safer to continue one controversial practice, rather than to add to that, another one, which would only call attention to their earlier, questionable activity.
So that's what I know: no more, & no less. Your questions, as they are worded, are hard to answer: "behind the corporation's back;" "Twitter itself"-- what is Twitter, itself? Or "the corporation?" If your question was, did the whole company know about this, the answer seems clearly to be "no." But you ask, if it had "nothing to do with it." How do I distinguish between the overall company management, and some cabal, w/in Twitter, which includes some executives, without at least knowing who those executives are, not to mention, understanding the whole corporate structure, to be able to assess their relative positions?
If that doesn't answer your question, you will have to be more selective, in choosing a clearer way, of expressing exactly what it is, you are driving at.
I will add this much, though. If this revelation were really of such great national significance, wouldn't it seem odd to you, that Musk & friends have decided to tease the story, and stretch out, prolong the actual revelation of the details?
Taibbi concluded the thread, calling it a "whirlwind 96 hours for me" but teased that "There is much more to come, including answers to questions about issues like shadow-banning, boosting, follower counts, the fate of various individual accounts, and more."
Musk himself teased "Episode 2 of The Twitter Files" will take place on Saturday as well as a "live Q&A."
It sounds to me, more like discrediting the old management at Twitter, than blowing the lid off of some national conspiracy. And it even seems logical for Musk to want to do that, as there will likely be newer versions of the old Twitter, competing with his platform, quite possibly run by some of the same people.
You censor them by not giving them airtime
Does CNN have many guests on that have Pro-Trump views? Especially the evening shows
Same with every other 'news" channel.
Until yesterday, I never realized how deep the hatred high tech, (google, FB, Twitter) has for Trump and his voters.
Here's a few facts you left out from the above.
It was all over the news, but at that time, two to three weeks out from the election, the story being reported was labeled probable Russia disinformation. The WA Post who accurately reported the story were censored by both Facebook and Twitter under the false pretense that they were distributing hacked material.
Facebook, Twitter block The Post from posting (nypost.com)
Oh. Odd.when was he attorney general?
I don't need to figure out your riddles, since the most telling indicator, that this will end up as a whole bunch of nothing, is your failure to produce the evidence, for which I asked, that seemed your prior post would need have been based upon. Nor did you supply different evidence, for this. Nor did you even passingly address my request.
Is currently AG
I don't use twitter. never have. I also live half way around the world from the US. I knew about the story the day it broke. It was on broadcast media, print media and its online versions and strictly online websites. No one who would ever have cared about the story didn't know about it because it wasn't as prominent on twitter as you think it should have been. Trying to pretend that this owuld have been in any way difficult is, yet again, deliberately misleading.
The notion that there was a 'substantial' reduction in the potential audience is pure fantasy. No intelligent person relies soley on twitter for their information. I doubt even many stupid ones do, thought plenty who think others are stupid keep claiming that something not featuring prominently on twitter somehow means it is 'censored' and people won't find out. It took no wffort to know something was happening and a few keystrokes to get details. Easy!
This is yet another post-election nothingburger from Trump supporters.
What would you say is a good source of news?
What "government" ?
Trump was the government at the time this happened ?
Until after the election took place. You assumed this stopped after the election?
Is pretending to be an ostrich more comfortable than facing the truth?
Some are used to that position
It wasn't just Twitter though. Twitter is exposing how the FBI, Joe Biden, DNC, Big tech the Media and othres colluded to cover up real stories that were damaging to Biden and to make up stories and spread misinformation on Trump.
The media colluding with the government to spread lies or cover up the truth, I believe, is actually a crime. Especially when it comes from law enforcement like The FBI or even The DOJ.
Mark Zuckerberg committed election fraud and his company Meta has already paid out $25 million in fines. What he did should have been enough to indict him and put him in jail for the rest of his life.
It wasn't just Twitter. There was widespread and massive fraud.
Ridiculous, that one goes to Twitter, to keep abreast of general news: you watch a newscast, for that. At Twitter, you get information, basically only from those you follow. Of course, the most reliable news sources to "follow" on Twitter, would be the same ones you could follow on Facebook, or you could watch on T.V., or you could go to their websites, to check out.
Separate names with a comma.