Jump to content
Utilit99

Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

Look I said from the beginning there are very problematic aspects to all of this. And I said from the beginning when stuff is uncovered and put through the process and found out then people need to be held accountable. The FBI agent said they met with Twitter and the like but also that it has essentially been standard operating procedure for a long time. It is reasonable then to say "Well, let's wait and see what specific evidence or claims they come out with." I'm not expecting some hypothetical e-mail or that but rather if there is evidence of it- it will find it's way to the light. And if/when it does I'll happily castigate the people over it. I'd venture a guess that you guys wouldn't issue a mea culpa if nothing came out because you've already determined there is a there, there.

Sorry that saying "wait for more evidence" is controversial to you all. 

I'll just revert to my last post to you:  that email probably doesn't exist, so best get an oxygen mask.  :thumbsup: 

45 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Respectfully, I don't think that at least 3.53 million people vote differently because of Hunter Biden's laptop.

Ah, the Hillary "popular vote wins the election" fallacy.  He didn't need 3.5M people to change their votes to win.  HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'll just revert to my last post to you:  that email probably doesn't exist, so best get an oxygen mask.  :thumbsup: 

Ah, the Hillary "popular vote wins the election" fallacy.  He didn't need 3.5M people to change their votes to win.  HTH

Conclusion first then find evidence....exactly what our whole system is based on :thumbsup:

People weren't going to change their votes regardless no matter how many...HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Conclusion first then find evidence....exactly what our whole system is based on :thumbsup:

People weren't going to change their votes regardless no matter how many...HTH

This is untrue.  What is it with people on this bored talking out of their A$$ today?  There have been multiple surveys done that contradict the bolded.  Here is an article about just one:

https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strike said:

This is untrue.  What is it with people on this bored talking out of their A$$ today?  There have been multiple surveys done that contradict the bolded.  Here is an article about just one:

https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll/

That poll does not say what you think it does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it was standard operating procedure. So was Stop question and frisk.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

That poll does not say what you think it does. 

Uh huh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

It doesn't....do you not see why?

I realize you just want to start another pissing match as you do every day.  I'll pass.  If you want to address the article go for it.  Otherwise, fock off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strike said:

I realize you just want to start another pissing match as you do every day.  I'll pass.  If you want to address the article go for it.  Otherwise, fock off.

I don't want to...I'm asking very nicely if you do not see what the problem is with what you posted. It's fine if you don't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I don't want to...I'm asking very nicely if you do not see what the problem is with what you posted. It's fine if you don't

Same people who believe that the laptop story would have changed the election, I'd bet don't feel the same way about Russians & targeted FB ads. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Same people who believe that the laptop story would have changed the election, I'd bet don't feel the same way about Russians & targeted FB ads. 

Outside of that (which I won't both sides it) I'm just stunned that someone could see that article and not see what the flaw in the argument is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Same people who believe that the laptop story would have changed the election, I'd bet don't feel the same way about Russians & targeted FB ads. 

China too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Outside of that (which I won't both sides it) I'm just stunned that someone could see that article and not see what the flaw in the argument is. 

Strikes statistics teacher would not be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Strike said:

This is untrue.  What is it with people on this bored talking out of their A$$ today?  There have been multiple surveys done that contradict the bolded.  Here is an article about just one:

https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll/

This poll asks people if they think truthful coverage would have affected the election.  It doesn't ask people, knowing what you know now about the laptop vs before the election, would you change your vote.  Quite different.  I bring this up in an attempt to have an honest debate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a cut and dried issue, blown away people are still arguing it. Luckily for us, Elon had the fortitude to pull back the curtain. 

There will always be hacks on both sides but, this issue was never going to change their minds. It will most certainly have an impact on actual centrists, and that's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Strike said:

I realize you just want to start another pissing match as you do every day.  I'll pass.  If you want to address the article go for it.  Otherwise, fock off.

It's another slow day in the teacher's lounge.  Government paying for not educating our kids.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I bring this up in an attempt to have an honest debate here.

🤣

Even if true, you can't debate your way out of a paper bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

This poll asks people if they think truthful coverage would have affected the election.  It doesn't ask people, knowing what you know now about the laptop vs before the election, would you change your vote.  Quite different.  I bring this up in an attempt to have an honest debate here.

Also, the poll is asking a subset of the original poll, only those who very or somewhat closely following the laptop story.

Quote

 

The poll results, published Wednesday, are based on responses from 437 adults who said they were following the laptop story “very” or “somewhat” closely when they were surveyed online earlier this month, according to the TIPP.

On the subject of the 2020 election, 79% overall said it was “very” or “somewhat” likely that “a truthful interpretation of the laptop” would have resulted in the reelection of former President Donald Trump instead of the election of President Biden.  

The poll results, derived from an initial survey of 1,335 adults, have a “credibility interval” of plus or minus 4.8 percentage points, according to the TIPP.

 

So if I'm doing my math right, 1/3 of the people were following the story somewhat or very closely...and of that group 79% of the people felt it would have changed the election. The other 68% were not asked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

This poll asks people if they think truthful coverage would have affected the election.  It doesn't ask people, knowing what you know now about the laptop vs before the election, would you change your vote.  Quite different.  I bring this up in an attempt to have an honest debate here.

I never said it said that.    The post I responded to said no votes would have changed.  While this poll doesn't specifically ask if those people would change their vote, it's certainly reasonable conclusion that at least SOME people would have changed their vote, whether it was the people in the poll or others, had they known about the laptop.  That's the point of the poll - to gauge whether the laptop would move the needle.  But as usual you guys want a smoking gun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I never said it said that.    The post I responded to said no votes would have changed.  While this poll doesn't specifically ask if those people would change their vote, it's certainly reasonable conclusion that at least SOME people would have changed their vote, whether it was the people in the poll or others, had they known about the laptop.  That's the point of the poll - to gauge whether the laptop would move the needle.  But as usual you guys want a smoking gun.

I happen to agree with you, I think if the story was pushed more on social media, then I can see votes changing.  But your poll is pretty lame.

So you have a point, but your link doesn't really support your point.  It's really just opinion vs opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strike said:

I never said it said that.    The post I responded to said no votes would have changed.  While this poll doesn't specifically ask if those people would change their vote, it's certainly reasonable conclusion that at least SOME people would have changed their vote, whether it was the people in the poll or others, had they known about the laptop.  That's the point of the poll - to gauge whether the laptop would move the needle.  But as usual you guys want a smoking gun.

Jesus Christ...I said initially 3.6 million people wouldn't change their vote...that got taken into "the Hillary thing..." so I said people weren't going to change their votes...

 

Fine- maybe 3 would.....who fooking cares. Stop trying to litigate the 2020 election. Biden won...he won't win in 2024 regardless who he faces....why does it matter? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiots in this thread still don’t know how electoral politics work, even after 2016.  3.5 million. What a stoonad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

Respectfully, I don't think that at least 3.53 million people vote differently because of Hunter Biden's laptop.

:lol:  Not a math teacher, that's for sure.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Idiots in this thread still don’t know how electoral politics work, even after 2016.  3.5 million. What a stoonad.  

Yes...we know you don't deal in hypothetical comments....just conspiratorial nonsense and "feelings"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shooter McGavin said:

:lol:

We have an open exchange of ideas here, and we're obviously all for it, well maybe some that aren't, the ones that report others, but I digress.

So yes, I support and open exchange of ideas.  The problem is human nature.  There are pieces of sh1t in society, and on this board, that will lie about anything and everything, and push it as fact.  Tardcore does this.  I think you do also but not 100% sure.  So what happens, these trolls bring this place down.

So what do we do?  A company like twitter wants to moderate the BS and not turn their platform into a cesspool.  It sounds like you want to the govt to force them to spread anything not illegal.  I don't think the govt should have that kind of control over private business.  I'm sure you don't either but you're kinda talking in circles because you're lost.

Anyway, yeah, cool story bro.

That is so cute how speech nazi's rationalize their war on opposing speech.   Trump makes false claims about elections, so then nobody is allowed to raise legitimate concern about about elections.  Some kook makes terrible arguements about global warming, then no one is allowed to raise even factual points against global warming.  One police officer makes an unjustified killing, the all police shootings are unjustified.  There is one false claim against vaccines, then all criticism is disallowed.  There is one violent protest against an abortion clinic, then the left tries to outlaw all protests at abortion clinics.  The Chinese hack Hillary's server, then Hunter laptop must be a hack or misinformation.  There is one threat against a transgender clinic, then all legitimate criticisms promote violence.  Just rinse and repeat.  Anything and everything the right says is labeled hate or misinformation and gets censored for some bs reason.  

Of course this doesn't work the other way.  Leftist commit far more violent acts and lies are far more extensive, but all your crap is excuses as rare or one-off acts.  

You and your censorship-loving cowards can take your butts to Canada.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Yes...we know you don't deal in hypothetical comments....just conspiratorial nonsense and "feelings"

Your post was very stupid, Trump didn't need 3.6 million people to change their minds to win the election. You also stated in this thread that folks wanted Twitter to be a free for all, that was a blatant lie.

You really need to learn how to take L's from time to time, folks may actually respect your opinion. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gutterpedo crying about me again. Lol. How about you list some of these lies I tell? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess the FBI interfering in the election is just another conspiracy theory? Nothing to it? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2022 at 11:40 AM, Horseman said:

Time for Life Lessons for Life Losers. 

Be a man, admit when you are wrong. Practice typing out "I was wrong" like Bart Simpson after school.  Get to know the keystrokes, feel it.  Be ready for the next time you are wrong, it happens often. Let it out, admit it like a man when you are wrong. 

Learn It - Live It - Start Winning.  

Bump for @Sean Mooney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Remember when you said "mute point" and blamed it on spell check?  Never saw an "I was wrong" post out of that.

Remember when you said I lie all the time and didn’t provide any examples? Like I did showing you lie? Go Giants! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I'm not following this as closely as you; have we seen a specific request by the government that Twitter refused to fulfill?  TIA.  :cheers: 

 

“many” occasions = not all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Reality said:

Your post was very stupid, Trump didn't need 3.6 million people to change their minds to win the election. You also stated in this thread that folks wanted Twitter to be a free for all, that was a blatant lie.

You really need to learn how to take L's from time to time, folks may actually respect your opinion. 

Take your own advice pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Horseman said:

Suggested is a really low bar.

Yoel Roth testified that in weekly meetings with the FBI he learned "the intelligence community expected that individuals associated with political campaigns would be subject to hacking attacks and that material obtained through those hacking attacks would likely be disseminated over social media platforms, including Twitter.  I also learned in these meetings that there were rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden."

That's more than "suggesting" they suppress any story that might come out about Hunter Biden in the next few weeks prior to the elections.  And that's exactly what happened.  

This crime scene has blood everywhere, the FBI's fingerprints on the murder weapon and you're shouting that there wasn't an eye witness.  In actually there was, a whole lot of Twitter employees.

“Suggested” was the word used in the post I was replying to.

But I disagree.  Warning of a “potential hacking attack involving Hunter Biden” is not necessarily saying they need to censor the next Hunter Biden story that pops up.   And actually, reading the testimony closer, it only states that the “warning” was just about a hacking attack in general and was not specific to Hunter Biden.  There were separate “rumors” about it involving Hunter Biden.  This really seems like a stretch to be calling it “confirmed FBI interference directly with the election.”

Thank you for talking like an actual human being for a change though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonmx said:

Logical position my arse.  There was not legitimate reason to blackout the Hunter laptop story, and everyone knew it.   It was 100 percent pure censorship design to save the Biden's blundering campaign.  This is the very reason we have a First Amendment to stop crap like this.  But you hate freedom.  And BTW, government declaring things disinformation is what authoritarian dictatorships do, not a free society.  

Except there’s no evidence the government was involved in twitter suppressing the laptop story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jerryskids said:

But, but, we don't have something like the following email:

So obviously it didn't happen.  Because this email was not in the Taibbi drop.  Get with the program, comrade.

They clearly have emails where the government shared specific links of tweets they wanted removed.

I would like to see more of those, and to see if those tweets violated the TOS.

IMO, I am skeptical considering the tweet’s Taibbi specifically chose to share for his “historic” report clearly violated the TOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

“Suggested” was the word used in the post I was replying to.

But I disagree.  Warning of a “potential hacking attack involving Hunter Biden” is not necessarily saying they need to censor the next Hunter Biden story that pops up.   And actually, reading the testimony closer, it only states that the “warning” was just about a hacking attack in general and was not specific to Hunter Biden.  There were separate “rumors” about it involving Hunter Biden.  This really seems like a stretch to be calling it “confirmed FBI interference directly with the election.”

Thank you for talking like an actual human being for a change though.

The bold is wrong, I already quoted the testimony where it was specifically about Hunder Biden.  And please ->  The ONLY Hunter Biden story.  Everyone knows what we're talking about and what they were talking about.  You come across and playing dumb.  

And:

1 - When Twitter labels something as "hacking" it normally comes along with a police statement or other government official that's determined an actual case of hacking occurred.  None of that happened.

2 - Despite #1 - they not only took down the materials, they completely suspended the NY Post's account.  This wasn't Joe Bob from Cincinnati, instead an actual major News Outlet that is in the business of disseminating real and disinformation with credible sources.

3 - They didn't just take the material down from the NYT, they took down Joe Bob and everyone else that was trying to share it, much like Covid which likely will be the nest Twitter files released, they suspended and kicked everyone off twitter who was sharing this information.

This wasn't some random, better watch out for shady stories about Hunter from Russian bots.  This was targeted at verifiable accounts that did more than just take down the "questionable" material - they suspended accounts.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

They clearly have emails where the government shared specific links of tweets they wanted removed.

I would like to see more of those, and to see if those tweets violated the TOS.

IMO, I am skeptical considering the tweet’s Taibbi specifically chose to share for his “historic” report clearly violated the TOS.

I've been wondering why nobody has been saying much about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Except there’s no evidence the government was involved in twitter suppressing the laptop story.

Except the weekly meetings they had with twitter where they warned them of potential hacked disinformation that might be spread out, specifically using social media and specifically about Hunter Biden.  No evidence other than that, besides the emails of them reporting posts about Hunter Biden.  No evidence other than that though, except emails back saying we got it "handled".  No evidence other than that though, except internal documents between Twitter Safety and Security emailing back and forth asking how they are going to justify what they are doing.  No evidence other than that though. Nothing to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×