Jump to content
Utilit99

Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Without seeing what the tweets in question are, we don’t know if it was justified or not.  It’s not censorship if they’re just calling attention to tweets that should rightfully be removed.

I’d compare it to digby reporting people for making fun of him.  The mods (mod?) don’t have to do anything about it, but if they feel a banning is justified, they can (even though some other people may have said worse and not been banned).

When the government meets weekly with social media platforms and identifies material which breaks no law that should be removed, it is censorship.   

Share this post


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

When the government meets weekly with social media platforms and identifies material which breaks no law that should be removed, it is censorship.   

Cool, please link me to that happening

Share this post


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

They were warning them about a possible story, not demanding it be censored (as far as we know).

Trump's FBI.

Share this post


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

When the government meets weekly with social media platforms and identifies material which breaks no law that should be removed, it is censorship.   

Trump's government.

Share this post


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

They were warning them about a possible story, not demanding it be censored (as far as we know).

They were proactively trying to censor a story they knew was true from damaging their favored candidate before an election.   It does not have to be explicitly demanded.  It was a partisan conspiracy between government and the owners of public platform, two groups which freedom of speech demands neutrality from. 

Share this post


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

Trump's government.

Lol...just like Brutus and company were Caesar's government. 

Share this post


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

They were proactively trying to censor a story they knew was true from damaging their favored candidate before an election.   It does not have to be explicitly demanded.  It was a partisan conspiracy between government and the owners of public platform, two groups which freedom of speech demands neutrality from. 

The laptop was legit. There was zero indication it wasn’t.  The FBI strongly suggested it was hacked and got former intel heads to do the same.  That’s election interference and it’s not up for debate anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jonmx said:

This article is disinformation.

It says FBI agent Elvis Chan testified that he could not recall if Hunter Biden was mentioned, to which the Post says that is “a crucial inconsistency with Roth’s declaration saying the FBI specifically mentioned Hunter.”  But Roth only stated it was a RUMOR that Hunter was involved, which to me indicates that Hunter was not a key piece to the warning.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

They were proactively trying to censor a story they knew was true from damaging their favored candidate before an election.   It does not have to be explicitly demanded.  It was a partisan conspiracy between government and the owners of public platform, two groups which freedom of speech demands neutrality from. 

You said they “identified material which breaks no law which should be removed.”  Liar

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

This article is disinformation.

It says FBI agent Elvis Chan testified that he could not recall if Hunter Biden was mentioned, to which the Post says that is “a crucial inconsistency with Roth’s declaration saying the FBI specifically mentioned Hunter.”  But Roth only stated it was a RUMOR that Hunter was involved, which to me indicates that Hunter was not a key piece to the warning.

Spinning facts differently does not make one disinformation and that is the problem with censorship.  The difference between truth vs. disinformation in politics is usually just perception.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So democrats got proven to not only lie but also peddle misinformation and interfere in the election. So why are ppl on the left STILL defending them? They literally have the receipts proving all this. That is what astounds me. Cause you have FAR MORE ppl on the right that if this was one of their party’s candidates they would have zero problem with them not only facing consequences but would also be calling for their resignation. Meanwhile, the left is defending Biden and the rest of them saying the articles are “misinformation themselves”, trying to bring Trump into this (which they ALWAYS do), and not even saying there should be any consequences. THIS is why I do NOT like ppl on the left. They’re hypocrites, racists, bigots, xenophobes, and morons. Boggles my mind how they can constantly keep lying even when the facts and proof say they’re wrong :doh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Lol...just like Brutus and company were Caesar's government. 

So the republican FBI that Trump appointed and that gave such a ridiculous lying statement about the Mueller report was working against Trump.

Everything you cultist has always always always boils down to "everyone's against Trump."

Phuking losers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jonmx said:

They were proactively trying to censor a story they knew was true from damaging their favored candidate before an election.   It does not have to be explicitly demanded.  It was a partisan conspiracy between government and the owners of public platform, two groups which freedom of speech demands neutrality from. 

The public platform in this case is a privately owned company. There are no such demands upon them. 

Also, it's fukkin amazing at how little evidence is required for you to form an opinion that fits nicely into your "all liberals are Satanic pedophile nazis" narrative,  when you've been shown a million times (just not dared to look) that Donald Trump was 100% complicit in the acts of sedition that occurred on Jan 6.

Share this post


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

You said they “identified material which breaks no law which should be removed.”  Liar

That is exactly what they did.  There was no law which the New York Post broke concerning Hunter's laptop.  It was legal protection speech which also happened to be true. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The public platform in this case is a privately owned company. There are no such demands upon them. 

Also, it's fukkin amazing at how little evidence is required for you to form an opinion that fits nicely into your "all liberals are Satanic pedophile nazis" narrative,  when you've been shown a million times (just not dared to look) that Donald Trump was 100% complicit in the acts of sedition that occurred on Jan 6.

Haha that's Jon's MO.  He takes one story about tranny story time and expands it into tranny story time every day in every school.

Jon is a low IQ dipchit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jonmx said:

That is exactly what they did.  There was no law which the New York Post broke concerning Hunter's laptop.  It was legal protection speech which also happened to be true. 

Except there is no evidence the government “identified it and told Twitter to remove it”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

So democrats got proven to not only lie but also peddle misinformation and interfere in the election. So why are ppl on the left STILL defending them? They literally have the receipts proving all this. 

They don’t though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GC:  they have proof this happened!

Also the GC: they don’t need proof, it’s obvious!  Occam’s razor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the FBI worked for Trump.  Why is this not an immediate disqualifier as the FBI working against Trump?  Every single high level person at the FBI was Republican.

Share this post


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

Well, you did get banned for saying someone should murder Trump so......yeah?

Bullsh1t.

So much for you wanting to have an honest and intelligent discussion 

Share this post


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

Bullsh1t.

So much for you wanting to have an honest and intelligent discussion 

This guy…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it been mentioned that Trump's goons were in charge of the FBI during all of this?  Seems relevant. 

Share this post


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

The laptop was legit. There was zero indication it wasn’t.  The FBI strongly suggested it was hacked and got former intel heads to do the same.  That’s election interference and it’s not up for debate anymore. 

The FBI had it for a full year prior.  They knew it wasn't disinformation at the time.  FACT

Share this post


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

Bullsh1t.

So much for you wanting to have an honest and intelligent discussion 

Intelligent conversation about the 2020 election with someone who wanted Trump murdered?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Horseman said:

The FBI had it for a full year prior.  They knew it wasn't disinformation at the time.  FACT

Same FBI that did a raid on a journalist to get back a diary.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI leaked a fake dossier and suppressed the laptop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Same FBI that did a raid on a journalist to get back a diary.  

Same FBI that worked with the folks planning to riot the Capitol.

Share this post


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

They were proactively trying to censor a story they knew was true from damaging their favored candidate before an election.   It does not have to be explicitly demanded.  It was a partisan conspiracy between government and the owners of public platform, two groups which freedom of speech demands neutrality from. 

So, during that time, the government was run by Trump. Are you saying Trump told Twitter to block release of the Hunter’s laptop story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogcows said:

So, during that time, the government was run by Trump. Are you saying Trump told Twitter to block release of the Hunter’s laptop story?

Vindman worked for Trump too. And Trump was supposed to interfere with law enforcement? He’s not allowed to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fnord said:

that Donald Trump was 100% complicit in the acts of sedition that occurred on Jan 6.

The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish... any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government.
 

The Sedition Act of 1918 was repealed in 1920 although many parts of the original Espionage Act remain in force.

Yea...ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Fox and Friends this morning:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends-gets-tense-after-steve-doocy-points-out-feds-didnt-get-involved-in-hunter-laptop-story/


 

Quote

 

The segment opened with a clip of Senator Ted Cruz amplifying Republican talking points about “Twitter Files,” though much of what he said was flat-out wrong. Doocy said that he didn’t know what the senator was talking about before citing Taibbi’s writing on Friday “although several sources recalled hearing about a general warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence that I have seen of any government influence in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem.”

“So, according to the guy who Elon Musk gave all the secrets to, he said I don’t see federal law enforcement involved in the laptop story at all,” Doocy included.

This did not play well with Brian Kilmeade, who appears to be wedded to the idea that the FBI DID, in fact, insert themselves in a conspiratorial or unfair manner. 

 

 

Kilmeade's face while Doocy is reading his thoughts is hilarious. It is just a dead face stare directly at the camera showing no semblance of understanding of normal conversation.

So what name is Brian Kilmeade posting here under? I'm thinking -1400 it is "Hardcore Troubadour" (the dead face autistic like stare gives it away).....but maybe if you want to get some money coming in the other way I'd say +800 it's "jerryskids" and maybe +350 it's "Reality"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours 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.

@jerryskids,, Do you think this is a reasonable request?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, avoiding injuries said:

In a liberal’s mind, if they don’t admit it then it didn’t happen. 

Kind of like Biden curbstomping Trump eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Except there is no evidence the government “identified it and told Twitter to remove it”

They most definitely identified it.  The remove it demand was clearly implied and was confirmed by the way the social media companies woukd report back and confirmed they removed the content and/or individual.  You may think fascist control of social media is a nothingburger, but people who value real American freedoms know otherwise.  

Share this post


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

@jerryskids,, Do you think this is a reasonable request?

Sure I think. What's the downside to seeing the actual tweets? :dunno:

Share this post


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

From Fox and Friends this morning:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends-gets-tense-after-steve-doocy-points-out-feds-didnt-get-involved-in-hunter-laptop-story/


 

 

Kilmeade's face while Doocy is reading his thoughts is hilarious. It is just a dead face stare directly at the camera showing no semblance of understanding of normal conversation.

So what name is Brian Kilmeade posting here under? I'm thinking -1400 it is "Hardcore Troubadour" (the dead face autistic like stare gives it away).....but maybe if you want to get some money coming in the other way I'd say +800 it's "jerryskids" and maybe +350 it's "Reality"

Wait, you are calling out my intelligence with a Mediaite article? Let me help you and your centrist source out.  There is a difference between no smoking gun email and "the feds didn't get involved." I would explain it but, why bother.

Share this post


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

Wait, you are calling out my intelligence with a Mediaite article? Let me help you and your centrist source out.  There is a difference between no smoking gun email and "the feds didn't get involved." I would explain it but, why bother.

I said +800....means it is way less likely you are that person.

If I wanted to call out your intelligence I would just do it. I've done it before. I'll do it again at some point I'm sure since you give me plenty of reason to. 

Why bother? You've spent enough posts in here trying to explain nonsense...what's another one?

Share this post


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

Sure I think. What's the downside to seeing the actual tweets? :dunno:

Can’t imagine any.  I’m simply saying you seem to be implying I won’t believe it until I see the government admitting they are violating the first amendment when that’s not true.  I just want to see evidence they flagged, and twitter removed, tweets that shouldn’t have been removed.  Particularly as it relates to the Hunter Biden laptop if people want to claim election interference.  I do need to double check the Alex Berenson ones, can’t remember the specific tweets that caused him to be banned.  I believe there were actually emails released where someone was basically asking for Berenson to be banned and someone from twitter replied saying something to the effect of “he’s very careful with his words, I don’t think he’s technically violating the terms”

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

×