Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[Strike 3,968]

From October 20th, 2020:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-and-doj-do-not-believe-hunter-biden-laptop-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign

[TimHauck 1,799]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

From October 20th, 2020:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-and-doj-do-not-believe-hunter-biden-laptop-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign

Thank you, but this was 6 days after the NY Post Story.  Stay on topic please.  The subject is twitter’s reasoning for suppressing the story initially (and as a result, whether or not one was an idiot if they didn’t immediately think the laptop was real), part of which was because it had not been corroborated by other sources.  

Your post below seems to be a weird way of admitting you were wrong.
 

33 minutes ago, Strike said:

And here's the thing Tim Hack.  There was a time in this country that even the hint of this laptop would have caused EVERY media outlet in this country scrambling to confirm the legitimacy of the laptop.  In this case, they either ignored the story or actively "reported"  lies about it.   So when the rest of us talk about how biased/incompetent/corrupt the MSM is, this is a perfect example.

 

[TimHauck 1,799]

53 minutes ago, Strike said:

That's Tim.  He just ignores the  FACT that no Biden has ever contested the legitimacy of the laptop, nor has the FBI who had it before it was publicly known to exist. 

Joe Biden did not specifically contest the legitimacy of the laptop as a whole, but he did contest the legitimacy of one of the meetings referenced in the emails.

[TimHauck 1,799]

@jerryskids, I do have a question about the Baker thing:

By implying that Baker did something to the files that were released or possibly prevented other ones from being released, is that admitting that what was released really wasn’t all that impactful?  Because Musk and Taibbi sure seemed to think they were when they released them.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Wait, someone didn’t know the FBI possessed the laptop for a year before the NY Post story? How is that possible? It was in the story. 

[RLLD 3,455]

The one has really made the progression, 

From “it’s fake” to “ok, it’s reals but not a big deal” to “ok this has some dicey stuff, but Joe didn’t know” to “ ok, Joe knew but it did not influence him”.

I might suggest it’s time to stop excusing Joe Biden in all this, the guys is very likely a criminal

[Strike 3,968]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Joe Biden did not specifically contest the legitimacy of the laptop as a whole, but he did contest the legitimacy of one of the meetings referenced in the emails.

Joe Biden can't remember whether he had vanilla or tapioca pudding for dessert.  FFS.

[Strike 3,968]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Thank you, but this was 6 days after the NY Post Story.  Stay on topic please.  The subject is twitter’s reasoning for suppressing the story initially (and as a result, whether or not one was an idiot if they didn’t immediately think the laptop was real), part of which was because it had not been corroborated by other sources.  

Your post below seems to be a weird way of admitting you were wrong.
 

 

You're babbling nonsensically again. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

4 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Wait, someone didn’t know the FBI possessed the laptop for a year before the NY Post story? How is that possible? It was in the story. 

Not sure who you’re talking about, but I specifically said the NY Post story referenced the FBI having seized the laptop.

[TimHauck 1,799]

4 hours ago, RLLD said:

The one has really made the progression, 

From “it’s fake” to “ok, it’s reals but not a big deal” to “ok this has some dicey stuff, but Joe didn’t know” to “ ok, Joe knew but it did not influence him”.

I might suggest it’s time to stop excusing Joe Biden in all this, the guys is very likely a criminal

I’m not sure where you’re getting that conclusion.  Nonetheless, this thread is about twitter, not the laptop.  Seems certain people are trying to make it about the laptop now because they know that so far at least the twitterfiles (as well as other investigations into the government’s involvement in twitter) have been a nothingburger.

[jonmx 1,584]

23 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I’m not sure where you’re getting that conclusion.  Nonetheless, this thread is about twitter, not the laptop.  Seems certain people are trying to make it about the laptop now because they know that so far at least the twitterfiles (as well as other investigations into the government’s involvement in twitter) have been a nothingburger.

Nothingburger = the FBI is a political arm of the DNC who conspires with big tech to illegally influence elections and we have a president who illegally personally profits off of influence peddling to countries we are either enemies with or countries which have nearly dragged us into WW iii.   

The modern left have become a bunch of narcissistic anti-American authoritarians who want to shred apart everything that makes this country great.   

[TimHauck 1,799]

59 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Nothingburger = the FBI is a political arm of the DNC who conspires with big tech to illegally influence elections and we have a president who illegally personally profits off of influence peddling to countries we are either enemies with or countries which have nearly dragged us into WW iii.   

The modern left have become a bunch of narcissistic anti-American authoritarians who want to shred apart everything that makes this country great.   

Whether or not the President is profiting off of influence peddling to countries is irrelevant to twitter.

Still no evidence the FBI/DNC conspired with twitter to influence the election.

[jonmx 1,584]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Whether or not the President is profiting off of influence peddling to countries is irrelevant to twitter.

Still no evidence the FBI/DNC conspired with twitter to influence the election.

Lol...The latest lame deflection technique.  Censor, deplatform, belittle the source, raid the homes of the source, call it a nothingburger/irrelevant.  The fact the the FBI/DNC conspired with big tech to influence the election is documented fact.  They had weekly Teams meeting discussing how they would do it.  Lol.   It is beyond ridiculous to deny it, but apparently that is your last pathetic card you have to play.  

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Lol...The latest lame deflection technique.  Censor, deplatform, belittle the source, raid the homes of the source, call it a nothingburger/irrelevant.  The fact the the FBI/DNC conspired with big tech to influence the election is documented fact.  They had weekly Teams meeting discussing how they would do it.  Lol.   It is beyond ridiculous to deny it, but apparently that is your last pathetic card you have to play.  

Oh yeah, how would they do it?  Since it’s documented and all.  All that’s documented is that they warned of a potential Russian “hack and leak operation” and that there was a “rumor” that it involved Hunter Biden.

[jonmx 1,584]

13 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Oh yeah, how would they do it?  Since it’s documented and all.  All that’s documented is that they warned of a potential Russian “hack and leak operation” and that there was a “rumor” that it involved Hunter Biden.

The White House and FBI provided lists (as in enemies lists) of people and posts they wanted censored and the tech companies reported back when they complied and deplatformed people.  This is not a rumor, it is documented in the emails.  

[dogcows 1,029]

11 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Tim, what's your gotcha here?  The NY Post broke the story; what's so important about somebody else starting from scratch and corroborating it within one day?   

The NY Post could have done what most reputable outlets do. With something like this, present the data to another news organization for verification, with an agreement that the Post still gets the scoop. Not only did the post fail to do so, but it was June 2021 before the data was presented to another organization for validation. And that came from a Republican operative, not the Post. My guess is that Rudy let the Post see the data and maybe even copy it, but he held onto the disk so it couldn’t be verified.

IMHO, Twitter should have left it alone because everybody knows the NY Post is full of anyway. Any of their stories has only about a 50/50 chance of being true, so leaving it alone would have been the best bet.

[dogcows 1,029]

4 minutes ago, jonmx said:

The White House and FBI provided lists (as in enemies lists) of people and posts they wanted censored and the tech companies reported back when they complied and deplatformed people.  This is not a rumor, it is documented in the emails.  

Since this data was from 2020, you are claiming that Trump did this.

[jonmx 1,584]

Just now, dogcows said:

Since this data was from 2020, you are claiming that Trump did this.

I really don't care.  It seems like a lot of it was from these alphabet soup agencies, but if the Trump White House was doing it, they should be roasted with the rest of them.  

[dogcows 1,029]

Just now, jonmx said:

I really don't care.  It seems like a lot of it was from these alphabet soup agencies, but if the Trump White House was doing it, they should be roasted with the rest of them.  

Then Trump is so incompetent he can’t control his own executive branch agencies?

[TimHauck 1,799]

10 minutes ago, jonmx said:

The White House and FBI provided lists (as in enemies lists) of people and posts they wanted censored and the tech companies reported back when they complied and deplatformed people.  This is not a rumor, it is documented in the emails.  

Ah yes, the documented emails where they asked to take down Hunter Biden d1ck pics

[TimHauck 1,799]

Weird that you guys think Hunter Biden’s junk would have influence the election

[jonmx 1,584]

1 minute ago, dogcows said:

Then Trump is so incompetent he can’t control his own executive branch agencies?

President's inherit about 4 million employees of the executive branch.   All federal employees involved in censoring citizens should be fired.   

[jerryskids 5,198]

11 hours ago, TimHauck said:

@jerryskids, I do have a question about the Baker thing:

By implying that Baker did something to the files that were released or possibly prevented other ones from being released, is that admitting that what was released really wasn’t all that impactful?  Because Musk and Taibbi sure seemed to think they were when they released them.

It implies it was less impactful than it could have been.  The level of impact is a matter of opinion, and you seem to desperately want to paint it as not impactful, being a centrist and all.  

23 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The NY Post could have done what most reputable outlets do. With something like this, present the data to another news organization for verification, with an agreement that the Post still gets the scoop. Not only did the post fail to do so, but it was June 2021 before the data was presented to another organization for validation. And that came from a Republican operative, not the Post. My guess is that Rudy let the Post see the data and maybe even copy it, but he held onto the disk so it couldn’t be verified.

IMHO, Twitter should have left it alone because everybody knows the NY Post is full of anyway. Any of their stories has only about a 50/50 chance of being true, so leaving it alone would have been the best bet.

Well, to start, you think the Post is full of sh1t because they don't follow your Leftist MSM dogma.

But to your point, it seems like maybe you answered your own question with Giuliani.  But I'm intrigued by your assertion about "reputable" outlets.  So, say, the NYT, bastion of integrity, or the Washington Post, Bezos' toy which warns that democracy dies in darkness, would go to Fox News (or... pick a right-leaning journalism source that you wouldn't call full of sh1t, if there are any in your world view) to have them corroborate before releasing it on Twitter?  Is that how things work these days?  There isn't a race to the scoop?

[TimHauck 1,799]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

President's inherit about 4 million employees of the executive branch.   All federal employees involved in censoring citizens should be fired.   

Even if they were just censoring Hunter Biden d1ck pics?

[jonmx 1,584]

17 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Ah yes, the documented emails where they asked to take down Hunter Biden d1ck pics

Your complete obsession with Hunter's d1ck is noted. 

[jerryskids 5,198]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Weird that you guys think Hunter Biden’s junk would have influence the election

You never did answer my question:  why not blur the actual "junk" part and otherwise keep the tweet up? 

[Shooter McGavin 589]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

You never did answer my question:  why not blur the actual "junk" part and otherwise keep the tweet up? 

Would you want your face on twitter with blurred out junk?  if so, post it now, coward.

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You never did answer my question:  why not blur the actual "junk" part and otherwise keep the tweet up? 

Because at that point it is a private company allowing someone to post pictures of a sexual nature of a third party without the third party's consent.

That's how lawsuits get thrown at companies. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

7 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Your complete obsession with Hunter's d1ck is noted. 

I could say the same to you. It’s the only thing that’s documented that they requested to take down and yet you keep ranting about how it’s “documented” that they conspired to influence the election.

[jerryskids 5,198]

6 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Would you want your face on twitter with blurred out junk?  if so, post it now, coward.

Wha? It's a little early to be drunk, Gutter.   

[jerryskids 5,198]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Because at that point it is a private company allowing someone to post pictures of a sexual nature of a third party without the third party's consent.

That's how lawsuits get thrown at companies. 

So you are saying the issue was not a violation of the terms of use, but rather a fear of lawsuits.

I'm admittedly not a Twitter expert:  do such pictures never get posted there?  Like, say, a photo of chicks in a string bikini?   

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

Lol...The latest lame deflection technique.  Censor, deplatform, belittle the source, raid the homes of the source, call it a nothingburger/irrelevant.  The fact the the FBI/DNC conspired with big tech to influence the election is documented fact.  They had weekly Teams meeting discussing how they would do it.  Lol.   It is beyond ridiculous to deny it, but apparently that is your last pathetic card you have to play.  

They truly are pathetic.  Great post. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So you are saying the issue was not a violation of the terms of use, but rather a fear of lawsuits.

I'm admittedly not a Twitter expert:  do such pictures never get posted there?  Like, say, a photo of chicks in a string bikini?   

I don't know what the specific issue was (although I would imagine "violation of terms of use" and "fear of lawsuits" are not mutually exclusive in this case).

Yes pictures get posted of women in string bikinis but again- that is not a "nude" picture. Also, that picture was presumably not illegally obtained or stolen from someone else. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So you are saying the issue was not a violation of the terms of use, but rather a fear of lawsuits.

I'm admittedly not a Twitter expert:  do such pictures never get posted there?  Like, say, a photo of chicks in a string bikini?   

I think the bigger issue in this case as it relates to the twitter TOS was that the photos were posted without Hunter’s consent.   I am not a lawyer but I would guess even if the junk was blurred that would still violate them.

[Shooter McGavin 589]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So you are saying the issue was not a violation of the terms of use, but rather a fear of lawsuits.

I'm admittedly not a Twitter expert:  do such pictures never get posted there?  Like, say, a photo of chicks in a string bikini?   

Forget the lawsuits, wouldn't you agree it's distasteful to post a pic of the president's son showing his d against his consent? even if the d is blurred?  I know I wouldn't want that posted of me or anyone else for that matter.  I would think we could all agree that posting these types of pics online without consent is wrong, no?

[TimHauck 1,799]

…waiting for @Horseman to jump in and claim they should have been allowed because they were “widely available”

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

…waiting for @Horseman to jump in and claim they should have been allowed because they were “widely available”

He just got done looking through all the gaywebcam pictures he could find on Twitter. Give him a few minutes to get some Gatorade in him after leaving all those electrolytes in the Kleenex near his computer. 

[TimHauck 1,799]

In non-political twitter updates:

 

 

[Djgb13 2,338]

2 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Forget the lawsuits, wouldn't you agree it's distasteful to post a pic of the president's son showing his d against his consent? even if the d is blurred?  I know I wouldn't want that posted of me or anyone else for that matter.  I would think we could all agree that posting these types of pics online without consent is wrong, no?

This makes me wonder if I’ve never had to knock on wood. And I’m glad I haven’t yet because I’m pretty sure it isn’t good. That’s the impression that I get 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Hunter no longer owned those pics.