Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[dogcows 1,030]

13 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Bump for @dogcows

Straight from Taibbi:

Assuming the FBI is part of the government, Taibbi himself disputes that the FBI was involved with the laptop story.

[jerryskids 6,800]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Straight from Taibbi:

Assuming the FBI is part of the government, Taibbi himself disputes that the FBI was involved with the laptop story.

No he doesn't.  He says there is no evidence in the material he was sent.  I'm confident you can see the difference.

You still haven't answered the question.

1. Do you believe the FBI discussed it with Facebook?

2. If so, do you believe they did not have a similar discussion with Twitter?

[dogcows 1,030]

Just now, jerryskids said:

No he doesn't.  He says there is no evidence in the material he was sent.  I'm confident you can see the difference.

You still haven't answered the question.

1. Do you believe the FBI discussed it with Facebook?

2. If so, do you believe they did not have a similar discussion with Twitter?

Do I believe something of which there’s no evidence? Nope.

Taibbi confirmed what was already shown during testimony with an FBI agent (Elvis Chan). FBI met with social media companies regularly to warn them about potential hacks, Russian disinformation campaigns, etc., but NOT telling them to take down stuff about Hunter Biden.

As for Zuckerberg, here’s what he said about the FBI warning FB:

Quote

So, basically, the background here, is the FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, and were like “just so you know, you should be on high alert, we thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice, basically, that there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant.”

I know a lot of people desperately want to believe there’s a conspiracy involving the FBI. But neither Taibbi nor any other journalist has presented any evidence of it.

If you want to believe something without evidence, feel free. A lot of people believe in God or other unproven things. It’s a free country, so believe what you’d like.

[jerryskids 6,800]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Do I believe something of which there’s no evidence? Nope.

Taibbi confirmed what was already shown during testimony with an FBI agent (Elvis Chan). FBI met with social media companies regularly to warn them about potential hacks, Russian disinformation campaigns, etc., but NOT telling them to take down stuff about Hunter Biden.

As for Zuckerberg, here’s what he said about the FBI warning FB:

I know a lot of people desperately want to believe there’s a conspiracy involving the FBI. But neither Taibbi nor any other journalist has presented any evidence of it.

If you want to believe something without evidence, feel free. A lot of people believe in God or other unproven things. It’s a free country, so believe what you’d like.

Which one don't you believe?  Do you not believe that the FBI talked to Facebook about Hunter?  Or do you believe that, but then they forgot to mention it to Twitter?

[dogcows 1,030]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Which one don't you believe?  Do you not believe that the FBI talked to Facebook about Hunter?  Or do you believe that, but then they forgot to mention it to Twitter?

I believe what I have evidence of. On that front, multiple statements indicate the FBI talked to both FB and Twitter about the “potential’ for hacks and Russian disinformation ahead of the 2020 elections. Yoel Roth (of Twitter) said that part of those discussions involved rumors that a hack-and-leak involving Hunter Biden might surface. But FBI agent Elvis Chan said Hunter’s name didn’t come up to the best of his knowledge.

That’s the evidence I’ve seen. None of it supports the idea that the FBI told FB or Twitter to block any story about Biden.

[jerryskids 6,800]

9 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I believe what I have evidence of. On that front, multiple statements indicate the FBI talked to both FB and Twitter about the “potential’ for hacks and Russian disinformation ahead of the 2020 elections. Yoel Roth (of Twitter) said that part of those discussions involved rumors that a hack-and-leak involving Hunter Biden might surface. But FBI agent Elvis Chan said Hunter’s name didn’t come up to the best of his knowledge.

That’s the evidence I’ve seen. None of it supports the idea that the FBI told FB or Twitter to block any story about Biden.

Nice wordsmithing to continue to avoid the question.  I didn't say there was evidence of the last sentence; do you believe they told FB that Hunter misinfo was coming, which Zuck admitted?

Let's just presume that you know it looks bad and are going to type a bunch of words which don't answer the questions; I feel bad making you come up with more and more creative ways to avoid it.

[dogcows 1,030]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Nice wordsmithing to continue to avoid the question.  I didn't say there was evidence of the last sentence; do you believe they told FB that Hunter misinfo was coming, which Zuck admitted?

Let's just presume that you know it looks bad and are going to type a bunch of words which don't answer the questions; I feel bad making you come up with more and more creative ways to avoid it.

You say it “‘looks bad” which is very different than anything unethical or illegal occurring. This is how conspiracy theories work. You find something that “looks bad” and then ignore the fact that no matter how hard you look, there’s never any direct evidence… because “they” covered their tracks, whoever “they” happen to be in any given conspiracy.

There’s a very simple explanation to this, which is in Chan’s testimony. Law enforcement, including the FBI, meets regularly with social media companies to warn them of hacks and disinformation campaigns. The government gives similar warnings to other industries when there are risks for them too. If you want to think there’s something nefarious about that? Hey, I can’t stop you from ignoring the most likely explanation and going straight to a liberal FBI conspiracy theory.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,450]

Why was the fbi warning about something that wasn’t hacked? They had it for almost a year. 

[RLLD 4,232]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Millions of people vote. Many contribute to political campaigns. We shouldn’t assume this means they are automatically biased to the extent they’d violate professional ethics. Yet this is what Taibbi asks readers to infer when he presents that data as part of his Twitter thread.

I think you make a reasoned point. I just wish this is how people behaves when encountering suspicion, but it has become en vogue to establish  culpability as a first move, and without using wisdom to get knowledge.

We see it all the time, assigning intent to actions with no evidence

[dogcows 1,030]

17 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think you make a reasoned point. I just wish this is how people behaves when encountering suspicion, but it has become en vogue to establish  culpability as a first move, and without using wisdom to get knowledge.

We see it all the time, assigning intent to actions with no evidence

Thanks… I will try to remember to do the same when the shoe is on the other foot.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

On 12/16/2022 at 6:48 PM, BuckSwope said:

Censoring is always a problem.  

I agree, but a segment of our society didn't think so the last 6 to 10 years.

[TimHauck 2,878]

6 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Ah, the classic Leftist "we already knew all of this!"  You knew that that many 3-letter agencies had huge direct pipes into Twitter?  And that they met regularly?  

I'll add that I heard Taibbi speak about your second paragraph; he does not "know" about Trump requests -- he reported as such because he had multiple sources told him they existed, so he thought it would be in the interest of journalistic integrity to report that they did.  He has not personally seen any such requests.  So, you can speculate that Elon has them and is sitting on them ( @TimHauck would never speculate btw, so he would be forced to conclude that the Trump camp never made such requests).

BTW if you've been following, I've consistently said that I don't think there is an email from the FBI or security agencies titled "Re:  our manipulation of the election and destruction of 1A".  They are too smart to do that, and besides, after Zuck smoked a doob with Rogan and let it slip that they warned FB about Hunter misinfo, I'm confident the agencies locked that stuff down at the other big tech companies.

Do you think there are e-mails that show the FBI flagged a tweet, and twitter deleted it, when it clearly shouldn't have been?

[TimHauck 2,878]

3 hours ago, RLLD said:

I get the why.

I suggest this....liberals simply apologize for the mistreatment toward conservatives and ask that the same treatment not be brought back to them.

What liberals?  Twitter?  They have apologized about the NY Post incident.  And in case you missed it, they don't own twitter anymore.

[TimHauck 2,878]

6 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Zuck smoked a doob with Rogan and let it slip that they warned FB about Hunter misinfo

Is this alleged admission in this clip?  I didn't listen to the whole 3 hour interview or whatever, so let me know if he says it in a different part, but he didn't say that here, he basically said the same thing as Roth

 

[jerryskids 6,800]

41 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Do you think there are e-mails that show the FBI flagged a tweet, and twitter deleted it, when it clearly shouldn't have been?

What do you think, Tim?

[jerryskids 6,800]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Is this alleged admission in this clip?  I didn't listen to the whole 3 hour interview or whatever, so let me know if he says it in a different part, but he didn't say that here, he basically said the same thing as Roth

 

I don't have 15 minutes to listen today; where in this clip does Zuck talk about Hunter?

[dogcows 1,030]

34 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Is this alleged admission in this clip?  I didn't listen to the whole 3 hour interview or whatever, so let me know if he says it in a different part, but he didn't say that here, he basically said the same thing as Roth

The quote I posted from Zuck earlier was from that Rogan interview. Here it is again:

Quote

So, basically, the background here, is the FBI basically came to us, some folks on our team, and were like “just so you know, you should be on high alert, we thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice, basically, that there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant.”

 

[TimHauck 2,878]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What do you think, Tim?

No.

The twitter files have shown that the FBI doesn’t seem to really understand twitter’s policies, they were just flagging tweets they didn’t like and leaving it up to twitter to decide if they violated policies.  Yet you seem to be suggesting if they knew they were flagging tweets they shouldn’t have, that there would be no paper trail.  But because they don’t seem to really understand the policies in the first place (and the fact that we know that twitter did not take action against every tweet that was sent), OCCAM’S RAZOR would suggest that they wouldn’t have even known if that was the case.

[TimHauck 2,878]

23 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The quote I posted from Zuck earlier was from that Rogan interview. Here it is again:

 

Correct.  That started around 5:00 @jerryskids.  At 7:15 Rogan specifically asked if he was warned about Hunter Biden, and Zuckerberg says “No.  Well I don’t remember specifically, but it fit the pattern.”  I’m guessing jerryskids is taking that stumble as an admission.  You know, Occam’s razor.

[TimHauck 2,878]

8 hours ago, TimHauck said:

bump @RaiderHaters Revenge.   Again, Musk knew that Sweeney was getting "private" information the whole time, and yet still said that "free speech extends even to not banning the account tracking my plane."  So you're saying Musk was wrong when he said that?

Adding onto this, here’s an article from January where Sweeney explains how he figured out Musk’s “private” information which states “all this information is entirely public.”  He apparently even told this to Musk, who replied “air traffic control is so primitive.”  And yet Musk even replied to Timcast’s tweet about this with “correct,” lol.

https://www.protocol.com/elon-musk-flight-tracker#toggle-gdpr
 

Oh and he apparently stopped tracking Mark Cuban in exchange for hanging out with him at a Mavericks game.  Blackmail!!!

https://luxurylaunches.com/celebrities/mark-cuban-stopped-jack-sweeney-from-tracking-his-jet.php
 

 

[Reality 3,121]

So, we've reached the point where a couple of these idiots are denying blatantly obvious admissions? Look, if you're still arguing with one of these dipshlts, that's on you. 

Seriously, you may want to reassess, It's not a good look.

[Reality 3,121]

 

[Reality 3,121]

 

[Reality 3,121]

 

[TimHauck 2,878]

10 minutes ago, Reality said:

blatantly obvious admissions

Link?

[TimHauck 2,878]

5 hours ago, dogcows said:

More free speech:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy

 

lol.  Plus if he wants to be consistent he needs to ban them all before they have a chance to change it.

[jerryskids 6,800]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

No.

The twitter files have shown that the FBI doesn’t seem to really understand twitter’s policies, they were just flagging tweets they didn’t like and leaving it up to twitter to decide if they violated policies.  Yet you seem to be suggesting if they knew they were flagging tweets they shouldn’t have, that there would be no paper trail.  But because they don’t seem to really understand the policies in the first place (and the fact that we know that twitter did not take action against every tweet that was sent), OCCAM’S RAZOR would suggest that they wouldn’t have even known if that was the case.

Awesome!  I say no as well, as I've been saying throughout this entire thing, and I have no idea why you asked.   

[jerryskids 6,800]

58 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Correct.  That started around 5:00 @jerryskids.  At 7:15 Rogan specifically asked if he was warned about Hunter Biden, and Zuckerberg says “No.  Well I don’t remember specifically, but it fit the pattern.”  I’m guessing jerryskids is taking that stumble as an admission.  You know, Occam’s razor.

Yes, your assertion is that Occam's Razor is for Zuck to instantly say no, then backtrack to not remembering in particular, because it makes sense that Zuck wouldn't know if they were asked to throttle the Hunter Biden story.   

[Shooter McGavin 618]

5 hours ago, dogcows said:

More free speech:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy

 

Wow that's crazy.  He's really lost his mind.

Is Taibbi gonna get banned for tweeting his substack?

[TimHauck 2,878]

9 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Wow that's crazy.  He's really lost his mind.

Is Taibbi gonna get banned for tweeting his substack?

I assume you’re being facetious but no, substack is allowed.  No clue wtf Tribel, Post, and Nostr are though 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I assume you’re being facetious but no, substack is allowed.  No clue wtf Tribel, Post, and Nostr are though 

No I didn't see it was specific platforms only.  I guess it's a dynamic list too so you never know.  It's a stupid rule.

[TimHauck 2,878]

34 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Awesome!  I say no as well, as I've been saying throughout this entire thing, and I have no idea why you asked.   

Because earlier you posted this:

On 12/11/2022 at 10:08 AM, jerryskids said:

I would be surprised if there is anything other than clear TOS violations that were documented in email.

The twitter files have proven that this is not true, as twitter did not take action on all of the tweets sent to them by the FBI.   Edit: So, Occam’s razor would suggest the FBI didn’t really know what a “clear TOS violation” was, and thus wouldn’t know to keep something that wasn’t one out of e-mails.

[TimHauck 2,878]

29 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Yes, your assertion is that Occam's Razor is for Zuck to instantly say no, then backtrack to not remembering in particular, because it makes sense that Zuck wouldn't know if they were asked to throttle the Hunter Biden story.   

Lol.  You are certainly welcome to your opinion of what you think happened that we don’t know about, but you claimed there was actual proof that Zuckerberg admitted “Hunter misinfo was coming,” which isn’t true if it supposedly happened in that Rogan clip.  C’mon man, I’d expect a sheep like @Reality to call that a “blatantly obvious admission,” but you’re supposed to be one of the more reasonable ones.

8 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Zuck smoked a doob with Rogan and let it slip that they warned FB about Hunter misinfo

 

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

do you believe they told FB that Hunter misinfo was coming, which Zuck admitted?

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,450]

I believe the government! As long as they are on the side I voted for. 

[TimHauck 2,878]

I still find it funny that we have people that supposedly agree on this topic, where some people are saying “it’s been presented for all to see,” and others are saying “of course there’s not going to be actual evidence.”  Well which is it?

[Shooter McGavin 618]

dude has lost it

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,450]

There have been and there always will be useful idiots to carry out deception for those in power. And they are always laughed at by both the masters and those that resist. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

after getting killed about the social media change, musk apologizes and then says he'll step down if voted out.  Just crazy.

 

[jerryskids 6,800]

29 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Because earlier you posted this:

The twitter files have proven that this is not true, as twitter did not take action on all of the tweets sent to them by the FBI.   Edit: So, Occam’s razor would suggest the FBI didn’t really know what a “clear TOS violation” was, and thus wouldn’t know to keep something that wasn’t one out of e-mails.

The context of that statement, consistent with what I consistently have said about 9874392014 times, is that the Feds were unlikely to document in writing specific attempts to manipulate the election.  If you feel the need for your gotcha, I suppose I should have said "clear questions of TOS violations," vs. tweets which were not potential TOS violations.

I don't know what triggered you to bring that up a week later, but... you win man!  Go celebrate, maybe spend some time with the family.   

[jerryskids 6,800]

28 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Lol.  You are certainly welcome to your opinion of what you think happened that we don’t know about, but you claimed there was actual proof that Zuckerberg admitted “Hunter misinfo was coming,” which isn’t true if it supposedly happened in that Rogan clip.  C’mon man, I’d expect a sheep like @Reality to call that a “blatantly obvious admission,” but you’re supposed to be one of the more reasonable ones.

 

 

So you think Zuck doesn't know if the FBI specifically mentioned Hunter?