Elon Musk to reveal Twitter details on Hunter Biden Laptop

[rogue06]

According to the link above, Taibbi indicates that the Biden admin (or DNC) was directing Twitter on whose accounts (critics) should be suspended.

As previously noted

"Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However… This system wasn't balanced," Taibbi wrote. "It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right."

"The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you’re about to read. However, it’s also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives," the journalist teased.

[Ronson]

As previously noted

"Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However… This system wasn't balanced," Taibbi wrote. "It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right."

"The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you’re about to read. However, it’s also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives," the journalist teased.

I realize that Twitter was unbalanced and the evidence is leaking out now with Musk in charge. Since the evidence is still unfolding, I will hold off on further commentary - especially as I have never been a subscriber to Twitter so I have scant first-hand experience with it. My brother is a subscriber, and he is constantly sending me links and complaints about it, with commentary mixed in, to where it is becoming a jumble for me to sort through.

[oxmixmudd]

As previously noted

"Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However… This system wasn't balanced," Taibbi wrote. "It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right."

"The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you’re about to read. However, it’s also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives," the journalist teased.

From what I'm seeing, this is conservative leaning persons calling reasonable and responsible attempts to limit covert disinformation "censorship" or "corrupt interference by the democrats".

And It's just one more revenge oriented bit of disinformation in the spiraling out of control distrust and polarization that is battering our nation.

[Cow Poke]

Newsmax?
If you believe them on any topic, I've got 50 bridges to sell you......

It's always interesting when that's somebody's first reaction.
If Newsmax (I'm not a subscriber) provided a video of somebody saying exactly what they claimed that person said, would it still be discounted because it's "Newsmax"?

[rogue06]

From what I'm seeing, this is conservative leaning persons calling reasonable and responsible attempts to limit covert disinformation "censorship" or "corrupt interference by the democrats".

And It's just one more revenge oriented bit of disinformation in the spiraling out of control distrust and polarization that is battering our nation.

The supposed "covert disinformation" in question was Hunter's laptop which was falsely labeled disinformation in order to get the story censored.

f14996a1-f99b-4408-9645-071525595f48.jpg
Give them a break. It only took them 768 days to admit it.

[rogue06]

Newsmax?
If you believe them on any topic, I've got 50 bridges to sell you.

Ohhh the delicious unintended

Iron E.jpg

[seanD]

When you're right, you're right. Newsmax suckered me on that one. I zeroed in on the soundbites, as they had hoped. Thanks for the clarification.

One thing I will say in defense, Newsmax publishes a lot of AP and Reuters, more than their original materials. So I didn't always check the source.

Ronson, by now you should know that this is Starlight you're talking to, thus any information he gives you should be taken with extreme skepticism., in fact, I take it as not true by default until it can verified.

According to Glenn Greenwald, Taibbi was talking about a foreign government (specifically Russia) when he said there was no evidence of government collusion. Taibbi made it clear in the context of that statement he was referring to "foreign hacks" when he said that (as you can see from his twitter post below). The initial claim twitter staff made for censoring the laptop story because they thought it was hacked by the Russian government was an obvious lie, as we see from the exchanges, and that's what Taibbi meant, which makes sense because it would be a direct contradiction to everything if he meant there's no evidence of US government involvement, as we can see from the exchanges ("Biden team") there clearly was.

[Ronson]

Ronson, by now you should know that this is Starlight you're talking to, thus any information he gives you should be taken with extreme skepticism., in fact, I take it as not true by default until it can verified.

According to Glenn Greenwald, Taibbi was talking about a foreign government (specifically Russia) when he said there was no evidence of government collusion. Taibbi made it clear in the context of that statement he was referring to "foreign hacks" when he said that (as you can see from his twitter post below). The initial claim twitter staff made for censoring the laptop story because they thought it was hacked by the Russian government was an obvious lie, as we see from the exchanges, and that's what Taibbi meant, which makes sense because it would be a direct contradiction to everything if he meant there's no evidence of US government involvement, as we can see from the exchanges ("Biden team") there clearly was.

He was correct that the Newsmax article was misleading. I usually double check their articles but I didn't do so this time.

As far as what's going on inside Twitter, I am going to wait until the smoke clears before coming to any conclusions.

[Ronson]

It's always interesting when that's somebody's first reaction.
If Newsmax (I'm not a subscriber) provided a video of somebody saying exactly what they claimed that person said, would it still be discounted because it's "Newsmax"?

I scan Newsmax several times per week. I normally double check their articles since they have a right-leaning bias. I don't believe they are any worse than the mainstream left-leaning news outlets, but they require vetting as well.

[seanD]

He was correct that the Newsmax article was misleading. I usually double check their articles but I didn't do so this time.

As far as what's going on inside Twitter, I am going to wait until the smoke clears before coming to any conclusions.

SL seems to be obfuscating what is true and what's false. It is false to say that US government wasn't involved because Taibbi was referring to a foreign government's involvement. The Biden admin was in fact involved in censoring tweets, as we see from the exchanges. It's unclear if that's what Newsmax meant, although it would seem they're acknowledging the fact Taibbi was referring to a foreign government because this would have contradicted there own article otherwise. He also implied only low level twitter staff was involved which is also not true.

[Cow Poke]

I scan Newsmax several times per week. I normally double check their articles since they have a right-leaning bias. I don't believe they are any worse than the mainstream left-leaning news outlets, but they require vetting as well.

EGGzackly --- If I see something that it's totally understandable that the leftist MSM won't cover, then I check other sources to see if there's any truth to it. Many times, there are links to a local TV station or newspaper or other source, WITH VIDEO (at times) that shows the story has a lot of truth to it, though it may have been "hyped" or exaggerated.

To scoff that a story must be false because a particular source revealed it is just asinine.

Larry the liar town drunk tells me there's a tornado heading to town --- should I just laugh him off? Or should I check the local weather or peek out the window or door.

[Starlight]

It's always interesting when that's somebody's first reaction.
If Newsmax (I'm not a subscriber) provided a video of somebody saying exactly what they claimed that person said, would it still be discounted because it's "Newsmax"?

Given it was a source known for its falsehoods, I would wait for other outlets to look into the video (e.g. was it deceptively edited etc?) before holding any opinion at all.

[Cow Poke]

Given it was a source known for its falsehoods,

And NBC (or any other MSM outlet) is pure as the driven snow? I don't discount something just because of the source, when I have the ability to track the story down myself.

I would wait for other outlets to look into the video (e.g. was it deceptively edited etc?) before holding any opinion at all.

You're doing that thing again where you blurt something out, then try to reel it back in. It's just plain stupid to discount something simply because "Newsmax reported it".

[Sparko]

Just a note on this subject, the former head of Safety on Twitter has rightly been pointing out that doxxing low-level twitter employees who had moderation jobs would be dangerous and is unacceptable. TWeb mods and owners generally don't reveal their identities. It's not appropriate to throw to the sharks random low level employees at twitter who were just doing their run of the mill moderation jobs.

People who have looked up these links on internet archive are reporting it's pornographic material posted without the consent of the people in it. So stuff that would be removed from TWeb ASAP, and which violates Twitter's policies.

Some of it is apparently Hunter Biden pornographic material, but still, it's a violation of Twitter's (and TWeb's) rules, and moderator removal would be the correct action and uncontroversial.

They lied. Those urls are not in archive.org. I checked. The whole point of them removing the posts would be that they would no longer be on the internet. Apparently they got them before archive.org could grab them. Besides, why would Biden's admin care about someone posting some rando porn on twitter?

[rogue06]

Ronson, by now you should know that this is Starlight you're talking to, thus any information he gives you should be taken with extreme skepticism., in fact, I take it as not true by default until it can verified.

According to Glenn Greenwald, Taibbi was talking about a foreign government (specifically Russia) when he said there was no evidence of government collusion. Taibbi made it clear in the context of that statement he was referring to "foreign hacks" when he said that (as you can see from his twitter post below). The initial claim twitter staff made for censoring the laptop story because they thought it was hacked by the Russian government was an obvious lie, as we see from the exchanges, and that's what Taibbi meant, which makes sense because it would be a direct contradiction to everything if he meant there's no evidence of US government involvement, as we can see from the exchanges ("Biden team") there clearly was.

During the 2020 election the Biden campaign team would not be part of the U.S. government.