801–810 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Steele Dossier was widely spread on Twitter and was debunked.
That's news to me. Can you cite a credible source for the debunking? I'd love to read more.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective
The idea that it was/is fake is a lie direct from Trump's mouth.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24789379&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24789379&p=3
As a former New Yorker the thing I can't wrap my head around is how the Post ("Headless Body in Topless Bar") is now apparently being referred to as a respectable publication.
(I'm not saying this one is an important story.)
Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…
Twitter allowed the NY Times to post about Trump's tax returns after they were leaked by an IRS employee: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310474354967359489 The official policy appears to be flexible when the leaked supports Twitter's political opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having my data in your hard drive does not mean that it allows you to view my my data, unless I specifically I allowed you to do so.
Please look into how this data was obtained rather than making up legal stuff to feel you’re on the right side.
Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…
Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…
Their policy didn’t stop them from allowing millions of tweets related to unverified Trump taxes, debunked pee dossier and other Democratic talking points. This is straight up election interference.
How is a domestic firm exercising it's Constitutionally-protected free press rights “interference”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses I think the idea is that if this is the rule, a lot of Republicans think it has already been broken a number of times against them.
Ha, against "them". All republicans. As a monolith. As if they are a sports team. This sums up the central problem in modern politics as a whole right here.
George Washington on “the spirit of party” in his farewell address:
> It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
Ahhh: 1. We must censor terror propaganda and child abuse to avoid harm & because it's the law 2. We must censor stormfront and the far right because it's the right thing to do 3. We must censor covid misinformation because it could kill people 4. We must selectively censor news reporting for political candidates we are aligned with because it's probably false. ---- we are here now 5. We must remove all news critical…
Who is we? Fox News has been at 6.5 since Bush Jr.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How does this constitute hacking? IIUC, the idea is that the whole thing was a setup from start to finish: 1. Burisma emails were hacked; 2. Hunter Biden's iCloud account was hacked; 3. They bought a Mac, dumped a bunch of the hacked photos, along with some real hacked emails and some forged ones; 4. Sent someone over to the computer shop with the frame up on the laptop already in place; 5. Either the store owner wa…
Even if that scenario is true, there is zero evidence to corroborate it, nor has there been any concluded official investigation into the matter. I don't think it's fair for Twitter to execute that portion of their policy based on assumption alone.