51–60 of 391 posts
> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". That is newspeak pure and simple.
Not at all. It means that the account was using fake accounts and/or bots to help spread information that was viewed to be false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying Twitter banned this group because there was already other people reporting on the topic? Is that a standard in the TOS, that “First!” is an actionable internet rule?
"reputable", no less.
An extra benefit is that since the journalists are reputable, their accounts are unlikely to be deleted or suspended.
Is there a good case for why someone who doesn't use twitter would create an account and use it now? Trying to figure out what organic growth for them looks like.
After that, I try to avoid Twitter when possible.
It's also a cesspool of entitled pseudo-intellectuals (both left and right leaning), so I don't miss it much, honestly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After following the account for a bit it was mostly just spreading rumours like "Baldwin deleting account because of Epstein trial" when in reality it was most likely related to the shooting. I can understand that it got suspended by people probably reporting some of these tweets. It was far from a factual tracking of the events.
And yet we’re left to guess exactly what Twitter deemed us unworthy of reading. The opaqueness of the censor is a feature not a bug.
There are plenty of reputable journalists closely following the trial including Julie K Brown, the Miami based reporter whose story broke the whole thing open a few years ago leading to these arrests: https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist Adam Klasfeld is another one I enjoy: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports
There's no evidence this account violated the Twitter TOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"reputable", no less.
Well rather than reading anonymous accounts who aggregate what real journalists are reporting from the courtroom while interspersing random conspiracy theories, it seemed useful to just link to the real journalists directly. An extra benefit is that since the journalists are reputable, their accounts are unlikely to be deleted or suspended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. It means that the account was using fake accounts and/or bots to help spread information that was viewed to be false.
My question with this kind of infraction is how do they connect the user to the fake accounts and bots? Can I take down accounts I don't like buy paying a few bucks to a blatant bot farm?
> user "the account was “artificially” amplifying information". That is newspeak pure and simple.
Not at all. It means that the account was using fake accounts and/or bots to help spread information that was viewed to be false.
As a society we need to redefine what a public space is.
Twitter isn't a public space. It is a privately owned platform.
Hopefully then people would apply a little more critical thought, rather than just parroting private vs public.
It's clear that at a certain scale, a private space becomes de facto public one, similar to anti-trust legislation breaking up perfectly valid private business that also happen to be monopolies.