Political Fiction vs. Reality: Twitter’s Alleged Help For Dems vs. Rupert Murdoch’s Real Help For Trump
from the every-accusation-a-confession dept
I know, I know, there are no room for facts in the modern GOP, just feelings. But, still, it’s kind of remarkable just how much they seem committed to the bit that Twitter was actively trying to suppress Republicans to help Joe Biden. There remains zero proof of this. Zero. Over the course of the various “Twitter Files” all we’ve seen is Twitter literally pushing back on anything that suggests political bias, and instead trying to review things based on whether or not they legitimately broke the rules.
But, still, Republicans are insisting that Twitter unfairly benefited Democrats, and they already held a ridiculous hearing on it (with more on the way!) that highlighted (repeatedly) that Twitter did not, in fact, try to help Democrats, but rather that they bent over backwards to give Republicans extra chances after they broke the rules, even when the Trump White House demanded Twitter block his critics.
During that hearing, Rep. Jamie Raskin highlighted something I’ve been saying for a while: that if Democrats had held the same kind of hearing regarding Fox News and its editorial choices, many people (and not just Republicans) would rightly be up in arms about the 1st Amendment implications of demanding a media company explain its editorial choices.
Separately (and this will become important in a moment), in 2021, the Federal Election Commission conducted an investigation to see if Twitter’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story represented an illegal “in-kind contribution” to the Biden campaign. The FEC concluded that here was no evidence, and specifically that there was no evidence of Twitter working with the Biden campaign:
As discussed below, Twitter has credibly explained that it acted with a commercial motivation in response to the New York Post articles rather than with an electoral purpose. With respect to its actions concerning Trump’s tweets, there is no evidence that Twitter coordinated its actions with the Biden Committee, and as such, the actions did not constitute contributions. Finally, the remaining allegations that Twitter limited the visibility of Republican users, suppressed distribution of an interview, and limited coverage of election lawsuits are vague, speculative, and unsupported by the available information. Therefore, the Commission finds no reason to believe that Twitter violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(b) by making prohibited in-kind corporate contributions; finds no reason to believe that Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, and Brandon Borrman, Twitter’s Vice President, Global Communications, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(e) by consenting to prohibited corporate contributions; and finds no reason to believe that the Biden Committee knowingly accepted or received and failed to report such contributions in violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b)(3)(A), 30118(a) and 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(a), 114.2(d).
I bet you can guess where this is going, right?
Last week in the ongoing lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, among many other things that were in Dominion’s latest filing was this fascinating tidbit.
During Trump’s campaign, Rupert provided Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, with Fox confidential information about Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy. Ex.600, R.Murdoch 210:6-9; 213:17-20; Ex.603 (providing Kushner a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public)
In other words, for all the talk of Twitter supposedly helping the Biden campaign, Fox News, via the chairman of its parent company, Rupert Murdoch, was literally taking proprietary information regarding the Biden campaign, which it only obtained because of its position as a news channel on which the campaign was advertising, and feeding it directly to Trump’s campaign via one of Trump’s most trusted advisors.
It sure looks like Fox actually was potentially engaged in providing an illegal in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. I’m assuming, though, that the House Judiciary Committee won’t be hosting a long series of day-long hearings about this?
This pattern is getting frustrating. Each and every time we see Republicans making nonsense, unsubstantiated claims about what companies are doing, it turns out it’s because it’s exactly what the GOP itself is doing. Each accusation is more of a confession, both about what levels they’ll stoop to, but also the inability to comprehend that the other side isn’t so lacking in ethics, and wouldn’t stoop to the same level.
Filed Under: bias, donald trump, favoritism, fec, gop, in-kind contribution, jared kushner, rupert murdoch, twitter files
Companies: dominion, fox news, news corp., twitter
Comments on “Political Fiction vs. Reality: Twitter’s Alleged Help For Dems vs. Rupert Murdoch’s Real Help For Trump”
As they do with all of their moderation decisions.
Being a fucking asshole is not a protected class and whether you are left or right, it makes no difference in the eyes of the “what’s best for business” ban-hammer.
Twitter makes business decisions and if one of those decisions is that you are no longer welcome on Twitter, they have decided that you are not worth the money / effort to allow you to remain. Tough fucking luck… deal with it instead of constantly playing the victim snowflake.
Re:
In the current media and population landscape, constantly playing the victim snowflake is a rather effective way of dealing with it.
This is politics. You don’t need to convince the courts but the voters. When those goals start to become too different, eroding trust in the courts is what you need to do to get the votes. And if you don’t get the votes, eroding trust in elections is what you need to do in order to get mob approval.
And ultimately might makes right.
Re: 'If the problem isn't them it must be me... nah, it's them.'
Twitter makes business decisions and if one of those decisions is that you are no longer welcome on Twitter, they have decided that you are not worth the money / effort to allow you to remain. Tough fucking luck… deal with it instead of constantly playing the victim snowflake.
The big stumbling block to that is that acknowledging that moderation is almost always profit based rather than ideological, political or moral would require those complaining about being given the boot to admit that maybe the problem is on their end.
Re:
“Being a fucking asshole is not a protected class and whether you are left or right, it makes no difference in the eyes of the “what’s best for business” ban-hammer.”
Being an asshole is very good for some kinds of business – for example, Alex Jones made millions from such a thing until he went too far and got slaughtered for it (said slaughter being rather slow, but amusing to witness). Other have stepped in to take his place.
Being an asshole is not good for other kinds of business, though. This is because assholes tend to drive other people away from common platforms. One asshole can drive away 20 (or many more) other customers. So, obviously, the remedy is to stop the asshole from posting.
The basic rule of thumb is that if you’re being “edgy”, then shock jock tactics can buy you a nice lucrative income. But, that pool of customers will always be smaller than the mainstream. If you want a part of that bigger pool, you have to tone it down a bit. Most people understand that, but if someone refuses to do so then business says the person causing the disruption will be the first to be shown the door. As it always has been, offline and online.
On top of “every accusation, a confession” being a thing, what Republicans do when they make these accusations is create a worldview where Democrats must be doing the things they’re being accused of. That’s the only way Republicans can justify doing the things they most want to do—which is to say, everything they accuse Dems of doing and everything they think they must do to stop Dems from doing the things Dems aren’t doing.
Sad thing is, this approach is how you end up with people living in Emotional Support Realities where trans people are indoctrinating children into a sexual ideology and non-Christians are trying to drive Christians out of public life. With nothing but imaginary enemies and overblown grievances, these people have no problems but “the world is changing in ways that don’t make me more powerful and privileged” and no solutions but “I have to destroy everyone who doesn’t agree with me”.
Re:
You can tell how privileged these people have lived when they feel oppressed by the equality of others who are not like them. And it’s generally white cisgender males who seem the most afraid.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Until every cisgender male picks up a pride flag and stands with us, surrenders the wives they are not entitled to and puts on a thong, we will not know peace. They stole abortion rights from us and they will come after our furry and anal vore Rule 34. They will not stop unless they are stopped.
Re: Re: Re:
Your gun porn isn’t enough to keep you happy? 🙂
[Not sure why your comment was flagged – you’re clearly making fun of the reich-wing, not being reich-wing]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Some people aren’t fabulous enough to handle it.
But we’re working on that, starting with the right to be sexually and genderly identified as a wolf, because no one has ever come up with that as a Sonic OC.
Re: Re: Re:2
They’re a right-wing hack trying to come off as what they think a far-left queer activist sounds like. They’ve been shitting up these comments for months with posts saying things to the effect of “us queer people need to genocide straight people” and their schtick is more played out than the posts from our usual troll brigade. It’s all in service of trying to make queer people seem like violent genocidists because conservatives are themselves actively promoting genocidal anti-trans rhetoric and this false-flag bullshit would help them advance that rhetoric without seeming like they’re trying to hurt queer people for no reason other than blind hatred.
That’s why their posts get flagged. That’s why their posts will continue to be flagged. And I know I’m the absolute last person here who should be saying this—believe me, the evidence of my hypocrisy on this point is readily available!—but that’s why we shouldn’t feed that particular troll any more.
Re: Re: Re:3
Legitimately tickled pink that troll hasn’t started spouting Marxist ideology.
Can’t go any farther left than ol’ Karl Marx himself…
Re: Re: Re:4
I would say that Jesus was to the left of Marx…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Whether you choose to genocide conversatives is your choice to make, not mine. But what I will note is that you will continue to blame conservatives, and assume that anything that might queer people look bad is a conservative trying to make them look bad. Which is my entire end goal, to humiliate and make conservative people look so bad that you assume that everything wrong with their world is their fault by default.
But one other point you’re mistaken on. You will continue to feed me, and you will do so because conservatives are a threat that must be stopped at all costs.
Re: Re: Re:3
“They’ve been shitting up these comments for months”
Okay. I’ve not registered the commenter before, which isn’t surprising given:
So if Mike would
1. Require a proper login for all commenters
2. Ban the repeat trolls
3. Ban commenters or delete comments which do nothing but feed the trolls’ pathetic egos
It might be possible to notice the differences between genuine commenters and fuckwits (at least, fuckwits who aren’t trolling).
Until then, I’m going to be confused between real trolls and Poes.
Re: Re: Re:4
In my mind, some people have a bit of fun and post a Poe worthy comment, but if you get your kicks long-term by cosplaying as an idiot, then you are in fact an idiot. The effect is the same whether or not you’re derailing conversations and insulting people for fun or because you genuinely believe what you type.
Re: Re: Re:5
See also: The Rule of Goats
Re: Re: Re:6
I always suspected furries and zoo apologists had plenty of overlap. Heck, most of them aren’t even doing it ironically.
Re:
Equality feels like oppression to those accustomed to privilege.
When you’ve spent your entire life being told and truly believing that you are special, better than those filthy Others(who are of course to blame for all of your woes) the idea that maybe they’re just as good as you are and to the extent you have it better it’s more due to the dumb luck of what you were born as and where rather than what you’ve accomplished might as well be a full blown attack on the very core of your identity.
‘If I’m not better purely by the color of my skin/what’s between my legs/who I find attractive/what religion I claim then my value as a person would depend on what I say and do, requiring me to own my mistakes, work to be better rather than just blame the boogieman for anything that doesn’t go my way and accept that if I’m farther in the race it’s because I started halfway down the track’ can be a hard pill to swallow for some.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Equity is the final solution for woke ideologues who have failed every time they have tried to establish equality for their favored victim groups. Nothing they do ever works, so they have finally decided to do away with any form of qualification, and simply install members of their favored victim groups wherever they have colonized administrative structures. The latest is Columbia University doing away with SAT scores. It’s not equality that feels like oppression. It’s the knowledge that the woke are forcing in unqualified people in the name of equity (once again, Orwell used as a manual rather than a warning).
Re: Re: Re:
Aw, the white boy is angry and mad that he’s not the only voice in the room anymore.
Get fucked Hyman.
Re: Re: Re:
Once again, thanks for so clearly labelling yourself as an uninformed idiot. It not only helps people know that you’re not worth the time to deal with generally, but your attempts to inject nonsense grievances really do help people prepare for when less explicitly stupid people poke their heads out of the echo chambers and try to argue armed with fictions that nobody in the real world has encountered.
In this case:
If by latest, you mean “Columbia opted to drop the requirement for SATs due to COVID making it difficult for applicants to take them before admission, and they have since opted not to reinstate the requirement”. Which appears to be because they’ve found a better way for them to evaluate applicants than a test that’s already known to be flawed in numerous ways, and has been for decades.
That’s not “woke” (whatever you’ve decided that nonsense term means today), that’s intelligently responding to changing pressures. I know that intelligence, good business sense, good community practices and the like are alien to your kind, but that’s not a failing of others.
Funny how once you start researching a subject instead of believing whatever propagandists tell you, the story ends up being less rage inducing and more sensible. Not that you were ever likely to be a Columbia candidate, I’d guess, but such critical thinking skills are how you’d get to that sort of level.
Re: Re: Re: The SAT and equity
OK, I’ll bite. The SAT measures a small slice of a person’s academic acumen which, in the college context, is not necessarily a good predictor of success. It is a predictor of math and English skills. The SAT doesn’t measure resilience, creativity, interpersonal skills, independence/responsibility, “having your shit together,” and any of the other things that separate the dropouts from the scholars.
Sure, the SAT is “useful,” but it is less relevant today given the breadth of human capacity needed to function in the semi-adult world.
With two kids entering college as we speak and the fact that I actually work in a college, I can attest to the misalignment of college entrance requirements and the personal characteristics that actually produce success. Equity has nothing to do with it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sure. Those prospects are going to be “holistically evaluated”. And that bridge looks like such a bargain!
The woke, having seen that members of their favored victim groups are not making the cut, strive to make sure that no objective criteria are used to evaluate anyone, so that they can just produce “equity” by fiat. And naturally, they lie about “white privilege” and skin color, while having no problem at all rejecting Chinese and Indian candidates, who are now “white” by virtue of achieving the success that eludes those favored victim groups.
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh, just say the Fourteen Words already, Hyman.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
No wait, that’s a bit more than Fourteen Words…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Fourteen exactly, with elisions that don’t change the meaning. Of course the woke want to deny equal protection to anyone but their favored victim groups, and make sure those groups are more “equal” than others.
Re: Re: Re:5
Remind us again who makes laws that targets specific groups in society in a negative way.
Re: Re: Re:6
Pretty sure that’s Republicans.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
The “emotional support reality” is agreeing with people that they can ever be a sex (or newspeak “gender”) different from their bodies.
The actual reality is that the grooming-industrial complex utterly fails the mentally ill, mutilating children instead of getting them the treatment they need to live comfortably in the only bodies they will ever have.
Re: Re:
…hallucinates nobody mentally competent, ever.
It’s always projection with the Republicans. Every time. If they’re accusing their political opponents of something, there’s a good chance the GOP are actually guilty of doing that exact thing. It’s a constant pattern with these people, I swear.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Actual Viewership
That’s because Fox News is a publisher, and not a platform. Fox News makes no public offer to appear on its broadcast. Only Twitter is capable of denying speaking access to a publicly available service.
But I also think your conclusion is wrong. If Democrats were to hold a hearing regarding its editorial choices, the Fox News representative would ridicule the Democrat questioners. They could easily demonstrate how their network actually presents topics of interest that are ignored by others, and presents arguments from both sides of a story, and earns high viewership because of their presentation. Democrat ideas of how to run a news broadcast is increasingly a ratings dud. People would not be up in arms; they would be laughing at democrats.
Re:
And so what? You have been beating that drum for how long now?
And it gets shot down EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
There is no legal distinction between a platform and a publisher nor have you ever shown there to be one. But yet, here you are trying to make that distinction again, and here you are, getting shot down… again!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Publishers typically offer no contract to the public for service; platforms do.
Re: Re: Re:
And that is irrelevant in re: the First Amendment.
Re: Re: Re:
Ok, please point to the 1st Amendment and where it states that…. Here I’ll help:
The First Amendment
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The 1st amendment does not override contract law, particularly if the contract is between two private parties and not the government.
Re: Re: Re:3
Please point to whatever contract law you think covers this? (I know you won’t because you never do)
Twitter’s TOS basically states that they can give you the boot for any reason they deem fit.
That is the contract you make with Twitter, follow the rules, you get to use Twitter; don’t follow the rules and get the ban-hammer. How is this so difficult for people like you to understand?
Tell us how that makes a difference if Twitter is a platform or a publisher? And please point to specific laws that will back up your assertions.
BTW, you still have yet to provide a single citation that would back up your assertion that there is a difference between a platform and a publisher…
Why is that?
Re: Re: Re:4
Because they’re not nearly as clever as they think they are.
Re: Re: Re:4
How is this so difficult for people like you to understand?
It is difficult to get a person to understand or admit to understanding something when their entire argument depends upon their real or feigned ignorance of it.
Re: Re: Re:4
To paraphrase Sam Vimes, “the difference is it’s happening to me”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
We call that an unconscionable contract, and that portion of it is unenforceable. Like other platforms, twitter does publish rules, which can be enforced, if done so equally. This then gets into the section 230 (c)(2)(A) “otherwise objectionable” language, which has lately become a goal of 230 reformers. But, no, there is no such first amendment argument that can override contract law.
Re: Re: Re:5
But YOU AGREED to Twitter’s TOS the moment you signed up.
If you don’t like the details of the contract, then don’t use Twitter.
It’s as simple as that, and why is this so hard for you to understand?
Twitter has a 1st Amendment right to give people the boot when you act like an asshole, don’t like it, tough shit, go fuck off to Truth.
Also…. still waiting for some citations to back up your assertions…
Why haven’t you posted any?
Re: Re: Re:6
Unconscionable contract terms are unenforceable whether parties agreed to them or not. Not that any term similar to what Koby is talking about has ever been found unconscionable by any court anywhere.
Re: Re: Re:5
which can be enforced, if done so equally
Come on man. That’s just amateur hour bullshit. There’s no ‘equally’ requirement.
You know this. You don’t like it. And you think if you keep repeating it, that’ll somehow change it. It’s been years now hearing the same bullshit. It’s getting to be a concern.
Because you sound like you’ve got the workings of dementia going on. And that’s sad, because it’s not going to get better.
Re: Re: Re:5
Koby,
I will make one statement that proves to you that you are totally wrong in thinking that there is some sort of “contract law” that supersedes Twitters 1st amendment right to moderate.
Here it is… and careful, this might sting a little bit when you hear it…
But here goes….
NOT A SINGLE COURT CASE HAS BEEN WON that has forced Twitter to overturn a moderation decision. Hell, even your orange turd king couldn’t get his Twitter account re-instated.
So are you really here trying to tell us that you are so much smarter than every lawyer who has ever sued Twitter to get a moderation decision reversed?
Seriously, if you are so sure of yourself about “contract law”, then why isn’t there a single court case that shows Twitter being forced to reverse a moderation decision?
Re: Re: Re:
Are au6hors not members of the public? Are you desperate to make a distinction, because it is obvious that publishers are highly selective, and you do not want platforms to be selective?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s the contract offer that needs to be made public. In general, there is no open contract from publishers saying “write a book on subject X, and we’ll publish it and pay you $Y”, and there’s certainly not an automated process to accomplish it with zero input from the publisher.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hey Koby,
Why don’t you post the contract between you and Twitter and point to the sections that you don’t like.
And then take Twitter to court and sue them to make those sections unenforceable.
I mean, if you really think what you are saying is true, then man up and put your money where your mouth is….
…or just STFU.
Which one is it going to be Koby?
Re:
The First Amendment contains no such distinction. But while you’re here…
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Re:
Saying the same bullshit thing over and over again doesn’t make it true. Just makes you look like someone that is willfully stupid or an outright liar. Which is it?
Re:
Ummm… considering all of Fox News knew that the big lie, was well… a big fucking lie… but they kept pushing it anyway in order to cater to the rubes who watch Fox News… do you really believe that Fox News is a bastion of bias free factual reporting?
I mean JFC, how much of the kool-aid have you consumed at this point?
Re: Re:
To be fair, no news outlet is bias-free because no one can separate bias from journalism. Someone must decide what to distill out of the mass of available data, what facts to check, how much context to include (and explain), and how much needs to be left out for time and space. If you want to read a few paragraphs that sum up a 65-page legal ruling, someone must choose what to include and what to leave out.
But even if journalism can’t be unbiased, it can still be good or bad. Good journalism reports the facts even if those facts say one side is irredeemably awful and/or full of shit. Bad journalism pretends both sides are equally valid. False neutrality is propaganda.
Re: Re: Re:
I am not the one claiming that a news outlet is bias-free, that would be Koby, to wit:
“and presents arguments from both sides of a story”
Like Fox News would ever do such a thing…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Nope. It looks like they do have a bias. However, theirs is much closer to the general mainstream public, and is more willing to provide counterarguments from prominent opposition speakers. It’s much more like how classic news operations worked prior to the modern cable news era.
Re: Re: Re:
Considering how Fox News consistently treated Trump’s false claims of election fraud as true even while knowing the claims were false? No. No, it is not.
Re: Re: Re:
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
In reality, FOX was created to be a countering force against the facts the rest of news media keep using.
Re: Re: Re:2
In other words, Fox News was created to offer “alternative facts”.
Re: Re: Re:3
Roger Ailes saw that the public being informed bh the media about the true facts of what Nixon did led to there being public support for his impeachment.
Therefore, to protect the next Republican president qho committed crimes while in office, the public had to be prevented from becoming informed. Hence, FOX with “No collusion!” “Russiagate is a hoax!” “Democrats stole the election!” “Hunter Biden’s laptop!” etc.
Re: Re: Re:4
Another thing to blame Nixon for.
Re:
More realistically, Fox “News” presents topics that are heavily laced with imaginary and counter-factual alt-reality. It is now revealed from their own internal communications that Fox management and employees knowingly and willingly, even gleefully, present bad facts, flagrant falsehoods (even, by their own mocking judgement, delusional falsehoods) from sources they know to be nutbar and/or lying, as avowedly honest reporting.
The only reason Fox “News” has high broadcast/cable news viewership is because Fox has gathered the resentful, the fanatical, the gullible, the willfully delusional, and the outright crazy viewership to themselves (which turns out to be a larger group than a sane person would have hoped).
Meanwhile, the many media outlets interested in actually conducting something resembling actual journalism, have to compete for the relatively sane and objectively-minded viewers, and thus have to divide their larger viewing audience many ways.
Re: Re:
Remember: 74 million people experienced four years of Trump and wanted another four. (And only God would know if they were willing to try giving him an illegal third term…)
Re: Re: Re: 74 million?
Would like a tally on that number.
62.8% of the USA population voted.(strangely specific) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/01/turnout-in-u-s-has-soared-in-recent-elections-but-by-some-measures-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/
331 million people=208 million people voted? and Just over 33% leaned to trump? But it was a close race?
Re: Re: Re:2
“of voting age”, ECA. Kids can’t vote (nor, in the U.S., can a huge swathe of others on account of being imprisoned, but anyway) and therefore aren’t counted in that.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Kids can’t vote”
Well, physical kids anyway. Something I’ve sadly come to learn in recent years is the depressing number of supposed adults who don’t seem to have progressed mentally past adolescence.
Re: Re:
The reason Faux News has a high ‘viewership’ is that its parent company has the clout to force it and its other products onto cable services. It’s not advertising making it rich.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
lol, get fucked straight white trash
OK, Proof
” Republicans are insisting that Twitter unfairly benefited Democrats, and they already held a ridiculous hearing on it (with more on the way!) that highlighted (repeatedly) that Twitter did not, in fact, try to help Democrats, but rather that they bent over backwards to give Republicans extra chances”
Want proof?
Take every page Posted about both, and Stack them up and SHOW who had the most. Good or bad, 1 or Both mentioned.
With all the BS flying around, the odds say trump had 3-4 times as many mentions.
'That's only okay when WE are the ones doing it!'
If you want to know what republicans are guilty of you need only look at what they are accusing others of.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Political blog, not tech blog.
I mean, nothing you’re saying is true, at all. Twitter’s support of democratic (perhaps more to the point, propgressive) priorities has been proven in black and white (despite you spilling gallons of ink) claiming otherwise. And whining about how Fox News is right leaning (duh) is dumb when 95% o all other media might as well be the propaganda arm of the DNC. Fox News may be biased but they’re not nearly as right elaning as CNN and WaPo is left leaning.
Whatever, it’s all exactly the sort of propganda gaslighting you’d expect to see from a DNC strategist. I’m kinda tired of pointing out how much you lie and how biased it is — which yiou reply to something dumb like “how come we critize democrats too, then?” and you’ll point to something from 3 years ago or something.
Here’s the important thing: This isn’t a tech blog, at all, it’s a partisan left wing political blog. Which makes all your hit pieces on Musk make SOOOOOO much more sense.
Re:
Oh… it appears that Matty “The Cry Baby” is back here whining again.
Don’t you ever get tired of this, I mean you should seriously look for help and get it at this point.
Re:
I mean this as kindly as I can:
Why are you here?
Re: Re:
Matty is a troll. Flag him and move on.
Re:
We have your word against hearings which revealed Republican officials’ censorship attempts toward Twitter, Jamie Raskin’s analogy about a hypothetical investigation of Fox News’s editorial policies, an FEC investigation (when there were three Democratic comissioners and three Republican ones, as usual) which found no cooperation (in regards to Hunter Biden’s laptop) with Biden’s campaign, Matt Taibbi’s own admission that Twitter’s actions around Hunter Biden’s laptop had “no government involvement” (see section 3 of the article for the Tweet screenshot), and the evidence that Rupert Murdoch gave Jared Kushner confidential election campaign information [PDF link] (see labeled page 12, which is page 27 of the entire PDF).
Please be specific about which parts of Mike’s article are false, what the truth is, and where the rest of us can see your evidence. That means give us links, if not also citations.
Re:
A few years ago, one of my dogs died in my home. She was an old dog, so hers was a natural death. She whined until she couldn’t any more, then took her final breaths and left this mortal coil. The image and sound of her crying out in despair and pain is seared into my head; that memory will stay with me for the rest of my life.
And it still isn’t half as awful as your daily whining.
Re: Re:
Christ, did you have to evoke that image? Just ignore the evil little shit. You don’t have to torture us with animal suffering 🙁
Re: Re: Re:
The image came to my head and I couldn’t resist using it in this context. That said: I do apologize for putting that image in anyone else’s head (except Matty B’s).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
If true, your sense of balance is very sad, then. No wonder you’re such a shithead.
Re: Re: Re:
Hey Matt, maybe go fuck your wife for a change instead of the Stephen in your head.
I know it’s a good thing to be progressive instead of a boring ass cishet straight white trash sample of a human being, but in your case you really should be staying out of the gene pool.
Re:
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Re: Re:
Please stop associating hallucinogens with banal, mean-spirited, and willfully ignorant trolls. Frankly, hallucinogens would do them a world of good.
Re: Re: Re:
Preferably in the form of an overdose…
Re:
Yes, and?
Politics affects tech too.
Shame you gleefully admitted to wanting to harass us instead of staying in your containment zone.
You clearly came here to gaslight, censor, harass and worse, which is one step removed from actually committing violence towards the rest of us.
Just like the rest of the usual suspects.
Re:
He appears to have cited all the claims. If you’re claiming the underlying evidence is false, you’re going to have to at least provide some evidence.
The only thing that has been shown is that Twitter’s employees lean democratic in their donations to political campaigns, as is true of many other large companies (including Tesla). What has not been shown is any evidence of this seeping into policy or decisionmaking.
You seem to be making assumptions that it must show up there, but if so, there would be evidence that surely by now Matt Taibbi and others would have exposed.
Can you point to where Mike “whined about how Fox News is right leaning”? Because I don’t see it here, or in other articles I’ve read. It looks like he’s highlighting how they appear to have engaged in an illegal campaign contribution by providing confidential information the company had from other means (their advertising arm) to the Trump campaign. That’s got nothing to do with which way the company leans, but does speak to evidence that the company is willing to resort to possibly illegal moves to put its fingers on the scale to influence elections, something that none of the twitter files have actually shown.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
So you just can’t read, then?
I honestly don’t know why I bother replying to you shitheads anymore.
Re: Re: Re:
Can’t read what was not provided.
And we’re clearly not mindreaders nor do we want to do a deep dive of your mind even if we were.
So please, do show evidence that Mike is lying. After all, you’re the one asserting that Mike’s a liar.
Unless, of course, your real reason is to harass and intimidate. Which is, hilariously enough, a form of censorship used by fascists to shut people up.
Re: Re: Re:
So you just can’t read then?
I honestly don’t know why you haven’t said anything yet about how Rupert Murdoch “provided Trump’s son-in-law and senior
advisor, Jared Kushner, with Fox confidential information about Biden’s ads, along
with debate strategy” [PDF link], considering that that is the closest thing (not really close) in the article to Mike’s supposed “whin[ing] about how Fox News is right leaning”.
Re: Re: Re:
I can, and did, read Mike’s article and your response. He cited to credible evidence. You did not. He backed up his statements. You did not.
In fact, you complained about things he clearly did not do, while he focused on things that were shown to have actually happened.
He comes off as credible.
You do not.
Re: Re: Re:
[projects facts contrary to evidence]
Re: Re: Re:
I honestly don’t know why I bother replying to you shitheads anymore.
We don’t know either. As a matter of fact, a bunch of us wonder why you’re even here in the first place, other than to act like a whiny little shithead with a full nappy.
Maybe ask yourself that more.
Maybe ask yourself if that’s the best way to spend your time.
And if it is, ask yourself how you became that pathetic.
Re:
Well when you state that with such evidence-free confidence, why wouldn’t we believe you?!
You’re basically screaming the sky is green and the trees are blue, and think anyone with more that half a brain is going to believe you despite all the freely-available info demonstrating how your precious Twitter Files were such a terrible failure of journalism. Every claim was easily debunked, shown to be misleadingly presented, or completely non-nefarious.
Have any other media companies been caught, with overwhelming evidence presented in a court of law, admitting between themselves that they are straight-up lying to their viewers the whole time, all the way to the top of the org chart? Please name names.
That’s ironic from someone who is constantly, but ineffectively, trying to gaslight everyone here. It must be frustrating to be so bad at it.
Well your spelling does suggest you need a bit of a rest. But that tiredness is a good start, we look forward to your total exhaustion.
Re:
Feel free to fuck off and stop stinking up the comments, then.
Three of the articles you’re referring to were literally from last year, you gasbag.
Re:
“Political blog, not tech blog.”
These are not separate subjects. Also, despite the whining of people like you, there’s nothing about this blog that syas it’s only about tech, other than what you choose to ifer from its name. You’d know this is you clicked on the “about us” page.
“I mean, nothing you’re saying is true, at all”
The evidence to support the claims is provided. Clearly state what is wrong, without devolving into a child with personal attacks, baseless claims or your own or outright lies, and they will be considered.
“95% o all other media might as well be the propaganda arm of the DNC”
Case in point. Bare assertion, bears no relation to reality, US politics is already so far to the right that most right-wing media from other places will already seem further to the left, also provides the usual fascist cover by rejecting all factual reporting out of hand because it doesn’t agree with the chosen narrative.
Whereas, in the real world Fox is facing major problems because they have been proven to conspire behind the scenes to outright lie to you.
Whatever, if a dishonest moron such as yourself doesn’t like the editorial slant of this opinion blog, nobody forces you to read it, let alone interact with it. Go back to places where the admitted grifters aretelling you comforting lies about the world.
Re:
it’s a partisan left wing political blog
The 1A is on the other line. It’s asking why it should give a shit.
Got any comment between your bitch fits?
Which one is it going to be Koby?
Neither. The former would blow up his pathetic excuse for an argument, giving him nothing to complain about. You can’t be a perpetual complainer without something to constantly bitch about.
As for the latter? Same reason.
Koby’s whole existence is based around being a whiny bitch. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing will ever be ‘right’ for him. There will always be a ‘struggle,’ most likely of his own creation.
He’s got to have something to blame his pathetic excuse for an existence on. It’s going to be either Democrats, Antifa, the Deep State, Fake News, Witch Hunts, ‘Censorship,’ and whatever other buzzwords these dumbfucks learn on 4chan during their 2 minute hate sessions.