New Boss Same As The Old Boss: Elon’s Twitter Locks NY Post Account Over Tweet That Broke Twitter’s Rules
from the paging-matt-taibbi dept
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: the NY Post tweets a link to one of its own news stories, and Twitter decides that it violates the company’s rules (perhaps very questionably so), and in response, locks the NY Post’s Twitter account. Also, as part of the same “crackdown” on sharing certain media, Twitter also suspends Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s account.
Except, we’re not talking about anything having to do with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Because this happened just last week.
Can’t wait for the House subcommittee investigation into this one. Oh, and the Twitter Files on this are going to be lit.
The details here are… kind of a mess, and I almost hate to get into them for fear it will derail the conversation. Basically there were a bunch of tweets about a protest to highlight the importance of the rights of transgender people. The name of the protest was a “trans day of vengeance.” As with so many culture war topics, this one was then weaponized by anti-trans people who were tweeting about it as well (and misrepresenting it, but that’s a separate issue).
And, because content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and because Twitter trust & safety seems to be managed by people who haven’t completed their speed run of the learning curve yet, they decided to delete all tweets from everyone on all sides that were showing a poster promoting the event. Around the same time, the company also suspended Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s account over her own tweet regarding the event.
Twitter’s, um, explanation of this was confused and didn’t make much sense:
Twitter’s trust & safety boss, Ella Irwin, also explained the reason for taking down all those tweets was that “vengeance does not imply peaceful protest,” though I’d argue the context of the event (1) suggests otherwise and (2) suggests that, contrary to Elon’s claims, this is yet more moderation that goes way beyond the 1st Amendment. And, of course, this is all allowed (and perhaps even understandable under the true content moderation guiding light of “please, for the love of anything, just stop being jerks on our platform”).
Anyway, the NY Post wrote about the account suspensions, and apparently, the tweet about that article then resulted in the NY Post account being suspended and the account locked:
Hours later, however, Twitter reversed course and reinstated the NY Post’s account.
Again, all this is perfectly within Twitter’s rights, but I have difficulty seeing how it’s even one iota different from what happened in October of 2020. At that time, Twitter also applied a policy badly in the heat of the moment as things were moving quickly, suspended the NY Post’s account, and then admitted they were wrong and reinstated the account.
Mistakes sometimes happen. But people are still talking about the October 2020 version. Even this guy had something to say about it, as part of his justification for his attempt (at the time) to purchase Twitter:
That’s Elon Musk directly saying: “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate”
Note that there’s no caveat there. There are no conditions. No suggestion that maybe it was a mistake that was corrected a few hours later (as happened in both cases). Just a flat out that “suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate” even though the identical thing happened under Musk’s watch as well.
But, in this case, people seem willing to let it slide by and Musk seems to think that he should be judged on a totally different standard. I mean, it’s almost as if he and his fans use different standards to judge Musk’s actions vs. the actions of the old leadership.
An intellectually honest response might lead to a recognition that perhaps the October 2020 actions were a similar type of mistake and correction, and should be forgiven just as this latest mistake and correction are being forgiven. But that would require some intellectual honesty and not rooting for one team to win and another to lose. And, apparently, that’s too much to ask for.
Filed Under: content moderation, ella irwin, elon musk, journalism
Companies: ny post, twitter
Comments on “New Boss Same As The Old Boss: Elon’s Twitter Locks NY Post Account Over Tweet That Broke Twitter’s Rules”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The blocking of the NY Post article on the hunter laptop was bad, but, as you have reported, the larger gist of the twitter files is that government had a large, unseen role working with twitter behind the scenes. That cozy behind the scenes governmental role doesn’t appear to be going on with this latest take-down, thus probably explaining the current lack of hoopla.
Re:
And tell me what role the gov’t had in taking down the Hunter Laptop story?
Considering Trump was in office and Biden was a candidate, what part of the gov’t pressured Twitter into taking down the Hunter story?
Re: Re:
The far left deep state, obviously. You know, those granola-munching, hemp-wearing, reefer-toking hippies at the FBI, Pentagon, CIA, and DHS.
Re:
It didn’t have shit to do with the Hunter Biden laptop story suspension, either—unless you have proof to the contrary.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-biden-campaign-twitter-worked-together-to-suppress-hunter-story/
Gee, that was easy
Re: Re: Re:
It’s telling you don’t have a factual source to back up your lies.
Re: Re: Re:2
There isn’t one. This was discussed at length in the FEC testimony and before Congressional hearings, and it’s clear that Matthew has not paid attention to anything beyond what was stated in the sources he’s cherry picking to try to make his point.
Everyone has said that there was a tabletop exercise on the potential for hack and leak, but the exercise (which had nothing to do with the FBI) brought up scenarios of the types of content that might be hacked and leaked and mentioned Hunter Biden as a target, which… is kinda what you’d expect.
And scenario planning games are common. Hell, we’ve run a bunch of them: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/27/we-ran-our-online-election-disinformation-simulation-game-theres-plenty-to-be-worried-about/
Separately, the FBI put out general warnings to be on the lookout for such kinds of disinformation campaigns, but never pointed to Hunter Biden nor said anything about a laptop. Yoel mentioned in his testimony that in a meeting with other social media companies, someone there mentioned the possibility of Hunter Biden being a target as part of a discussion of likely hack and leak targets. Which… makes sense.
Matthew is not really big on, you know, accuracy, or truth. He will misrepresent and lie, so long as it supports the fantasy world built up in his head.
Some of us believe in facts. Matthew believes in supporting his team at all costs.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s like claiming Fauci made COVID and citing Project Veritas as the source, or saying anti-trans claims are factually supported by the Family Research Council.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, no, NYpost is a perfectly legitimate news organization and techdirt is not.
However, I am forced to point out that Fauci has lied under oath, lied to the American public and admitted as such and in just the last month it has actual documents have come to light showing he funded gain of function research at Wuhan institute specifically. (only $600k, and who knows if that actually led to covid, but still). (citations for these things shouldn’t be required, but are available)
Project Veritas on the other hand, while liberals hate him and will often claim “deceptive editing” none of that really seems to hold up. They’re just embarrassed when caught out.
In short Project Veritas (really O’Keefe) has actually proven to be more credible than Fauci. So I find that example especially funny.
Re: Re: Re:5
[citation needed]
Well, they are required, and as for them being available, you need to present them. Just saying “They’re available” is meaningless.
[citation needed] again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
They’re never required, actually, especially when someone really should be aware of them and they’ve become common knowledge.
I actually had the links ready (again, this shit is not obscure) and the reason I didn’t post them is that URLs often seem to delay my post by several hours.
But I have vowed never to respond to a citation request from you, ever again. So someone else will have to ask, and I’ll post them then.
Be less of a douche next life, I guess.
Re: Re: Re:7
Maybe not literally, but they are if you want anyone to take your claims seriously.
No, if someone disputes a claim you make, you don’t get to rely on common knowledge to avoid providing a citation. That’s not how discussions work.
Moreover, if it’s so obvious, then you should have no trouble finding a citation. It’d barely be an inconvenience.
Really, though, “common knowledge” is a terrible source for information, and people are terrible at judging what is or isn’t common knowledge. Additionally, “common knowledge” doesn’t equal “universal knowledge”. Not everyone knows everything that is labeled “common knowledge”. “Common knowledge” only means, at best, most people with some familiarity on the subject (or within a particular group) share that knowledge.
And as for “someone should be aware of them”, unless that person has (or pretends to have) a professional interest in the subject or has some other direct connection to the subject, that is generally an unwarranted assumption. It is particularly unwarranted when you’re talking to someone like me, who you know has autism and, therefore, lacks much in the way of such “common knowledge”, and especially if it is a completely random person on the internet. Even if the assumption may happen to be correct a number of times, it is still not something you can say is 100% certain 100% of the time.
Okay, then post them.
In other words, you have decided to be an asshole for no reason other than you don’t like me. And yet you expect others to take your claims of bias by others seriously?
You could have posted them without anyone asking, just made it a reply to your own post. That wouldn’t have even had to be a response to my request.
Yeah, the only douche here is you. I just asked for a citation for your claims. That’s not being a douche. You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to be as antagonistic and rude to everyone as possible, as well as disrupting comment sections with rants about completely unrelated topics.
You are in no position to be tone policing anyone else or accuse others of being assholes and then use that as the sole reason to treat them even more rudely than you do others or to pretend they aren’t making valid points. While I do not agree with Stephen characterizing you as harassing him, you really don’t do yourself any favors when you behave like this.
Re: Re: Re:5
Tell me you don’t live in New York City without telling me you don’t live in New York City, because even people here who do read the New York Post don’t believe it for a second and think it’s sensationalist trash and an outlet for partisan Rupert Murdoch hackery.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
This is a reliable source.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-biden-campaign-twitter-worked-together-to-suppress-hunter-story/
This is not
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/27/we-ran-our-online-election-disinformation-simulation-game-theres-plenty-to-be-worried-about/
That’s just yo quoting yourself, and you lie, a LOT.
and
Well gee, if only the FBI had motivation to lie and dissemble about it’s own lying and dissembling. And that they knew this story was coming, and even if they did not mention a “laptop” (unverified) they very much primed everyone for this exact scenario.
Factually incorrect
“The “example” they came up with? Hunter Biden! They outlined a fake scenario where Burisma documents were leaked online outlining payments to the former vice president’s son.”
Also, I’ll note, a scenario that I believe is actually true. Biden was publicly paid by Burisma, privately paid by the CCP (which the FBI ALSO already knew about). So why would the FBI warn anyone to suppress either true story?
Remember when I caught you out in a lie, maybe an hour or so ago, trying to pretend Gadde announcing a policy change mid laptop story blockage was an “apology”, which still continued a day later, and which was done on purpose, and in fact NYpost was still blocked for another fucking 2 weeks was somehow the same as an incident that almost certainly algo driven and the (complete) reversal came within hours? That you’ve said those two dramatically dissimilar events were the same multiple times even tho you’d have to dramatically lie to do so?
Yeah. Pepperidge farm remembers.
Re: Re: Re:4
Nope. Just saying it’s a reliable source doesn’t make it so.
I mean, if you read the article presented, you’d see a copy of a Tweet made by Taibbi. Really, the source is the tweet, not Techdirt.
Re: Re: Re:3
A functioning human would trust honest sources that stick to verified facts more, and dishonest sources that always lie and fabricate less.
Matthew, in contrast, does the exact opposite.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
“verfied facts” does not mean “toom liked it”
Sorry to disappoint.
Re: Re: Re:5
Only your lame attempt at a strawman ever said it does.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Except you’re trying to trash talk NYpost and the only reason is because they’re slightly conservative. It’s transparent and lame.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Tough tits, straight trash.
Re: Re: Re:7
I mean, I don’t take MSNBC as authoritative for anything that favors liberal narratives, either.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
still an actual source, even when you hate being proven wrong.
Re:
What I’ve actually reported is that there is no evidence (even the Twitter Files people admit this) that the gov’t had any role whatsoever in the Hunter Biden laptop story: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/
So, no, I don’t see any difference at all in these scenarios.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Incorrect.
Doubly incorrect.
I suppose you lying about something is indeed you “reporting” to that effect, but it’s still a lie.
The only thing you can say about the twitter files regarding this is that there was no screenshot of an email “FBI ordered us to suppress this story specifically”. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and it even seems plausible that Jim Baker or the dozens of other ex agents working there deleted such (that’s indeed a “conspiracy theory”…but conspiracies happen all the time, doubly so with the FBI).
But we have confirmed that the FBI knew this news story was coming many months in advance (and in fact sat on real incriminating evidence) and warned SM companies specifically that there might be “Russian misinformation” along these lines, apparently with this exact story in mind. A story that the FBI very much knew was true, btw.
Re: Re: Re:
Prove it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Just like you (hilariously) asked me to prove this instance was by algo: I did.
Let’s talk about cakes.
Re: Re: Re:3
If you’re going to harass me, I’d prefer you come do it in person. At least then you’ll have the option of flat-out murdering me, because you clearly want me to shut the fuck up forever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Bitch, you replied to me. Twice.
The urge to play victim is strong with one.
Mostly, I want you to make SENSE.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, it’s seriously that I’d prefer you killing me to you continually trying to harangue me into an argument that I already won because you can’t deal with the fact that I, a queer Southerner with more issues than a GamePro archive, am better than you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Oh, so you’re just being melodramatic. Of course if that was true you wouldn’t start shit.
Oh? By misstating both the facts AND court opinions?
I suspect if you thought that you wouldn’t be so bothered.
I really didn’t ask
Re: Re: Re:7
And I really don’t care if you asked. You wanna keep harassing me, do it somewhere else—I’m not a hard person to find. But you’re not going to shut me up here unless you shut me up in meatspace, so either find a brick and turn my face into a bloody smear on a wall or fuck off.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yeah, that’s nice, when you say something dumb, gonna point it out, every time I notice.
Re: Re: Re:9
And yet you complain when Stephen or I do the same to you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Neither circumstance has ever occurred.
Re: Re: Re:11
ok
Re: Re: Re:11
You repeatedly tell me to go away when I point out your absurd claims and mistakes all the time. You may not agree that I am correct in characterizing them as such, but then Stephen doesn’t agree with your characterization of his posts, either, so I fail to see a material difference.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
I tell you to go away because you’re shitily wasting my time.
Oh, buddy, if you hadn’t pissed me off so much I’d be sympathetic, but that’s the autism.
To the degree that autism causes you to waste my time, rather than malice, I’m sorry, but I’m still not ready to put up with you.
Re: Re: Re:13
“I’d be sympathetic”
Nah, you’re incapable of it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
cool, bro
Re: Re: Re:13
And you’re wasting everyone’s time. Take your own advice and leave if you can’t be bothered to back up your claims.
No, you wouldn’t. You have made your prejudice against autism crystal clear, and you don’t even pretend not to be ableist.
And the only reason I “pissed you off” is because you jump to conclusions, are incredibly stubborn, refuse to provide citations that actually prove your claims, cannot accept criticism, and are willfully ignorant about anything that might prove you wrong, including about what I have said or believe. That, and the fact that I have not left you alone like others have asked you to do. Everything else is just you making excuses or misunderstanding things in order to justify your anger.
As for the issue in question, if there is a material difference, go ahead and point it out.
I can assure you it is, at most, only 1% malice. While I find your reactions amusing, if that was the only thing I had, I wouldn’t bother. Additionally, my tactics here have been no different from my tactics with many others, few of whom have reacted as poorly as you have.
And no one is ready yet to put up with you, either, except me. Yet you fail to change your behavior accordingly. Why should I do so when you’re the only one who has a problem with me?
Seriously, even Hyman can put up with me, and he rejects the field of psychology entirely. I have had civil discussions with plenty who disagree with me. The one with the problem appears to be you, not me.
So I’m sorry if you don’t know how to deal with me, but I’m not going to just go away. This is how society works. Learn to deal with people different from you.
Re: Re: Re:14
bhull242 this is just my opinion, but I think he’s basically admitting to living on/for techdirt. After all how else could we techdirt commenters waste his time? I dare say most normal humans have this magical ability to… navigate way from the techdirt website (even if it means turning their device of, or listening in class) if the find they can’t stand the content.
Re: Re: Re:6
Let’s not give our domestic terrorist any more ideas than the “conservatives” already have.
He might actually do it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Oh please, he’s not a terrorist. He’s not even a man. A man would have the balls to find me, kill me, and wear my blood like war paint. Matty B only has enough balls to harass people on the Internet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
There’s that victimhood complex. But first, I would have to want to do that.
Re: Re: Re:9
all you had to do was leave a site where you’re clearly not welcome
but if all you’re going to do is harass me every time I comment, I’d rather leave first and spare myself the bullshit
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
I have no intention of doing so, that would be de facto letting Masnick continue to lie. (and he is lying outrageously)
Refuting you is not “harassing you.” Sometimes you say something not dumb and I let it go.
Cowardice is always an option
Re: Re: Re:10
If you actually do that, he’s won a minor victory.
The least you could do is refute his lies once, then move on.
Re: Re: Re:8
The sexism was completely unnecessary and, frankly, unwarranted.
Re: Re: Re:8
Again, he’s voiced support for the insurrection. And I don’t care how he phrases it.
He’s one “conservative” endorsement away from actually committing murder and I’d rather not want him, of all people to do that.
Re: Re: Re:
Liar.
Re: Re: Re:
Taibbi literally said there was no evidence of any correspondence regarding the laptop. It’s in the very first Twitter Files.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744
Twitter staff and FBI agents have both stated under oath in front of Congress and as a part of the FEC investigation, that there were no efforts by the government to weigh in on the laptop whatsoever.
You lie like it’s going out of style and you need to get every last lie in, Matthew.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Oh, I love it when you do this.
Specifically mentioning the laptop? Sure. That is completely different than no evidence that “the gov’t had any role whatsoever”. Because they clearly prepped twitter and other SM to be looking out for something exactly like this. And again, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
Was this before or after they perjured themselves about shadow-banning? Seriously, if they were to be believed (hah) that would just be the laptop specifically when we know the FBI knew the laptop story was coming and started “warning” SM companies about just such a story.
I often wonder how much you convince yourself you’re not lying vs know you are, cuz you just tried to conflate “mentioned the laptop specifically” and “had anything to do with it” 3 times.
Re: Re: Re:3
Not “exactly”. As far as I can tell, neither Hunter nor Ukraine were specifically mentioned (though I could be wrong), and they certainly didn’t mention anything that could only be explained as prior knowledge of this exact scenario. (Sure, the FBI did know, but this is about what Twitter knew from the FBI.)
Moreover, the fact that that wasn’t really mentioned during the communications as a motivating factor suggests that it only led to them being on alert, not how to handle the story when it was published. Anything more is speculation.
It actually is when you would expect to see evidence. Given the level of access the person producing the Twitter Files (Musk) had and still has to any communication Twitter would have received by the government and the purpose of the Twitter Files, if such a direct or targeted effort came from the FBI to Twitter, we almost certainly would have seen evidence of it in the Twitter Files. It may not be 100% irrefutable proof, but it is definitely evidence that such a thing did not occur.
Neither, because they didn’t. That you continue to claim that despite the evidence given to the contrary is why no one takes you seriously. Once again, at the time, no professional in the field ever used the term “shadowban” to refer to algorithmically derank certain users, and that was not the commonly understood definition at the time. Indeed, Twitter specifically stated what they meant by the term in that testimony, and it did not include anything Twitter has been shown to have done.
If you want to continue to claim that Twitter can’t unilaterally change the definition despite the fact that that was the definition used by most at the time, a) that wouldn’t make it perjury since Twitter specifically stated which definition they were using at the time and because they wouldn’t have believed the statement to be false (which is necessary for it to be perjury), and b) the fact that no one in Congress pointed out any discrepancy between what was meant in the question and the definition Twitter stated suggests an implicit agreement on that definition, meaning it wasn’t a unilateral change.
So yeah, this can be refuted just by referring to what was said during the hearing in question.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, both were mentioned, specifically, as I have cited.
And with that I will not read another word of your stupid post. Get fucked you waste of space.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, keep going, I want to see you break him like you did that loser Stone
Re: Re: Re:6
Yeah, that’s not happening. Setting aside whether or not Matthew can be said to have broken Stephen, I’m exceptionally slow to conclude someone is behaving in bad faith, rarely use foul language outside of quotes, and rarely lose my temper online. Heck, even when I do lose my temper, I still tend to keep addressing any points made for the benefit of onlookers. By contrast, Stephen has low patience for those he perceives as bad actors and/or bigots and is far quicker than I to conclude bad faith and to use invectives.
Plus, Matthew lost his patience with me long ago (apparently, he has trouble dealing with people like me who may not have the same sort of common sense that he does yet speaks fairly calmly when disagreeing with or even disputing him, nor can he deal with people who don’t already have a set opinion on this; he actually seems to prefer angry responses for some reason), so it’s unlikely that I’d ever break before he did.
At any rate, you are highly unlikely to ever see me react online like Stephen has. We’re just too different. I do have a breaking point, like anyone, but it’s not exactly easy to reach, and doing so just gets different results than most do. It helps that this is all online, so I am able to remain somewhat detached from the whole thing.
Re: Re: Re:7
I am explicitly acting bad faith to you actually, cuz I’m tired of your shit. You are so far the only one, actually.
Re: Re: Re:8
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:5
Then prove it. I did say I could be wrong on this in the same sentence, but you still have to prove it.
Thus shooting yourself in the foot. Seriously, why should anyone else take you seriously?
Re: Re: Re:
According to Taibbi:
Also, none of the conversations within Twitter about whether to block it or not ever mention any policy or request by the government at all.
So yeah, there’s no evidence at all that the government was involved in that instance, even according to this reporter who has access to the Twitter Files, reported on them, and who you have cited as evidence of government involvement. That there was a general warning from the government from earlier about possible future foreign hacks is irrelevant without evidence connecting that to the story at hand, particularly given the fact that the specific policy used and discussed on this matter predates the warning from the government. Nothing Taibbi says suggests they agree with you on this. Specificity is important.
Also, that the government may have been thinking of this particular story is irrelevant as well if Twitter didn’t know that, as they ultimately were the ones to make the decision to block it. According to Taibbi and the Twitter Files, there is no evidence that Twitter knew at the time that the government even had a specific story in mind.
Also, you still haven’t shown that the story was, in fact, true, let alone that the FBI knew it at the time. The only things about the story that has been confirmed is that some (not all) of the material discovered on the laptop was Hunter’s, and that the FBI was given custody of the laptop after Rudy Giuliani had access to it. We have no confirmation that the laptop itself was actually Hunter’s, that Hunter (or someone acting on his behalf) left the laptop at the store, that all the material found was originally Hunter’s (particularly the specific emails at issue), or that the material was unchanged before the FBI or the public gained access to it (indeed, there is evidence suggesting otherwise). Moreover, if the story is true, that would tend to be confirmation of a hack, even if it may be a lawful and/or ethical hack, and the reason for the ban was always the claim that the material was hacked, so it being true is irrelevant to that.
I wouldn’t even say that rises to the level of a conspiracy since actions by someone not working for the government (which an ex-agent wouldn’t be by definition) don’t constitute conspiracy by the government. If it was a conspiracy, then it was by ex-agents, not by order of the FBI. I have yet to see any evidence of conspiracies by the FBI that entail the FBI working through ex-agents, only through people who are either known to be currently working for the FBI or through people not known to have ever had any connection to the FBI.
On top of that, this entire line of thinking is pure speculation with absolutely no evidence. We have exactly zero evidence that would make it any more likely that ex-agents would be involved than they would be purely by chance, and that likelihood isn’t particularly great to begin with. Maybe they could have, but without evidence, that’s all you have: that it may be a possibility.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
This shitty site seems to have eaten or delayed my response again, so I’ll say is.
Not only did I show that to be true, the world knows it to be true. So either you’re so ignorant that discussing world events with you is pointless, or you’re being an disingenuous shitbag and there’s no point in discussing world events with you.
Re: Re: Re:3
[citation needed]
False. I’ve had discussions with people on both sides on Quora about this. The evidence presented by both sides is pretty clear that very little of the story has actually been confirmed. Sure, some have read more into the evidence, but it didn’t actually back up such an assertion. In reality, the story’s accuracy is murky.
Now, for the record, I don’t claim to know either way. Frankly, I think it’s irrelevant because I don’t care about Hunter and nothing in there that might be damning to Biden hasn’t been refuted. (Namely, we have evidence that there has never been a meeting as alleged.) For these reasons, I personally don’t really care either way. However, despite this, I chose to look into it anyway, and the evidence is nowhere near conclusive like you claim.
I mean, I’m clearly not (as I said, I’ve had discussions with others about this), but even if I was, one major point of discussions is to try to change the minds of those who are ignorant or undecided, so I don’t see why discussing this with someone ignorant is pointless.
Also, this is a national event. I don’t need knowledge of anything outside the US to know about this.
Or you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’re lying. From my perspective, those are the most logical options. Again, show the evidence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Citation provided, long ago. Also well known information discoverable with only casual googling, and you are only purposefully wasting time by pretending (or maintaining) ignorance.
I don’t care. It is 100% verified, that is inarguable, and yet I will never be providing a citation to you again, never ever.
Go. Waste. Someone. Else’s. Time. You. Piece. Of. Shit.
Re: Re: Re:5
Nice corncobbing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
awww, you have no idea what’s happening here, but that’s cute.
Re: Re: Re:7
Shrink some more, boyo.
Re: Re: Re:5
[citation needed] As I said, you have failed to provide citations that actually support your claims. You may have provided citations you thought supported your claims, but from what I can tell, none of them actually do. Either way, you are expected to provide citations for your claims in a discussion.
I’m not going to do your research for you. Put up or shut up.
Nope. As I said, I have already had this discussion with others in the past. I have done my research. I have not claimed complete ignorance on this topic. That the evidence I found failed to support your claim doesn’t mean that I am feigning or maintaining ignorance; quite the opposite, it suggests either that multiple valid interpretations of the evidence exist, that you are misinterpreting the evidence, or that you have evidence that others don’t, including others on your side.
Moreover, again, it’s on you to provide evidence for your claims. If you can’t be bothered to provide evidence, that is entirely on you. I have no obligation to believe you or to find evidence that might prove your claims. That’s just how it works.
Yet you keep saying it. That suggests you probably do care, but not enough to actually prove your claim.
Regardless, I don’t care whether you care. If you don’t care to prove your claim, I have no reason to believe you.
No, it’s pretty easy to argue against. Namely, the fact that you and others who agree with you have failed to actually demonstrate that it is verified. I’m willing to change my mind (after all, I don’t really have a problem with it even if it’s true since it doesn’t really change my opinion on Biden and I don’t care about Hunter since he has minimal involvement in politics), but I have yet to see any good evidence to support it being true.
Then no one who didn’t already believe you will be convinced by your claims, meaning you’re just wasting everyone’s time, including your own, by repeating them as you do. If you want to be petty and lazy, fine, but that doesn’t exactly make you look like you have a valid point or like you’re arguing in good faith.
Take. Your. Own. Advice.
Re:
The only difference here is that Elon is being a little piss baby about it.
Wonder who at the NY Post pissed Elon off…
Re: Re:
More that he is now pissing inside out.
Re:
I see that you are of the when outside makes a mistake, it is a mistake, but when the other side make a mistake it is part of a deep and wide conspiracy against us. That is such a biased view of the world that you will let it lead you into supporting those who will use you to gain their ends, and make your and everybody else’s life worse.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Well yeah, but mostly cuz of those screenshots detailing the conspiracy.
So.
Re: Re: Re:
You mean the screenshots which contain no evidence of a conspiracy whatsoever or any connection between the government and the laptop decision?
Seriously, the screenshots don’t show any conspiracies. Literally the only people who see them as such are people who expected to see such evidence, and that can easily be explained as confirmation bias.
Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Pffft… Like any of the current crop of trolls are ever intellectually honest.
It’s as if they constantly pretend to be dumb so that they can forever play the victim… or they really are as dumb as they sound and aren’t really pretending.
Rules for thee, but not for E(lon)?
the right has been more accepting of friendly fire since dick cheney
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Masnick with some FUD, coming right up
The difference is of course that this was decided by algorithm (maybe a dumb an outdated one, but as you note, doing this smartly is hard) and was reversed fairly quickly (both times). In other words, it’s just an oops.
Vs the Twitter Laptop story was suppressed very much on purpose, with a great deal of deliberation by humans. It stayed in effect for several days. They later came to regret that decision (so they claim, I’m not sure they really do) but it was a decision that they made on purpose. (and yes, gov had at least some prepatory hand)
And here you are, trying to pretend the two events are equivalent. Cuz you’re a partisan hack with MDS.
Re:
Projects a number of facts not in evidence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No only is that a useless thing to say, every fact stated here is in fact well documented.
That Masnick is a partisan hack with MDS is just an opinion, but I think I’ve provided robust support for that also.
Re: Re: Re:
Someone literate wouldn’t have used “robust” to mean “hallucinatory” like Bratty Matty just did here.
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that the documents you present don’t actually prove the facts you set out.
As for Masnick being a partisan hack, you’ve failed to provide any actual support for that position. Just unsupported assertions and insults. Not exactly convincing. Additionally, evidence to the contrary has also been provided, but you have failed to anything more than say it doesn’t count because you say so.
Re:
Prove it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Gee, that was easy. I mean there may have been (probably was) some low-level human moderator who approved it, but the whole thing was clearly started by some algorithm based off “vengeance” and then after that flagging was deemed legitimate all the related tweets were removed automatically (i.e. by algorithm) as well.
I’ve had similar things happen on FB where something gaming related (one specific instance was “jump over the terrain and shoot them in the face”) got flagged as “inciting violence”. Then suspiciously when appealed “no no, we’re talking about a game here” they will reply mere seconds later that “we have determined that you DID violate our community standards”. Not sure what purpose having an “appeal” also done by algo does but that’s what they do.
Anyway, it’s obviously an algo and you’re dumb for asking me to prove it, which was, as it turns out, easy enough.
Re: Re: Re:
From the article:
Please explain how a post that likely included no images/language relating to violence—that was about the suspensions themselves—was suspended by the same algorithm that suspended tweets containing those images/that language.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
For starters you have in no way shown that was true nor even “likely”.
In fact, because I am quite sure it was flagged by an algo I’m assuming they DID include such images or language…almost certainly by reference or quote but algos aren’t smart enough for that. Granted that’s also an assumption, but a much more believable one.
Re: Re: Re:3
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1641601253946867712
I can assume from the date that this is the “problematic” tweet in question. Notice that the tweet never mentions, threatens, or displays an image depicting an act of violence. The only possible way that the algorithm could’ve dinged this tweet is if the process did so only because the tweet said “Trans Day of Vengeance”—but if that alone is enough to earn a suspension, the process is clearly bullshit.
It’s possible that an algorithm dinged the account. But if that were the case, hundreds of other accounts should’ve been similarly suspended for the exact same reason. While thousands of tweets were purged, I doubt that the odds of them all being purged only for saying “Trans Day of Vengeance” are as high as you’d like me to believe.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I have no idea if that is the original tweet but even that might well have flagged it over “vengeance”.
Well yes, no one said otherwise. But I don’t think it’s NEW bullshit like Masnick seems to want you to think it is, and not anything like what happened with the laptop, which Masnick directly compared it to.
But I’ve seen the exact same type of stupidity out of FB.
It all depends on how it’s written. On Twitter it even could be partly driven by the virality of a particular “bad” phrase. But if you have any idea how this stuff works the idea that it would be mostly algo drive is super uncontroversial, not sure why you’re trying to make it so.
Re: Re: Re:5
The article is specifically suggesting that there is no relevant difference here, so you’re just wrong in this. The whole point is that this suggests that neither bias nor government interference were involved with the decision to remove the laptop story just like they weren’t involved in this decision, and the reasoning is precisely that it’s just the same problems as before involved here.
Re:
As usual, you either have no clue what you’re talking about or suck at reading.
The moderation team tweet literally says
In other words, after tweets or terms have been flagged, they deliberately start a process to take them down.
This was an oops, yes. But so was the Biden laptop story, as evidenced by the fact that they said “We made a mistake” afterwards.
Your claiming otherwise is just because of your MDS.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I honestly think you’re confused.
That woudl be an algo, actually, but the initial flag was almost certainly an algo, also. There may have been a low level moderator hitting a “yes the falg is accurate” button but that was about it.
This is NOTHING like the laptop story where it was NOT auto-flagged by anything, there was hours of debate by top execs, and then they ultimately made the decision to remove. (granted they then removed the content via algo, including preventing it in DMs, which a little extra special. )
it took them several days to unflag the story and the “We made a mistake” was months later so no, again, not even vaguely similar.
Masnick is lying and you’re so dumb you’ll buy it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I made a detailed reply, this shitty site ate it, we’ll see if it appears later.
But:
After discussing it extensively internally, thoroughly blocking it for days, and then finally apologizing months later, after it was shown explicitly they were wrong. If you think these are in any way similar, you’re an idiot. (MM wants you to be)
Re: Re: Re:
Again, Matthew, this is wrong. Twitter said they were wrong and reversed course the next day including announcing a change in policy. Basically the same as in this case.
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/16/twitter-fixes-bad-policy-blocking-hacked-documents/
The only one spreading false information here is you.
I’m sorry that facts don’t support your feelings, Matthew.
Now, let’s see how Matthew continues to insist that he’s right and I’m lying despite me providing actual evidence (something he’s immune to).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That statement was while they were still banning the story and were pretending it was reasonable to do so, you fucking walnut. It took another day to stop blocking the sharing of the article, and they continued banning the NYPOST for another sixteen days. And of course they had debated blocking the article at length among themselves, not an algo as this presumably was.
The statement you showed (in your own article, generally not a credible source) was also not an apology. I’m not sure when the first actual apology was but I’m pretty sure it was a loooonnng time after.
Let’s recap:
Holy fuck you’re shameless in your lying.
That is an actual lie.
Re: Re: Re:3
Matthew people can read the facts and realize just how full of shit you are. They stopped blocking the sharing of the link within a day. They admitted they were wrong and changed the policy. That they didn’t directly say the words “we’re sorry” or whatever is meaningless. Clearly, they felt they were wrong and that’s why they changed the policy.
Regarding not unblocking the NYPost account, that was (again) well established policy that the company had in place well before and well after, that if you violated the policy, you needed to delete the tweets before they’d reinstate your account. And that was true even if they changed the policy.
This is still the case today as evidenced by the fact that accounts that Musk banned in November for mentioning Mastodon (not for linking to ElonJet, which you still falsely insist is doxxing) remained unable to use the platform unless they deleted those tweets, even though Musk changed the policy on not being able to link to Mastodon a day after it took hold.
But, of course, Matt will NEVER admit that Musk does everything he gets all twisted up about when the old boss did it. Matt cannot bring himself to admit that Musk is basically doing the same fucking stuff as the last management team did, though Musk’s approach is more arbitrary and designed only to benefit himself rather than the users of the platform as a whole.
Matthew, you’re wrong, you’re unwilling to admit that you’re wrong, and you look like a complete laughingstock.
Have you noticed that literally no one here comes to your support? Even Hyman Rosen, who is ideologically aligned with you called you out today for being annoying and you flipped out not even realizing that he was actually generally in agreement with your viewpoint.
Has it occurred to you that the deluded assholes might just be you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve literally shown you lying multiple times in one this thread. Including this time. Strawb and Toom don’t seem so smart but I’m not sure how many other people you can gaslight. I dunno, maybe it helps your loyalists “flag” anyone pointing how wrong you are.
Yes, you see that’s literally the same thing I said, but you’re trying to make it sound different. They blocked the article for 2 days. Not a few hours Your “statement” was halfway through that period. They realized they’d fucked up, but they were “listening to feedback” and trying to pretend they were still right, initially.
It absolutely is not and if you had any class you would realize that.
Ah, yes, the “inquisitorial confession” policy. “Admit you were wrong (even after we have) and we’ll end your suffering”. Meaningless excuse. “Well established policy.” is not a defense, at all. They were morally obligated to unban NYPost without trying to make them confess their sins. Which they did…after 16 days. When the outrage had grown loud enough and they couldn’t avoid doing it. Because before that they were trying to be stubborn, save face, pretend they “really were right all along” and they were just being kind enough to change their policy.
Kinda like you, actually.
None of this addresses that they spent hours debating whether to do this (blatantly illiberal) move, choose to do so, and that the FBI rather transparently at least tried to prime them to do that, btw.
Vs. Clearly initiated by algo, reversed within hours, “we’re sorry” and no forced-to-confess-your-sins bullshit.
I need to a verifiable citation for this (not a TD article) because all I have ever seen on the subject is hearsay, from you. Frankly I don’t believe you, I’m saying.
It without question is doxxing, and therein lies the difference…that’s against policy, still. If you can prove mastodon linkers were forced recant despite a subsequent policy change you will have scored a point. One, lonely point, compared to many loses.
Well gee, it’s almost like that’s my fucking point. I dunno about every time, but every time I’ve seen you try to cast Musk as a hypocrite it turned out you were just making shit up to create a false-equivalency. You’re just fucking lying, admit it.
Last week you tried to pretend Musk following the exact same policy in India that Old Twitter had, pursuing the same lawsuit, was somehow Musk “gladly” banning people at Modi’s request. That was pure invented tripe. Now you’re pretending that a 16 day premeditated ban is the same as something started by algo and resolved within hours. What the fucking fuck? I could probably come up with a dozen examples.
Funnily enough, that’s my main objection to you. It’s as if once caught in a lie, the only solution you see is to lie more.
Oh crap, Masnick, that’s sad. You have like a dozen people that comment regularly and almost all of them are committed liberals, which of course they are, you are. Ever notice how any conservative opinion gets “flagged” within minutes, no matter how reasonable? You see THAT as validation? Your readership is largely gibbering monkeys, and you take solace in the fact that they will rabidly attack anyone pointing out your lies? Just fucking sad. And for the record you don’t understand my views enough to know whether someone else shares them.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, you have not.
You’re the one gaslighting here by pretending to have shown something you clearly haven’t.
I fail to see how that helps your case. Moreover, you specifically said it took months, not days.
Where is your evidence that Twitter pretended they were right? Also, that they said they were “listening to feedback” doesn’t help your case.
Not that you have any room to criticize others for not having class, but while you’re not completely wrong about it not being meaningless (an explicit apology is far better than an implicit one so long as both are also accompanied by corrective action), it is irrelevant to whether Mike was lying when he said that they owned up to the error and such. You can admit making a mistake and take steps to make up for that mistake (i.e. own up to the mistake) without explicitly apologizing for it.
Since Mike didn’t say that they used those exact words, and those words weren’t necessary to prove him right, it is irrelevant to whether Mike is lying about this.
Not to the point Mike is making, which is that Elon’s Twitter handles this no different from old Twitter. He is stating that this policy is still in place today.
Again, this isn’t about whether Twitter is right or wrong about having and enforcing this policy but about comparing Twitter now to Twitter back then, and whether or not the NYP story was treated differently from other, similar (in terms of the rules) posts.
It is a defense to accusations of discrimination (or government coercion), which is what Mike was getting at here.
I agree completely, but Mike isn’t asserting otherwise. The thing is that Mike isn’t saying Twitter was morally right to not unban them immediately despite their existing policies, so the point is irrelevant to this discussion.
I’m not saying that wasn’t the case, but I don’t really recall. Do you have a citation?
Again, where is your evidence that they were saying that they were “right all along”?
Actually, maybe you’re just being unclear. Maybe by “right all along” you mean that they stood by their decision that the post was sufficiently likely to be in breach of the hacked-materials policy. That actually makes a lot more sense… Though, the thing is that, as I understand it, Twitter never actually said that that was wrong; they said that evidence came out later that, had they had it at the time, would not have led them to block the post in the first place, which isn’t exactly the same thing as saying that they shouldn’t have made that decision in the first place based on the evidence they had.
Still, I’ll discuss this more later.
Because none of that is at all relevant to the point being made, at least to Mike. I’ll get back to this, though.
Right, so, I don’t agree that the difference between hours and less-than-a-day is material, nor that the explicit apology vs. implicit one is important for Mike’s point, but the other things, I kinda agree with you on, though with caveats.
First, the story in question here hasn’t been shown to have been done algorithmically, nor is that as clear as you assert. However, I do agree that it’s possible that it was, that—if it was—that would be a material difference, and, most importantly, the evidence you cite for why it must have been done algorithmically is in itself a potentially important distinction.
See, here’s the key difference. In the case of the laptop story, at the time, the evidence available at the time was sufficient to show that the story could plausibly contain hacked material and, if so, that would indisputably be in breach of the policy Twitter had at that time. (That the policy itself was bad and later changed is ultimately irrelevant to the point I’m making.) Now, sure, later on, new evidence came out that, had it been available to Twitter at the time of the initial decision, would have caused them to not block the story in the first place, but when the story came out in the first place and during the entire period the post was blocked, Twitter had what they believed was sufficient evidence that the story likely breached their policy. The reversal was not because they re-reviewed the post and decided that the initial decision was in error based on the available evidence and the policies in place at the time but 1) a change in policy, 2) making an exception to a different policy, and 3) discovery of new evidence.
None of those were the case for the posts at issue in this article. No actual changes in policy were made, no new evidence came up; this was entirely a decision that the posts in question were never in breach of the terms at all and should never have been blocked to begin with (at least arguably). It was entirely about a mistaken application of policy. That does make for an important difference.
As for the policy about not reinstating posts when a change in policy causes them to not be in breach anymore, I agree that that had no role here, though that’s because it wouldn’t apply here since no changes were made to the policy in the first place. That said, as Mike points out, that policy is still in place today, so while that is an important difference for this particular story, it is not a difference at all between current Twitter and old Twitter.
None of this proves Mike was lying, though; I would say it comes down to having a difference of opinion in what constitutes a material difference. Still, I will grant that Mike has not fully grasped the nature of the objections here.
The reason Mike generally presents a TD article is because there are multiple external sources within that article.
As far as believing what he says about what his contacts say, that’s just journalism. They are anonymous sources, so there is little he can do to present external confirmation. I’m sorry if you can’t accept that, but there isn’t much he can do.
Still, I too would be interested if Mike does have corroboration from other sources, so I won’t say he shouldn’t present such a source. Instead, even though I actually believe him, I shall actually join you in asking for an additional source, if only out of curiosity.
I dispute that that’s the case “without question”, but I will agree that it could be argued that it is doxxing, depending on how exactly one defines the term.
Here, I once again concur. If the posts were removed for alleged doxxing and not just for linking to Mastodon, that is weak evidence that the policy is still in place. For Mike, I would suggest screencaps of notices stating the reasons given for removal, the tweets allegedly removed, and evidence that the accounts were still banned after the change in policy.
Not really. You believe you’ve seen that, but mostly you’ve been incorrect. This case may be an exception to that, but I can’t say I’ve seen a trend like you claim.
As I recall, the difference was that old Twitter was refusing to comply with the requests that Musk is honoring. I invite evidence to the contrary, but that’s my understanding.
People can be wrong without lying.
I mean, you have yet to demonstrate that Mike was lying, and the only instance you might be right and Mike wrong (this case), you haven’t been great at presenting your case. Like, I actually might agree he’s at least partly wrong in this case, but the way you worded things made it hard to see that, and you definitely have overstated your case at least as much as he has.
I also feel obligated to point out that I have only ever seen you acknowledge that you were wrong on anything exactly once, on the bees-are-fish case in California. And that I have seen Mike change his mind sometimes, once quite recently, even.
Uh, no. Mike is not a “committed liberal”. He does have some liberal leanings, but then he also has libertarian leanings.
No, I haven’t. There have been several conservative opinions that didn’t get flagged. It’s just that a number of the people who tend to post conservative opinions here have a tendency to unreasonably repeat false things, and so they tend to get flagged every time now no matter how reasonable that individual post may be. It could be thought of as the Techdirt equivalent to banning a particular user, I guess.
Additionally, there has been at least one liberal user who has received that same treatment (LostinLodos comes to mind), so this isn’t a bias against conservatives per se.
Really, this appears to just be confirmation bias on your part.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
holy shit, wrong already. That was fast!
Why do you waste so many words being useless and wrong, tho? (no I’m not reading it)
Re: Re: Re:7
Incorrect.
Re: Re: Re:7
Wow, bhull242 was gentle and fair with you and still you act like a dick bigger than one on a porn star.
Do you now understand why everyone hates you here?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
BTW, just because someone else recongizes your bullshit does not make them “on my side”, but…….
…No Hyman Rosen appears to have commented on this post. I did respond to a comment that might fit your description by an AC. So did you misread, or did you out an anonymous?
Re: Re: Re:5
The latter, kind of.
Hyman only posts anonymously because, due to his refusal to not stop badmouthing transgender people at every opportunity, even where it is entirely irrelevant, post under that name are far more likely to be blocked completely and are practically guaranteed to be held for manual review before publishing, one of the exceptionally rare cases where that happens. (To my knowledge, Hyman is literally the only person to get such treatment for something other than commercial spam or repeated direct threats. Even you, with your claim (which I will accept as true for now, at least), have not reached that point, and unless something drastically changes, there’s a good change things will stay that way.) Prior to then, he actually posted solely under a registered account using that name, never anonymously.
Hyman does not make any real attempt to hide his identity, and readily acknowledges himself as such when others ask or point it out. He’s only anonymous for the purposes of circumventing moderation, not for concealing his identity. Again, he has expressly stated this on multiple occasions.
Does that answer your question?
Re: Re: Re:4
Has it occurred to you that the deluded assholes might just be you?
Nope, never.
To be wrong is to admit being the fool. He’d rather be the fool without an explicit admission.
What’s worse is that he doesn’t understand that it’s a distinction without much of a difference anymore.
Re:
The difference is of course…
…that Musk owns it now. That’s the thing you’re conveniently leaving out of your pathetic attempt to run interference for him. All of it is his fucking responsibility. It’s his fuck up.
And that’s whether you agree with it, believe it, or whatever other leap of faith you goofy fucks need to be able to grasp reality.
And here you are, trying to pretend the two events are equivalent.
Apart from who’s running Twitter, they are.
It was just another fuck up on Musk’s watch. Par for the course as far as we’re concerned. A 4D chess move designed to pay off 40 moves later is what jackass fucks like you think.
Re:
Should have figured you were a crypto nut to boot.
Re:
What does that say about you when you come here on a daily basis and fellatiate Musk for all of us to see?
“Heat of the moment.” I mean… could you make it any more obvious?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“Vengeance” does not imply violence in the same way that “defund the police” does not imply taking away money from law enforcement.
The New York Post article on this new suspension is deeply critical and satirical about Musk, and the Post is a very conservative outlet, so I don’t know who you think is “letting this slide.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic.
It does strongly imply that, actually.
That literally means that, despite some liberals trying to claim otherwise once it wasn’t working out so well.
Re:
Why does it not surprise me that you are so fucking stupid, you have no clue how threaded comment sections work.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Or, alternatively, cuz it was the last comment at the time and cuz Masnick’s site sucks the only UI indication you’re replying to the last comment vs a new comment is a thin line down the left?
yeah, you sure learned me……
Re: Re: Re:
No. The default subject also shows Re: to indicate a reply.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Ironically, my autistic sea lion, that might be least stupid thing you’ve ever said to me.
Re:
..said nobody literate, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Maybe you should practice doing more reading than writing. Lord knows I’m hated here, but you’re just a total nuisance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You’re anonymous. By definition no one can have a feeling about you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
“Woke ideologue.”
Re: Re: Re:
But you’re still so fucking stupid you don’t know how threaded comment sections work… Just saying…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I do, the website just has shitty UI. But is that better or worse than not understanding the logic of “Anonymous”?
Re: Re: Re:3
Worse. Much, much worse.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Sure buddy.
Re: Re: Re:3
Way to blame your fucking stupidity on something else.
Everybody else seems to understand how threaded comment sections work, why are you so fucking stupid that you can’t seem to grasp it?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Literally the only difference when responding to the last comment vs making a new comment is a thin blue line down the side, but OK.
Suuuuurrrrreeeeee buddy.
Re: Re: Re:5
Or maybe the fact that one link says “Reply” and the other says “Add a New Comment” and you’re just too fucking stupid to know the difference.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Incorrect, after you hit either it just says “post comment” in both cases.
Nice try tho.
Re: Re: Re:7
Wrong… you’re just a fucking idiot, simple as that.
Because when you click the “Reply” link is says specifically “Reply to Matthew M Bennett” (or whomever) and when you don’t, it says “Post New Comment”.
Face it, you’re a fucking idiot!
Re: Re: Re:7
Replying to the last comment says at the top:
Reply to Anonymous Coward
Adding a new comment says:
Add Your Comment
Nice try at moving the goalpost tho.
Re: Re: Re:3
Worse, since this particular AC is well known here due to past behavior here under a registered account that is now all-but-blocked. I can kinda understand the confusion, but it is worse.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure that that’s Hyman. If so, he’s basically anonymous in name only. I’ve explained in more detail in another post.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You can guess based on writing mannerisms but you have no way of actually knowing. And I don’t care either way.
Re: Re: Re:3
Like I said, he has admitted multiple times to it.
Re:
No, that was always what it means, just like how “Black Lives Matter” has always meant “Black Lives Matter too”. That some liberals had to point this out after others misinterpreted it doesn’t mean that they were changing it later in response to backlash; that they were refuting the counters is sufficient.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It literally always means taking money away from law enforcement. Thanks for agreeing, I guess? But it never could mean anything else. There’s nothing to “point out”.
I mean sometimes it meant “we fucking hate white people”. But it was never explicitly “Black Lives Matter too”, or they would have said that. The entire movement was racist from the very beginning.
You can argue about BLM, if you want. You cannot argue “defund the police” did not mean “defund the police”.
(It has nothing to do with anything but I am an anti-government libertarian and did want to do at least dramatically reduce and reform police revenue structure (get rid of asset forfeiture, mandate any tickets NOT go to the dept involved etc). The last 2 years have proven me wrong on wanting to reduce their total budget, in any case. But that is very much what it means)
Re: Re: Re:
They did. You just weren’t listening.
At any rate, you like to cite to common knowledge and common sense, and you also talk a lot about reading between the lines, so you don’t really have any room to complain about them failing to be explicit.
No, it absolutely was not. It was about protesting against (at least perceived) racial injustice from law enforcement. That isn’t racism.
I was in many discussions about that particular slogan when it first popped up. I know exactly what the originally intended message was. I also argued that they really ought to change their slogan precisely because of how misleading it is.
I’m not saying your confusion is unreasonable. I’m just saying that it is a misinterpretation of what the intended message was.
Oh, now I see the real confusion here! No, you’ve misunderstood the point greatly.
See, when the other person said, “taking away money from law enforcement,” they meant “taking all money away from law enforcement”. This was (and still is) a very common misconception about the phrase. In reality, it’s about diverting funds away from law enforcement towards other programs that would give less responsibilities to law enforcement and reduce conflict between law enforcement and the communities they serve. (Sure, some may use it to refer to a different concept, where the existing law enforcement department would get no budget and be replaced with a new one, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion, since we’re talking about the general use commonly used at the beginning.)
I mean, technically, depending on how you define “law enforcement”, I guess you could say that the phrase as intended wouldn’t necessarily entail reducing the total budget for law enforcement, but that’d be splitting hairs IMO. Beyond that, no one has ever disputed that the phrase means that law enforcement budgets should be reduced to at least some extent, so, again, this is not a case where the meaning has changed in response to backlash.
Re: Re: Re:2
Correction. That person was apparently being sarcastic, which both of us (and everyone else) missed, so I may be wrong on this.
In which case, both of you are wrong about what others are saying.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
OMG, Poe’s Law is really real, isn’t it? I was, in fact, being ironic. A Day of Vengeance is a call to violence and defunding the police means taking money away from law enforcement.
Trans violence needs to be taken seriously. Deluded men claiming to be women have been physically attacking real women who are standing up against woke gender ideology. If you follow LibsOfTikTok on Twitter, you can see video of incident after incident. It should, of course, come as no surprise. Men have been violently attacking women who won’t give them what they want since time immemorial. Men in dresses are still men, and they act that way. That’s why women don’t want men intruding into their spaces.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
My apologies then. It is legitimately true that there is no idea so extreme some TD reader does not legitimately think that (and you see it all the time). Elder cat lady cries about “ableist” and she isn’t kidding.
Yes, I agree.
Re: Re: Re:
No, no it doesn’t. At least, it doesn’t mean taking all money away from law enforcement. And no, a day of vengeance can absolutely be metaphorical.
Re: Re: Re:
When it has shown to be a real problem, I will. I have not seen evidence that such a trend exists, however. Also, how is this even remotely related to the topic at hand?
A virtually nonexistent group that doesn’t include transwomen because that’s not what “transgender” means.
I have yet to see any evidence of this whatsoever.
I don’t. Twitter discussion on politics are not at all productive in my experience.
Can you provide a link to any such video?
Not in dispute by anyone. What is disputed is whether transwomen are or should be treated as men, and how to define the word “men”.
Random sexism in addition to transphobia. Nice /s
Seriously, why are you even bringing this up? It has no relevance whatsoever to anything else being discussed.
Twitt-hole.
So much for billionaires’ free speech.
The trolls are well fed today.
sigh Flag the posts and move on. You aren’t going to convince the troll, since they’re posting to get a rise from you, not to say anything truthful.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Actuaslly, responding to speech with speech is far more legitimate than trying to censor it.
Sounds to me like you’re the problem, not me.
Re: Re:
Still doesn’t know what censorship or speech are.
Good job.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Go ahead. Find a definition.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
The troll displays the traits of an low moderate functioning autism sufferer. You are correct: It will never go away as long as anyone gives it the slightest crumb of attention.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
technically you’re the troll here.
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
Re: Re:
“low moderate functioning autism sufferer”
You can shove that ableist shit up your arse.
Re: Re:
This isn’t a sign of autism. Matty is just a troll.
Re: Re:
The ableist rhetoric was completely unwarranted and weakens your point.
Looks like both twitter and truth social are circling the toilet bowl.
Good riddance.
'No no, our objection was that YOU did it, it's fine when WE do it.'
As always stories like this make crystal clear that the objection of US conservatives to moderation has nothing to do with ‘censorship’ and ‘free speech’ and everything to do with the fact that they aren’t the ones pulling the trigger.
Give them the power they were condemning but moments ago and they will cheerfully make use of it and the same people that were screaming about how ‘moderation is censorship!’ will engage in mental gymnastics that would make professional contortionists wince in order to defend the act of moderation when done by one of theirs.
Musk has the absolute right to be an incompetent hypocrite in running his own company.
Americans (though not Australians) has the absolute right to mock the everloving crap out of him for it – and to take their business elsewhere because he’s
(a) loathsome
(b) useless
(c) embarrassing or;
(d) all of the above
Please note, none of this has anything to do with fucking cake, trans people, gay people, black people, people with or without physics degrees, people with or without superior intelligence, Ron DeSantis, doxxing, Elon’s fucking het, or censorship.
Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
Wrong choice
But more understandable.
At least here the face value is the image of violence. As opposed to corruption.
Still bad. I disagree with all deletionist actions.
But this could at the least
Make sense