Elon Fires Half Of ExTwitter’s Election Integrity Team, Because A Manager Liked A Tweet Calling Him A Fucking Dipshit

from the elon's-fragile-ego-is-more-important-than-election-integrity dept

There is no doubt that it’s not always easy to figure out what social media websites should do about election disinformation. There are those who believe that websites need to very actively remove such content, but there’s little evidence that straight removal does very much productive, which is why it wasn’t that surprising that YouTube (for example) has stopped policing lies about the 2020 election (the last Presidential election, which doesn’t mean they won’t pay attention to upcoming election).

That said, even if you think that removing content (even election disinformation) is counterproductive, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a clear role for election integrity teams at various platforms. Remember, the main way that old Twitter handled election misinformation in 2020 was to focus on providing more information (that is, adding to the marketplace of ideas) which some people, very wrongly, called “censorship.” Adding more information is not censorship, it’s enabling the so-called marketplace of ideas to function better.

Indeed, reports show that the only times Twitter was actually removing information regarding elections was in the most extreme circumstances, such as cases where you had people impersonating election officials on Twitter in an attempt to mislead voters into not voting (such as by telling them the election was on a different day), or where there were out and out frauds.

That kind of thing is still really important.

But apparently not to Elon Musk. Earlier this week it was reported that exTwitter had disabled the feature that let users “report” election misinformation as part of its reporting tools. That already got some people worried about how a Musk-run exTwitter would handle many upcoming elections.

As if to confirm this was absolutely intentional, that same day, the Information revealed that Elon fired half of the remaining “Election Integrity Team” at exTwitter. This is despite him recently promising to expand that effort. Rolling Stone has way more info on all of this, including details about what likely happened here and it’s dumber than you could have imagined.

It began, as so much nonsense does these days, with gullible Elon falling for complete and utter nonsense peddlers on his own site. A month ago, Aaron Rodericks, who worked on the “threat disruption” team, and is a holdover from pre-Elon Twitter, announced that he was hiring 8 new people for civic integrity and elections work:

Again, this work is not about “censoring,” but about actually understanding various threats to actual elections (not just garden variety political misinfo) and figuring out ways to counter them.

But the nonsense peddlers on exTwitter that have Elon’s ear convinced him that it was a sneaky plot behind Elon’s back… supported with “evidence” that Aaron had, at times, liked some tweets that mocked Elon and Linda Yaccarino. From the Rolling Stone piece:

In a quote tweet, Benz replied to Raichik’s sarcastic question: “No, it’s being run by Yoel Roth’s former colleague, who still somehow works at X despite appearing to think Musk is a ‘f*cking dipshit’ — His name is Aaron Rodericks.” In the post, Benz shared screenshots of his many recent criticisms of Rodericks on the platform. In those tweets, Benz called Rodericks one of CEO Linda Yaccarino’s “censorship shills” and noted that Rodericks had apparently liked another user’s tweet using the aforementioned epithet to describe Musk.

Again, remember that for all of Elon’s talk about “free speech” on his platform, and a promise to fund any lawsuit for someone fired for their activities on exTwitter, he has a thing where he is very quick to fire any employee who even hints at not wanting to lick his boots. And thus he fired Roderick and many of his team despite having approved expanding his team, almost certainly because someone called his attention to Rodericks once liking a tweet that called Musk a fucking dipshit.

Rodericks was then suspended. Since he’s based in Ireland, he went to court to try to block further disciplinary action:

Aaron Rodericks, who is the co-lead of Threat Disruption at X, the social media formerly known as Twitter secured the order against his employer.

He claims that he is being subjected to a process that is “a complete sham” over allegations that he “demonstrated hostility” to the company for allegedly liking tweets by third parties that are critical of X, Mr Musk and the firm’s CEO Linda Yaccarine.

That RTE article notes, correctly, that Rodericks feels unfairly targeted for using the platform that he’s been told stands for free speech:

Shortly afterwards he claims he was the subject of a meetings and a disciplinary process that has seen him suspended from his job for allegedly liking disparaging posts about X, Mr Musk, and Ms Yaccarino.

He said that he was very surprised over the allegations, as the company had adopted a strong position on the freedom of speech on the platform, and is not aware of any requirement the precludes employees from liking material posted on X.

Rodericks should, you know, share this tweet, and ask Elon to pay for his lawyers.

No limit!

Anyhoo, Elon can’t now publicly admit that he fired Rodericks for like a tweet calling him a fucking dipshit, so he’s now trying to retcon in some fucking nonsense that Rodericks was undermining election integrity. Which is nonsense, based on nothing but the say-so of a known political operative with a history of nonsense.

It seems pretty clear that Musk was embarrassed by Rodericks’ liking of a tweet and fired him, and then likely fired a few remaining employees in the department who were there from pre-Elon days.

Hours later, when asked about all of this at the Code Conference, CEO-in-name-only Linda Yaccarino lied through her teeth and said that the election integrity team was “growing.” On stage she claimed that “It’s an issue we take very seriously. And contrary to the comments that were made, there is a robust and growing team at X that is wrapping their arms around election integrity.”

It’s not growing when you fire half the team for recognizing the emperor has no clothes.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: twitter, x

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Elon Fires Half Of ExTwitter’s Election Integrity Team, Because A Manager Liked A Tweet Calling Him A Fucking Dipshit”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
154 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Hours later, when asked about all of this at the Code Conference, CEO-in-name-only Linda Yaccarino lied through her teeth and said that the election integrity team was “growing.”

How’s that a lie? It shrunk; past tense. Now it kind of needs to grow. I imagine the number of job openings will only increase as Elon gets more angry and erratic, and hiring gets more difficult.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Just a FYI, “needs to grow” isn’t the same as “growing”. The first is the third-person singular simple present indicative form, and the latter is the present progressive plural form.

Thinking they are the same can lead to things like having your car repossessed since the need to pay the bills doesn’t actually pay the bills.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Just a FYI, “needs to grow” isn’t the same as “growing”. The first is the third-person singular simple present indicative form, and the latter is the present progressive plural form.

Yes, I wondered whether I should mention that, but it seemed like the start of a pedantic rabbit-hole. How would a company ever be literally “growing” or “shrinking” in the present tense? Each incident of growth or shrinkage is a durationless event that already happened or is expected to happen.

Yaccarino’s statement is arguably meaningless, which makes the prospect of calling it a “lie” all the more dubious; “bullshit” would be more accurate. To have meaning, it would’ve had to have been something like “the team has grown over the week”, or “based on outstanding job offers, we expect the team will grow over the next month”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

First, the election integrity teams isn’t the same the trust and safety team although there is an overlap.

Secondly, how do we know about Hunter’s laptop if it was “censored”?

I guess we can assume your use of the word “censored” is as relevant as me saying that you have a towering intellect.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Secondly, how do we know about Hunter’s laptop if it was “censored”

It’s similar to how Canada news sites get blocked on FB and Google. You can still go directly to those news sites, but relatively few people will do that. So if the platforms don’t carry the story, then the vast majority of folks were unaware at the time.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

It actually absolutely WAS where a whole lot of journalists got their “news” from. Just an echo chamber of liberals cribbing notes of each other.

It’s a big part of why the very partisan censorship prior to Musk was so destructive. Liberal arts folks tend to be, well, liberal, and that’s nearly all journalists. But the the censors were perhaps even more Lefty, and so it just became an echo chamber where the . Overton Window just drifted (or sprinted) a little further left each day.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It actually absolutely WAS where a whole lot of journalists got their “news” from.

Twitter wasn’t, isn’t, will never be, and shouldn’t ever be responsible for the decisions of other people.

it just became an echo chamber where the Overton Window just drifted (or sprinted) a little further left each day

Sure, Jan. 🙄

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Twitter wasn’t, isn’t, will never be, and shouldn’t ever be responsible for the decisions of other people.

Porn. You mean porn in schools. Also not censorship, because it’s the government CHOOSING not make a certain type of content, not banning someone else. Both the legislature and the school are part of government.

If you want to show porn to YOUR children I think you should be able to, though that obviously isn’t very healthy.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

you keep on protesting laws whose only purpose is to remove porn from schools and libraries

My protests are about the removal of books that are often targeted by right-wing jackoffs for being written by/about queer people or people of color. Any complaints about sexual content may be legit but are often a smokescreen. Besides, you can’t cite a single comment where I have supported the idea of any library stocking explicit hardcore pornography⁠—because no such comment exists.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 When anything but 'straight and white' is 'porn'

‘The laws are only meant to get porn out of schools/libraries’ is true only if you extend the porn label to cover ‘any book with non-heterosexual characters/themes that isn’t condemning them’, and since that does seem to be the definition being used by those pushing for such book bans…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:12

My protests are about the removal of books that are often targeted by right-wing jackoffs for being written by/about queer people or people of color.

100% incorrect. Maybe you are lying, maybe you were lied to, doesn’t seem to matter.

You are protesting about porn being removed. That’s it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Name a book that was actual “porn” that was removed.

I’ve seen many examples where sexuality is explored, or where someone expresses interest in a same sex relationship, but I’m not sure where “porn” was actually addressed.

It’s not like copies of the Kama Sutra are being given to 8 year olds, but I’ve seen a lot of examples of books where equality is mentioned getting canned.

Also, I’d re-read some older books if I were you. It might be that the language used by Shakespeare and the Bible made you forget the sex in those things, but believe me they’re there.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Yea, no… That excuse doesn’t work.

There are now entire school districts in Florida using the Law to ban any book that merely has LGBTQ+ characters. Doesn’t matter if there are no Explicit scenes, the existence of such a character is enough to ban a book. It doesn’t even matter if said character is only a side character, it is still enough to ban the book.

This has been outright stated in official meetings and related memos.

Please stop Pretending that anything LGBTQ+ related is automatically porn.

Not only does it paint your argument in a bad light, but Asexuals are also in this category… Meaning you are literally declaring that having no sexual attraction is automatically pornographic, which is arguably heretical (for Christianity at least) given you are demonizing the Virtue of chastity. You are also arguably Rejecting the Virtue of charity (Love thy neighbor is all inclusive, even to people who don’t share your beliefs. This is explicitly stated in the first book of Peter.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

I care to disagree. The idea of a virtue is to display what is a moral ideal. And this notably causes overlap.

Kindness requires diligence, as things that may be kind in one situation may not be in another. Likewise Kindness invokes humility (expectation to be kind even without praise or reward) and is required by the virtue of charity (love thy neighbor doesn’t exactly work without the love part).

Under this logic, chastity requires temperance, invokes humility, and is required by patience.

Asexuality still fall under the virtue of chastity given that logic due to the self restraint caused by not falling into the status quo of the otherwise hypersexual world around them (temperance) while coexisting with said status quo knowing it will stay that way (patience).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You can still go directly to those news sites, but relatively few people will do that.

So blind faith, absent a working hyperlink? Tell me you’re the dumbest fucking person alive without explicitly saying so.

Like that would make a difference to a bunch of simpletons who can barely read at a 4th grade level? Allowing access to a link isn’t curing some deficiency when the whole premise is bullshit.

Idiots like that just assume they’re getting some kind of ‘inside information’ that the ‘corrupt MSM’ is choosing not to carry. When in reality, the ‘corrupt MSM’ is less inclined to publish bullshit. Just ask Fox News about their foray into that arena and how it worked out with Dominion. Or for that matter, ask Rudy Giuliani (if he still has phone service due to his self-inflicted ‘financial problems’).

It’s not that the MSM is lying to you. It’s you choosing to believe shit you read on social media, regardless of the source. It’s people like that who keep the Chinese scam sites on social media in business, because you think you’re smart for getting your $2000 sofa for $150, and actually believing that it’s going to arrive. It’s people like that that should be thankful for spam filters, otherwise you’d have a whole lot more dumbfucks waiting for their Nigerian barrista to sort out the check bouncing.

Stop trying to excuse stupidity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Under the same theory, loads of fuckwits claimed that the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment wasn’t getting coverage / was being buried.

Same ppl fail to also realize there are about 2.5 derailments every day and think nothing of it when told.

They just need the particulars for their personal faith, no more, no less.

But sure, they can blame Twitter for briefly moderating a nothingburger.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

So if the platforms don’t carry the story, then the vast majority of folks were unaware at the time.

Your wildly overblown theory has no evidence to support it. If FB and Google actually were that influential in the news space they’d be far more interested in staying in it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“It’s similar to how Canada news sites get blocked on FB and Google”

Not unless you’re really stupid and think that an attempt to extort Google for money relating to traffic they already send to news sites is the same as an outlandish fiction being presented as fact by the agents for the party who would benefit.

“if the platforms don’t carry the story, then the vast majority of folks were unaware at the time”

Yeah, less people being unaware of fabrications intended to swing an election toward the liars is sort of the point.

What’s fun is that you are the poster boy for the arguments here. Honest discourse could use less people swayed by obvious fictions such as yourself.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re:

That’s not what that word means. “Censorship” does not mean you could not talk about it anywhere. Being banned on just one platform (and it was several, actually) is absolutely still censorship.

I cannot stand liberal attempts to redefine this word, simply because you like the censorship that’s occurring.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Being banned on just one platform (and it was several, actually) is absolutely still censorship.

It isn’t, though. The Hunter Biden laptop story being unavailable on Twitter⁠—which is a bullshit assertion in and of itself, since the story was all over Twitter on the day it broke thanks to Twitter’s own dumbassery⁠—doesn’t mean the story was unavailable through other outlets, including the website through which the story broke. You want so hard for this to be “censorship” that I’m honestly waiting for you to claim that a pro-queer Mastodon instance refusing to host anti-queer propaganda is “censoring” the same anti-queer voices that have Substacks and Twitter accounts and probably even six-figure speaking deals in the UK.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

It isn’t, though.

It is, tho.

I’m sorry, this is fucking stupid, the word has a meaning, it’s not what you want it to be. It was censored on Twitter, FB and several sites, there is not standard that censorship must be total and comprehensive just to be censorship.

That is literally just a dumbshit thing you people made up to pretend that what you’re doing isn’t censorship.

….waiting for you to claim that a pro-queer Mastodon instance refusing to host anti-queer propaganda is “censoring”

Yes, that is technically censorship. I really don’t know why you are having so much trouble with the fact that words have definitions, and that those definitions don’t change just because you want them to. But wow, what a good job both being hyperbolic and playing the victim card! It’s still censorship when you approve of it, dipshit.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

the word has a meaning

And you’re doing everything you can to water down that meaning such that “a voluntary refusal to host speech” eventually means the same thing as “being forced to take down speech”. Deep down, that’s what really grinds your gears about all this: Twitter voluntarily decided (for a few hours) that it didn’t want to host a specific bit of legally protected speech that you just so happened to think was “good”.

The owner of a pro-queer Masto instance deciding not to host anti-queer propaganda isn’t “censorship” any more than Twitter’s (short-lived) decision to not host one specific link because of the content therein is “censorship”. But please, tell me again how voluntary decisions to not host speech that is/can be hosted elsewhere is “censorship”. You still have another foot you can shoot, after all.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

….waiting for you to claim that a pro-queer Mastodon instance refusing to host anti-queer propaganda is “censoring”

Yes, that is technically censorship.

So refusing to host some kind of speech is censorship. Gotcha.

It’s nice of you to finally admit your attitudes, Matthew, what with your support for censorship in public libraries.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I really don’t know why you are having so much trouble with the fact that words have definitions, and that those definitions don’t change just because you want them to.

Ok then, for the sake of argument let’s agree it is technically, by your definition, censorship. Can we agree instead that the “censorship” of the Hunter laptop story was wildly ineffective because it was always freely available to anyone who wanted to read it, plus it got Streisanded off the fricking scale? And if we can agree on that, can you concede that maybe the full-on tantrum about said “censorship” was far more performative than genuine? Or is that a little too much self-reflection for you?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The only ones who are redefining the word “censorship” are chucklefucks like you and all those other stupid snowflakes bleating how they were “censored” on social media because it was their god given right to ignore the TOS without consequence while spewing hate, racism, misogyni, anti-semitism, election lies and very very dubious “health advices”. Oh, plus all the “think of the children” political crisis performers who are banning books they don’t like.

Every time you and someone else from the stupid-army mentions Hunters fucking laptop you declare yourself to be stupid fuckers who lack any kind of faculty for reasoning. You can’t even fathom why it is so fucking stupid to call it censorship even though it has been explained to you and your ilk on many occasions.

Your time would be better spent slamming your head into a wall than posting inane shit on the internet because at least then people won’t have to stumble onto and read any more of it.

Talk about being human waste.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Pixelation says:

Re: Re:

“Sometimes, y’know, there’s literally a conspiracy. Quite frequently actually.”

Like Trump trying to overturn the election? (Remember his lawyers being sanctioned by a judge for lawsuits regarding the election? You have to pull some real assholery to get sanctioned.)

Like “Conservatives” claiming they are silenced? (Unfortunately, I can still hear the complaints, and almost wish they were censored)

Like a bunch of “I’m going to protect the Constitution” assholes trying to aid in overturning a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected free and fair election?

There definitely are some conspiracies, I just don’t hold much stock in claims of conspiracy by the conservative side of things. They have repeatedly cried wolf, and only idiots are still listening.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonym says:

Re: Re: Re: I want to say something: Anonymus × Files

Let me explain what really happened as I have been watching this go down for weeks. Kristen Ruby first reported this. Mike Benz then STOLE her reporting which he has done all year to the point where she blocked him. He then sensationalized her reporting so much that it was an entirely different story. He constantly sensationalizes things so much that even she had to distance herself from him as many others on the right are too. This man exists nowhere online. Yet he fed the twitter files writers testimony under oath. So who is this person anyway. Why is it that David sacks and Elon musk are now both following him? He is unknown to anyone in the trump administration. Not a single person on the right or left can confirm ever knowing him or that he existed before ten months ago. Mike Benz then rallied to get Roderick’s fired. Ruby witnessed this going on and was appalled so much that she issued a statement earlier today denouncing Benz without naming him. She showed integrity. he shows absolutely none. Elon is a complete fucking moron for trusting this Intel agent. Has anyone ever worked w this man? Why does he have no EIN? Who funds his foundation? Why is he so obsessed with Renee? Did they date? He has a sick obsession with her and it’s creepy af. Benz has caused a lot of infighting. He comes across like a raging sociopathic narcissist who dreams of attention and the spotlight. He’s constantly ripping off rubys work and then pretending he wrote it. In general he’s a joke. Only one he is fooling is Elon.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

You're lying and have zero evidence, again.

There’s no reason to think this has anything to do with a Tweet, you (and Rolling Stone) are just making that up.

Musk probably fired him because like Roth he was likely a bad, partisan actor who had made Twitter the dystopian 1984 machine it was. That’s probably true of the whole “Election Integrity” team, (I’m sure it was all over any claims about 2020, but thinks Stacey Abrams claiming she’s the duly elected governor of GA is just fine) but the optics would look bad (to you, cuz you’re a partisan). The entire thing could be replaced with “community notes” which has turned out quite well, actually (not that you would ever mention that).

Again, this work is not about “censoring,” but about actually understanding various threats to actual elections (not just garden variety political misinfo) and figuring out ways to counter them.

Nope, you are just straight lying here. Censoring (no need for quotes) is basically the only option they can take. Their specific role is to suppress supposed “misnformation” about elections, which in practice means just about any statements by their political opponents about elections. There’s nothing to “understand”, and if they did “understand” something their only action to take would be to suppress, shadowban, or delete, i.e. Censorship.

You’re a partisan and you’re mad that the the partisan censorship is being dismantled. That’s the whole story.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m probably older than you

I don’t think you’re more mature, though. I mean, you come in here to troll a site you hate and get into arguments with people you despise, probably out of some inner desire to be acknowledged and possibly even liked by people who are smarter, wittier, and…well, just plain better than you (and you know it).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Listen kid – if you’re the idiot who believes anything he sees on social media, well, that’s a ‘you’re a fucking dumbass’ problem. Be thankful for spam filters or you’d be depositing checks from a Nigerian barrista that you think will actually clear.

If you believe something on social media more because there’s a possibility some social media suppressed it, then you’re beyond fucking hope – because you don’t find that suspicious. If I advertise a $2000 sofa for $150 on Shitter and you don’t see it on Facebook, I’m almost guaranteed to rope in a fucking moron like you. Because everything’s a conspiracy when paranoid schizophernia takes hold.

Get some fucking meds little man – because you’re not right.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Luka Dell says:

Re:

There’s no reason to think this has anything to do with a Tweet, you (and Rolling Stone) are just making that up.

From the linked RTE article:

The judge said that while he was not making any findings of fact in the action, he was satisfied from the evidence that the disciplinary should be halted by the court.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re: Re:

That’s basically meaninglessness. It’s just a stay, not a reversal, and based on one sided accusations based on the employee in essentially socialist EU.

The “evidence” here that is based on a tweet is based solely on testimony from an employee seeking to overturn his firing. That’s literally it. Which OF COURSE he wouldn’t say that. People being fired make up all kinds of shit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re:

There’s no reason to think this has anything to do with a Tweet, you (and Rolling Stone) are just making that up.

Strong “leave Britney alone!” vibes here.

It’s richly ironic that you would accuse Mike of making things up and this write this nonsense:

Musk probably fired him because like Roth he was likely a bad, partisan actor who had made Twitter the dystopian 1984 machine it was. That’s probably true of the whole “Election Integrity” team…

There seems to be a lot of “making up” going on in there. You’re basically pulling it straight out of your ass.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Of course he pulled it straight out of his ass, anyone who have the facts on their side doesn’t say things like “probably”, “likely”, “could”, “I’m sure”.

It’s a worse form of mansplaining, it’s idiotsplaining, it works as well on people who can think like mansplaining does on women.

Bratty Matty has a track-record of making shit up, even a kid who uses “the dog ate my homework” excuse is more convincing.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Of course he pulled it straight out of his ass, anyone who have the facts on their side doesn’t say things like “probably”, “likely”, “could”, “I’m sure”.

It’s a worse form of mansplaining, it’s idiotsplaining,

Technically, it would just be “weasel wording”(except maybe that last one), which fits nicely with the source.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That’s a fair point, though if I remember correctly, the point of weasel words is to be able to walk it back if someone counters or disproves what you said.
It’s hard to walk back an argument that contains “I’m sure”.

Then again, Matthew never walks back anything. He just doubles down/moves the goalposts/imagines new evidence/starts yelling.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew N. Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What evidence, Toom? Unless you mean “some guy is commenting anonymously under Bennett’s name” which isn’t evidence, it’s just some guy. That could be literally anyone — it could be Stephen pretending to be Bennett for all you know.

You people are so desperate to fish for le epic ownage against the evil fascist trolls you don’t even realize how even low-brow trolls whip this comment section up into a frenzy because you’re so desperate to prove you’re better than the guy who obviously doesn’t care and is taking the piss.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You people are so desperate to fish for le epic ownage against the evil fascist trolls you don’t even realize how even low-brow trolls whip this comment section up into a frenzy because you’re so desperate to prove you’re better than the guy who obviously doesn’t care and is taking the piss.”

Every accusation is a confession for you bubbo.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Countrr Threats

actually understanding various threats to actual elections (not just garden variety political misinfo) and figuring out ways to counter them

Why exactly should a generic speech platform be in the businesses of countering threats? Isn’t that the job of law enforcement? The natural suspicion is that you want X to counter viewpoints that you oppose, including those urging people to vote against the things and people you like.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Why exactly should a generic speech platform be in the businesses of countering threats? Isn’t that the job of law enforcement?

You mean like having the FBI contact said platform? I thought you people lost your collective shits over that suspicion?

The natural suspicion is that you want X to counter viewpoints that you oppose, including those urging people to vote against the things and people you like.

Oh nice. More stupid…

Logistically, would law enforcement counter threats made on a certain platform without the participation of said platform? Or is this some other dumbass idea that you didn’t bother to think about before pressing Post Comment? Because that sounds strangely similar to the concept of the FBI/DOJ working with Twitter, which caused the fracas with you simps in the first place.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Countering threats to actual elections is not the same thing as silencing speech with which you disagree under the guise of stopping misinformation.

If law enforcement believes that threats are being made that do not fall under permitted freedom of speech, they are welcome to get a warrant and ask the platform for information about the speaker.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Ethin Probst (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ah, but law enforcement just telling a platform “Hey, there’s this guy spouting pro-nazi nonsense, and it violates your terms of service” isn’t the same as a search. There’s no probable cause. Just a note to the platform that, yeah, that content violates the ToS of the platform, and the platform should probably investigate it. In other words: it’s the same stuff you or I do. And yet that’s somehow a problem if law enforcement does it, but not a problem if normal civilians do it…..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

And yet that’s somehow a problem if law enforcement does it, but not a problem if normal civilians do it

Somehow? We have a little thing called the 1st Amendment that treats efforts of speech suppression by the government, including law enforcement, differently than the same efforts by private citizens.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Informing key stakeholders about security breaches, Day 0 exploits, foreign disinfo campaigns and related NATIONAL SEXURITY ISSUES isn’t a 1A violation.

A waste of taxpayer money? You definite could weakly argue for that.

But censorship? Some of us DO know what it looks like, wumao.

And the Dems clearly AREN’T going full China here. Yet.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Ethin Probst (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Last time I checked, the FBI contacting facebook to tell them that they had a security vulnerability that they should be aware of, or using the very same tools that Facebook provides to ordinary individuals to report content, wasn’t a violation of the first amendment. Can you definitively prove that the use of those tools by law enforcement officials, in any way, implies that should the content not be removed, legal threats will follow? Oh, wait, people like you never actually can prove that….

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Countering threats to actual elections is not the same thing as silencing speech with which you disagree under the guise of stopping misinformation.

Classifying speech I don’t agree with as ‘misinformation’ assumes that the speech in question isn’t actually bullshit (or an ‘alternative fact’) to soothe the MAGA snowflake who can’t cope with reality.

So if I disagree with when/where an election is being held and decide to post what I think is the right location, there’s no problem when a bunch of magtards go to the fake location because freedum uf speech?

Careful what you wish for. MAGA folks tend to be significantly more gullible and susceptible to taking bullshit as truth. Look how many of them lost money because they wanted to privately build a wall, despite the promise of Mexico paying for it? All you got for that was a pardon for Bannon and the gimp who started it in jail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Why exactly should a generic speech platform be in the businesses of countering threats?

Because the free market, bitch. I thought you Republicans were all for it. But as soon as a guy starts kissing another guy you all start screaming for big Daddy Trump to rape you up the ass enough so you can forget gay people exist.

Your kind is NOTHING. You spent your time on this earth destroying it for millennia, and we are FINALLY going to wrest back control.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Post CSAM? Not a problem. Call Elon mean names? OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!

Elon: I took over this company to protect free speech, and by that I mean speech I agree with and nothing else!

What Elon does and does not consider grounds to remove someone from interacting with Twitter continues to demonstrate an endlessly horrifying set of priorities and standards for behavior.

Bobo says:

“…but there’s little evidence that straight removal does very much productive, which is why it wasn’t that surprising that YouTube (for example) has stopped policing lies about the 2020 election”

Uh, bullshit. Google doesn’t want to pay people to do things if they don’t absolutely have to, that’s the reason. Why are you lying to us about something this obvious?

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Arijirija says:

A boss once had to call on an employee for a place to crash overnight as his flight was delayed. The employee made up a bed filled with eiderdowns almost to the ceiling, and at the bottom, put one tiny mushy pea.

The boss was hospitalized with massive internal injuries, and the employee was arrested and charged with assault, grievous bodily harm, and whatnot.

Tha judge told him, “You should’ve known how thin bosses’ skins are by now …”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...