The Twitter Files

User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Dec 21, 2022 7:54 pm

Also, none of this is making the evening news. Nothing to see here. Then again, the evening news is in bed with the government.

Maybe all this will be funny someday.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by stuper1 » Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:38 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:37 pm
The argument that Twitter is a private company doesn’t apply because they were working hand in hand with the government. The government was actively suppressing freedom of speech through Twitter, among others.
Just playing devil's advocate, is what you say true? The First Amendment says Congress can't make any law abridging freedom of speech. This wasn't Congress acting, but rather the Executive branch, so I'm not sure what they were doing is actually unconstitutional, even though I don't like it one bit. It certainly seems to break the spirit of the law but maybe not the letter.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:03 pm

You guys are absolutely killing me...

Here's a "Secret"

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Document ... _jcoie.pdf

Here's a summary of protected vs. unprotected speech

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf

News flash...your government does conduct information operations. In fact the United States owes a decent amount of its creation to/ a result of information operations. Those boys in Massachusetts were pretty good at it too.

A list of those 'information operations' thought to be most influential...https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php ... 0674652507
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by SilentMajority » Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:21 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:38 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:37 pm
The argument that Twitter is a private company doesn’t apply because they were working hand in hand with the government. The government was actively suppressing freedom of speech through Twitter, among others.
Just playing devil's advocate, is what you say true? The First Amendment says Congress can't make any law abridging freedom of speech. This wasn't Congress acting, but rather the Executive branch, so I'm not sure what they were doing is actually unconstitutional, even though I don't like it one bit. It certainly seems to break the spirit of the law but maybe not the letter.
The executive branch is only supposed to execute the laws. 99% of it's activities are unconstitutional including this. Having the so called government do whatever it wants to the American people under the guide that the executive branch has unlimited power is clearly illegal.
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by SilentMajority » Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:31 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 7:54 pm
Also, none of this is making the evening news. Nothing to see here. Then again, the evening news is in bed with the government.

Maybe all this will be funny someday.
The fact that the mainstream media is silent drives home my point. They are controlling everything we see and hear to the extent they are able. They define the current thing. You can look on this forum filled with otherwise intelligent people and see how many believe everything the government/media tell them no matter how insane it is. They are so bought in they will defend their belief system with any argument possible no matter the evidence. It's truly like living in the matrix and seeing people hopelessly stuck in it.

I think that's the takeaway. Another poster asked what we should do with the knowledge we're learning here. I think you have to assume the media is government psy-op trying to get as many people on board with their agenda at that time. Sometimes the truth might be presented but only if it doesn't risk the agenda.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:40 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 1:20 pm

I'm not on Twitter at all. But do you really not see the principle here? If unelected bureaucrats at the government are willing and able to coerce (by one or more of various means) the press into suppressing stories they don't like, isn't that bad? The story here is not Twitter per se, it's that these unelected bureaucrats both have and use this power.

We don't know exactly where else they've been using it.

This is completely independent of any position on the Hunter Biden laptop, or the election, or whatever else. Don't we want this kind of influence to not happen?


Yes, in an ideal world we'd prefer this not to happen.

But since we live far from an ideal world then when things fall far short of the ideal we then have to evaluate the consequences of the ideal not being met.

I contend that all that went on with Twitter has not been ideal but that the consequences of this have been grandly exaggerated by those who can use it to advance their ideologies.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:45 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 1:30 pm

Vnatale if it didn't matter that the FBI was trying to kill the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter, why did they do it?

Answer: it did matter. Whatever is trending on Twitter is big news that can't be hidden. Twitter reaches a bazillion more people people than the NY Post.

The answers to your questions are self-explanatory I think. Ten's of millions more people seeing that Hunter's laptop was filled with degeneracy and/or evidence of Joe (the big guy) getting kickbacks from Ukraine (or was it China, or both?) is not something the FBI wanted out there. Have you been paying attention to the last 6 years of FBI actions against candidate and president Trump?

You say it's no big deal. Well then why did they do it? Why is the FBI so interested in who can talk on Twitter and what topics are suppressed? Surely you have theory if you think it's no big deal. It's not on everyone else to explain why government agents doing this in a supposed democracy with a free press is a big deal.


My memory is that Twitter's actions against the laptop articles and suspending the NY Post's account came out almost immediately. That was known by all. And, again, those who wanted certain ideologies advanced made this seem like the New York Post has been censored. Well, it was by Twitter. But if you could access Twitter then you could directly access the New York Post web site. Correct me if my memory is wrong here.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:58 pm

Vinny,

People under say 40 years old hardly use email anymore. If something doesn't show up on their Twitter feed, it may as well have not happened. Twitter suppressing a story like the one about Hunter Biden is little different than Stalin telling Pravda not to mention that millions of people died from starvation last winter.

You could say that Twitter is privately owned and Pravda was state-owned. Ok, fine, but why should the FBI be telling them which stories are legit and which aren't? It just takes the blame up one step on the chain. It's all funny to me, because the leftists said that if Trump was elected, he would be an authoritarian. But Trump was elected, and it wasn't him acting as an authoritarian telling Pravda not to report on starving peasants. It was his own FBI stabbing him in the back. It turns out the authoritarians are the people in the FBI and their ilk, but the leftists don't seem to have any problem with that, as long as it's not their ox getting gored.


If I stipulate to your statement regarding under 40 year olds and emails ... I do know that they are all active texters ... which allows anyone to send a URL the same as sending it via email.

And, some Twitter stats from here to underscore that it is NOT something that reaches everyone in this country:

https://backlinko.com/twitter-users

8.85% of the worldwide social media users access Twitter

On average, Twitter US users spend 158.2 minutes per month on the app

7.2% of internet users access Twitter at least once per month

In the US, Twitter has 37 million monetizable daily active users

As of July 2021, Twitter is ranked as the 16th most popular social networking worldwide (ranked by a number of monthly active users). To put that in perspective, Twitter has 8.85% of the world’s overall social media user base.

US adults spend an average of 6 minutes on Twitter per day in 2021.

The average visit duration on the web version of Twitter worldwide was nearly 11 minutes in August 2021.

How many employees does Twitter have?
Twitter has more than 5,500 employees. According to PayScale, employees have an average salary of $121,000. Employees on H1B visa (employment-based worker visa) received a median salary of $165,000 in 2020.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:03 am

SilentMajority wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:21 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:38 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:37 pm

The argument that Twitter is a private company doesn’t apply because they were working hand in hand with the government. The government was actively suppressing freedom of speech through Twitter, among others.


Just playing devil's advocate, is what you say true? The First Amendment says Congress can't make any law abridging freedom of speech. This wasn't Congress acting, but rather the Executive branch, so I'm not sure what they were doing is actually unconstitutional, even though I don't like it one bit. It certainly seems to break the spirit of the law but maybe not the letter.


The executive branch is only supposed to execute the laws. 99% of it's activities are unconstitutional including this. Having the so called government do whatever it wants to the American people under the guide that the executive branch has unlimited power is clearly illegal.


This week started reading this book on President Grover Cleveland:

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (14.05 KiB) Viewed 8461 times


So far I am loving the person it is revealing him to be. And, I suspect you would highly appreciate this passage from the book:

"The campaign now joined, Cleveland faced a novel task: putting together an official release that would be widely distributed as the defining statement of his beliefs. Cleveland rarely displayed an ear for rhetoric, but he never lacked for clarity. Four sentences in particular summed up what casting a ballot for Grover Cleveland represented:

"I believe much can be done to relieve our citizens from our present load of taxation, and that a more rigid scrutiny of all public expenditures will result in a great saving to the community. I also believe that some extravagance in our city government may be corrected without injury to the public service. There is, or there should be, no reason why the affairs of our city should not be managed with the same care and the same economy as private interests. And when we consider that public officials are the trustees of the people, there should be no higher inducement to a faithful and honest discharge of a public duty.7 V

"Cleveland’s acceptance letter laid out with precision his value proposition: the executive as ombudsman. He would make government cleaner, cheaper, and better at its core duties. That vision, such as it is, seems cramped today, when holders of executive office tend to behave like monarchs in style and prime ministers in substance. But for an adherent of the earlier, republican definition of executive authority, the logic was straightforward: an executive’s job was to administer—and he was going to do it more efficiently and honestly than anyone in recent memory. He would be the proxy for the people of Buffalo against a city government that too often regarded them as tributaries."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:37 am

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 8:38 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:37 pm
The argument that Twitter is a private company doesn’t apply because they were working hand in hand with the government. The government was actively suppressing freedom of speech through Twitter, among others.
Just playing devil's advocate, is what you say true?
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said it is true--i.e., that a private actor acting on behalf of, or in concert with, the government is tantamount to government acting itself.

This is settled law.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:49 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm
And, some Twitter stats from here to underscore that it is NOT something that reaches everyone in this country:
It would have taken only ONE Twitter user with an 386 computer and an internet connection to disseminate the revelations at issue to to the world at large. They were that explosive, and were that capable of altering the outcome of an election.

So let's quit with the strawman stuff.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:02 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:55 pm
Interesting perspective on Twitter Files #8... did all of this start with the Arab Spring, and is it connected to Black Lives Matter?

https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/stat ... 5547217920
Now THAT's twitter full on. :o ::)
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:27 am

For those not emotionally involved, this is a pretty good summary of the twitter files...

However, as experts point out, the First Amendment protects people from government infringement on their right to free speech — it doesn't compel private companies such as Twitter to permit unfettered speech. That is why companies like Twitter, Facebook and other forums are able to enforce content standards and moderate what appears on their services.

After some Twitter users pointed out to Musk that, in fact, Taibbi's tweet didn't show a First Amendment violation, Musk responded, "Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is."

However, the Twitter Files don't appear to show that the government gave orders to Twitter — only that the company received "requests" from both parties and also at times consulted with the FBI and other agencies.


Which, is completely legal and is what most companies regardless of this specific situation do. When there is some factual evidence of actual coercion without court order then I'll join the concerned list.

To me it's fairly obvious that most people on this thread are not reading the source materials published. They're reading the interpretations of the source materials...which in my view are being used as an information operation (because y'all are so concerned about that. If you are, at least have the intelligence and observational powers to realize you're in the middle of one.)

Regarding twitter's likely tendency to favor left over right. I'm pretty sure that is the case on the human side. But that's a human issue not a USG issue. Supposedly twitter's own analysis of it's algos indicates just the opposite in the western world...the algo(s) tend to push right wing issues. If the algo is built to foster more interaction with twitter (which it most assuredly is) then that tells you people in general get more engaged with right wing issues/stories. That engagement is likely to include substantial input from the left as they "fight" the story or work to push their own viewpoints. The algo probably doesn't give a hoot about your politics. It's manipulating you to become more involved as it figures out what those things are that get you engaged.

I'm less familiar with twitter as my use of it is narrow, but anyone who was on FB during the 2020 election knows for fact they were getting fed a load of contention on a daily basis (all designed to foster more interaction...this is the way.)
Last edited by Kbg on Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:38 am

Maddy wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:49 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 11:54 pm
And, some Twitter stats from here to underscore that it is NOT something that reaches everyone in this country:
It would have taken only ONE Twitter user with an 386 computer and an internet connection to disseminate the revelations at issue to to the world at large. They were that explosive, and were that capable of altering the outcome of an election.

So let's quit with the strawman stuff.
Yes please let's DO drop the strawmen. Trump got fried in the general election by a large margin. Let's assume/breakdown the one tweet theory would have changed the election.

First of all, that tweet had to rise above the noise of several 1000, 10s/100s of thousands??? of tweets made daily.

Second, you have to assume this tweet would have been categorically decisive. I chose not to make that assumption as it a weak one at best.

Third, you have to assume suburban professional families, where Trump lost the election, would have been substantially influenced by that tweet or the following tweet storm. Also a weak assumption, but I'm game for this one.

Fourth, I think a reasonable assumption is that such a massive tweet would likely have only made a difference where the election was very close. In 2020 that was Arizona and Georgia. Swing those both to Trump and he still loses in the electoral college. Trump didn't lose 2020 due to story suppression. It's clear consensus amongst political wonks in both parties that he lost the election because soccer moms didn't like him.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:22 am

Deep State apologists are always like:

1. That's not happening, it's a conspiracy theory.

2. Okay it's happening, but so what, it's always been happening.

3. You f***ing morons should be glad it's happening!

LOL
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by glennds » Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:42 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:38 am
Let's assume/breakdown the one tweet theory would have changed the election.

First of all, that tweet had to rise above the noise of several 1000, 10s/100s of thousands??? of tweets made daily.

Second, you have to assume this tweet would have been categorically decisive. I chose not to make that assumption as it a weak one at best.

Third, you have to assume suburban professional families, where Trump lost the election, would have been substantially influenced by that tweet or the following tweet storm. Also a weak assumption, but I'm game for this one.

Fourth, I think a reasonable assumption is that such a massive tweet would likely have only made a difference where the election was very close. In 2020 that was Arizona and Georgia. Swing those both to Trump and he still loses in the electoral college. Trump didn't lose 2020 due to story suppression. It's clear consensus amongst political wonks in both parties that he lost the election because soccer moms didn't like him.
I'd like to add another question, from a Twitter neophyte.
Is Twitter regarded as a credible enough source that a single tweet would persuade someone undecided or in the opposite camp? I think it does very well at confirming the beliefs that people already hold.

IMO, Twitter is an opinion respository yes. I just can't picture a voter saying they voted the way they did because of a tweet. But I can see lots of voters finding confirmation in tweets for the way they were predisposed to voting anyway.

All this speaks to the detrimental effect on society of the death of professional journalism in favor of infotainment. And it wasn't government that killed it, it was private big business.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Xan » Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:59 am

glennds wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:42 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:38 am
Let's assume/breakdown the one tweet theory would have changed the election.

First of all, that tweet had to rise above the noise of several 1000, 10s/100s of thousands??? of tweets made daily.

Second, you have to assume this tweet would have been categorically decisive. I chose not to make that assumption as it a weak one at best.

Third, you have to assume suburban professional families, where Trump lost the election, would have been substantially influenced by that tweet or the following tweet storm. Also a weak assumption, but I'm game for this one.

Fourth, I think a reasonable assumption is that such a massive tweet would likely have only made a difference where the election was very close. In 2020 that was Arizona and Georgia. Swing those both to Trump and he still loses in the electoral college. Trump didn't lose 2020 due to story suppression. It's clear consensus amongst political wonks in both parties that he lost the election because soccer moms didn't like him.
I'd like to add another question, from a Twitter neophyte.
Is Twitter regarded as a credible enough source that a single tweet would persuade someone undecided or in the opposite camp? I think it does very well at confirming the beliefs that people already hold.

IMO, Twitter is an opinion respository yes. I just can't picture a voter saying they voted the way they did because of a tweet. But I can see lots of voters finding confirmation in tweets for the way they were predisposed to voting anyway.

All this speaks to the detrimental effect on society of the death of professional journalism in favor of infotainment. And it wasn't government that killed it, it was private big business.
I think the issue is more one of visibility and the reputation of a story.

People planning to vote for Biden were given the perfect excuse to not interact with the issue at all: Twitter banned it as misinformation, now I don't have to consider it, if I even come across it at all.
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by SilentMajority » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:12 am

Xan wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:59 am
glennds wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:42 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:38 am
Let's assume/breakdown the one tweet theory would have changed the election.

First of all, that tweet had to rise above the noise of several 1000, 10s/100s of thousands??? of tweets made daily.

Second, you have to assume this tweet would have been categorically decisive. I chose not to make that assumption as it a weak one at best.

Third, you have to assume suburban professional families, where Trump lost the election, would have been substantially influenced by that tweet or the following tweet storm. Also a weak assumption, but I'm game for this one.

Fourth, I think a reasonable assumption is that such a massive tweet would likely have only made a difference where the election was very close. In 2020 that was Arizona and Georgia. Swing those both to Trump and he still loses in the electoral college. Trump didn't lose 2020 due to story suppression. It's clear consensus amongst political wonks in both parties that he lost the election because soccer moms didn't like him.
I'd like to add another question, from a Twitter neophyte.
Is Twitter regarded as a credible enough source that a single tweet would persuade someone undecided or in the opposite camp? I think it does very well at confirming the beliefs that people already hold.

IMO, Twitter is an opinion respository yes. I just can't picture a voter saying they voted the way they did because of a tweet. But I can see lots of voters finding confirmation in tweets for the way they were predisposed to voting anyway.

All this speaks to the detrimental effect on society of the death of professional journalism in favor of infotainment. And it wasn't government that killed it, it was private big business.
I think the issue is more one of visibility and the reputation of a story.

People planning to vote for Biden were given the perfect excuse to not interact with the issue at all: Twitter banned it as misinformation, now I don't have to consider it, if I even come across it at all.
And the banning was from the pressure applied by agents of the federal law enforcement (law-breaking) agency in conjunction with "former" members of their org in key positions.

Again, we only know about this because Elon bought the company. People who think this isn't across the board in media companies truly live on fantasy island.

This isn't just about Trump or Biden or whether or not it affected the election. For the people who think it didn't though, why do you think the FBI did it? Why is the FBI trying to get people on Twitter banned and stories buried????? I think one poster basically said it was for our own good after finally acknowledging it's happening.
DogBreath
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:52 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by DogBreath » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:22 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 8:27 am

However, the Twitter Files don't appear to show that the government gave orders to Twitter — only that the company received "requests" from both parties and also at times consulted with the FBI and other agencies.[/i]

Which, is completely legal and is what most companies regardless of this specific situation do. When there is some factual evidence of actual coercion without court order then I'll join the concerned list.
Is this also you?
Kbg wrote:
Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:27 am


Twitter to FBI: FBI do you have a court order?
FBI to Twitter: Uh, no we don't.
Twitter to FBI: If you have a national security concern here, great. However, we aren't doing your nug work for free. Would you like us to submit for staff time reimbursement or are we're done here?
FBI to Twitter: Ok, fine. Submit the bill.
Inside Twitter: Yea! We have a new revenue stream.


When the Feds are playing hardball in the real world.

Twitter to FBI: FBI do you have a court order?
FBI to Twitter: Yes, you have 30 days to comply before fines and possible criminal penalties. Here's the fines and penalties just so you are aware. You playing ball or not?
Twitter to FBI: Yes, can you give us an extension?
FBI to Twitter: No, see ya in 30 days.
Inside Twitter: Shall we lawyer up and fight this or just do it?
- Accountants in the background...we recommend just doing it. Lawyers cost more than staff.
It would seem that the implied threat of "fines and criminal penalties" would be sufficient to persuade cooperation without getting to the point of following thru on said threats. Therefore, the "requests" seem like de facto coercion, so maybe you do want to be concerned.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:37 am

Nah, that was KayFaybe.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:42 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:22 am
Deep State apologists are always like:

1. That's not happening, it's a conspiracy theory.

2. Okay it's happening, but so what, it's always been happening.

3. You f***ing morons should be glad it's happening!

LOL
Fair points, spears accepted. :-)

You perfectly summarized my main point of several posts with your #2.

All governments are coercive. This has been standard political theory for centuries. If you are shocked by that fact, I suggest a little more reading of history. It's your right to be personally offended by what you are reading in the twitter releases but is also irrelevant to the situation at hand. Big boys and girls are bound by and subject to the law and like it or not, that's society's "line" regardless of where you would like to place the line. That line defines the government and it's agencies regarding people and corporations and their intendent interactions.

I've said repeatedly on this board, I trust juries and their decisions. Unless and until any of this goes to court it's all Elon Musk posturing based on whatever motives he may have which I claim zero knowledge about. I do suspect he's enjoying the attention it is bringing to twitter though.
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by SilentMajority » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:54 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:22 am
Deep State apologists are always like:

1. That's not happening, it's a conspiracy theory.

2. Okay it's happening, but so what, it's always been happening.

3. You f***ing morons should be glad it's happening!

LOL
I was going to do the progression in more detail with about 2-3 more steps. This is the 50,000 ft level and 100% accurate. It makes it hard to know who's serious or not here.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:57 am

This is just a silly internet forum. Kinda hard to take anyone too seriously. ;)
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by SilentMajority » Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:58 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:57 am
This is just a silly internet forum. Kinda hard to take anyone too seriously. ;)
yes, I meant, "who is making a serious argument". When someone's positions changes with every post, I question if they're serious about a discussion or just out for a sTROLL.

Regardless, let's see what the next Twitter batch brings. Hopefully Elon makes enough money here to buy another media company and shed more light on what these unelected spy/police agencies are up to.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Thu Dec 22, 2022 11:06 am

DogBreath wrote:
Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:22 am
It would seem that the implied threat of "fines and criminal penalties" would be sufficient to persuade cooperation without getting to the point of following thru on said threats. Therefore, the "requests" seem like de facto coercion, so maybe you do want to be concerned.
If this was an individual, I would be concerned but it depends on the circumstances. Facts matter and this is too broad a statement to agree or disagree with. Was the government wrong in leaning on SBF's two cohorts to make a plea bargain before they go after him? In this case the lawyers on both sides have likely determined...we/they broke the law and it's going to stick in court. Decision time: Take the deal or roll the dice with the sentencing judge? In this case, likely both sides benefited. To be clear, I worry a lot about individuals in these circumstances but more so with arcane fines/rules from non legal function oriented government agencies (of which there are many).

Corporations, not at all. They have lawyers, generally very excellent lawyers and if the government gets it wrong, they can make big fees by proving that in a court of law....just as the government can make some big fees if corporate lawyers are wrong/lax in their oversight of the corporation. Wells Fargo being the most recent recipient of poor corporate controls and behavior related fines.

I actually like reading Jack Dorsey's take on this stuff thus far. IDK, but he seems like a fairly straight forward guy.

https://www.getrevue.co/profile/jackjac ... ia-1503112

And please carefully note his take on when twitter went off the rails and why.

Corporations do what is in their own interests to do. You know that, I know that.
Post Reply