Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Hypasonic]

You could just tell us you desperately want to believe this dishonest claptrap because it confirms your world view rather than pretend you're some neutral party who's just asking questions.

OK this will be my only response to a mod because I know how you guys work here: You are telling me that the guy in the video isnt real, that he doesnt work for pfizer, that he is somehow a fraud. I'm just some wierd critical thinker bloke, could you please somehow disprove everything he is saying? Thats all I am asking. Are you not even in the slightest concerned with what he is saying?

It is at the very least worth investigating, big pharma have had history with huge fines in the past.

[Calfredd]

OK this will be my only response to a mod because I know how you guys work here: You are telling me that the guy in the video isnt real, that he doesnt work for pfizer, that he is somehow a fraud.

Already lying through your teeth isn't helping your case.

[postman1782]

Ok, so are you not interested in what he says, like at all? You just focus on who is questioning him?

Again, it is heavily edited and definitely not showing full context. They never do. They tried to use some of their footage in a court case against a anti-trump "rioter" in 2017, the judge asked if it was edited or altered in any way, PV said no it wasn't, and they watched it in court, and you could clearly see the jump cuts and edits, the evidence was thrown out and the "rioter" was released because of it, because that is all the prosecution had for evidence. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ration-protest

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you guy's don't even care what people working for them say. That's all I need to know.

They claim he works for them, but does he?

[Edge-]

OK this will be my only response to a mod because I know how you guys work here

I'm just a normal poster in this forum dude.

You are telling me that the guy in the video isnt real

Nope. It's a video! But that's not saying much beyond, "It's a video" like the video of my cat I have on my phone. It's a video too.

that he doesnt work for pfizer

He probably does!

that he is somehow a fraud.

Not at all, and it sure seems like you haven't read a single thing anyone has written or linked about PV's extensive history of doctoring and editing videos, including the legal penalties they've dealt with as a result of that dishonesty and literal "FAKE NEWS".

I'm just some wierd critical thinker bloke

F to doubt

could you please somehow disprove everything he is saying?

You've been linked to sites detailing the extensive history of PV's dishonesty and manipulation of their videos to spread misinformation. That you seem to have ignored that and chosen to treat PV as a credible source makes me thing that rather than a "critical thinker bloke", you're likely the "sheeple" you claim to hate and be better than.

Thats all I am asking. Are you not even in the slightest concerned with what he is saying?

As literally mentioned in my post you quoted, you're the "I'm just asking questions" guy here.

It is at the very least worth investigating, big pharma have had history with huge fines in the past.

It is not. There are plenty of problems with the pharmaceutical industry including gross inadequacies in regulation.

That has nothing to do with a bunch of brainworms conspiracy theories about covid that get right wingers all hot and bothered like they did when that one doctor lady came out talking about how covid was fake and also did you know that having sex with literal demons makes you sterile?

[Orange Joe]

More from the "so called" director of research and development at pfizer (Small talk for: we don't know who this guy is but we'll interview him anyway)
https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/...74788734943233

I'm guessing deep fake at this point, it's so pathetic.

OK this will be my only response to a mod because I know how you guys work here: You are telling me that the guy in the video isnt real, that he doesnt work for pfizer, that he is somehow a fraud. I'm just some wierd critical thinker bloke, could you please somehow disprove everything he is saying? Thats all I am asking. Are you not even in the slightest concerned with what he is saying?

It is at the very least worth investigating, big pharma have had history with huge fines in the past.

I watched it just to humor you......, and just like everyone here is saying it's heavily edited and spliced. What these people like to do is ask hypothetical questions then frame it as a serious answer when editing. When it's more "what if's" and "could be possible in very rare cases"

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

OK this will be my only response to a mod because I know how you guys work here: You are telling me that the guy in the video isnt real, that he doesnt work for pfizer, that he is somehow a fraud. I'm just some wierd critical thinker bloke, could you please somehow disprove everything he is saying? Thats all I am asking. Are you not even in the slightest concerned with what he is saying?

It is at the very least worth investigating, big pharma have had history with huge fines in the past.

What we're telling you is we don't trust Project Veritas because they have proven, time and again, that they are not trustworthy.

[Cthulhu 2020]

OK this will be my only response to a mod because I know how you guys work here: You are telling me that the guy in the video isnt real, that he doesnt work for pfizer, that he is somehow a fraud. I'm just some wierd critical thinker bloke, could you please somehow disprove everything he is saying? Thats all I am asking. Are you not even in the slightest concerned with what he is saying?

It is at the very least worth investigating, big pharma have had history with huge fines in the past.

I'm not fan of big pharma as they've stonewalled a lot of medication and treatments behind massive paywalls that are 1/50 the price in other countries (lol capitalism), but this vaccine shit is stupid and there has yet to be any real proof other than wild claims and hearsay.

I'd be more inclined to listen Project Veritas if they weren't proven liars ten times or more over already. If they want to partake in ethical journalism and have people take them seriously, they should stop lying. But again, I ask you, why should I ever listen to PV's overly edited tapes? They clip words from completely different sentences, in parts of the conversation 30 minutes apart, clip them together and attempt to claim some sort of integrity or breaking news? Naw champ, I realize you're desperate for a big juicy conspiracy, but this ain't it.

[unfilteredJW]

OK this will be my only response to a mod because I know how you guys work here: You are telling me that the guy in the video isnt real, that he doesnt work for pfizer, that he is somehow a fraud. I'm just some wierd critical thinker bloke, could you please somehow disprove everything he is saying? Thats all I am asking. Are you not even in the slightest concerned with what he is saying?

It is at the very least worth investigating, big pharma have had history with huge fines in the past.

/me marks off playing the victim off his bingo card

[tehdang]

Because there is no danger in this ...

Each email as having explicit or implicit threat by the government to ...

But it's absolutely not that ...

We've trodden over this ground enough already. You don't see the apparent dangers, and are indignant at the prospect of evaluation instead of dismissal, or that others rate them as serious. I register your wholesale rejection. If you need somebody besides me to say it in order to prompt a deeper investigation on your part, I'll add to the previous Charles Lipson article one subtitled 'There’s a name for when state and corporate powers work hand in hand'

The irony is you aren’t necessarily wrong; it’s just that your suggested potential exploitations are firmly entrenched as possible actions of republicans. Believing otherwise is intentionally short-sighted with blinkers engaged analysis.

If it helps the bias, then fill in your deepest prejudices of Republicans instead of the current Democratic administration. You shouldn't be copacetic regarding government powers if and only if your political side controls them.

[unfilteredJW]

We've trodden over this ground enough already. You don't see the apparent dangers, and are indignant at the prospect of evaluation instead of dismissal, or that others rate them as serious. I register your wholesale rejection. If you need somebody besides me to say it in order to prompt a deeper investigation on your part, I'll add to the previous Charles Lipson article one subtitled 'There’s a name for when state and corporate powers work hand in hand'

If it helps the bias, then fill in your deepest prejudices of Republicans instead of the current Democratic administration. You shouldn't be copacetic regarding government powers if and only if your political side controls them.

Just layering on the clown make up at this point.

[Breccia]

If you need somebody besides me to say it

We have that. Musk met with only Republicans in his DC visit. You've yet to comment on that.

Possibly because you're being a hypocrite. Or, possibly because you don't have a point.

[Calfredd]

We've trodden over this ground enough already. You don't see the apparent dangers, and are indignant at the prospect of evaluation instead of dismissal, or that others rate them as serious. I register your wholesale rejection. If you need somebody besides me to say it in order to prompt a deeper investigation on your part, I'll add to the previous Charles Lipson article one subtitled 'There’s a name for when state and corporate powers work hand in hand'

If it helps the bias, then fill in your deepest prejudices of Republicans instead of the current Democratic administration. You shouldn't be copacetic regarding government powers if and only if your political side controls them.

You defend liars, cheats, and con artists and I'm only talking about Project Veritas here. They have literally been sued successfully in court over their lies with no room for doubt. Yet you think you have any say at the "adult table" when you refuse to grow up?

[Slirith]

Once more for the people in the back: STOP ENGAGING WITH THE TROLLS. Just ignore them and spend your time on this earth doing something more worthwhile than yelling at a mediocre forum troll.

FTFY :P /10chars

[Cthulhu 2020]

We've trodden over this ground enough already. You don't see the apparent dangers, and are indignant at the prospect of evaluation instead of dismissal, or that others rate them as serious. I register your wholesale rejection. If you need somebody besides me to say it in order to prompt a deeper investigation on your part, I'll add to the previous Charles Lipson article one subtitled 'There’s a name for when state and corporate powers work hand in hand'

If it helps the bias, then fill in your deepest prejudices of Republicans instead of the current Democratic administration. You shouldn't be copacetic regarding government powers if and only if your political side controls them.

So if you consider the government communicating with Twitter to be dangerous, then surely Elmo privately meeting with Republican congress members should be raising alarm bells.

[Edge-]

We've trodden over this ground enough already. You don't see the apparent dangers, and are indignant at the prospect of evaluation instead of dismissal, or that others rate them as serious.

You're damn straight I do. Just as I'll dismiss those keep taking Project Veritas videos seriously despite every one of them being found out to be fraudulently edited or otherwise dishonest, for a recent example.

Because people believing this largely fall into two camps from what I've seen -

1. The people who know this is all absolutely above board, standard communications that aren't wroth worrying about but have a professional or financial interest in saying so - i.e. Republicans and personalities on Fox News

2. People who genuinely have no idea that these are standard communications, and out of that ignorance (not as a negative, as a "they simply have no experience with this.") view it with more nefarious intent.

The former are dishonest and not worth more than dismissal. The latter are worth talking to and attempting to dispel those myths. What happens from there likely completely depends on which political party they're registered to, because reality is now a partisan affair.

I'll add to the previous Charles Lipson article one subtitled 'There’s a name for when state and corporate powers work hand in hand'

Would be nice if you'd shared non-paywalled versions, but I'll drop links for anyone else interested -

https://archive.is/OXTnt

Starting with Sey's article, we have the citation of someone banned for a seemingly vague but otherwise non-rule-breaking tweet to set the tone, and then this happens -

Given that we know that the FBI directed Twitter to remove users for what was called “election misinformation” or “foreign influence,” it seems reasonable to assume the government directed Twitter to do the same for those sharing what was deemed “Covid misinformation.”

Well no, again linking back to just the general Taibbi thread though I assume to this tweet more specifically, which as covered of is not, as she claims, a direction if you actually read the email. Again, I'll quote and put emphasis on the relevant parts in addition to pointing out that no specific tweets from any of these accounts are cited -

FBI San Francisco is notifying you of the below accounts which may potentially constitute violations of Twitter's Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy.

So we have general accounts flagged in what is essentially a supercharged "report post" button, but without actually reporting a post so we can't say what the potentially "offending" Tweet to the FBI was and are just left guessing based off what Tweet got them banned. That's it.

Specifically, no direction or order is being given, and the agent specifically notes that inaction might be a proper course for them within Twitter's interpretation of their own Terms of Service.

Otherwise, it's a friendly email from an agent who likely engages with Twitter employees on a somewhat regular enough basis to have a professional rapport with them. Terrifying.

Because, at this point, what seems blatantly obvious is that individual citizens were de-platformed for challenging Democratic Party propaganda.

Unless, "Taking covid seriously" is "Democratic Party propaganda" I'm not sure how on earth Ms. Sey connects the originally cited Twitter account that was banned for a covid-related tweet connects to this. This would seem like Twitter, again, struggling to find a consistent line of enforcement on complex and challenging topics that are evolving in real-time, like covid and the massive amount of genuinely dangerous misinformation being spread on their platform and their attempts to remove it to limit harm, more than anything else.

I see the banned account might relate to the FBI email (the account isn't cited in Tabbi's screenshots), but I don't see where the Democratic Party fits into this from that. They don't run the FBI, an agency that's actually fairly well known to generally be conservative leaning.

Also, I'll note that, hilariously, Taibbi points out that the FBI reached out about potential misinformation from left-leaning accounts as well, though this generally seems to get ignored as conservatives rush to pretend that they were the only ones Twitter was mean to: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857590299103232

Even if social media content is not protected by the First Amendment, and even if Twitter, as a private company, can create its own “terms of service” and just decide to banish whomever they want, a key question posed by the Twitter Files is: what if the government is telling this private company to do so?

It's a question, sure! But again, literally nothing in Taibbi's "reporting" supports this. As repeatedly noted, Twitter frequently told government or political actors to essentially "stuff it" in response to many of their emails. If the government is telling Twitter what to do, why is Twitter, per Taibbi's own screenshots, frequently declining to do the bidding of the government or Democratic party members? These are all private emails, not things that they knew were going to get released because a conspiracy theorist billionaire bet $44B he could win a game of chicken against a social media company while trolling the FEC. And lost. Badly.

As indicated in the Twitter Files, access to Twitter’s bureaucratic censors, de-boosters and outright platform banners was equal opportunity — Republicans could make a call just as easily as Democrats. But what is also made clear is that the Democratic Party loyalties of Twitter employees are close to 100 percent.

So who was being censored? Anyone who challenged Democrats. Which goes a long way towards explaining why those 11,000 people who questioned Covid lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates and vaccine effectiveness were given the boot.

She equates treating covid seriously and/or attempting to navigate a complex, challenging landscape of a pandemic unfolding in real time as there's a very urgent need to get out accurate information while there's an expansive misinformation campaign being waged, which would be a challenge for any company and was as we've seen and heard at Facebook and other social media companies, as if it's a "Democratic" thing.

Which I guess it was because Democrats were the only ones actually trying to listen to the medical community while Republicans were telling people to take horse dewormer or inject themselves with sunlight. Also are coincidentally the only people in the world who continue to suffer from these truly bizarre extreme seizures that they claim are side effects of the vaccine. Somehow it's localized to Republicans and conservative's largely in North America, it's really curious.

As if that, also, has anything to do with Twitter employees "loyalties" being 100% with Democrats. Like, I showed you how little $900K in donations was in the scope of the 2022 election, right? You read that, right? You realize how literally no Democrat, much less the Democratic party, would do so much as lift a finger for a whopping something like .0003% of spending in an election cycle, right?

Anyways, the point I'm making here is that she is not even attempting to come from a neutral position or a position of good faith. Just the first third of the article is littered with actual misinformation, heavy innuendo asking the reader to connect dots that the author never does, and a basket of the Greatest Hits of perceived conservative grievances.

It's added nothing you haven't said and linked here before, I assume as this is where you've picked up most of your talking points and arguments, and getting this far into the article I see no reason to really continue when it's been this bad.

And to address another "Example" she links to in her article because it's just sticking out -

Challenge government Covid policy on Twitter, like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford University, and you might find yourself “blacklisted” the very day you join the platform. While he technically retained his right to free speech, he was relegated to speaking in the equivalent of an empty room. People interested in what Dr. Bhattacharya had to say were denied the ability to hear his message, unless they actively sought him out by name. This esteemed doctor was censored because random, anonymous Twitter employees decided his views were just too dangerous, which really meant they were in opposition to Democratic Party Covid policy.

https://archive.is/J1H34

That's the WSJ op-ed linked in the quote above, so a shaky start given the not really factual/objective nature of op-eds. Do you know what this op-ed doesn't do?

Show any government involvement. Just, as with every other example you have shown so far, heavy innuendo asking the reader to make massive leaps. I'll illustrate -

By the fall of 2020 we focused our efforts to support Scott Atlas, a Stanford colleague of Dr. Bhattacharya and a key adviser to the Trump administration on Covid. After President Trump lost the election, the momentum Dr. Atlas had won was seemingly lost. The Biden administration pushed for restrictions and for censorship of those who disagreed with the government’s official position.

In July 2021, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced, “We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Ms. Psaki also revealed that senior staff for President Biden were a part of the White House’s efforts to suppress free speech.

So research and tracking is censorship? Flagging problematic posts for Facebook (not Twitter, though we can reasonably assume it as well) that spread disinformation...

And?

This is a practical thing that lots of governments did because there's an absolute public health interest in limiting the spread of dangerous misinformation that could result in many people being killed. Like believing that covid is all a hoax and attending a large family gathering with nobody masking or distancing and then suddenly meema and peepa are dying of covid pneumonia and why didn't anyone tell us this was real?

Oh, bonus point time - the author attempts to connect this press conference from Jen Psaki to the muting of Jay Bhattacharya, using "summer" for when Dr. Bhattacharya joined and "July" for Psaki's press conference.

It appears his muting was actually much earlier, back around April? (It's hard to find his first tweet because the Doctor tweets A LOT) - https://twitter.com/byrondonalds/sta...60375781298176

Though I'm not sure Dr. Bhattacharya is exactly the most sympathetic source given his comments on TV on covid - https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/s...88169704726531

Calling Dr. Fauci "the number one antivaxxer in the country in some sense" because Dr. Fauci didn't treat the initial doses of the vaccine as a miracle cure that would allow the country to reopen (he was right, btw!) and still took sensible precautions to prevent the spread of covid given that at the time it was already know that being vaccinated didn't completely prevent spread, but was very effective in reducing severity or if you were even symptomatic.

So this is a long way of saying: Every single source you've been linking to, including those that they link to as their sources, is painfully dishonest when most of them absolutely know otherwise, they're simply partisanly dishonest to continue to reinforce the fictional world conservatives have crafted for themselves where they're truly the most oppressed and victimized group of people in history and everyone is just so mean to them.

Edit: Forgot about the other article on the Spectator, and after wading through all that stupidity once I have absolutely zero interest in bothering with this one, but here's a non-paywalled link for anyone interested: https://archive.is/8yo4h

[Dontrike]

Again, you guy's don't even care what people working for them say. That's all I need to know.

You act like distrusting known and obvious liars is a bad thing.

[Edge-]

You act like distrusting known and obvious liars is a bad thing.

Well sure they're an untrustworthy source that's literally never reported honestly and has repeatedly gotten in legal trouble for just how dishonest they are - which is actually impressive because US laws afford expansive leeway here - and all, but they're saying something I really agree with so maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt and listen. Apparently. Or something.

Bad faith conservatives pretending to be neutral parties is a really weird kink.

[Breccia]

Bad faith conservatives pretending to be neutral parties is a really weird kink.

It reminds me of the stereotype of undercover cops selling drugs in comedies. Like, it's hilariously bad when someone, such as Elon Musk, pretends to be neutral, but says "but wouldn't it be great if objectively deplorable racism had a platform? I'm going to spend $44 billion to give objectively deplorable racism a platform. Also, insurrectionists."

So how are things at Twitter?

(checks news)

Not great. Musk is holding a "fire sale" to win back advertisers. Also, evidently the number of employees he fired that are suing him increases by the day.

Lisa Bloom [a lawyer representing some of them] has told the BBC she has already taken on the cases of about 100 former employees but the number is rising.

One of her clients, Amir Shevat, told the BBC that Twitter boss Elon Musk had "failed" in his leadership of the firm.

Mr Shevat joined Twitter in 2021 when his start-up called Reshuffle was acquired by the social media network.

He is now entering into an arbitration process with his former employer, represented by lawyer Ms Bloom.

She told the BBC she was representing about 100 laid-off Twitter staff in the US, but "the number goes up daily".

Ms Bloom added there were a variety of claims including alleged breaches of contract and discrimination.

And, in case you were wondering if Twitter has a plan, so is Twitter.

As the takeover went through in November, Mr Shevat logged on to an "all hands" meeting Mr Musk held, which he described as an "awkward" experience.

"We were trying to get him to tell us what he wants with the company and what's the direction. And his answers were not 100% on point but also not very inspiring," he said.

"For example, when we asked him: 'what is the future of Twitter?' He answered that he thinks that we will help him reach Mars. I don't know how to connect building a social application into reaching Mars."

Every time I come here to post, I find myself asking "why would anyone spend $44 billion on something they admit isn't worth $44 billion, only to make it worth even less?" I still don't have an answer. Forbes found where some of the money went and the answer isn't Elon Musk.

How Much Did Twitter Insiders Make On The Deal?

With Musk’s offer to acquire Twitter at a 38% stock price premium, it’s not surprising that Twitter’s top four executives made a lot of money on the deal.

From a stock price premium perspective, the top four execs reaped a $74.3 million windfall from the shares they held. Gains weren’t limited to the price premium. Restricted and performance stock units (RSUs and PSUs) added $138 million to the executive team’s payday.

Eight non-executive directors also made out well, earning $68 million in share price appreciation, $20 million from stock options, and $5 million in RSUs and PSUs.

But the Forbes article goes on to show what they were paid for. The Twitter execs who wrote up the contract Musk signed, neglected to put in any protection for Twitter's employees. Musk was not prevented from firing them. Also, the contract said that Twitter could not add such protections between the contract signature and the purchase date.

Maybe they had faith in union and/or state/local laws, but as we've seen, if they did have such faith it was horrifyingly misplaced. Twitter execs told their employees there were no plans for mass layoffs, then handed the keys to Musk who immediately fired half the staff.

Elon Musk’s first 100 days at Twitter have been a flaming dumpster rolling down the street. He's lost most of his critical staff, most of his advertisers, he's missing payments and apparently he's broken his promise to give some kind of stock rewards to his employees, which might be a good thing because that stock would have tanked if it was on the open market.

I just don't get why someone would be this willingly self-destructive on such a grand scale. He's just a silly, annoying person who is the subject of ridicule. There should be a word for that.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"It's propaganda that compounds itself the moment any reporter reports they were a nothingburger, not a great word but we're using it, because the believers can dismiss that immediately as yet another leftist media lie. But the reality is that Twitter files contain very little proof of anything in terms of Twitter. And don't get me wrong, there's some pretty interesting shit in there when it comes to the FBI and the FBI and government generally. But it was an illusion of transparency hidden in a HIGHLY CURATED series of threads done by a few misled journalists who themselves admitted to only getting information under specific conditions."

"And what it revealed was...

Twitter moderated their social media site. And that's about it."

Yes, the Twitter files are interesting to look at. But if you don't think the files themselves have been curated, you're delusional and all too ready to gulp down propaganda that fits your world view. The fact that anyone is defending this as the 100% truth with no tampering demonstrates just how willing conservatives are to avoid scrutinizing anything that confirms their views. They say "Question everything" but the moment you ask them to question their own sources, they make up vapid excuses about how THEIR sources are true and it's the left that's lying.



Also remember that the Twitter algorithm tends to favor spreading conservative viewpoints by the very nature of how it works. The only "proof" ever released that Twitter was favoring the left was that its employees tended to lean left. And that's it.

The Twitter files seem to be some sort of giant "reveal" that Twitter was helping the left all along, and yet the only proof that Musk has revealed thus far is that Twitter enforced their own rules due to people in the government reporting rule breaches as if it was some kind of giant scandal.

It seems the right is thirsty for the next big scandal, as their grip on power is entirely dependent on the next big outrage of the week. The right's entire identity hinges upon proving "GOVERNMENT BAD, BIG BUSINESS GOOD"



It's kind of wild how Matt Taibbi, in his initial Twitter Files, said that BOTH PARTIES HAD ACCESS TO AND WERE IN CONTACT WITH TWITTER. Both Trump's white house and Biden's campaign. Kind of weird how not a single email between Team Trump and Twitter was ever disclosed in the Twitter files, despite statements that not only did these exist, but there were more of them. It's almost as if the Twitter files are trying to spin a narrative for dumb people to lap up unquestioningly...

Any comment, @tehdang? Or do you think daddy Musk totally isn't lying to you? Weren't you overtly concerned with government agencies being in contact with Twitter? Government agencies like maybe the white house? Where's the outrage to see Team Trump communication with Twitter, which was alluded to but never released?

And when we left off, we were talking about how the Twitter Files had a lot of evidence that the FBI and government were pestering Twitter to moderate based on their wishes, but very little evidence that Twitter actually honored their requests.

And yet for some reason, the narrative of these extremely curated leaks seemed to constantly try to frame old Twitter as a villain.

For example, in one of the more recent Twitter Files, Taibbi is describing how Twitter became overwhelmed with requests from officials to ban accounts they simply didn't like, such as Adam Schiff asking them to ban a journalist, which would be bad. Taibbi goes on to say, "Even Twitter declined to honor Schiff's request at the time," as if he's already established that Twitter loves honoring all these ban requests. But he doesn't actually show emails or files that prove that. We only see one side of the transaction, the government making requests, and none of the other side, which is evidence that Twitter acted on those requests. That's odd, right? Why don't they show any evidence of that?

If Twitter was taking all these moderation requests from officials and acting on them in some unfair way, wouldn't you want to show the emails demonstrating that? You know, instead of the one email where they decline an unfair request? There's a lot of this in these Twitter Files.

Here's the sixth installment that focuses on the FBI sending moderation requests to Twitter. Taibbi begins with an email from the FBI wanting action about several accounts they thought, were spreading election misinformation. He then points out that a few of these accounts were joking, and the FBI were taking their jokes as a serious offense. He then concludes with a Tweet saying that, "All of these accounts were suspended except for the the two accounts that were joking."

He never reveals what the other actually suspended accounts said. So, the FBI contacted Twitter and asked for a bunch of accounts to be suspended for misinformation. And Twitter banned some of the accounts but didn't ban the ones that were obviously joking. And so they didn't do exactly what the FBI wanted them to do. And in fact moderated, based on their own probably correct judgment? Is that the big bombshell revealed there?

You see how mundane the actual information is? Twitter was basically getting a lot of tips from the government and then chose which ones to act on, that's all the files say. And if Elon Musk actually cared about transparency, you'd think he'd just release all the Twitter Files to the press, just release all of them. But he's not doing that, is he?

And by purposefully choosing incendiary topics to "Reveal," he guarantees that anyone who wants to conclude something will conclude that despite there being no actual evidence of that. - No, what we learned on Friday is that big tech works aggressively and in secret with government agencies to subvert the outcome of what the rest of us assumed were free and fair elections.

Long story short: You've been scammed, all because you believe right wing billionaires are infallible and honest with zero reason to lie.

[Breccia]

Also remember that the Twitter algorithm tends to favor spreading conservative viewpoints by the very nature of how it works.

This part right here cannot be emphasized enough. The Party of Trump is based on misinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies. None of these cite evidence.