THOUGHTS
If you control what is revealed and seen in public, you don't have to have truth on your side to alter public opinion your way, simply take out all of the reasonable speakers on the side you dislike, leaving behind all of the off-the-wall braindead ones that oppose your side. What this will do is make the whole lot of them appear to be nothing more than unreasonable people who have the mental capacity of pond scum who are all they see.
This is the long and short of the Twitter files, suppress the opinions of reasonable people, and not only reasonable people but those highly trained in the areas of expertise that have a highly educated trained mind that must be taken seriously, get rid of them, and you win the argument.
If we cannot handle opposing opinions in the realm of public opinion we are showing it isn't reality we have, it is pure emotional self-righteousness! If we believe what we are saying is true! If we are right then bringing it on should be the mental state of anyone who cares about the truth and not political correctness.
Also, you let the braindead ones speak long enough you can paint all of them that way regardless if someone reasonable does get a chance to be heard, the damage is done, even reasonable opinions are then tainted.
Information and misinformation are in the eyes of the beholder!
@kellyjay saidJust one more argument against social media. Time for folks to turn it off, stop letting their media outlets do their thinking for them and start thinking for themselves. 😲
THOUGHTS
If you control what is revealed and seen in public, you don't have to have truth on your side to alter public opinion your way, simply take out all of the reasonable speakers on the side you dislike, leaving behind all of the off-the-wall braindead ones that oppose your side. What this will do is make the whole lot of them appear to be nothing more than unreasonabl ...[text shortened]... onable opinions are then tainted.
Information and misinformation are in the eyes of the beholder!
@mchill saidSo the liberal leftists got caught and now you want social media shut down instead of free speech?
Just one more argument against social media. Time for folks to turn it off, stop letting their media outlets do their thinking for them and start thinking for themselves. 😲
You're just as bad as the ones who were caught.
I am in favor of holding online social media to the same legal standard as print media: hold them liable for content. Freedom of speech does not include a right to post lies, slander, incitement to violence or insurrection, to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire or “march on the Capitol!” when there was no fraud. Let site admins be sued or sent to prison, same as the editors of news papers, problem fixed.
As shown in Parts 1 and 7, Twitter—primarily at the FBI and intelligence community’s urging—systematically suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story. Initially, Twitter was resistant to the FBI’s probes and requests for information. However, over time, the FBI became deeply embedded within Twitter in terms of a revolving door of personnel, the granting of top-secret security clearances to Twitter executives, and the opening of myriad direct communication lines in which the FBI and other intelligence agencies could directly influence Twitter’s censorship activities. Central to this effort was former FBI general counsel James Baker—a well-connected and powerful member of the intelligence community—who until very recently was deputy counsel for Twitter.
As shown in Parts 6 and 8, the aforementioned synergies with the FBI/Intelligence Community/Department of Defense have been endemic within Twitter, as well as other social media companies. Taibbi goes so far as to call Twitter an “FBI subsidiary,” and the published evidence more than substantiates his claim. Moreover, Twitter has been heavily supporting the U.S. military’s covert operations overseas, creating AI generated deep fakes, developing false propaganda against foreign regimes, and whitelisting fake accounts operated by the intelligence community to spread disinformation and promote psychological influence operations, all in order to artificially instill popular support for foreign policy decisions—whether they be interventionist or oriented around retrenchment.
As shown in Parts 2 through 5, Twitter systematically censored free speech and blacklisted conservative / contrarian voices including Dr. Jay Battacharya, Dan Bongino, Charlie Kirk, Kayleigh McEnany, the popular “Libs of Tiktok” account, and President Donald Trump. Mechanisms for doing so included building large blacklists, preventing disfavored tweets from trending, limiting visibility of entire accounts and trending topics, blocking search results, limiting the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability, among other insidious tactics.
As shown in Parts 3 through 5, which focus mostly upon the decision to ban Trump’s account, the political ideologies of Twitter employees and executives played a substantial role in decision-making. In 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, and 99% of Twitter staff’s political donations went to Democrats, respectively. The ultimate decision to ban Trump was based on no specific policy violation—in fact, many of the Twitter employees responsible for determining these policy violations clearly indicated no such violations occurred. Moreover, to truly illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of this move, Twitter did not de-platform other world leaders who much more clearly incited their populations to violence, including leaders from Nigeria, Ethiopia, India, Iran, and Malaysia. In a particularly telling excoriation of Twitter’s decision, jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny criticized the ban as “an unacceptable act of censorship.” Navalny would know, considering he has been one of the most heavily persecuted advocates of free speech in the world, and is currently serving out a ten-year prison sentence in a brutal Russian gulag.
As shown in Part 9, the FBI was hardly the only government agency actively weaponizing Twitter to serve governmental interests. The CIA, Department of Defense, and other security, military, and intelligence task forces consistently used their clout to censor information deemed adverse to their goals.
As shown in Part 10, Twitter–often after government coercion–suppressed any information that went against the established Covid-19 narrative, including posts and research by leading experts in their fields. Twitter and the CDC decided what “The Science” entailed. For anyone who does not understand what science is at a fundamental level: it is the means of discerning truths from gathered evidence via the scientific method. What it decidedly is NOT is a consensus-based ideology pushed and promoted by ministries of truth, that actively censor dissenting viewpoints. In fact, the whole point of science is to welcome alternative research and debate.
Parts 11 and 12 show how the intelligence community became so intertwined with Twitter, beginning with the aftermath of the 2016 election. Despite the outcry from the left that Russian interference and disinformation via social media had led to President Trump’s victory, Twitter found little evidence in support of this. Still, threats from politicians and intelligence agencies–who often threatened to go directly to major media outlets and bypass Twitter–forced Twitter to enter the content moderation game. They quickly became a subsidiary of the U.S. government, specifically the national security apparatus. Twitter was even directly paid over $3 million by the FBI for its services.
@moonbus saidDo you have any idea how many non white accounts have posted..."kill white people"...
I am in favor of holding online social media to the same legal standard as print media: hold them liable for content. Freedom of speech does not include a right to post lies, slander, incitement to violence or insurrection, to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire or “march on the Capitol!” when there was no fraud. Let site admins be sued or sent to prison, same as the editors of news papers, problem fixed.
Every prison would be full because of online threats if your idea came to fruition. It'll never happen.
Print media is a few companies so it can be regulated.
Who is going to regulate one billion twitter users?
You can't put everyone in jail or sue them 🙄
@mchill saidThis is the correct answer. I love twitter as entertainment, but does anyone really think social media can ever be an accurate reflection of reality?
Just one more argument against social media. Time for folks to turn it off, stop letting their media outlets do their thinking for them and start thinking for themselves. 😲
@wildgrass saidThe same can be said for biased news networks.
This is the correct answer. I love twitter as entertainment, but does anyone really think social media can ever be an accurate reflection of reality?
All of them are biased.
@booger saidI am also in favor of an independent press.
As shown in Parts 1 and 7, Twitter—primarily at the FBI and intelligence community’s urging—systematically suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story. Initially, Twitter was resistant to the FBI’s probes and requests for information. However, over time, the FBI became deeply embedded within Twitter in terms of a revolving door of personnel, the granting of top-secret security cl ...[text shortened]... onal security apparatus. Twitter was even directly paid over $3 million by the FBI for its services.
@booger saidThe editorial staff can be held liable for content. Same as print media. Simple. Problem fixed.
Do you have any idea how many non white accounts have posted..."kill white people"...
Every prison would be full because of online threats if your idea came to fruition. It'll never happen.
Print media is a few companies so it can be regulated.
Who is going to regulate one billion twitter users?
You can't put everyone in jail or sue them 🙄
@moonbus saidNobody is going to run a website where they are accountable for the content when anyone can post.
The editorial staff can be held liable for content. Same as print media. Simple. Problem fixed.
If you mean news networks and writers then I agree with you but the masses of regular people cannot be regulated.
And who decides what is right and wrong?
The twitter files show everyone that a biased side can and will censor and cancel opposition even when they are the ones in the wrong.
CNN put out a lot of fake hate crime stories so can I sue them? Will they be shut down?
They knew or found out later the story was false so how do you regulate that scenario?
No news stories until it's a known fact? I don't think that can work.