RIP Twitter

[Sea Ray]

Also, the government's "control" over Twitter entirely consisted of government officials pointing out to Twitter violations of their own policies. Guess what? The government can still do this.

Nope:

Stefanik Exposes FBI's Collusion With Twitter to Suppress Accurate Reporting on Hunter Biden's Laptop Story, an Attack on Free Speech​

ICYMI: Stefanik Exposes FBI's Collusion With Twitter to Suppress Accurate Reporting on Hunter Biden's Laptop Story, an Attack on Free Speech

stefanik.house.gov

 

[n_huffhines]

Nope:

Stefanik Exposes FBI's Collusion With Twitter to Suppress Accurate Reporting on Hunter Biden's Laptop Story, an Attack on Free Speech​

ICYMI: Stefanik Exposes FBI's Collusion With Twitter to Suppress Accurate Reporting on Hunter Biden's Laptop Story, an Attack on Free Speech

stefanik.house.gov

Did you think I wasn't aware of this? The Biden laptop was a violation of Twitter's hacked materials policy. They revised the policy after (before Musk) because they didn't like the way things played out. Twitter was not what your right-wing media outlets pretend it was. This is very basic information relating to these events and somehow you don't know why it was "suppressed." Rethink where you get your information.

 

[Sea Ray]

FBI colluding with Twitter is the definition of government control.

It's also what this case was all about:

Restricting the Government from Speaking to Tech Companies Will Spread Disinformation and Harm Democracy

Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction that turns Republicans’ fixation on social media censorship into legal reality.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[n_huffhines]

FBI colluding with Twitter is the definition of government control.

It's also what this case was all about:

Restricting the Government from Speaking to Tech Companies Will Spread Disinformation and Harm Democracy

Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction that turns Republicans’ fixation on social media censorship into legal reality.

www.justsecurity.org

Did you read your link?

 

[Sea Ray]

Did you read your link?

Sure did. It's not right wing propaganda, is it? It identified the lawsuit in question. That was my only purpose. My point is that this is a legal issue, which it is

 

[n_huffhines]

Sure did. It's not right wing propaganda, is it? It identified the lawsuit in question. That was my only purpose. My point is that this is a legal issue, which it is

Hahahaha. You didn't read it. Now it's damage control time. A bogus lawsuit to suppress government speech does nothing to prove anything.

 

[Sea Ray]

Hahahaha. You didn't read it. Now it's damage control time. A bogus lawsuit to suppress government speech does nothing to prove anything.

I absolutely did read it. A bogus lawsuit? Sounds like you didn't read it. He said just the opposite:

On July 4, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction in part in the case of Missouri v. Biden, concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim, but denied their request to certify the matter as a class action lawsuit.

District Court Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in Missouri v. Biden

Judge Terry A. Doughty restricted parts of the federal government from communicating with social media companies.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[n_huffhines]

I absolutely did read it. A bogus lawsuit? Sounds like you didn't read it. He said just the opposite:

District Court Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in Missouri v. Biden

Judge Terry A. Doughty restricted parts of the federal government from communicating with social media companies.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Why are you posting a quote from a different article to prove the last article was saying something else?

You were trying to prove government control over tech using an article about a lawsuit that said this:

"While there are, in theory, interesting questions about when and how the government can try to jawbone private entities to remove speech from their platforms, this decision doesn’t grapple with any of them. In fact from the 155-page opinion, it’s not even clear this case really raises those questions. Each step in the reasoning of the decision manages to be more outlandish than the last – from the idea that the plaintiffs have standing to the notion that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction at this stage of the case to the sweep of the injunction that the district court issued.

But the absurdity of different aspects of the decision in Missouri v. Biden should not obscure the bigger picture of what happened. Invoking the First Amendment, a single district court judge effectively issued a prior restraint on large swaths of speech, cutting short an essential dialogue between the government and social media companies about online speech and potentially lethal misinformation. "

 

[Sea Ray]

Why are you posting a quote from a different article to prove the last article was saying something else?

You were trying to prove government control over tech using an article about a lawsuit that said this:

"While there are, in theory, interesting questions about when and how the government can try to jawbone private entities to remove speech from their platforms, this decision doesn’t grapple with any of them. In fact from the 155-page opinion, it’s not even clear this case really raises those questions. Each step in the reasoning of the decision manages to be more outlandish than the last – from the idea that the plaintiffs have standing to the notion that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction at this stage of the case to the sweep of the injunction that the district court issued.

But the absurdity of different aspects of the decision in Missouri v. Biden should not obscure the bigger picture of what happened. Invoking the First Amendment, a single district court judge effectively issued a prior restraint on large swaths of speech, cutting short an essential dialogue between the government and social media companies about online speech and potentially lethal misinformation. "

I don't care about commentary. I'm going by exactly what the judge said and did. He did issue a preliminary injunction that limited gov't control over big tech 'cause he felt that part of the lawsuit was not "bogus".

I don't even know what your point is. If the lawsuit was bogus why did he grant the injunction?

 

[davethevol]

That’s not very interesting lol how tf do you “script” an Achilles tear that everyone can see on replay? Conspiracy nuts are so dumb

It was interesting that he got the prediction right almost down to the exact minute. I never insinuated that Rodgers was part of a fake injury or anything beyond that, you MAP.

 

[Grand Vol]

Also, the government's "control" over Twitter entirely consisted of government officials pointing out to Twitter violations of their own policies. Guess what? The government can still do this.

So, you're perfectly okay with the government deciding what's true or meets their "standards"?

 

[NashVol11]

It was interesting that he got the prediction right almost down to the exact minute. I never insinuated that Rodgers was part of a fake injury or anything beyond that, you MAP.

The post you quoted had nothing to do with the time of injury, and regardless that's luck, explain what is "interesting" about it instead of backtracking on your conspiracy nonsense while randomly calling me a pedophile

 

[n_huffhines]

So, you're perfectly okay with the government deciding what's true or meets their "standards"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[n_huffhines]

Let's take a step back, look at this from a non-partisan perspective (if y'all can)...

Hacked materials produce information that cannot be verified yet, and can potentially swing an election.

Twitter has a policy against sharing hacked materials.

Would it be more controversial for Twitter to:

1) go against their policies and share the materials in this one case.
2) adhere to their policies.

Nobody on the right is ever fair to Twitter about this ****.

 

[Sea Ray]

How does Twitter know if information posted on X comes from hacked materials? Rarely are sources given on Twitter and even when they are, it'd take a tremendous amount of information to know that it came from a hacked source

 

[Grand Vol]

Let's take a step back, look at this from a non-partisan perspective (if y'all can)...

Hacked materials produce information that cannot be verified yet, and can potentially swing an election.

Twitter has a policy against sharing hacked materials.

Would it be more controversial for Twitter to:

1) go against their policies and share the materials in this one case.
2) adhere to their policies.

Nobody on the right is ever fair to Twitter about this ****.

If the hacked materials swing an election, what kind of information was being hidden to begin with?

Let's say someone hacks the Epstein client list, releases it on X-Twitter and we find a hoop of sitting politicians (foreign and domestic) that visited and engaged in acts that the world public would frown on mightily. But the government steps in and says "nope, that's hacked material and you can't allow it."

Does X-Twitter not have the moral responsibility to tell the government to get bent and let such information stand on its own merits regardless of how damaging it might be?

 

[CagleMtnVol]

 

[n_huffhines]

If the hacked materials swing an election, what kind of information was being hidden to begin with?

Let's say someone hacks the Epstein client list, releases it on X-Twitter and we find a hoop of sitting politicians (foreign and domestic) that visited and engaged in acts that the world public would frown on mightily. But the government steps in and says "nope, that's hacked material and you can't allow it."

Does X-Twitter not have the moral responsibility to tell the government to get bent and let such information stand on its own merits regardless of how damaging it might be?

IMO, Twitter's decision rests solely on whether or not they want to violate their own terms. It has nothing to do with the government's angling. For the real life example, a moral responsibility to report misdeeds doesn't exist, because they weren't sure of the veracity.

 

[Grand Vol]

IMO, Twitter's decision rests solely on whether or not they want to violate their own terms. It has nothing to do with the government's angling. For the real life example, a moral responsibility to report misdeeds doesn't exist, because they weren't sure of the veracity.

But it still comes down to the brass tacks principle that the government gets a say in free speech. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the data is:

A. Hacked material

B. Damaging in some way to an election chance of a person (which is not their job to pick winners or losers despite what happened in 2016)

C. If B does apply, be bipartisan about it and not pick and choose who gets what

D. Provide context as to why this data or info shouldn't be out there for the public to see. (Which gets into the national security realm and a can of worms)

Point being, Twitter was and probably will continue to be guilty of allowing hacked info or even "fake news" like we saw throughout the Trump years. If they want to crack down on it, it needs to be across the board.

 

[n_huffhines]

But it still comes down to the brass tacks principle that the government gets a say in free speech. The burden of proof is on the government to prove the data is:

A. Hacked material

B. Damaging in some way to an election chance of a person (which is not their job to pick winners or losers despite what happened in 2016)

C. If B does apply, be bipartisan about it and not pick and choose who gets what

D. Provide context as to why this data or info shouldn't be out there for the public to see. (Which gets into the national security realm and a can of worms)

Point being, Twitter was and probably will continue to be guilty of allowing hacked info or even "fake news" like we saw throughout the Trump years. If they want to crack down on it, it needs to be across the board.

Was there ever a question of whether it was hacked material? I don't think there was, so there was nothing to prove. Nothing else really matters. If it violates their policy, they take it down, unless they (not the government) find some reason to violate their own policy.

 

[hog88]

If someone "hacked" the Kenedy assassination files or some other bombshell government corruption then published them, is twitter are they supposed to block them?

 

[n_huffhines]

If someone "hacked" the Kenedy assassination files or some other bombshell government corruption then published them, is twitter are they supposed to block them?

Yes. The new policy allows for hacked materials to be shared by a 3rd party. The point of the rule was largely to keep hackers from behaving badly and the Hunter Biden thing showed the flaw in the rule as it was written.

 

[Grand Vol]

Was there ever a question of whether it was hacked material? I don't think there was, so there was nothing to prove. Nothing else really matters. If it violates their policy, they take it down, unless they (not the government) find some reason to violate their own policy.

You're missing my point...

I'm saying who gets to be the determining authority on the "hacked" material?

The government? X-Twitter? Blue Check holders?

My problem was you saying the hacked material could have swung an election and Twitter would/should remove it. I'm asking who gets to make that determination on whether or not it's hacked. Because I sure as hell don't trust the government to do it in a fair and impartial manner. Nor so I trust some raging liberal with a political axe to grind to allow some things while censoring others.

Not even going to get into whether or not it swings an election. Because that's entirely subjective.

 

[hog88]

You're missing my point...

I'm saying who gets to be the determining authority on the "hacked" material?

The government? X-Twitter? Blue Check holders?

My problem was you saying the hacked material could have swung an election and Twitter would/should remove it. I'm asking who gets to make that determination on whether or not it's hacked. Because I sure as hell don't trust the government to do it in a fair and impartial manner. Nor so I trust some raging liberal with a political axe to grind to allow some things while censoring others.

Not even going to get into whether or not it swings an election. Because that's entirely subjective.

Yep. The HB laptop wasn't hacked but twitter took the stance that it was because the .gov said so.

 

[n_huffhines]

You're missing my point...

I'm saying who gets to be the determining authority on the "hacked" material?

The government? X-Twitter? Blue Check holders?

Twitter, of course.