The part where they removed tweets because they were asked to or banned accounts because they were asked to is a pretty big deal. And even though everyone knew they did that it wasn't in writing. It's kind of like the Snowden leaks, everyone who thought about the issues involved had a basic idea of what was going on but until it was out in the open people could just deny it.
back
1 comments
Taibbi doesn't even say any of that
But that's going to be the narrative. The actual reality doesn't matter, just like the endless gloating these days about the so-called "Russia hoax" - where there was a bunch of shady goings-on between the Trump campaign and the RU gov't who was quite explicit in their desire to work with and assist his campaign. But because it didn't achieve the nigh-impossible feat of a successful impeachment vote by his own party, they act as if the whole thing was a ridiculous put-on when in fact they'd be frothing at the mouth if it was Joe Biden and the CCP.
Narrative is the only thing that matters, especially to these folks, and unfortunately that's why our society is fucked. Because they are definitely going to win that battle. They're already claiming that Biden, as a private citizen, was an agent of the "deep state" violating the 1st amendment with his shadowy cabal and it's just going to go downhill from here.
This started with the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' and it hasn't stopped since because it wasn't smacked down hard. Smear campaigns work, the question is if you let them or not and the US seems to firmly believe that smear campaigns (and lots of money) are legal means of achieving political dominance.
> They're already claiming that Biden, as a private citizen, was an agent of the "deep state" violating the 1st amendment with his shadowy cabal and it's just going to go downhill from here.
I certainly didn't claim that and I have thousands of comments on HN under my real name that you can verify that with. I'd appreciate it if you didn't group me in with whatever "folks" you think I'm affiliated with. For context, the twitter thread said both political parties made requests to remove tweets and ban accounts that were acted upon. And in my own comment I made no reference to specific political parties. Nor am I registered or affiliated with either one.
This tweet and the next one in the thread show exactly that https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064
Those tweets the Biden team is requesting are actual dick pics that Hunter never consented to being shared online.
You’ve been duped.
Do you have any evidence for that? I don't see anywhere where it says what the tweets contain. In either case, the claim I made is that twitter removed tweets and banned accounts at the request of certain parties, which remains true and is what the linked images show.
Grab a link, go over to web.archive.org, paste it in, go to the capture from 2020, look at the dick picks of Hunter Biden.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201025002626/https://twitter.c... - yes, it's a dick pick. Do not click that link if you don't want to see it.
Thanks.
Yeah, just like they do every single day for reported material that violates their TOS.
Sure, I don't disagree with that. But the existence of a backchannel is notable in itself and as far as I know wasn't publicly acknowledged.
It’s surprising that the teams around the most powerful political office in the country have communication lines open with media corporations?
That doesn’t strike me as notable or surprising at all, even if it’s new information.
For this to be surprising, I think one would have to implicitly believe one of a few things:
1) Twitter isn’t a meaningful political battleground, 2) politicians don’t know it’s an important political battleground, or 3) Twitter should treat a content report from “newuser18472” the same as a report from a notable organization or individual.
Reasonable things to believe, but IMO not surprising at all to find out they’re false.
Yeah that crazy dick pic narrative huh?
I don't know what the contents of the tweets are. What the images show are people affiliated with political campaigns asking twitter employees to remove tweets, which is what I claimed originally.
Grab a link, paste it into web archive, go to the October 2020 capture, see a dick pic.
If you want to see one, https://web.archive.org/web/20201024235823/https://twitter.c...
You can then judge the question of "did the person in the image consent to having their picture shown on Twitter, or is this in violation California penal code 647(j)(4)?"
Thanks. Again, what I claimed was that twitter performed actions at the the request of people affiliated with political parties/campaigns. I didn't make any claims about the content of the tweets or their legality/status under twitter's terms and conditions.
So if these weren't reported by a member of the Biden campaign and instead reported by Hunter Biden himself - would there be an issue?
Other than timeliness, would you expect any different resolution if they were reported by a private citizen unrelated to the Biden campaign?
If the answer to both of these question is 'no', what is the big deal?
Knowledge is power!