Soldato
Keep up at the back, re-read the quote that is in response to and all will become clear.
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Well first, regarding Jared Kushner.. Even though he was the son-in-law and he started his equity business with Saudi money after he left the white house, I am still concerned about any influence that may indirectly get to Trump and absolutely would expect that to come under scrutiny, yes..
In Hunters case, no one cares about his hookers and coke, but severe scrutiny of the business dealings and Joes involvement. We need the investigation to take place, because there appears to be enough evidence that would counter Joe's assertion he never once talked about business dealings with Hunter, yet the 'big man' mentioned and the suspicious meetings just after many business meetings with his Dad seem to warrant some scrutiny, and some of the those foreign companies seem linked to governments of those countries. If there is nothing to it, then why hide it so badly? Why literally lie through your back teeth and claim it's russian disinformation?
63% of Americans thought it was important when polled (can we add that to the 1/3 of americans who believe the 2020 election was stolen, meaning 100% of americans are CT nuts..
)..OT.
I can agree or at least my gut is telling me that expecting some form of evidence of a coordinated effort within Twitter that shows clear bias won't yield much, I do think some paranoia from the right is going on for sure.
Err, when 'misinformation', 'hate speech' and 'inciting violence' are all subjectively decided, that wouldn't seem the best argument to prove there is no systemic bias.
I am not a freespech absolutist, I actually prefer the moderation style of forums like this one, relative freedom to express opinion, but will not tolerate harassment to others but crucially not based on intersectional criteria..
This is complete nonsense, as always from you. Information is objective, spreading misinformation can be objectively tested. hate speech, racism sexism etc. all have specific legal definitions and hence can be objectively tested.
Soldato
*spits coffee out*
1. Misinformation like Hunter Bidens laptop can indeed be objectively tested, it wasn't, it was subjectively branded misinformation and banned.
2. I agree on legal definitions, but no one is complaining that someone who broke the actual law (and was prosecuted) was banned, its those who where banned despite not breaking any laws and not getting prosecuted because someone subjectively interpreted their idea of the definitions.
I'm not even against some of the bannings, I don't mind enforcing civility, but to pretend Twitter was massively not subjective in what it felt was misinformation, hate speech, racism, sexism is beyond naive.
As an example, someone from the left went on Mastodon, started talking about 'White authors' with some derogatory connotation and got banned for racism.. they where shocked because Twitter would condone that.. Neither probably break the law either, both are subjective interpretations.
But carry on, it's just nonsense..
This is a crazy post. We've seen many examples over the past 2 years of things being branded misinformation only to later on be proven to be a fact. Overt racism and sexism can quite obviously be called hate speech and few would disagree, but then there's a grey area where some people consider things to be racist and others don't. Criticism of Islam has been labelled racist for example, some would think it is and some wouldn't, that's just one example.
I got to hear and then gave up as you were already completely wrong.
With Hunter Biden's laptop there was no supporting evidence that it was genuine news when first announced, and it had all the hallmarks of a Russian misinformation campaign. So quite rightly it was taken with a large pinch of salt until it could be substantiated. Once more credible sources could ensure the veracity the news posts were free to be all over Twitter.
There was no permanent moderation,of what was a complete nothing-burger.
This is actually a great example of moderation of misinformation being objective. Once there was objective evidence the news was spread widely on Twitter, as this was information that could be objectively stated as true or false once sufficient evidence was gathered.
Associate
Big yikes
Last edited:
Soldato
Yes I'd have to agree. Elon seems to not be technically correct (something dowie may take issue with small technicalities like that) but the point Elon was making is still there and just more powerful with a tiny adjustment of the story. Perhaps Elon had his hand on the baby so it was still in his hands/within reach.
Sad story none the less.
Last edited:
Associate
I've no idea, I think the most telling thing in the tweet is that his ex-wife felt the need to correct him publicly on a VERY personal matter. You don't do that unless you are rather upset with someone imo.
Last edited:
Something we can't really know at the end of the day so I'm leery of being critical of Elon on this one.
Something I thought about when posting above - I've seen some really bad relationship breakups with workmates, etc. with almost no limits in how far they'd go to get at each other so you never know.
Last edited:
Soldato
Indeed, though it is odd that the ex wife did feel the need to publically set the record straight according to her, the point Elon was making is still valid and that's what counts. If Elon had said, I was their during sandy Hook etc, then we have right to say, hold in a minute, or like when Trump claimed something along the liens of he was there helping during 9/11. These things when proven wrong are right to be snapped back at
Small technicalities? You made up a complete lie about me just yesterday, I posted something laughing at Elon for tweeting fake news/conspiracy and your interpretation was that I'd believed him and was intent on spreading it?
This is the problem with having such a binary black vs white view of the world, you see a tweet like that, see that I posted it, don't read what is said and just assume it's being posted in support of Elon rather than criticising/laughing at him.
I do agree re: the dead child, that's two divorced parents who were presumably both there when the baby died, it's not exactly relevant.
I think the telling thing is that she's his ex-wife and they don't exactly get along.
Associate
There are levels to not getting on, to correct someone on something that personal in a public space is eyebrow-raising to say the least.
Commissario
The story was also being peddled by known loons and idiots who had a long history of talking nonsense, and the story behind the laptop kept changing with the same people giving multiple contradictory versions about their own roles/how they'd come into possession of it.
People are still defending the censoring of a major newspaper, the NY Post, over coverage of the Hunter Biden Laptop story? Seriously?
Even Jack Dorsey has since admitted it was a "total mistake" when asked about it by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing over censorship and bias concerns.
There seems to be some obfuscation here too, the story wasn't censored because it was being peddled by "known loons" that isn't a Twitter policy or reason for censoring, it was censored under Twitter's hacked materials policy despite the NY Post's source material not being the result of a hack but rather an abandoned laptop, Jack has since stated this was a "process error".
There isn't really any defending it, the CEO at the time it happened has literally put it on the record that it shouldn't have happened and is was the result of an incorrectly applied policy.
Even Jack Dorsey has since admitted it was a "total mistake" when asked about it by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing over censorship and bias concerns.
There seems to be some obfuscation here too, the story wasn't censored because it was being peddled by "known loons" that isn't a Twitter policy or reason for censoring, it was censored under Twitter's hacked materials policy despite the NY Post's source material not being the result of a hack but rather an abandoned laptop, Jack has since stated this was a "process error".
There isn't really any defending it, the CEO at the time it happened has literally put it on the record that it shouldn't have happened and is was the result of an incorrectly applied policy.
Last edited:
- Status