TwitterGate Hoax ?

[Aianawa]

You're missing the point again, Vern. I did not bring up Trump so as to talk about him — if anything, I think way too much time has been wasted on Orange Jesus™ already — but because the point I was trying to highlight was that allegations were made without providing any evidence. Trump did that when he said the elections were stolen from him, and Musk is doing it as well now by claiming that there was government interference in how Twitter was moderated under Jack Dorsey's ownership of the company.

That was my point. Making allegations of foul play is easy, but somehow the presentation of any evidence of such always seems to be too much to ask for, and especially so from the far-right. As the matter of fact, they don't even seem to require any evidence at all before condemning anyone — it buys them enough time to fabricate the "evidence" later, as for instance in the case of the "2'000 Mules" fakumentary.

George W. Bush didn't require any evidence of the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He even cut off UN investigator Hans Blix by invading Iraq before Blix could present his report to the UN — a report which stated that no evidence was found of there being any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So in the end, what it boils down to is that the far-right regards evidence as an undesirable obstruction in the realization of their agenda, and that it's a lot easier to beat your opponents by just making up allegations and then acting upon those allegations of your own creation as if they have already been proven true. George W. Bush and Tony Blair did it, QAnon did it, Donald Trump did (and is still doing) it, and now Elon Musk is doing it too.

Anyway, like I said, I'm out of this thread. I'm only replying because I am either being quoted or being addressed.

Tisa a funny game you play Aragorn, thanks for your reply , the circle i feel you have created is no evidence vs evidence, as in the evidence has been provided and you appear not to be able to see it, nine files so far containing much evidence, actual documents, timestamps, signitures even lol spose n also, no use we being two sides holding our truths n conspiracies.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou8hdqyCRBE

[Diabolical Boids]

Aianawa;842053089]Okay ok ok what is going on here, decades ago ?, do you more mean pre silly times, say 3 years ago ?, oh or has the past 3 years just made it obvious it has been actualllly decades ?.

To a time where they were not confronted with conflict. Any time will do. Ten minutes ago, a day, a decade. The thing with conflicts is that they are, ha ha, conflictive. A mish mash of gray areas where comfortable beliefs about their party and the people inhabiting it are challenged. The only way true way to regain equilibrium is to examine the conflict. There are more choices than sticking head in the sand or getting over the top reactive with it. In America the news and social media influencers will tell you that you cannot be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Yeah you can be. The individual makes that decision, not ABC and CNN. They are regurgitating old GW Bush rhetoric even though they are liberal. Very little separates the parties of right and left in America, just the menu

Aslo it be chaos out there, are you implying people are choosing chaos ?.

In trying to avoid chaos it they are making a choice for it. Order comes from chaos. Equilibrium is restored by addressing chaos with perspective and proportion. You can't approach chaos with the fear that one party or the other is going to crowd mob, or attack, or accuse you of going to the other side. Attack is a known certainty and part of the chaos itself. But people who want the comfort of a fixed set of beliefs cannot cope with chaos because chaos does not offer comfort or fixed belief.

[Aragorn]

Tisa a funny game you play Aragorn,

If there's anyone playing games here, Vern, then it isn't me.

the circle i feel you have created is no evidence vs evidence, as in the evidence has been provided and you appear not to be able to see it, nine files so far containing much evidence, actual documents, timestamps, signitures even lol spose n also, no use we being two sides holding our truths n conspiracies.

Just because files/documents have been handed over does not mean that those files would contain any evidence of government intervention, Vern. As the matter of fact, they do not, or otherwise said evidence would already have been unmistakably published by now, and by Musk himself.

There has been and still is a lot of innuendo — exclusively intended to influence the public opinion — but no factual evidence is being presented that the US government has effectively intervened in Twitter's moderation. And if there is a lot of innuendo but no factual evidence is being presented to support the innuendo, then it's most likely because said evidence does not exist. And for the far-right, this is perfectly fine, because they consider evidence an irrelevant detail that can always be manufactured later, after the agenda has been carried out.

I'm sorry to have to say it, Vern — I really am, because I'm not happy about always having to be the barking dog around here — but you are once again displaying a serious lack of discernment and an equally serious detachment from reality. And that is why there is no point to my further participation on this thread, and why I am thus trying to exit this exchange — which so far doesn't appear to be working too well.

[Diabolical Boids]

That's the way to go.



I like actually seeing some of the "X's and O's, 1's and zero's, black and white. Like when Glenn Greenwald broke Snowden's material. A lot of people highly suspected it, but when it actually came out well, there it was for all to see. A big problem I'm seeing is how many people find this uninteresting, or some partisan nothing burger.

Attachment 2789Attachment 2790

It's always interesting when something you suspected existed finally comes into a clearer view. It's interesting when our suspicions about anything and anybody are validated when someone else shines a light on it. That's life. We experience that daily in our lives when the person we felt were putting on an act or being deceptive are finally revealed--false friend, neighbor or coworker. Come on. Who doesn't like having their intuitions and speculations validated? Ahha. That wasn't a conspiracy theory after all.

Those are pretty well-defined outcomes or effects from a cause published years back in MSM when the news announced Jim Baker as a joining the Twitter team. Having former Alphabet Agency come trooping in with their security clearances intact and access to classified information and field support involved in social media is a wee bit of a red flag. It is interesting as I'm sure most people are aware at this point their governments are involved in some sketchy domestic policies. And then suddenly are not?

And at the end of the day what person in fully in their right mind trusts the federal government? The US government has infiltrated the west, involved itself and invested itself in interests all over the world under shell corporations and proxy governments but would suddenly be shy about infiltrating a social media company?

Everything that happens that bothers us is not necessarily a wild conspiracy theory. This is a case of current events rippling across the world. It effects everyone regardless of where their political polarities are at.

I guess if you do not embrace Musk as a savior, and also are not a hard core Musk hater you can look at this more objectively.

Musk is not the first new CEO to come forward and publish excesses, mismanagement and interference within a business or corporation under the care of a former CEO. And at the end of the day it was people on both sides of the aisle firmly convinced that Twitter was prejudicially favoring one side of the aisle and censoring the other. Those are the people, the users of Twitter, that demanded transparency. So when what was hidden was revealed for the sake of transparency who fell apart at the seams? The same people who insisted on transparency.

I am interested why so many influential and powerful corporations suddenly pulled out of Twitter when Musk took over.

What I am not interested in is making a big divisive drama over it where everyone has to take sides with insults and accusations. America cannot do anything with sobriety. From the Civil War to the present its always extremists barging in wanting immediate and destructive action taken or not taken. Instead of taking a longer course that is less damaging.

The big nothing burger will come in when it's time to prosecute. Not that the crime itself is a nothing burger.

[Fred Steeves]

Just because files/documents have been handed over does not mean that those files would contain any evidence of government intervention, Vern. As the matter of fact, they do not, or otherwise said evidence would already have been unmistakably published by now, and by Musk himself.

There has been and still is a lot of innuendo — exclusively intended to influence the public opinion — but no factual evidence is being presented that the US government has effectively intervened in Twitter's moderation. And if there is a lot of innuendo but no factual evidence is being presented to support the innuendo, then it's most likely because said evidence does not exist.

Frank, I'm having a tough time trying to figure out what your problem is with this. Is it that you don't see the screen shots released as legitimate, meaning screenshots don't cut it when it comes to evidence?

Are they some new brand of "fake news"?

Now the FBI isn't denying any of this, but perhaps it's just that you happen to support their position? If you do, at least that would explain it, but that still brings us back to "what about this makes it baseless conspiracy and misinformation?"

“The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries,” the FBI said, per Fox News.

“As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers,” the statement added. “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-r...-twitter-files

I'm sorry to have to say it, Vern — I really am, because I'm not happy about always having to be the barking dog around here — but you are once again displaying a serious lack of discernment and an equally serious detachment from reality.

So that necessarily includes me as well. If I'm missing the boat that badly, I'd really like to know where I made that big wrong turn and correct it. But I need more than what is essentially "this is all just more far right wing bullshit".

Seriously man, if I've half assed scrambled up the crazy tree and can't make my way down again, help a brother out and get me a ladder. This can be a community wide learning moment.

[Aragorn]

Frank, I'm having a tough time trying to figure out what your problem is with this. Is it that you don't see the screen shots released as legitimate, meaning screenshots don't cut it when it comes to evidence?

Are they some new brand of "fake news"?

Now the FBI isn't denying any of this, but perhaps it's just that you happen to support their position? If you do, at least that would explain it, but that still brings us back to "what about this makes it baseless conspiracy and misinformation?"


https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-r...-twitter-files

Where's the interference, Fred? All I see is that the FBI was conducting inquiries about Twitter's policy violations — which is interesting in and of itself, but that does not qualify as interference in my book. I'm not seeing them tell Jack Dorsey or any of his employees to publish "this" and to not publish "that", or to change the content of certain tweets. Dorsey himself explains why certain things were censored on Twitter, and that this censoring was his decision, of which he now also says that it was a mistake. I don't have a dog in that fight, because I couldn't care less about Twitter.

But of course, that is not how the story's being sold to the public by Elon Musk. Musk is claiming that the US government (by way of the FBI) interfered, which to me means that the FBI would have ordered Dorsey to suppress certain information, or worse, that they somehow had the technical means to suppress the information themselves remotely. And in the latter case, there would of course be a smoking gun even if Dorsey were to keep his mouth shut, because remote accesses to servers are always logged.

In the end, it all boils down to the same old shit again, namely Hunter Biden's laptop. And that in and of itself is a distraction from the far-right to draw the attention away from the sins of their orange Messiah. We all know that.

For that matter, Facebook did publish the story about Hunter's laptop — and it didn't take all too long for photos retrieved from said laptop to get photoshopped by the bigots so as to make Hunter Biden look like a pedophile and a rapist, but that's another story — and Facebook too is regularly in contact with the FBI (and with the CIA). The Feds didn't stop them from publishing the Hunter Biden story either, anymore than that they stopped Dorsey from doing it. It was Dorsey himself who made that call.

And if you'll now excuse me, I think I see something non-US-political over yonder, far away from this thread...

[Fred Steeves]

Musk is not the first new CEO to come forward and publish excesses, mismanagement and interference within a business or corporation under the care of a former CEO. And at the end of the day it was people on both sides of the aisle firmly convinced that Twitter was prejudicially favoring one side of the aisle and censoring the other. Those are the people, the users of Twitter, that demanded transparency. So when what was hidden was revealed for the sake of transparency who fell apart at the seams? The same people who insisted on transparency.

The problem here *as I see it*, is more that Musk is being blown up into a caricature of himself, not what's really there. What I've seen, for some time now, is that both the right, and what passes for the left, want free speech but they want their own user friendly version of it. None of them, or precious few of them anyway, are free speech absolutists representing the 1ST Amendment in any sort of fashion.

Under Jack Dorsey the woke crowd was more pandered to, they, and establishment left types could get away with a hell of a lot more than say, a Trumper. But that was considered free speech for that crowd, "the others" are too deplorable to have many of their voices heard without consequence. Now it's flipped, the crowd that used to have the comfort of being under mama's skirt have lost that comfort, and the new sheriff in town wants free speech, HIS way. And being that he started making out with the right some time ago, they're getting their own brand of mama's comfort.

Well of course the old crowd is livid about this, therefore nothing good can EVER come of it, for them, any insights Musk reveals is by necessity poison. But the side in the poll position thinks this is great, and everything Must does is pure gold!

Some day I would just like the conversation to boil down to free speech, but so long as we're busy siding with this version of it or that one, we'll always be on that hamster wheel looking in from the outside.

Elon Musk is banning people he doesn't like too, just like the Dorsey crowd. Ask Scott Ritter about that.

I am interested why so many influential and powerful corporations suddenly pulled out of Twitter when Musk took over.

I think a lot of them are locked into the PR strategy of catering to the woke thing. They'd break character and put on a different mask in a New York minute if it were to suit them better. No loyalty, anywhere, in any of this including the interwoven political aspects.

[Fred Steeves]

Where's the interference, Fred? All I see is that the FBI was conducting inquiries about Twitter's policy violations — which is interesting in and of itself, but that does not qualify as interference in my book. I'm not seeing them tell Jack Dorsey or any of his employees to publish "this" and to not publish "that", or to change the content of certain tweets.

They don't "tell", they suggest, and these big social media sites are more than happy to comply. You know, the good ole government/private partnerships that we all so love and vote for?

I haven't seen the claims that alphabet agencies are out and out dictating what stays and what goes, but the fact that they're in there monkeying around there at the highest levels is disconcerting to a lot of people, there's zero legitimate authority for them to be doing so.

And if you'll now excuse me, I think I see something non-US-political over yonder, far away from this thread...

Okay, roll your eyes all you want but what you're doing is subjectively declaring something as baseless conspiracy theory/misinformation, spreading some pretty heavy duty insults along the way, and then washing your hands of it when there's push back.

You're seeing right wing information, other people just see it as information. Just because it happens to favor a certain political wind of the moment does not automatically classify it as garbage. That's sloppy research IMO...

[Diabolical Boids]

Fred Steeves;842053108]The problem here *as I see it*, is more that Musk is being blown up into a caricature of himself, not what's really there. What I've seen, for some time now, is that both the right, and what passes for the left, want free speech but they want their own user friendly version of it. None of them, or precious few of them anyway, are free speech absolutists representing the 1ST Amendment in any sort of fashion.

Yes and its been that way in every forum I've ever looked at or participated in. Free speech is wonderful everyone agrees until someone says something they disagree with. Or don't like which equates to hate speech. Then suddenly though, the offended people have this full right of expression to bitch, slander, label, throw a fit or indulge in hate speech. Bizarre. Free speech means you get exposed to speech involving people you don't like, people you don't like, concepts you don't like. Someone else's free speech doesn't mean you are required to believe it. Or even listen to it.

Under Jack Dorsey the woke crowd was more pandered to, they, and establishment left types could get away with a hell of a lot more than say, a Trumper. But that was conh for that crowd, "the others" are too deplorable to have many of their voices heard without consequence. Now it's flipped,

It has. I don't think its a CEO making a decision to say we are going to pander to the right only now for a while but that's how people take it. But would it be a terribly unfair concept if they did a season of left speech and a season of right speech? Since equality is such a big deal? Lots of people are on Twitter who are neither right or left and that posed a big problem for Jack Dorsey because its hard to pin people down on side so some had to be herded over to the right by accusation to have an excuse to get rid of them. Could be happening in reverse now. It's very easy to turn everyone into a Trumper. You just have to say something that they disagree with. You don't have to quote Trump, talk about Trump, in order to be a Trumpster. Then Trump was the reason there was so much division and censorship. Now Trump is used as the reason to excuse censorship and division. Speculation about government interference, surveillance and censor ship existed before Trump ever showed up on the scene. And Musk.

Some day I would just like the conversation to boil down to free speech, but so long as we're busy siding with this version of it or that one, we'll always be on that hamster wheel looking in from the outside.

It's like you have to secure a contract in advance promising that a free speech discussion won't degenerate into slander, violation of all guidelines concerning debate, that free speech about free speech can actually be enlightening if people are tactful. People think that if you can't just issue ad hominin attacks and their personal issues with people then free speech is being restricted.

Elon Musk is banning people he doesn't like too, just like the Dorsey crowd. Ask Scott Ritter about that.

I know Ritter was banned back in the spring. Was he reinstated and banned again later after Musk arrived?

Oh and there will be the Covid files next week.

[Diabolical Boids]

This probably belongs in a humor thread but...

The Babylon Bee which hails itself as fake news you can trust was stricken from Twitter emphasizing no one has a sense of humor anymore. Musk reinstated it. Say what you will about Musk , he appears to have a sense of humor. If I had 300 billion dollars I would too.


https://babylonbee.com/news/elon-to-...-mail-in-votes

If you have never read it, it's a series of funny headlines that make fun of pretty much everyone. There's articles to support the headline. I don't read the articles. The headlines suffice. Makes fun of Christians, holidays, Atheists, Political figures, the Ukraine, current events. Absurd headlines that you'd have to be really gullible to think are intended strictly to offend. And the scale of topics ensure its going to tweak someone's nose no matter how diverse. If you have seen the BB then you know what I'm talking about. It's like National Lampoon or the Simpsons.

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-cana...er-the-patient

Increasingly the humor began to be directed at the left in greater volume. Not liberals. The leftists, the work crowd, the people most apt to offended by anything. But as Bill Maher, the liberal, said right now the left is where all the humor is happening at. That wasn't always true and it will change again in the future . It's really too much after all the shit we've been through the last several years to demand no one laugh.

https://babylonbee.com/news/republic...-spending-bill

[Aianawa]

Musk admits that they were conspiracy theories > https://twitter.com/i/status/1607408022380232704

[Fred Steeves]

Elon Musk is banning people he doesn't like too, just like the Dorsey crowd. Ask Scott Ritter about that.

I know Ritter was banned back in the spring. Was he reinstated and banned again later after Musk arrived?

Yes. That hard charging son of a gun came right back in with what got him booted in the first place, by stating again that he's convinced the Bucha massacres were done by the hand of Ukrainian forces retaking the city, not the Russians. I don't know enough to have an opinion either way on that, but Dorsey and Musk both agreed this kind of free speech was not acceptable.

[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1587581556776144896?lang=en[/TWITTER]

Oh and there will be the Covid files next week.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40

[Diabolical Boids]

I can't think of anything now but the dramatic pause rodent.

[Diabolical Boids]

I tried looking on substack for the drops from early December, but BB included one. And this early drop does contain memos and communications that do implicate the Biden administration.

https://notthebee.com/article/twitter-files-drop-1

[Aianawa]

Interesting Dia Be, that a member has thrown the conspiracy theorist rag up n refused inspection, debate, verbal intercourse etc, of course this is a micro macro happening imo anyway, one ponders what it may take for someone, especialllly an intelligent rag thrower like myself regards events i believe be lies n deceit, realllly us rag throwers need start creating mind clothes with them rags.

Well dressed rag throwers be blessed