Quote:
|
Note nothing Sebby says here implicates the Prez, at the very worst, assuming Sebby hasn't just been inhaling strange stuff in the fever swamps, there's a "billy carter" issue here.
|
Agreed Hunter is a Billy Carter, or a Roger Clinton. But why do we know those two names? Oh, right. Because they were newsworthy embarrassments. For doing a whole lot less than receiving payments from a Ukraine energy company which the FBI is now investigating.
Quote:
|
He admits it should have nothing to do with the election,
|
No. What I said was that IMO it should have nothing to do with the election. I am not the average American. As I was careful to note, but you've conveniently ignored, this kind of stuff has everything to do with an election for a whole lot of people other than me, or you.
Quote:
|
...but thinks it should nonetheless be amplified by every site trying to deliver some degree of legitimate news.
|
This is a mischaracterization that gets to the heart of the issue, and the trick you attempt here is basically an admission you really don't have a leg to stand on in trying to defend Twitter's preclusion.
I did not say "it should be amplified." I said it should not have been precluded. These are two very different things. You know, I suspect, that the story should not have been censored from Twitter. First, it was unquestionably indefensible, as Dorsey now admits. Second, preclusion was objectively terrible optics, and it has ultimately wound up giving the story longer staying power.
My concern is with any star chamber, be it Musk's inner circle or Dorsey's, deciding what's "misinformation." I care about the disturbing circumstances under which an objectively newsworthy story was barred from Twitter. You can't counter that, so you instead suggest that I advocate for the story's "amplification." I didn't and I wouldn't. I couldn't care less about the story. But I do care about skewering the bullshit justifications for barring it.
And if you want to play with my words, do so more cleverly. This was pretty lame.
Quote:
|
And he's really upset twitter suppressed some stuff from Aunt Edna's voices, excuse me, the NY Post.
|
In all these years, you've never given up the ad hominem.
Quote:
|
Now ask Sebby anything about the wee trumper's dealings while actually working in the white house.
|
Ah, yes, the finale. The accusation of bias in favor of Trump. Let's dismantle...
1. You needn't ask me, as every single thing those nitwits did while dad was in office was front page news everywhere, and all over Twitter.
2. Nobody "moderated" any story about them out of existence except on Fox News, which is not Twitter.
3. You're firing in the wrong direction. I'm not a Trumpist in hiding. I'm over in the Glenn Greenwald camp, calling bullshit.*
_______
* An actual liberal, who trusts people to read and decide things for themselves, and if duped, be duped, and if manipulating others with misinformation, be allowed to take those suckers for a ride. This as opposed to the authoritarian-lite progressives and right wing book burners who think what they don't like should be censored under the pretext of it being "dangerous" or "misinformation." If you think that, sorry, you've no business calling yourself a liberal, a conservative, or even a fan of democracy. You're a self-righteous, officious know-it-all hall monitor, just like Brent Bozell and the right wing boycott mobs of the 80s, or the woke imbeciles of the past five years comprising Twitter mobs. Mind your own fucking business and let the marketplace of ideas decide what becomes popular.
