Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tough_Ambassador3935 t1_j1djv4w wrote

Reply to comment by Status_Fox_1474 in Twitter secretly boosted US psyops in Middle East, report says by datamigrationdata

The snark is doing an awful lot of work in this comment.

In what sense are the Twitter Files "dishonest" or "suspect"? Every installment I've seen so far -- including the one discussed in the article linked in this thread -- has been extensively documented with images of primary source materials. Are you suggesting that, for example, all the emails from CENTCOM to Twitter are fake? If not, what are you suggesting?

And what are Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi's shortcomings as journalists, exactly? Weiss has written for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and apparently now has a something like a quarter of a million paying subscribers on Substack. Taibbi won awards for his writing at Rolling Stone and has published several books. What am I missing?

−6

Status_Fox_1474 t1_j1dr9j2 wrote

Weiss is a free-speech crusader, except for the time she tried to get Palestinian professors fired for "anti-Semitism." That got her a plum job, straight out of college, at the WSJ's opinion section, which is incredibly right-wing.

While at the New York Times, she failed at basic things. She called an American-born Olympic skater an immigrant in a tweet. In another article, she cited a parody Twitter account.

Internally at the Times, she became a shit-stirrer, riling up the newsroom by alleging that there was some sort of "civil war" going on. In general she confuses general editorial meetings and debates -- and edits -- with some sort of mind-control stuff that's going on. Once again, the woman who tried to get professors fired, and who screams anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat, complains when her ideology isn't boosted. She's not a journalist -- she has never had a reporting job, only a "commentary" or "opinion writer" job, which has allowed her to fuck up so gloriously so many times, and still be protected by bosses who liked her. It seems weird that Weiss announced her resignation just after James Bennet, the editorial page editor, was fired for absolutely terrible editorial decisions and pieces that ran with absolutely no scrutiny, which was against the Times' practices. Quite simply, she was afraid that she'd be held to scrutiny, and so she decided to flee the paper in the most grandiose way possible while trying to keep her income stream up. In short, she's a grifter -- one whose Substack funds are boosted by some sort of "anti-woke" seminar that she absurdly calls a university.

As far as the "Twitter Files" goes, the entire point was to project the company as some sort of liberal bastion -- a company that will protect Democrats or something. First of all, a number of studies have shown that Twitter doesn't have a liberal bias. Actually, it promotes conservatives (and so does Facebook!). But what the reporting of Weiss and Taibbi show is that the company was faced with choices when dealing with problematic things. For example, there's material that could be stolen, could be pornographic, and could be fraudulent. What should be done with that? Should it be slowed, or should it be allowed to thrive? Media law is kinda funny in this -- the genocide in Rwanda was fueled by radio stations that fueled racism and misinformation. What were these two big "Twitter files" about? Well, they were a bunch of Elon's conservative grievances -- wah wah -- that continue to live on. The "free speech absolutist" has been quick to ban accounts of people who have reported on him, and the threshold is now much lower than it was.

Finally, for Twitter, it was a company. It wasn't the Democrats making decisions. It was a then-public company that had stakeholders to answer to. Let's go to the first discussion -- Hunter Biden's laptop. At the time, very little of it could be verified. Even the New York Post, which first reported on it, went with a "staff" byline because the writers, who were ordered to write it, didn't trust the information fully. The assignment came down from a superior close to Rupert Murdoch who was basically a pro-Trump hatchet man. (That he was sued for sexual harassment is a different story.) It was an obvious attempt to facilitate a scandal -- the Hillary's Emails of 2020. And even if there was truth to it, Twitter took steps to stop the widespread dissemination of dick pics -- that was Taibbi's main complaint. That dick pics weren't shared (and they should not have been).

Twitter's team, realizing the ploy, shut that shit down. The second Files was about what to fucking do when one man basically tried to start a fucking coup. There were debates over what to do about this, and what to do about stolen pictures of Hunter's dick being shown everywhere (which is what Republicans really care about. Honestly, look at what Don Jr. is tweeting about).

Now let's talk about Libs of TikTok -- an account that exists only to target LGBTQ people and events. It's no coincidence that LoTT picks up one of these events, and right-wingers show up with weapons. Or they put out photos of gay people (especially teachers!) -- and what follows are death threats and abuse. It's a real relationship between cause and effect, and Twitter was right to cut down on it. But once again, it's conservative complaints that they didn't get to do whatever they want.

Twitter is currently in hot water in the European Union, where there are a bunch of things that are prohibited -- like spreading hate speech -- and the lack of any sort of moderation, or even attempts to moderate (while banning people tweeting out their Mastodon profiles), can have the company in hot water.

21

Tough_Ambassador3935 t1_j1e6ira wrote

That is quite a long reply -- and not one to which I will be able to respond at comparable length.

I will begin by saying that some of your claims are false, and really just flagrantly false. Take this one, for example:

> And even if there was truth to it, Twitter took steps to stop the widespread dissemination of dick pics -- that was Taibbi's main complaint. That dick pics weren't shared (and they should not have been).

Again, flagrantly false. Here is Taibbi's original thread. Not only are "dick pics" not Taibbi's "main complaint," but they aren't even mentioned at all. Nor were there any "dick pics" in the New York Post's original story. That entire talking point is a complete red herring.

Or this:

> Finally, for Twitter, it was a company. It wasn't the Democrats making decisions. It was a then-public company that had stakeholders to answer to. Let's go to the first discussion -- Hunter Biden's laptop. At the time, very little of it could be verified. Even the New York Post, which first reported on it, went with a "staff" byline because the writers, who were ordered to write it, didn't trust the information fully.

Michael Shellenberger's post from a few days ago demonstrates that the FBI took possession of Hunter Biden's laptop -- the same laptop that was the basis of the NY Post story -- in December 2019 and then spent 2020 priming Twitter "to dismiss reports of Hunter Biden’s laptop as a Russian 'hack and leak' operation" (quote from Shellenberger) even though they obviously knew perfectly well that it was nothing of the sort. That is the story -- not "dick pics."

> Now let's talk about Libs of TikTok

Why? I get that you do not like Twitter -- or at least that you do not like its current policies -- but Libs of TikTok has nothing to do with your insinuations about the Twitter Files or the journalists involved.

> Internally at the Times, she became a shit-stirrer

Quoting just one of your attacks on Weiss. Were you there, at the New York Times? I'm guessing not. I wasn't either, but your version of events obviously isn't her side of the story, and it doesn't make any effort to be judicious. On the contrary, your comment is littered with the pettiest of complaints: she made two -- two -- mistakes on Twitter?

Not to mention all the tu quoque fallacies and the random personal attacks. Weiss and Musk do not live up their own principles, in your very uncharitable opinion? And someone at the New York Post was accused of sexual harassment? Fine, you don't like these people, but there is nothing of substance these various ad hominems.

In my earlier comment, I asked two things: (1) What made the Twitter Files "dishonest" or "suspect" and (2) what were the failings of the journalists involved.

Again, you wrote quite a lot, but you didn't do a very good job of answering the questions or even of being honest yourself.

7

Status_Fox_1474 t1_j1e9rls wrote

>On the contrary, your comment is littered with the pettiest of complaints: she made two -- two -- mistakes on Twitter?

She didn't make the second mistake on Twitter. She did erroneous research in her post. She's also not a journalist. She's an opinion writer, who is paid to give opinions. And her opinions don't seem to have any research in them as well, leading to errors.

You asked what her shortcomings were as a journalist. I gave them to you.

I'm also tired of talking about the Twitter files. Thank you for being so wrong about them and have a great day.

4

Tough_Ambassador3935 t1_j1eggfa wrote

Up to you.

I can tell from the way you write that you have had the benefit of a good education, yet your "arguments" here seem much more emotional than rational. You simply dislike Bari Weiss, Elon Musk, and various others, and you filter everything through that lens of disdain -- hence the sarcasm, the condescension, and everything else.

You literally just said, "I'm also tired of talking about the Twitter files. Thank you for being so wrong about them and have a great day." And you linked me to an article entitled "Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Twitter And Hunter Biden’s Laptop."

That kind of behavior would be ridiculous under any circumstances, but the article is dated December 9. Shellenberger's Twitter Files post on the Biden laptop, on the other hand, is from December 19.

Even Jack Dorsey, founder of Twitter and CEO at the time the New York Post story was censored, has admitted that the censorship was a "mistake." Through independent confirmations from the New York Times, CBS News, and perhaps others, we now know for certain that the laptop documents were authentic. And thanks to the Twitter Files, we know that the "intelligence community" knew the materials were authentic, knew how they were obtained, and misled Twitter (and probably others) about a "fake" or a "hack."

These seem like things worth knowing. As does the information in the Al Jazeera article linked in the OP.

But you seem more interested in congratulating yourself for linking me to another article by someone else who doesn't like Bari Weiss and claims that "Bari Weiss knows nothing about Australia." And the cringey "Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Twitter And Hunter Biden’s Laptop" thing I mentioned above.

As I said, up to you.

2

fenrir245 t1_j1eit7v wrote

> yet your “arguments” here seem much more emotional than rational. You simply dislike Bari Weiss, Elon Musk, and various others, and you filter everything through that lens of disdain – hence the sarcasm, the condescension, and everything else.

He literally posted every single reason as to why Bari Weiss is untrustworthy, yet you are dismissing the all based off some claim of “condescension”. You sure you’re not the emotional one here?

Also as far as “dick pics” go, the tweets and docs mentioned in the twitter files thread were of dick pics. You just didn’t bother to actually go check what those tweets were actually about, and this is a reason as to why Twitter Files itself is suspect. Obviously being about dick pics would completely defeat the accusations being made, hence it was conveniently left out, and who knows what else is being left out of these “Files”?

Also given you do not understand why Libs of TikTok is relevant to the conversation, it looks like you yourself haven’t read the Twitter Files.

7

Tough_Ambassador3935 t1_j1hluez wrote

This thread is now dead, so my comment is going to be super-quick.

> He literally posted every single reason as to why Bari Weiss is untrustworthy

At best, he demonstrated that someone with a huge paper trail of public writings has occasionally been wrong about things. And what things, exactly? Well, first he said that Weiss had made two mistakes (ever?) on Twitter. And more recently, he linked to a random article entitled, "Bari Weiss Knows Nothing about Australia." I don't find any of this even remotely damning. In fact, the case against Weiss is so weak as to be laughable.

> Also as far as “dick pics” go, the tweets and docs mentioned in the twitter files thread were of dick pics.

Maybe go see for yourself instead of just parroting this copypasta you ingested elsewhere on Reddit. Here again is Matt Taibbi's original installment. There are 36 tweets in that thread. Please feel free to read through them and see if they bear out your claim that "the tweets and docs mentioned in the twitter files thread were of dick pics." There have been several other Twitter Files installments since the first, including the one on which the article linked in the OP is based; feel free to check those for "dick pics" as well.

> Also given you do not understand why Libs of TikTok is relevant to the conversation, it looks like you yourself haven’t read the Twitter Files.

If neither you nor the other post are able to articulate why they are relevant, then I will continue to believe that they are not. I don't feel any need to prove a negative.

1

deadbeat95 t1_j1droc0 wrote

The files dont align with his opinion of the man/company so they are nullified and void. The journalists dont report on the facts that he likes to hear so they must be discredited. In conclusion...must be all fake news. Smh.

1

YoungDan23 t1_j1dpgcy wrote

>If not, what are you suggesting?

(s)he is suggesting because they don't like what it reveals then it must not be true.

−5