Do you believe everything that Tucker Carlson tells you?

Even when is it completely obviously propaganda designed to keep the gullible Trump base onside and their eyes off the ball when their man is being primed for skewering from several directions?

Maybe you only read this kind of propaganda so aren't aware of the circle gradually closing and the exits being blocked off. That wouldn't surprise me.

Twitter didn't "subvert" anything. They are a private business. They can publish whatever they wish so long as it's legal and not publish everything. That's not subversion. It's choice. That the FBI sounded warnings about another possible pre-election dump of misinformation by Russia to all the social media companies means they had good reason to be cautious. That's not subversion. It's being responsible.

So there was neither subversion, nor censorship nor collusion. There was responsible behaviour by all involved. The FBI doing their duty and Twitter being careful.

I would expect no less of them who-ever was involved.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

They could assist others, but it's extremely unlikely they could manage it on their own!

I didn't though, say they could not. I said they didn't. They chose not to publish, which was entirely their decision. How much influence the warnings of US intelligence played in their decision-making is unclear, but it doesn't appear to have been the predominant one. For them to have been participating in an attempt at subversion, you also have to believe that US intelligence was leading it.

People like Tucker Carlson and other conspiracy theorists might want you to believe such things, but I don't.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What utter hypocrisy from the Mail!

Twitter are no less a private business than they are. The Mail constantly makes political judgements over which stories to cover, how they are presented, and who are to be regarded as heroes, and who as villains.

Twitter deciding not to promote those seen as conspiracy theorists, or promulgators of dangerous misinformation, is not only their right, it is, in my opinion, a public duty. Applying responsible moderation to content is also commercially wise, as I suspect Musk will discover. Advertisers don't want to use platforms that can damage their image.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Mmmmm...not sure I know of any private companies receiving state funding when they start as the social media sector did? Do private companies get to lobby and gain changes in the law to ensure they can't be sued as publishers?

Private companies that are so enmeshed with governments kind of lose the 'private' element behind that concept.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2022 12.31pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think you are confusing being unmoderated with being unbiased.

Twitter has always been moderated and, if it can be considered biased, it is only biased against disinformation or comments that could lead to harm or illegal acts.

I haven't followed the story closely enough to know if they denied it. What I have heard is that there was some confusion and internal disagreements. No so unusual in big organisations.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

[Tweet Link]

Sums up so much.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.