The least curious people in the country right now are the credentialed news media. How disgustingly ironic that newspapers with highfalutin mottos like “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and ”All the News That’s Fit to Print” are refusing to cover arguably the biggest story of the year in even the briefest of ways. It’s testament to the bizarr…
The least curious people in the country right now are the credentialed news media. How disgustingly ironic that newspapers with highfalutin mottos like “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and ”All the News That’s Fit to Print” are refusing to cover arguably the biggest story of the year in even the briefest of ways. It’s testament to the bizarre situation we now find ourselves, in which the biggest advocates of state and corporate censorship are media corporations and their employees. Journalists are among the leading proponents for political censorship. That is surreal.
“I was given no warning. I have no email or communication from the company about the reason for suspension,” New York Times reporter Ryan Mac tweeted from a new account. He posted a screen grab from the app saying he’s been permanently suspended. “I report on Twitter, Elon Musk and his companies. And I will continue to do so.”
I guess we will find out pretty soon who are fanboys and who has a serious commitment to free speech.
Actually it is. I defy you to pull up the first 100 planes in the FAA aircraft registry and tell me the names of more than 2 or 3 of the actual PEOPLE who own them. Nearly all aircraft are registered corporately or in the name of a partnership, and these nominees are INTENDED to be opaque. The beneficial owner's names are almost never found in the registry, and when they are it is often by mistake. It takes sleuthing to get the actual ownership documentation. This is doxxing.
Rarely that transparent. Most often registrants pick a trust, partnership or LLC with an obscure name to hide the beneficial owner as much as possible. Much digging in a (paid) D&B database can sometimes provide clues, but not always. If plane owners want to hide, they can easily do it.
Late Thursday, reporters from publications including the Washington Post, the New York Times, Mashable and CNN were listed as blocked and their tweets were no longer visible. Musk said the suspended profiles, which included sports and political commentator Keith Olbermann, were of people who had posted his real-time location, describing the information as “basically assassination coordinates.”
So let me get this straight. You're bitching because some imperious journos blatantly broke a rule that results in a suspension, for which they were suspended?
No one has to accept people posting their whereabouts...the Left has been posting addresses to harass and threaten people as a tactic. It shouldn't just be something that Twitter blocks. It should be illegal in my opinion. It's disgusting behavior and it's a threat. Threats are not okay and threats are not free. Speech. Posting someone's current address so that people can find them and possibly hurt them is a threat. And everyone knows it. Everyone knows why addresses are being revealed. And if you deny that then you just want people hurt. I'm sure you'll think it's okay unless it happens to you and your family and your children.
We used to have these things called “The White Pages” where you could look up peoples phone number and addresses…
I notice you don’t seem to have any problems with the hundreds of election officials who were doxxed and threatened after Trump claimed the election was stolen. Maybe you just missed the dozen or so posts I made about this earlier in this thread.
I got death threats and doxxed by some QAnon nutters because I support Senator Scott Wiener. It was on IG, not Twitter though.
I don’t think publishing personal information that is a matter of public record should be illegal. That would be a really strange law and some serious government overreach and would require appealing the First Amendment.
Death threats should of course be illegal.
Twitter can make whatever rules that it likes, as it is a private company. I don’t know if you noticed, but Musk reinstated most of the journalists he had early claimed “doxxed” him. They did not of course, but it’s his company. It impacts his credibility when he does this.
He also cancelled and did not reinstate journalists critical of Tesla. He is not really in favor of free speech at all.
I did notice he reinstated people because He recognized that he went too far. He asked if he should reinstate them and his subscriber said yes so he did. That's called recognizing when you made a mistake. It's a good thing in most circles. I'm not familiar with who he banned because they criticized Tesla and I can't comment on it because I didn't read about it. I don't know if he had a legitimate reason to get rid of those people or not. If he just wanted them gone because they criticized him and didn't do anything that threatened him or his family in any way than he was mistaken. I wouldn't support that. But that doesn't mean that I think he's wrong all the time or that he deserves to have his whereabouts announced continuously when we all know there are people who would want to hurt him just like qanon crazies might have wanted to hurt you. I don't support that behavior and I don't support giving them information to egg them on. That's all. I don't think it's right when it happens to you or when it happens to Elon Musk. I don't think it's right. For anyone. That's all I'm saying. I agree he had reason to suspend accounts of people were outing his location when we all know people do want to hurt him and harass him and his family. Why do we know this? Because people are doing it to even nobody's like you. No offense but fact
Hypocrite? For years conservative accounts were arbitrarily banned. The refrain was "Twitter is a private company, it can do what it wants. If you don't like it, find a new platform." And now Twitter is still a private company, and its owner is doing what he wants. Your response is to piss and moan and cry foul.
But publicly available information, compiled and made available by the FAA, is not doxxing, Brad.
Elon decided to change the definition of "doxxing," to suit his purpose - which is fine, he owns the company. Can do what he wants. But it is not doxxing, period.
Musk's plane is actually not trackable without using non-public data. It uses something called a “Privacy ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Address,” which allows operators to use alternate, temporary ICAO aircraft addresses not attributable to an owner/operator in the publicly available Civil Aviation Registry.
Last month, Mr. Musk had said he would allow the account that tracked his private plane to remain on Twitter, though he said it amounted to a security threat. “My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk,” he said in a tweet at the time.
However, how do we get over the hurdle that a private company has the right to do what they want to do as far as content moderation, etc. Twitter is FiLLEd WiTH LibRULs who don't like Trump!
Ok....get your conservative buddies together, move to Silicon Valley, raise money from VCs and start your own platform.
Social media has become so ubiquitous among consumers/public that people actually think they have a Constitutional Right to have a Twitter account or have their tweet trend.
At the end of the day, all ultimate decisions were made by Twitter, not the government.
That is why anti-trust legislation exists. When a company becomes so dominant that it can no longer be subjected to the normalizing influence of competition, and it uses that dominance for nefarious ends, then the marketplace has failed and it is now a matter for the courts.
Hence Standard Oil and AT&T were both broken up to provide breathing space for competitors. Clearly the old Twitter was just such a monopoly and it’s nefarious acts included denying access to the public square to anyone who didn’t serve the interests of their overlords, the Democratic Party and the pharmaceutical industry. The new Twitter remains dominant, but hopefully nefarious and monopolistic behaviour are abominations of the past.
Uh...there are lots of other social media platforms out there.
See, when someone gets so addicted/surrounded by social media, they wind up calling Twitter "the public square" and a private company making choices "nefarious acts" or creating concepts like "digital coup."
And comparing Standard Oil & AT&T, companies that provide services that are absolutely vital to an economy/country, to a social media platform where people post memes and talk about "Milf Manor," is probably not the strongest choice.
The bottom line of your argument, once you sweep away all the bad historical analogies and political agita, is pretty simple and clear: You think people have a Constitutional Right right to a Twitter account and for their Tweets to trend.
Personally, I hope there is ZERO content moderation - of ANYTHING. ALL SPEECH allowed. So everyone can finally stop talking about Twitter.
I think we may be in violent agreement, except that doxxing individuals and their families is a precursor to violence against those with whom you disagree. There is a sweet spot between giving a megaphone to everyone, including criminals, and the kind of ideological censorship that was the standard for the old Twitter. My hope is that Elon Musk is finding that sweet spot.
Sure, "violent agreement" works, except I want doxxing allowed, too.
He's banning journalists. Punk ass Elon also banned someone that was tracking his private plane. Why?!!
Shouldn't be out flying in public, Elon!!
No. Uh-uh. I don't want to hear from "Doxxers" about how their 1A rights are being violated because they're not on Twitter or complaining that their tweets about someone's kids school location and class schedule isn't trending.
There is only one sweet spot: ZERO CONTENT MODERATION/EVERYTHING ALLOWED!
So hopefully, everyone can finally break free of the totalitarian oppression of a phone app and shut the f*ck up about Twitter.
Would you be comfortable if I presented your home address, your employer, your wife's name and occupation, children's names and ages, their schools, your travel schedule... all on Twitter, along with an aggressive and critical rant? Maybe you have less to lose, and that's why you're comfortable with unlimited doxxing. A town square is where people can attack the message, not the messenger.
If we're going to break free of the chains of this authoritarian, phone app oppression - let's break free!
Lol....no, I would have quite a lot to lose....wait.....are you saying the morality of doxxing should be commiserate with how much someone has to "lose?" Wow! Interesting. So, let's examine your little sly insult, masquerading as a legitimate point.
How do you quantify that loss exactly, Alastair? If I doxx a homeless person (i.e. they sleep on this street corner/bench) and someone kills them, is their life worth any less? What if I doxx someone and they only kill their dog and not their kid? Just blow up their car but not their house? What if I have 3 kids and they only kill one? I have two left. Is that better than a couple with one child? What if the doxxing only cost me an internship and not a full-time job?
I mean, surely you're not saying that Elon Musk's private jet tracking life is more important/valuable than mine? Or our doxxed, homeless person that was murdered?
All Lives Matter.
See.....seems we haven't really thought this out all the way, have we?
But you want Free Speech on a phone app - and content moderation is authoritarian and a private business has no right to do it - Ok, so, let's have it! Unleash the Kraken.
What's wrong with an aggressive and critical rant? That's my right. And if I want to give very specific, very detailed, publicly accessible information about where that person lives, works, etc. - that's my 1A right, too. They shouldn't be out there working and going to school, etc. If you don't like it, just stay home.
Sorry....how would I actually be "attacking" a messenger in a virtual/digital "town square?" As Bari Weiss has repeatedly told us "Words Aren't Violence." I mean, "sticks and stones," right?
Yes....if I actually attacked someone in a real, physically existing town square that would be a problem and I might be arrested. But Twitter is NOT a real, physically existing town square, is it? No. It is a phone app/social media platform.
However, people are so mentally warped into it, that they think it actually is a legitimate "town square" - which is also why they think they have Constitutional right to a Twitter account and to have their tweets trend at the top.
Twitter is a digital/online space built of 1s and 0s - not a town square - and I'm just exercising my 1A rights.
But again, we certainly don't want to do anything to attack the messenger/ad hominem like saying, "Maybe you have less to lose, and that's why you're comfortable with unlimited doxxing."
Methinks the lad doth not know doxxing is legal and within 1A.
Methinks the lad doth think Twitter is a real, physical town square.
Methinks the lad doth think he is deserving of a digital participation trophy.
All that hypothetical info about my wife, kids, school, etc? None of that is "threat" - just info. I can write a crazy violent screed on Monday......then just simply put that information up on Wednesday.....with no comment....
So, this is what you wanted. Don't be FrEE SpEECH hypocrite.
Lol.....yeah, you probably definitely need to hit the "over and out" button.
Okay, a cake maker refuses to create a special cake because doing so breaks the baker's religious convictions. So, Leftists, get a group of fellow Leftists and start your own cake-bakery. Both sides can play the role of useless idiot, that's easy. However, when it comes to 1st amendment rights, there's no room for negotiations-more speech is always better than less speech. Of course unpopular speech needs protecting, not popular speech. Lastly, the evidence is piling on top of evidence: the government said "jump" and social media said "how high?"
Sam, how do you force a corporate entity like Twitter or Facebook to publish your tweet or post? If they suspend your account what do you do? Sue them? You’ll be laughed out of court.
You can’t force a private concern to protect your First Amendment rights - because it is within their First Amendment right to treat its content as they see fit.
And if they accede to an agency of the gov’t, something they were not obligated to do, that is their right too.
THIS is what happens we people grow up with a cell phone permanently attached to their hand. A social media platform becomes "the public square," people are pulling off "digital coups" and I have a Constitutional Right to not only HAVE a Twitter account, but my tweets better TREND TOO, DAMMIT!
It's almost like.....dare I say it?.....they all want "digital participation trophies."
Yep, that's EXACTLY what you should do. Go to another bakery, start your own, etc.
The invisible hand of the free market solves all, right? That's what Conservatives and St. Reagan told us.
See this is what happens when people grow up inundated/addicted to social media, they call a platform that only about 23% of Americans use "the public square" and they legitimately believe they have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account and to have their tweets trend, if not it's a "1st amendment rights" issue.
Rightest and leftist both tried to influence Twitter, sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they didn't.
Who cares if the media said "How high?" That is not "evidence," of anything dude. It's evidence of a private company making a decision on what they want to do. The can jump high, low, sideways, whatever. Ultimately, Twitter makes all the decisions.
Now, personally I would like to see ZERO content moderation. ALL SPEECH allowed. Every Fuentes, every Black Black Nationalists, every Anti-Semite, deranged lunatic, conspiracy theorists, deep fake videos, false emergency warnings, etc. - that way everyone can finally shut up once and for all about Twitter.
Your knowledge level of important events is hopelessly low, it’s no wonder your ability to arrive at a reasonable conclusion failed. James Baker, the fired former chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ during the Russia hoax, the Mueller Witch-hunt, & impeachments 1 and 2, was days ago vetting Twitter Files, and is suspected to have prevented documents unhelpful to Democrats before Musk showed the corrupt cop the door. Government is prohibited from abridging the Rights provided to Americans by the Constitution. That prohibition includes using 3rd parties as a workaround to avoid violating the law. The evidence of Democratic Party criminality its shocking anyone with a sense of decency would continue supporting the Dems. Dumb & Democrats are synonymous.
Your knowledge level, across the board, is hopelessly low.
Sigh....once again....Twitter is not required to report/allow anything.....or required to NOT report/allow anything.
SO WHAT if if Twitter hired James Baker? - THE. ARE. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. THEY. CAN. HIRE. WHO. THEY. WANT.
Was James Baker currently still employed by the U.S. Government, or acting as chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ while he was vetting the TwItTer FiLes ? Yes or No?
You do not have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account or to have your tweet trend. You also do not have a 1A right to a digital participation trophy.
Twitter can "collude" with WHOMEVER THEY WANT. UNDERSTAND? Same goes for Musk and "New" Twitter. Hell, if Musk wants to sell it to Vladamir Putin, Kim Jong-un or Jair Bolsanaro, he can.
So, you can screech and tail-bite all you want. Those are simply the facts.
Once a member of the IC always a member of the IC. Can you prove James Baker was not working for the Democratic Party-dominated federal government? Why anyone with a brain would cheer for this kind of 3rd-world banana republic government corruption is beyond gross. Don't you know people who treat political opponents with such disdain will never hesitate to turn against the useful idiots, that's you, who remain complicit with these crimes. This is no longer a Right vs Left, Blue vs Red, or Dem vs Rep. This fight is us versus them. Which side are you on? Traitor.
"Can you prove James Baker was not working for the Democratic Party-dominated federal government? "
JFC!! Is there something in the water on this message board?!! This is SECOND TIME I've had to deal with this question - to "prove a negative"- now a for a different topic?!
No one has to prove/provide evidence for something that DOES NOT EXIST or DID NOT HAPPEN. Understand?
YOU need to provide evidence/prove that Baker was a current GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, passing secrets, peeing in Elon's coffee cup or whatever your deranged, Alex Jones, conspiracy claim is.
The only "useful idiot" is you. Trump played you for a sucker. How much money did you give him? Dumbass.
Your should not be allowed to vote and your citizenship should be revoked.
Democrats have been captured by extreme Leftists who possess a level of contempt for our founding principals, who disregard the rule of law when they disagree with the law in question, and who are fully invested in the big government, all-powerful, nanny state.
Brad, why is this the 'biggest story of the year'?
Perhaps that's the reason mass media companies aren't diving into it. A private platform denies access to users either by their own moderating algorithm or because they're told by gov't sources to dampen comments they thought were disinformation. It stinks but so what. Twitter had the right to not cooperate with the bad boys, or to accede to the request. Which they did. They're private! They're First Amendment protected! They have the right to decide to do just that. Big deal. It's only one corporate platform out of many.
Now there's Parler and Truth Social. There's probably more. Will they cave when Biden's wokies comes around? Who knows. They're still around with a very high conservative content.
Is there corporate censorship? Yes! Absolutely yes! So what do you do?
The importance of the story is not that they "denied access" to users. It is that they LIED about it - to Congress UNDER OATH, and to their unflavored users, who they were happy to monetize while not providing the full service to all. To respond to your misinformation comment, I refer you to Unwoke in Idaho (below) who explains doing the Government's censorship for it is not the right of a public company.
We're treating Twitter as if it's God's gift to free speech in the electronic age. It emphatically is not. It can be replaced, and probably will be as soon as we stop typing. It is NOT the only platform out there! It is not the only organ of communication in the ether.
People will go somewhere else if it's deemed to be compromised.
It's not just about the people on Twitter. Twitter has the power to influence politics, businesses, doxing, and most aspects of our lives. People change decisions based on the response on Twitter and that can effect many lives.
Lee, have you not noticed that we do not live in a free country anymore. All of our institutions are woke controlled. Thousands have already lost jobs, livelihoods, reputation and even their freedom. And this is accelerating. You will never know this because all mainstream news is controlled. I believe hiding behind the "private company" defense of Twitter and all powerful tech companies is inappropriate today. And I am an entrepreneur who believes in laissez-faire capitalism. But the tech giants in alliance with our woke government and all other American institutions have obliterated FREE ENTERPRISE and FREE SPEECH. It is clear they believe in neither. Sure some small business and free speech is available for woke apologists to point to. But in the context of where America is at today, they are examples for a fantasyland perspective.
Lee, as soon as Twitter began taking directives from the Biden Administration, through the FBI, they are no-longer private. They've become an agent of the state.
"They're private" is not a reasonable basis to shrug off the fact that they lied repeatedly, and possibly under oath in DC hearings, about not doing exactly what they were doing. Few contest Twitter's authority to blacklist and suppress. But being lied to about it is good reason to be disgusted with former Twitter high mucky mucks.
So true. We now know that the old Twitter was the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, directed by the government. That denies them the defense of “But we’re a private company”. It didn’t work for IG Farben at the Nuremburg trials, and it won’t work for Dorsey and company.
I used to think that too. It took me awhile to realize I was wrong. As soon as an organization starts to do business with the government it's no longer an independent agent operating in a free market. At that point they are not really private.
When a private company allows the government to censor, that’s a violation of the first amendment. Had they done it on their own, it would not have been. It’s the government insinuating themselves into this that’s the problem and unconstitutional.
Twitter could have, and arguably should have, denied their request. It was within their right as a private entity to do so. And if they had, what would the Gov't had done? Fine them? Sue them? Imprison them? Now you have your unconstitutionality.
Fair points. Conventional wisdom suggests that Big Tech companies are free to "moderate content" because they're private and the 1st Amendment only protects against government censorship. But Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor when it does the bidding of the federal government. Using a combination of statutory inducements, regulatory threats, and partisan back scratching, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
The Twitter Files shows smoking gun proof of the federal government colluding with the platform to silence dissent.
Moreover, Twitter is (in my opinion) the most important information platform there is, so integral has it become to political discourse. It's the de facto town square, the modern agora. I could go into way more detail about this by linking to a past essay I've written about Twitter, but I've already linked to my substack too many times as it is, and I'll save you the boredom.
But you use the 'town square' defence. As in a recent Texas State Court ruling. Of which I disagree. Twitter is no town square. It appears that way because so many people use it.
A real town square belongs to no one. You stand on your stump and speak - often to no one. It is a real public place, owned by a public entity - and there in lies the difference.
Twitter is not a publicly owned space. It is owned either by one man (now) or shareholders (the old version). Since when does any corporate concern feel beholden to all subscribers for free and unfettered access? They allow content or disallow it. Here for example on the the Free Press they allow all content (for now). It is a corporate choice. And we are here to enjoy it. And if this place changes, we can move on.
You state that Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor once it does the government's bidding. And this is new? I have examples in my mind where 60 Minutes held stories because of gov't concerns. NYT as well. Time Magazine too.
Why were the Watergate revelations so important back in 1973? Because finally an American news organization went against government pressure. It took guts. It didn't happen normally. It was never a given - most American journalism was passive, timid.
Twitter caved. They censored. That's true. But that is simply a decision they made. They could have gone the other way.
It sure looks like the town square. Looks like common carrier too. I like town square more but it's the taller hill to hike.
Gov't intervening in the dealings of a private company is neither nor proper. Just because the gov't violates the law frequently and in the same way over time with many different businesses is no defense for nefarious conduct.
Can you imagine?
Mobster: Sure I've been extorting this neighborhood but we've been doing it for years.
Your defense was, basically, ~everybody knows they've been doing this forever.~
The issue was the claimed defense not the specific players. I changed the players (to make the point more vivid) but applied the same defense. That's fair game. Defenses are not specific to the category of defendant. What is available to Peter is available to Paul.
Twitter is not owned by the public. Why are people on this thread feel that they owe us something? That they should be penalized by doing something that was within their rights from the beginning?
When Musk does the same to leftie journalists- the same rules apply. They can’t complain.
First, there is direct and dubious involvement as a state actor that may or may not be illegal. The remedy is more likely chopping heads at DOJ than criminal charges for twitter EEs.
Mostly, however, people are simply pissed at having their suspicions confirmed especially because they kept denying what they were doing.
Further, this gov’t interference as well as the ideological zealousness of the Twitter inquisition certainly swayed public opinion and had a significant impact in helping Dems and hurting the GOP which pissed people off even more.
That the gov’t was involved shaping public opinion I think we can all agree is horrifying and heads should role.
Short version, twitter and the FBI colluded to influence the outcome of the election. This is upsetting to the 70+ million who feel they’ve been cheated.
Shorter version still - Twitter, then, needed competition. The new one does as well. Old Twitter colludes with the FBI? Alleged or real? Then start up another 'town square.' Apparently anyone can have one. Which actually happened (Truth Social etc..).
As an aside, you state that Twitter and the FBI colluded to influence the election, by I'm assuming, suspending accounts, denying posts..cheating seventy million Americans who voted for Trump. But those voters certainly were watching something..
Fox News is the most watched cable TV news network in the country.
Twitter and Biden didn't need a herculean public opinion shift. In the states that mattered the margin of victory for Biden was quite narrow.
Election night my wife, who cancels my vote, and I agreed. Winning big would be best result. Exactly because we worried crap like what happened would happen. We never dreamed it would escalate to the level it did but I suspect our anxiety was shared by millions on either side of the fence.
FTR: I have no Twitter account, never did, and never will. But I understand the frustration so many felt.
We have many cell phone carriers. No one needs to have a cell phone. But what if Verizon decided to monitor calls and prevent texting and calls without your knowledge, because they didn't like what you were saying. And the only carriers you could subscribe to have very poor coverage and don't always connect to who you wanted. Would that be right? We are already seeing many companies just stop serving people because of what they believe. We even have Christians being kicked out of restaurants. No one covers that, but if it was anyone in a protected group, it would be all over the news and the restaurant would be out of business.
Where we disagree most is on the importance of Twitter. For the record, I hate the platform and think it's a social sewer. And this is all just my opinion. But I think the platform has far more of an impact in shaping reality than most people realize because it's the playground of elites, who have the biggest influence on the discourse and narratives society uses to make sense of itself.
It follows, then, that if a group (say, for example, a political party) holds inordinate influence/control over the medium where our society’s most important discourse happens, that group is in a position to adjudicate the bounds of acceptable content and therefore possesses an extraordinary degree of influence over which ideas gain traction.
Also, while people use Twitter for a variety of reasons, it’s evolved into a global PA system thanks to its most singular feature: the retweet. The retweet function is a force multiplier, the fastest way to simultaneously spread and endorse information. And it’s frictionless. A tweet by itself is basically a text message, except instead of one-to-one, it's one-to-many; but when you add in the retweet function, no communication platform can compete. It's why I believe that, even with dozens of alternative mediums available for use, no other independent channel of information holds as much potential for radical ideological change on a mass scale.
Media needs money to survive and to make money they need to satisfy their base. All media organizations peddle to their base, nothing new, not sure why this is so surprising.
It's not surprising that a media company would peddle to its base. What is surprising is that media companies remain devoted to peddling a message that a large chunk of their supposed base is rejecting, based on their cratering ratings. Maybe they are not solely driven by a profit motive?
What I don't understand is a news outlet is a for profit entity. The more readers the greater the profit. If a news outlet panders to only one side of the political spectrum, they lose about 40% of their readers or in CNN's case viewers. It is beyond explanation how Fox thrives. Maybe it is because even the loon left wants to hear and see another view of the world.
What I am saying, you don't piss off half the population with partisan BS and thrive. These big news outlets are supposed to be run by smart people but they sure don't follow a capitalist paradigm.
Fox thrives for the same reason that LibsOfTikTok is so popular: people these days are always eager to watch their enemies make fools of themselves. It helps reinforce their bubble.
All my adult life I'd been a subscriber to the NY Times-- I even worked there during grad school and my daughter had a summer internship there a couple of years ago. I've always had a deep respect for the newspaper. However, I've started to scrutinize what is being written about and what is being left out of the news at the Times. I've also found that some facts that they use are often taken out of context to back up a story-- cherry picking. This has been so disappointing to me that yesterday I cancelled my subscription.
I cancelled my subscription a couple of weeks ago too. I’d been hesitant to do so because I do enjoy some of their pieces and I like their games, but it simply did not feel right to continue to contribute to them financially.
For example: Saying that The IRS was targeting poor people because more low income people's tax returns were audited than those of wealthy people. True-- but the IRS was not "targeting." It was simply that one can audit someone who has little money faster than those with millions; hence, auditors would be able to do more audits for lower income folks while millionaires might take longer and fewer could be done in the same amount of time. Cherry picking. I know many media outlets (left and right) do the same thing, not just the Times. But-- at this point, I just want straight, unaltered facts so I can make up my own mind.
Hmm....well sounds like you've already made up you mind. Because you've provided an excellent justification/spin for why lower-income people are audited 5x more than wealthier people.
Also, the use of "targeting" (i.e. what you're complaining about) is not cherry picking - it's called "framing" - using rhetoric/language to encourage a particular interpretation. When you agreed that the story was "True," then it becomes a framing issue.
To suggest so is to lie. Prevaricate. Make Shit Up. A journalist (and a so-called "comprof" assuming short for communications professor) should never do such things.
Being audited at 5x the rate than wealthy people. So, the "truth is the truth." You just don't like the language choice used to describe that truth.
"To suggest so is to lie"......yeah, you might REALLY, REALLY want to think about that.....especially considering the media you probably consume.
Lol. Honestly, I think you're just upset that someone pointed out that poor people were getting the short end of the stick, being treated differently, etc. That right there, is the truth.
I know exactly why the disparity exists.....being wealthy brings advantages, privilege, connections, benefits, better health care, better neighborhoods, better schools, etc.....etc. that poor people don't have. It's actually pretty cut and dry.
Wesley Snipes and George Carlin is your "evidence" of the average wealthy person? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You used a very important word - "Fraud" - yeah when an entire crypto exchange collapses in 24 hours, people tend to notice. Also, IRS has nothing to do Sam Bankman-Fried. The FBI arrested him, not IRS agents. Dummy.
Nope. Defrauding investors. SEC violations, etc. Totally different than tax fraud.
"SBF arrested: Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange/Gordian knot that exploded oh-so-dramatically over the last few months, was arrested in the Bahamas this week. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it was officially charging SBF with defrauding investors, with investigations on other charges underway."
"The SEC has charged Bankman-Fried with violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC’s complaint seeks injunctions against future securities law violation that prohibits Bankman-Fried from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer or sale of any securities except for his own personal account."
Moron.
Lol....man, you people never tire of getting owned. It's even more funny considering how arrogantly stupid you are.
As I said, I'm well aware of the truth and I'm well aware of taking things out of context to serve an agenda. To suggest that poor are being targeted -- in this specific case-- is like suggesting the IRS has done something wrong when, in fact, the IRS (and believe me I'm not here to defend the IRS, just pointing out the fact) spends a much longer times with tax returns on the wealthy because (obviously) they have more assets; therefore, they can do fewer in a year than for poor people or middle class (like myself) which doesn't take along at all. To imply somehow a bias when it's about logistics is suggesting something that is untrue. I don't like it from the left or from the right.
Or maybe we need to really understand that 5x "more likely to BE audited" actually has nothing to do with the amount of assets one has or the time it takes to get through an audit, which are both major assumptions that have no relevance.
Stay relevant. I tell my students that all the time.
In fact, I did write to the Times and they tried to justify it by pointing to the one fact (more poor people are audited) but I responded in saying that "look at the context to where this is taken. It suggests something the opposite of "targeting." For two people from the Times to respond means they took it seriously-- I'm glad about that. I've taught research skills at USC so I am hyper critical of publications that "cherry pick" as I am with my students who do the same. It's enough that it's done by politicians but respected newspapers should be above that (should).
FYI: "High-Income Returns Escape Audit Because IRS Not Hiring Enough Revenue Agents
A critical limitation in the IRS’s ability to audit millionaires is the availability of IRS revenue agents. Only this class of auditors, given sufficient training and experience, are qualified to examine complex tax returns – the types of returns typically filed by high-income individuals and large-scale businesses.
With severe budget constraints, IRS has tended to trade off the replacement of revenue agents with hiring more tax examiners. These certainly are paid less, but they are also less knowledgeable. While revenue agents used to outnumber tax examiners, this has slowly shifted over time.
Since the end of FY 2010, the number of IRS revenue agents has dropped by 41 percent. Initially, the number of tax examiners also fell although not at the same rate. By FY 2016, tax examiners began to outnumber revenue agents for the first time. During FY 2020 and FY 2021, major increases took place in the hiring of tax examiners. Thus, the number of tax examiners has regained all of their lost ground and were actually 1 percent higher than in 2010. See Figure 4 and Table 3...This changing mix of IRS audit staff has had a profound impact on both which types of returns get audited, as well as the depth of these audits. The scales have tilted towards IRS targeting less complex issues and returns, and conducting less in-depth audits. While examiners may be cheaper to hire in the short run, the unavailability of experienced revenue agents means that complex tax returns often go unexamined, while complicated tax issues if reviewed at all are not audited in as much depth. Yet these are the targets where experts believe the largest amount of tax revenue is escaping detection and collection." TracIRS. And now-- I'm out of this long winded discussion. Goodbye and good luck.
Oh....so it's NOT because it takes LONGER to get through all those assets....it's because they simply don't have enough agents? The data from 2010 is really helpful, though - good to see they made up all that ground and were 1% higher in FY 2020 and FY 2021
Lol. Yeah, you should definitely hit the "goodbye" lever.
My point is still the same; can you not see that?. The data is not suggesting poor people are being targeted because they are poor or powerless. I hope that you are not a professor because I'd be concerned. And your incivility belongs on another site.
Actually, your point is not exactly the same. Now, you're coming from a different direction. Originally, it was the "complexity" of rich people's taxes that caused poor people to to be 5x more likely to BE audited, but it appears the real culprit is lack of agents, therefore so the ones that are available are all focused on the non-wealthy. So it's really about where the IRS is CHOOSING to focus their resources.
I think the ideology undergirding your proposition (which you've just now expressed) is that poor people don't deal with different dynamics in dealing with the government, because for you, poverty does not equal being "powerless." Possibly along with a heavy seasoning of "trickle down economics" theory.
Although I tend to look at things like the court system, etc....and see quite a few examples of disparate outcomes and power imbalances due to income. So, I very clearly see your point/view. It is not an unusual one among certain demographics. Think I'm just more suspicious of the motivations/justifications than you are.
Lol. This is one of the most uncivil sites out there. So, you can miss me with all that.
I do like a few of the opinion writers and other parts, as well, but it was my tiny way of taking a stand. At this point, I don't want any sway from the left or right-- I just want the facts so I can make up my own mind.
“All the news that’s fit to print” has never been the modus operandi of the New York Times. From the NYT’s support of National Socialism in the 1930s to today’s support for woke fascism, the NY Times’ M.O. has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
Clever but not really true. They don't print anything that doesn't further their agenda. Ignoring a story is often more effective than trying to discredit it.
No,no,no! The New York Times has never been “All the news that’s fit to print”. From it’s support of Hitler’s National Socialists in the 1930s to the woke fascists of today, the NYT’s modus operandi has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
The least curious people in the country right now are the credentialed news media. How disgustingly ironic that newspapers with highfalutin mottos like “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and ”All the News That’s Fit to Print” are refusing to cover arguably the biggest story of the year in even the briefest of ways. It’s testament to the bizarre situation we now find ourselves, in which the biggest advocates of state and corporate censorship are media corporations and their employees. Journalists are among the leading proponents for political censorship. That is surreal.
https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/the-twitter-files
How about "The Most Trusted Name in News" or "Join the Conversation". LOL
"Fair and Balanced."
Ha ha..I love this one.
https://youtu.be/-Zrq-6zO99I
“I was given no warning. I have no email or communication from the company about the reason for suspension,” New York Times reporter Ryan Mac tweeted from a new account. He posted a screen grab from the app saying he’s been permanently suspended. “I report on Twitter, Elon Musk and his companies. And I will continue to do so.”
I guess we will find out pretty soon who are fanboys and who has a serious commitment to free speech.
Musk: stop doxxing me & you’re back on.
But publicly available information, compiled by the FAA, is not doxxing.
Seems the "Free Speech Absolutists" might not be legit.
Actually it is. I defy you to pull up the first 100 planes in the FAA aircraft registry and tell me the names of more than 2 or 3 of the actual PEOPLE who own them. Nearly all aircraft are registered corporately or in the name of a partnership, and these nominees are INTENDED to be opaque. The beneficial owner's names are almost never found in the registry, and when they are it is often by mistake. It takes sleuthing to get the actual ownership documentation. This is doxxing.
Like registered to "Tesla" or "Paypal" or "SpaceX" or "Twitter?"
Is that what you mean?
Is the "sleuthing" done with publicly, or legally obtainable available information? Or do you have to like hack the FAA or Tesla?
Rarely that transparent. Most often registrants pick a trust, partnership or LLC with an obscure name to hide the beneficial owner as much as possible. Much digging in a (paid) D&B database can sometimes provide clues, but not always. If plane owners want to hide, they can easily do it.
So you don't have to hack/steal in order to get the information?
Are these D&B databases legal in the U.S. , or are the overseas or something?
What if someone, hypothetically, doesn't pay? Is that more or less "doxxy?"
"Much digging in a (paid) D&B database can sometimes provide clues, but not always. "
- Well, we certainly don't want to punish industriousness and effort, right? Made this country great..
"If a plane owner wants to hide, they can easily do it."
- Now, that, right there, is VERY interesting.
Late Thursday, reporters from publications including the Washington Post, the New York Times, Mashable and CNN were listed as blocked and their tweets were no longer visible. Musk said the suspended profiles, which included sports and political commentator Keith Olbermann, were of people who had posted his real-time location, describing the information as “basically assassination coordinates.”
So let me get this straight. You're bitching because some imperious journos blatantly broke a rule that results in a suspension, for which they were suspended?
Does Musk believe in free speech or not?
He has suspended dozens of journalists who criticize him and hundred of leftist accounts at the request of Andy Ngo.
Free speech warrior or “welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss. We won’t be fooled again.”
Sorry for The Who reference it is probably too old for you: you can google for it.
The Who - very applicable..
Wait, are you seriously trying to argue against the suspension of antifa accounts that perpetrated violence? Dude, you're embarrassing yourself.
Is he in favor of free speech or isn’t he?
No one has to accept people posting their whereabouts...the Left has been posting addresses to harass and threaten people as a tactic. It shouldn't just be something that Twitter blocks. It should be illegal in my opinion. It's disgusting behavior and it's a threat. Threats are not okay and threats are not free. Speech. Posting someone's current address so that people can find them and possibly hurt them is a threat. And everyone knows it. Everyone knows why addresses are being revealed. And if you deny that then you just want people hurt. I'm sure you'll think it's okay unless it happens to you and your family and your children.
We used to have these things called “The White Pages” where you could look up peoples phone number and addresses…
I notice you don’t seem to have any problems with the hundreds of election officials who were doxxed and threatened after Trump claimed the election was stolen. Maybe you just missed the dozen or so posts I made about this earlier in this thread.
I got death threats and doxxed by some QAnon nutters because I support Senator Scott Wiener. It was on IG, not Twitter though.
I don’t think publishing personal information that is a matter of public record should be illegal. That would be a really strange law and some serious government overreach and would require appealing the First Amendment.
Death threats should of course be illegal.
Twitter can make whatever rules that it likes, as it is a private company. I don’t know if you noticed, but Musk reinstated most of the journalists he had early claimed “doxxed” him. They did not of course, but it’s his company. It impacts his credibility when he does this.
He also cancelled and did not reinstate journalists critical of Tesla. He is not really in favor of free speech at all.
I did notice he reinstated people because He recognized that he went too far. He asked if he should reinstate them and his subscriber said yes so he did. That's called recognizing when you made a mistake. It's a good thing in most circles. I'm not familiar with who he banned because they criticized Tesla and I can't comment on it because I didn't read about it. I don't know if he had a legitimate reason to get rid of those people or not. If he just wanted them gone because they criticized him and didn't do anything that threatened him or his family in any way than he was mistaken. I wouldn't support that. But that doesn't mean that I think he's wrong all the time or that he deserves to have his whereabouts announced continuously when we all know there are people who would want to hurt him just like qanon crazies might have wanted to hurt you. I don't support that behavior and I don't support giving them information to egg them on. That's all. I don't think it's right when it happens to you or when it happens to Elon Musk. I don't think it's right. For anyone. That's all I'm saying. I agree he had reason to suspend accounts of people were outing his location when we all know people do want to hurt him and harass him and his family. Why do we know this? Because people are doing it to even nobody's like you. No offense but fact
Why don't you ask him.
I asked. He didn’t reply why my account criticizing Sidney Powell for being a traitor was not reinstated. I don’t expect him to.
He is a hypocrite and so are you.
Hypocrite? For years conservative accounts were arbitrarily banned. The refrain was "Twitter is a private company, it can do what it wants. If you don't like it, find a new platform." And now Twitter is still a private company, and its owner is doing what he wants. Your response is to piss and moan and cry foul.
Name a single account that he's suspended for criticizing him.
https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/1603579612612665344?s=20&t=xSEtdOq_8Kqne2FjkM3sSA
Literally suspended for doxxing. This is not complicated.
Suspended for reporting news against Musk’s agenda. No dozxing from CNN.
No, he was suspended for reposting real-time location, which Musk specifically said would result in said suspension. Keep up.
But publicly available information, compiled and made available by the FAA, is not doxxing, Brad.
Elon decided to change the definition of "doxxing," to suit his purpose - which is fine, he owns the company. Can do what he wants. But it is not doxxing, period.
Musk's plane is actually not trackable without using non-public data. It uses something called a “Privacy ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Address,” which allows operators to use alternate, temporary ICAO aircraft addresses not attributable to an owner/operator in the publicly available Civil Aviation Registry.
Last month, Mr. Musk had said he would allow the account that tracked his private plane to remain on Twitter, though he said it amounted to a security threat. “My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk,” he said in a tweet at the time.
Nope. How does it feel to bootlicker for a billionaire?
You feel better yet?
Trump censored them from Twitter. So much for your Free Speech hero.
Brad....fascinating....really....
However, how do we get over the hurdle that a private company has the right to do what they want to do as far as content moderation, etc. Twitter is FiLLEd WiTH LibRULs who don't like Trump!
Ok....get your conservative buddies together, move to Silicon Valley, raise money from VCs and start your own platform.
Social media has become so ubiquitous among consumers/public that people actually think they have a Constitutional Right to have a Twitter account or have their tweet trend.
At the end of the day, all ultimate decisions were made by Twitter, not the government.
That is why anti-trust legislation exists. When a company becomes so dominant that it can no longer be subjected to the normalizing influence of competition, and it uses that dominance for nefarious ends, then the marketplace has failed and it is now a matter for the courts.
Hence Standard Oil and AT&T were both broken up to provide breathing space for competitors. Clearly the old Twitter was just such a monopoly and it’s nefarious acts included denying access to the public square to anyone who didn’t serve the interests of their overlords, the Democratic Party and the pharmaceutical industry. The new Twitter remains dominant, but hopefully nefarious and monopolistic behaviour are abominations of the past.
Uh...there are lots of other social media platforms out there.
See, when someone gets so addicted/surrounded by social media, they wind up calling Twitter "the public square" and a private company making choices "nefarious acts" or creating concepts like "digital coup."
And comparing Standard Oil & AT&T, companies that provide services that are absolutely vital to an economy/country, to a social media platform where people post memes and talk about "Milf Manor," is probably not the strongest choice.
The bottom line of your argument, once you sweep away all the bad historical analogies and political agita, is pretty simple and clear: You think people have a Constitutional Right right to a Twitter account and for their Tweets to trend.
Personally, I hope there is ZERO content moderation - of ANYTHING. ALL SPEECH allowed. So everyone can finally stop talking about Twitter.
I think we may be in violent agreement, except that doxxing individuals and their families is a precursor to violence against those with whom you disagree. There is a sweet spot between giving a megaphone to everyone, including criminals, and the kind of ideological censorship that was the standard for the old Twitter. My hope is that Elon Musk is finding that sweet spot.
Sure, "violent agreement" works, except I want doxxing allowed, too.
He's banning journalists. Punk ass Elon also banned someone that was tracking his private plane. Why?!!
Shouldn't be out flying in public, Elon!!
No. Uh-uh. I don't want to hear from "Doxxers" about how their 1A rights are being violated because they're not on Twitter or complaining that their tweets about someone's kids school location and class schedule isn't trending.
There is only one sweet spot: ZERO CONTENT MODERATION/EVERYTHING ALLOWED!
So hopefully, everyone can finally break free of the totalitarian oppression of a phone app and shut the f*ck up about Twitter.
Would you be comfortable if I presented your home address, your employer, your wife's name and occupation, children's names and ages, their schools, your travel schedule... all on Twitter, along with an aggressive and critical rant? Maybe you have less to lose, and that's why you're comfortable with unlimited doxxing. A town square is where people can attack the message, not the messenger.
I'm sorry.....Doxxing is a 1A right.
If we're going to break free of the chains of this authoritarian, phone app oppression - let's break free!
Lol....no, I would have quite a lot to lose....wait.....are you saying the morality of doxxing should be commiserate with how much someone has to "lose?" Wow! Interesting. So, let's examine your little sly insult, masquerading as a legitimate point.
How do you quantify that loss exactly, Alastair? If I doxx a homeless person (i.e. they sleep on this street corner/bench) and someone kills them, is their life worth any less? What if I doxx someone and they only kill their dog and not their kid? Just blow up their car but not their house? What if I have 3 kids and they only kill one? I have two left. Is that better than a couple with one child? What if the doxxing only cost me an internship and not a full-time job?
I mean, surely you're not saying that Elon Musk's private jet tracking life is more important/valuable than mine? Or our doxxed, homeless person that was murdered?
All Lives Matter.
See.....seems we haven't really thought this out all the way, have we?
But you want Free Speech on a phone app - and content moderation is authoritarian and a private business has no right to do it - Ok, so, let's have it! Unleash the Kraken.
What's wrong with an aggressive and critical rant? That's my right. And if I want to give very specific, very detailed, publicly accessible information about where that person lives, works, etc. - that's my 1A right, too. They shouldn't be out there working and going to school, etc. If you don't like it, just stay home.
Sorry....how would I actually be "attacking" a messenger in a virtual/digital "town square?" As Bari Weiss has repeatedly told us "Words Aren't Violence." I mean, "sticks and stones," right?
Yes....if I actually attacked someone in a real, physically existing town square that would be a problem and I might be arrested. But Twitter is NOT a real, physically existing town square, is it? No. It is a phone app/social media platform.
However, people are so mentally warped into it, that they think it actually is a legitimate "town square" - which is also why they think they have Constitutional right to a Twitter account and to have their tweets trend at the top.
Twitter is a digital/online space built of 1s and 0s - not a town square - and I'm just exercising my 1A rights.
But again, we certainly don't want to do anything to attack the messenger/ad hominem like saying, "Maybe you have less to lose, and that's why you're comfortable with unlimited doxxing."
That would be gauche.
Methinks the lad doth protest too much. My 1A rights end when my speech is an exhortation for harm to you and your family. Over and out.
Methinks the lad doth not know doxxing is legal and within 1A.
Methinks the lad doth think Twitter is a real, physical town square.
Methinks the lad doth think he is deserving of a digital participation trophy.
All that hypothetical info about my wife, kids, school, etc? None of that is "threat" - just info. I can write a crazy violent screed on Monday......then just simply put that information up on Wednesday.....with no comment....
So, this is what you wanted. Don't be FrEE SpEECH hypocrite.
Lol.....yeah, you probably definitely need to hit the "over and out" button.
Okay, a cake maker refuses to create a special cake because doing so breaks the baker's religious convictions. So, Leftists, get a group of fellow Leftists and start your own cake-bakery. Both sides can play the role of useless idiot, that's easy. However, when it comes to 1st amendment rights, there's no room for negotiations-more speech is always better than less speech. Of course unpopular speech needs protecting, not popular speech. Lastly, the evidence is piling on top of evidence: the government said "jump" and social media said "how high?"
Sam, how do you force a corporate entity like Twitter or Facebook to publish your tweet or post? If they suspend your account what do you do? Sue them? You’ll be laughed out of court.
You can’t force a private concern to protect your First Amendment rights - because it is within their First Amendment right to treat its content as they see fit.
And if they accede to an agency of the gov’t, something they were not obligated to do, that is their right too.
Thank you.
THIS is what happens we people grow up with a cell phone permanently attached to their hand. A social media platform becomes "the public square," people are pulling off "digital coups" and I have a Constitutional Right to not only HAVE a Twitter account, but my tweets better TREND TOO, DAMMIT!
It's almost like.....dare I say it?.....they all want "digital participation trophies."
Yep, that's EXACTLY what you should do. Go to another bakery, start your own, etc.
The invisible hand of the free market solves all, right? That's what Conservatives and St. Reagan told us.
See this is what happens when people grow up inundated/addicted to social media, they call a platform that only about 23% of Americans use "the public square" and they legitimately believe they have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account and to have their tweets trend, if not it's a "1st amendment rights" issue.
Rightest and leftist both tried to influence Twitter, sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they didn't.
Who cares if the media said "How high?" That is not "evidence," of anything dude. It's evidence of a private company making a decision on what they want to do. The can jump high, low, sideways, whatever. Ultimately, Twitter makes all the decisions.
Now, personally I would like to see ZERO content moderation. ALL SPEECH allowed. Every Fuentes, every Black Black Nationalists, every Anti-Semite, deranged lunatic, conspiracy theorists, deep fake videos, false emergency warnings, etc. - that way everyone can finally shut up once and for all about Twitter.
Your knowledge level of important events is hopelessly low, it’s no wonder your ability to arrive at a reasonable conclusion failed. James Baker, the fired former chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ during the Russia hoax, the Mueller Witch-hunt, & impeachments 1 and 2, was days ago vetting Twitter Files, and is suspected to have prevented documents unhelpful to Democrats before Musk showed the corrupt cop the door. Government is prohibited from abridging the Rights provided to Americans by the Constitution. That prohibition includes using 3rd parties as a workaround to avoid violating the law. The evidence of Democratic Party criminality its shocking anyone with a sense of decency would continue supporting the Dems. Dumb & Democrats are synonymous.
Your knowledge level, across the board, is hopelessly low.
Sigh....once again....Twitter is not required to report/allow anything.....or required to NOT report/allow anything.
SO WHAT if if Twitter hired James Baker? - THE. ARE. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. THEY. CAN. HIRE. WHO. THEY. WANT.
Was James Baker currently still employed by the U.S. Government, or acting as chief attorney for the FBI/DOJ while he was vetting the TwItTer FiLes ? Yes or No?
You do not have a Constitutional Right to a Twitter account or to have your tweet trend. You also do not have a 1A right to a digital participation trophy.
Twitter can "collude" with WHOMEVER THEY WANT. UNDERSTAND? Same goes for Musk and "New" Twitter. Hell, if Musk wants to sell it to Vladamir Putin, Kim Jong-un or Jair Bolsanaro, he can.
So, you can screech and tail-bite all you want. Those are simply the facts.
Once a member of the IC always a member of the IC. Can you prove James Baker was not working for the Democratic Party-dominated federal government? Why anyone with a brain would cheer for this kind of 3rd-world banana republic government corruption is beyond gross. Don't you know people who treat political opponents with such disdain will never hesitate to turn against the useful idiots, that's you, who remain complicit with these crimes. This is no longer a Right vs Left, Blue vs Red, or Dem vs Rep. This fight is us versus them. Which side are you on? Traitor.
"Can you prove James Baker was not working for the Democratic Party-dominated federal government? "
JFC!! Is there something in the water on this message board?!! This is SECOND TIME I've had to deal with this question - to "prove a negative"- now a for a different topic?!
No one has to prove/provide evidence for something that DOES NOT EXIST or DID NOT HAPPEN. Understand?
YOU need to provide evidence/prove that Baker was a current GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, passing secrets, peeing in Elon's coffee cup or whatever your deranged, Alex Jones, conspiracy claim is.
The only "useful idiot" is you. Trump played you for a sucker. How much money did you give him? Dumbass.
Your should not be allowed to vote and your citizenship should be revoked.
Correct.
Democrats have been captured by extreme Leftists who possess a level of contempt for our founding principals, who disregard the rule of law when they disagree with the law in question, and who are fully invested in the big government, all-powerful, nanny state.
Yes. Good thing Trump now controls the GOP.
HeHe "all the news that's fit to print" Good one Brad.
"All the News That's Shit, We Print"
Brad, why is this the 'biggest story of the year'?
Perhaps that's the reason mass media companies aren't diving into it. A private platform denies access to users either by their own moderating algorithm or because they're told by gov't sources to dampen comments they thought were disinformation. It stinks but so what. Twitter had the right to not cooperate with the bad boys, or to accede to the request. Which they did. They're private! They're First Amendment protected! They have the right to decide to do just that. Big deal. It's only one corporate platform out of many.
Now there's Parler and Truth Social. There's probably more. Will they cave when Biden's wokies comes around? Who knows. They're still around with a very high conservative content.
Is there corporate censorship? Yes! Absolutely yes! So what do you do?
Find another corporation.
Well said!
The importance of the story is not that they "denied access" to users. It is that they LIED about it - to Congress UNDER OATH, and to their unflavored users, who they were happy to monetize while not providing the full service to all. To respond to your misinformation comment, I refer you to Unwoke in Idaho (below) who explains doing the Government's censorship for it is not the right of a public company.
We're treating Twitter as if it's God's gift to free speech in the electronic age. It emphatically is not. It can be replaced, and probably will be as soon as we stop typing. It is NOT the only platform out there! It is not the only organ of communication in the ether.
People will go somewhere else if it's deemed to be compromised.
It's not just about the people on Twitter. Twitter has the power to influence politics, businesses, doxing, and most aspects of our lives. People change decisions based on the response on Twitter and that can effect many lives.
If people (us) entrust so much confidence in a private concern such as Twitter - then shame on us.
We cannot force Twitter to make sure their influence on us is benign.
That’s on us. We gave them that power - and they can tweak that as they like.
Lee, have you not noticed that we do not live in a free country anymore. All of our institutions are woke controlled. Thousands have already lost jobs, livelihoods, reputation and even their freedom. And this is accelerating. You will never know this because all mainstream news is controlled. I believe hiding behind the "private company" defense of Twitter and all powerful tech companies is inappropriate today. And I am an entrepreneur who believes in laissez-faire capitalism. But the tech giants in alliance with our woke government and all other American institutions have obliterated FREE ENTERPRISE and FREE SPEECH. It is clear they believe in neither. Sure some small business and free speech is available for woke apologists to point to. But in the context of where America is at today, they are examples for a fantasyland perspective.
Lee, as soon as Twitter began taking directives from the Biden Administration, through the FBI, they are no-longer private. They've become an agent of the state.
"They're private" is not a reasonable basis to shrug off the fact that they lied repeatedly, and possibly under oath in DC hearings, about not doing exactly what they were doing. Few contest Twitter's authority to blacklist and suppress. But being lied to about it is good reason to be disgusted with former Twitter high mucky mucks.
So true. We now know that the old Twitter was the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, directed by the government. That denies them the defense of “But we’re a private company”. It didn’t work for IG Farben at the Nuremburg trials, and it won’t work for Dorsey and company.
I used to think that too. It took me awhile to realize I was wrong. As soon as an organization starts to do business with the government it's no longer an independent agent operating in a free market. At that point they are not really private.
When a private company allows the government to censor, that’s a violation of the first amendment. Had they done it on their own, it would not have been. It’s the government insinuating themselves into this that’s the problem and unconstitutional.
Twitter could have, and arguably should have, denied their request. It was within their right as a private entity to do so. And if they had, what would the Gov't had done? Fine them? Sue them? Imprison them? Now you have your unconstitutionality.
Exactly.
Fair points. Conventional wisdom suggests that Big Tech companies are free to "moderate content" because they're private and the 1st Amendment only protects against government censorship. But Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor when it does the bidding of the federal government. Using a combination of statutory inducements, regulatory threats, and partisan back scratching, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
The Twitter Files shows smoking gun proof of the federal government colluding with the platform to silence dissent.
Moreover, Twitter is (in my opinion) the most important information platform there is, so integral has it become to political discourse. It's the de facto town square, the modern agora. I could go into way more detail about this by linking to a past essay I've written about Twitter, but I've already linked to my substack too many times as it is, and I'll save you the boredom.
Thanks, Brad. Elegantly explained.
Smart response.
But you use the 'town square' defence. As in a recent Texas State Court ruling. Of which I disagree. Twitter is no town square. It appears that way because so many people use it.
A real town square belongs to no one. You stand on your stump and speak - often to no one. It is a real public place, owned by a public entity - and there in lies the difference.
Twitter is not a publicly owned space. It is owned either by one man (now) or shareholders (the old version). Since when does any corporate concern feel beholden to all subscribers for free and unfettered access? They allow content or disallow it. Here for example on the the Free Press they allow all content (for now). It is a corporate choice. And we are here to enjoy it. And if this place changes, we can move on.
You state that Twitter ceases to be a private company and becomes a state actor once it does the government's bidding. And this is new? I have examples in my mind where 60 Minutes held stories because of gov't concerns. NYT as well. Time Magazine too.
Why were the Watergate revelations so important back in 1973? Because finally an American news organization went against government pressure. It took guts. It didn't happen normally. It was never a given - most American journalism was passive, timid.
Twitter caved. They censored. That's true. But that is simply a decision they made. They could have gone the other way.
And as for dissent? It's still here.
It sure looks like the town square. Looks like common carrier too. I like town square more but it's the taller hill to hike.
Gov't intervening in the dealings of a private company is neither nor proper. Just because the gov't violates the law frequently and in the same way over time with many different businesses is no defense for nefarious conduct.
Can you imagine?
Mobster: Sure I've been extorting this neighborhood but we've been doing it for years.
Judge: Case dismissed.
You can’t choose mobsters. But a social media company who moderates against your will and plays games with the government?
You have the choice to move on.
Your defense was, basically, ~everybody knows they've been doing this forever.~
The issue was the claimed defense not the specific players. I changed the players (to make the point more vivid) but applied the same defense. That's fair game. Defenses are not specific to the category of defendant. What is available to Peter is available to Paul.
Twitter is not owned by the public. Why are people on this thread feel that they owe us something? That they should be penalized by doing something that was within their rights from the beginning?
When Musk does the same to leftie journalists- the same rules apply. They can’t complain.
First, there is direct and dubious involvement as a state actor that may or may not be illegal. The remedy is more likely chopping heads at DOJ than criminal charges for twitter EEs.
Mostly, however, people are simply pissed at having their suspicions confirmed especially because they kept denying what they were doing.
Further, this gov’t interference as well as the ideological zealousness of the Twitter inquisition certainly swayed public opinion and had a significant impact in helping Dems and hurting the GOP which pissed people off even more.
That the gov’t was involved shaping public opinion I think we can all agree is horrifying and heads should role.
Short version, twitter and the FBI colluded to influence the outcome of the election. This is upsetting to the 70+ million who feel they’ve been cheated.
Good post.
Shorter version still - Twitter, then, needed competition. The new one does as well. Old Twitter colludes with the FBI? Alleged or real? Then start up another 'town square.' Apparently anyone can have one. Which actually happened (Truth Social etc..).
As an aside, you state that Twitter and the FBI colluded to influence the election, by I'm assuming, suspending accounts, denying posts..cheating seventy million Americans who voted for Trump. But those voters certainly were watching something..
Fox News is the most watched cable TV news network in the country.
Twitter and Biden didn't need a herculean public opinion shift. In the states that mattered the margin of victory for Biden was quite narrow.
Election night my wife, who cancels my vote, and I agreed. Winning big would be best result. Exactly because we worried crap like what happened would happen. We never dreamed it would escalate to the level it did but I suspect our anxiety was shared by millions on either side of the fence.
FTR: I have no Twitter account, never did, and never will. But I understand the frustration so many felt.
We have many cell phone carriers. No one needs to have a cell phone. But what if Verizon decided to monitor calls and prevent texting and calls without your knowledge, because they didn't like what you were saying. And the only carriers you could subscribe to have very poor coverage and don't always connect to who you wanted. Would that be right? We are already seeing many companies just stop serving people because of what they believe. We even have Christians being kicked out of restaurants. No one covers that, but if it was anyone in a protected group, it would be all over the news and the restaurant would be out of business.
Your example sounds like PayPal denying financial service because of political bias. Totally illegal.
But Twitter’s product is the public dissemination of conversation, modulated by their First Amendment rights.
Legal.
Where we disagree most is on the importance of Twitter. For the record, I hate the platform and think it's a social sewer. And this is all just my opinion. But I think the platform has far more of an impact in shaping reality than most people realize because it's the playground of elites, who have the biggest influence on the discourse and narratives society uses to make sense of itself.
It follows, then, that if a group (say, for example, a political party) holds inordinate influence/control over the medium where our society’s most important discourse happens, that group is in a position to adjudicate the bounds of acceptable content and therefore possesses an extraordinary degree of influence over which ideas gain traction.
Also, while people use Twitter for a variety of reasons, it’s evolved into a global PA system thanks to its most singular feature: the retweet. The retweet function is a force multiplier, the fastest way to simultaneously spread and endorse information. And it’s frictionless. A tweet by itself is basically a text message, except instead of one-to-one, it's one-to-many; but when you add in the retweet function, no communication platform can compete. It's why I believe that, even with dozens of alternative mediums available for use, no other independent channel of information holds as much potential for radical ideological change on a mass scale.
Independent journalism paired with an open platform: stuff the progressives fear (for they cannot control it).
Media needs money to survive and to make money they need to satisfy their base. All media organizations peddle to their base, nothing new, not sure why this is so surprising.
It's not surprising that a media company would peddle to its base. What is surprising is that media companies remain devoted to peddling a message that a large chunk of their supposed base is rejecting, based on their cratering ratings. Maybe they are not solely driven by a profit motive?
What I don't understand is a news outlet is a for profit entity. The more readers the greater the profit. If a news outlet panders to only one side of the political spectrum, they lose about 40% of their readers or in CNN's case viewers. It is beyond explanation how Fox thrives. Maybe it is because even the loon left wants to hear and see another view of the world.
What I am saying, you don't piss off half the population with partisan BS and thrive. These big news outlets are supposed to be run by smart people but they sure don't follow a capitalist paradigm.
"It is beyond explanation how Fox thrives. Maybe it is because even the loon left wants to hear and see another view of the world."
-DING!! DING!!! DING!!!!.......hmmmm.....maybe not trapped in their "echo chambers?" and actually have passports.....unlike you?
What Celia said. And the US market is roughly split in the middle (Surprise!) the outlets are happy if most of their coverage satisfies their half.
How did that work out for CNN? NYT and WaPo are laying off people. I guess half an audience just isn't enough for them.
Fox thrives for the same reason that LibsOfTikTok is so popular: people these days are always eager to watch their enemies make fools of themselves. It helps reinforce their bubble.
Fox has a gigantic and unwavering daily-viewer base of democrats.
All my adult life I'd been a subscriber to the NY Times-- I even worked there during grad school and my daughter had a summer internship there a couple of years ago. I've always had a deep respect for the newspaper. However, I've started to scrutinize what is being written about and what is being left out of the news at the Times. I've also found that some facts that they use are often taken out of context to back up a story-- cherry picking. This has been so disappointing to me that yesterday I cancelled my subscription.
Canceled my subscription a few years ago. What has happened to the NYT is beyond disappointing.
Fortunately, there are a lot more sources for news these days.
I cancelled my subscription a couple of weeks ago too. I’d been hesitant to do so because I do enjoy some of their pieces and I like their games, but it simply did not feel right to continue to contribute to them financially.
What facts did you see cherry picked?
For example: Saying that The IRS was targeting poor people because more low income people's tax returns were audited than those of wealthy people. True-- but the IRS was not "targeting." It was simply that one can audit someone who has little money faster than those with millions; hence, auditors would be able to do more audits for lower income folks while millionaires might take longer and fewer could be done in the same amount of time. Cherry picking. I know many media outlets (left and right) do the same thing, not just the Times. But-- at this point, I just want straight, unaltered facts so I can make up my own mind.
Hmm....well sounds like you've already made up you mind. Because you've provided an excellent justification/spin for why lower-income people are audited 5x more than wealthier people.
Also, the use of "targeting" (i.e. what you're complaining about) is not cherry picking - it's called "framing" - using rhetoric/language to encourage a particular interpretation. When you agreed that the story was "True," then it becomes a framing issue.
Framing is Spin is Lying.
The truth is the truth - nobody was targeted.
To suggest so is to lie. Prevaricate. Make Shit Up. A journalist (and a so-called "comprof" assuming short for communications professor) should never do such things.
No, it is not "Lying."
Being audited at 5x the rate than wealthy people. So, the "truth is the truth." You just don't like the language choice used to describe that truth.
"To suggest so is to lie"......yeah, you might REALLY, REALLY want to think about that.....especially considering the media you probably consume.
Lol. Honestly, I think you're just upset that someone pointed out that poor people were getting the short end of the stick, being treated differently, etc. That right there, is the truth.
You are a liar. You have NO FUCKING CLUE why the disparity exists, other than raw data, yet you state matter-of-factly that:
"poor people were being treated differently"
and
"maybe really wealthy people don't get hassled by the IRS"
Tell that to Wesley Snipes and George Carlin (and now Sam Blankman-Fraud)
These are lies; suppositions without knowledge that you claim to be truthful. You aren't suggesting opinion, you are stating them as fact.
Wow.....you're so angry.
I know exactly why the disparity exists.....being wealthy brings advantages, privilege, connections, benefits, better health care, better neighborhoods, better schools, etc.....etc. that poor people don't have. It's actually pretty cut and dry.
Wesley Snipes and George Carlin is your "evidence" of the average wealthy person? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You used a very important word - "Fraud" - yeah when an entire crypto exchange collapses in 24 hours, people tend to notice. Also, IRS has nothing to do Sam Bankman-Fried. The FBI arrested him, not IRS agents. Dummy.
You're really not very good at this.
The FBI got him on TAX fraud. If that doesn't include the IRS input, nothing does. Moron.
Nope. Defrauding investors. SEC violations, etc. Totally different than tax fraud.
"SBF arrested: Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange/Gordian knot that exploded oh-so-dramatically over the last few months, was arrested in the Bahamas this week. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it was officially charging SBF with defrauding investors, with investigations on other charges underway."
"The SEC has charged Bankman-Fried with violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC’s complaint seeks injunctions against future securities law violation that prohibits Bankman-Fried from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer or sale of any securities except for his own personal account."
Moron.
Lol....man, you people never tire of getting owned. It's even more funny considering how arrogantly stupid you are.
You should probably not engage me anymore.
As I said, I'm well aware of the truth and I'm well aware of taking things out of context to serve an agenda. To suggest that poor are being targeted -- in this specific case-- is like suggesting the IRS has done something wrong when, in fact, the IRS (and believe me I'm not here to defend the IRS, just pointing out the fact) spends a much longer times with tax returns on the wealthy because (obviously) they have more assets; therefore, they can do fewer in a year than for poor people or middle class (like myself) which doesn't take along at all. To imply somehow a bias when it's about logistics is suggesting something that is untrue. I don't like it from the left or from the right.
Or....option 2: Maybe really wealthy people don't get hassled by the IRS?
Which would possibly explain low income and the 5x "more likely to BE audited"
As opposed to 5x "more likely to get through an audit quickly because they don't have as many assets."
You really need to look at data and not make assumptions. I tell my students that all of the time.
Or maybe we need to really understand that 5x "more likely to BE audited" actually has nothing to do with the amount of assets one has or the time it takes to get through an audit, which are both major assumptions that have no relevance.
Stay relevant. I tell my students that all the time.
In fact, I did write to the Times and they tried to justify it by pointing to the one fact (more poor people are audited) but I responded in saying that "look at the context to where this is taken. It suggests something the opposite of "targeting." For two people from the Times to respond means they took it seriously-- I'm glad about that. I've taught research skills at USC so I am hyper critical of publications that "cherry pick" as I am with my students who do the same. It's enough that it's done by politicians but respected newspapers should be above that (should).
When there is no other fact but ONE (i.e. more poor people are audited) -you can't "cherry pick" when you only have ONE fact under discussion.
It's called "framing," (Goffman, E.) - its an offshoot of the Mass Communication media theory known as "Agenda Setting."
Yes, the suggestion of something opposite of "targeting" would be....a different frame.
FYI: "High-Income Returns Escape Audit Because IRS Not Hiring Enough Revenue Agents
A critical limitation in the IRS’s ability to audit millionaires is the availability of IRS revenue agents. Only this class of auditors, given sufficient training and experience, are qualified to examine complex tax returns – the types of returns typically filed by high-income individuals and large-scale businesses.
With severe budget constraints, IRS has tended to trade off the replacement of revenue agents with hiring more tax examiners. These certainly are paid less, but they are also less knowledgeable. While revenue agents used to outnumber tax examiners, this has slowly shifted over time.
Since the end of FY 2010, the number of IRS revenue agents has dropped by 41 percent. Initially, the number of tax examiners also fell although not at the same rate. By FY 2016, tax examiners began to outnumber revenue agents for the first time. During FY 2020 and FY 2021, major increases took place in the hiring of tax examiners. Thus, the number of tax examiners has regained all of their lost ground and were actually 1 percent higher than in 2010. See Figure 4 and Table 3...This changing mix of IRS audit staff has had a profound impact on both which types of returns get audited, as well as the depth of these audits. The scales have tilted towards IRS targeting less complex issues and returns, and conducting less in-depth audits. While examiners may be cheaper to hire in the short run, the unavailability of experienced revenue agents means that complex tax returns often go unexamined, while complicated tax issues if reviewed at all are not audited in as much depth. Yet these are the targets where experts believe the largest amount of tax revenue is escaping detection and collection." TracIRS. And now-- I'm out of this long winded discussion. Goodbye and good luck.
Oh....so it's NOT because it takes LONGER to get through all those assets....it's because they simply don't have enough agents? The data from 2010 is really helpful, though - good to see they made up all that ground and were 1% higher in FY 2020 and FY 2021
Lol. Yeah, you should definitely hit the "goodbye" lever.
maybe high income people have tax lawyers and accountants fill out the forms , less likely to be glaring mistakes on the forms
Yes. And those tax lawyers and accountants are not free, are they?
Actually, they probably are also very helpful in finding ways to offshore, hide assets and evade paying taxes as well.
Also, I would hazard to guess that if you're low income/minimum wage, it's pretty straight forward and not a lot of chances for "glaring" mistakes.
My point is still the same; can you not see that?. The data is not suggesting poor people are being targeted because they are poor or powerless. I hope that you are not a professor because I'd be concerned. And your incivility belongs on another site.
Actually, your point is not exactly the same. Now, you're coming from a different direction. Originally, it was the "complexity" of rich people's taxes that caused poor people to to be 5x more likely to BE audited, but it appears the real culprit is lack of agents, therefore so the ones that are available are all focused on the non-wealthy. So it's really about where the IRS is CHOOSING to focus their resources.
I think the ideology undergirding your proposition (which you've just now expressed) is that poor people don't deal with different dynamics in dealing with the government, because for you, poverty does not equal being "powerless." Possibly along with a heavy seasoning of "trickle down economics" theory.
Although I tend to look at things like the court system, etc....and see quite a few examples of disparate outcomes and power imbalances due to income. So, I very clearly see your point/view. It is not an unusual one among certain demographics. Think I'm just more suspicious of the motivations/justifications than you are.
Lol. This is one of the most uncivil sites out there. So, you can miss me with all that.
I canceled my subscription 10 years ago. It was like recovering from drugs.
I am going through withdrawl.
That only lasts for a few days. And then the fog lifts and you'll feel free.
Thanks for the support. :-)
Deirdre, better late than never.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
You stayed even after the russia collusion story exposed them as documented liars?
I do like a few of the opinion writers and other parts, as well, but it was my tiny way of taking a stand. At this point, I don't want any sway from the left or right-- I just want the facts so I can make up my own mind.
Good on you Deirdre!
Ditto.
“All the news that’s fit to print” has never been the modus operandi of the New York Times. From the NYT’s support of National Socialism in the 1930s to today’s support for woke fascism, the NY Times’ M.O. has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
Clever but not really true. They don't print anything that doesn't further their agenda. Ignoring a story is often more effective than trying to discredit it.
That’s true. The New York Times furthers its toxic agenda both with crimes of commission and crimes of omission.
Similarly, WaPo's motto, "Democracy dies in darkness" has always sounded to me like a threat, not something they intended to prevent.
Everything probably sounds like a threat to you.
You made me laugh with your truism. It's not a threat. It is a road map.
^our narrative, we print
Well put.
No,no,no! The New York Times has never been “All the news that’s fit to print”. From it’s support of Hitler’s National Socialists in the 1930s to the woke fascists of today, the NYT’s modus operandi has always been “All the news that fits, we print”.
Newspapers that don’t cover the news will die.
WHEN?
WPO, NYT, CNN, MSNBC et al all steadily losing engagement and DYING. Ironically, Trump’s running again was a lifeline for them, but it won’t last.
It can't be too soon for me.
Wikipedia's reporting on "The Twitter Files."
Librarians need to take Wikipedia seriously
It's all about citations.
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/librarians-need-to-take-wikipedia