Maybe we’ll see how much was spent on this. It’s probably basically a drop in the bucket like other similar ballyhooed bot campaigns have turned out to be. Something is going on there but it’s hard to say really what and a good assumption is that it’s nowhere anywhere near as much as will be made of it in the media for their own propaganda purposes.
I’ve never been on Twitter.
I already addressed that in my post.
I weighed in because the article reeked of bias, one sided pushing of a narrative and misrepresenting events like the Twitter files and that was before I dug into the details. I am expecting some real journalists to do a proper autopsy on that BCC piece as it is pretty high profile and will update when I see them.
I wrote that before I looked up who the author is, you can do a search yourself, it seems she has a reputation for pushing government propaganda.
Ah. It’s by Marianna Spring, the BBC’s ‘Disinformation and social media correspondent’. She takes her title a little too literally.
@tempogain beat me to it! The Twitter files show the IC repeatedly call accounts they don’t like “bots” and then Twitter would look at it and tell them “they actually look like real people” only for the IC to run to the media who regurgitate anything the IC tell them to uncritically.
The AP cannot fathom Trump support, ergo the entire architecture of the Twitter system must be Trump “bots” marching against authentic DeSantis. You cannot make this stuff up, yet it is good to actually see how nonsensical the narrative engineering has become.
The style of the new anti-speech Democrat is clear: define all government critics as lacking standing to criticize, impugn their prior opinions and associations, imply that all their beliefs are conspiracy theory, define their lack of faith in the FBI’s judgment as treasonous, and declare their motivation to be financial. Lastly, when they invoke common constitutional rights, make a note that their activities exist in an uncovered carve-out.
This is the playbook, and we all better get used to it.
Unfortunately, high profile Congressional hearings are generally about posturing and soundbites. Many of the criticisms about partisan behavior in that article apply to basically every higher profile hearing, by members of both parties.
I try to not let the facts get hidden in the grandstanding. The fact that both sides need to be so clearly different in their presentations on any given issue is a top down issue. Every side talks down to the masses. The obvious conflict of interests regarding FBI contact with Twitter staff and higher ups though, the single minded focus on shutting down perceived dissent, is beyond reproach in my book.
It was only a matter of time until civil assets forfeiture metastasized into civil rights forfeiture. The only question is what’s next?
True, but I don’t think it’s unfortunate, overall the performances if persuasive shift voters and they can decide if they want to see a change.
But this hearing is not about both sides and when there is a hearing where Republicans behave abhorrently perhaps that would be the time to discuss their behavior.
I don’t think it makes political sense. Not sure what their thinking is. Fear of something?
1.TWITTER FILES #19
The Great Covid-19 Lie Machine
Stanford, the Virality Project, and the Censorship of “True Stories”
Why were they censoring what they knew to be true stories, best summed up in this tweet.
31.The Virality Project was specifically not based on “assertions of fact,” but public submission to authority, acceptance of narrative, and pronouncements by figures like Anthony Fauci. The project’s central/animating concept was, “You can’t handle the truth.”
Which is I think one of the man takeaways, the need, not just with regards the Coronavirus but pretty much every topic they weighed in on, the need to lie to the public because they think we are stupid outweighs telling the truth if it upsets a narrative they are trying to tell the public.
quite a clickbait title. not much “colluding” when they say no to requests…
So, you think it was OK for AS to ask and keep asking to shut people down? Especially people who cut against the grain of his narrative? You seem more fair minded than that usually.
That’s hardly a fair “so, you think…” followup to my comment about that clickbait!
We’re not in court, dude. Just a simple question asked for clarity on my part.
not much context to make a fair judgement of the requests shown in that article, but on a surface level regarding the redacted request, my thoughts are:
1 - requests to suspend accounts that are actually harassing people seem fair
2 - requests to suspend accounts spreading misinformation on unnamed non public staffers may be fair
3 - requests to suppress.all searches about committee staff seem like overreach
4 - requests to suppress general misinformation with no specific reason is definitely overreach.
but the article sucks. never heard of that site before, but looking at some of the articles there, seems like the site generally sucks.
It’s a conservative clickbait site I rarely read, but the articles from Twitter files are legit. I just loathe AS and enjoy people revealing what a shit he is.