Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wrong about what? Like I asked you, pick the single most damning fact that's actually in that article.
If you insist on sharing non-credible sources like the Daily Mail and Shellenberger, whose name is spelled without a c and whose stuff I have read, I will point out that you are sharing lousy sources.
But you'll notice that I also posted a long piece explaining why he and the others were wrong about the Twitter files.
|
More globally:
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/t...ent-part-1.php
If you read this thread at all honestly, Yoel Roth of Twitter is telling Baker the Post’s story does not violate guidelines. In the face of this, Baker holds, tenuously, to the proposition, “We don’t know… it might be hacked.”
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi
You’ve dealt with media. As have most of us here. Lying to media is easy if it’s not securities stuff. Who cares? No duty is owed. That’s where Baker came down on this: Plausible deniability. That’s all one needs.
It was the smart play for him. But not necessarily the smart play for Twitter? So it must be asked… Who was he really serving? Not Roth, who disagreed.
ETA: The Post’s Twitter page was blocked for 16 days, not one.
And… Please show me Twitter’s banning of links to the NYTines’ story about the stolen portion of Trump’s tax returns. Link please.
Look, you can’t win this. Just fucking let it go with this understanding: There is a rule, and I get it it, among many “gatekeepers” that any and all means must be employed to stop Trump and his brand of authoritarian populism. Ends justify means.
I get it. We all get it. But stop pretending there’s not a double standard. People hate that bullshit. They’d be more receptive to the truth: “Yeah. We in media love him as a carnival act for ratings and clicks. But we are allowed to do Whatever It Takes after we’ve made our money to try to stop him from ever acquiring power again.” That’s at least economically defensible.
