Musk: Twitter Has "Interfered In Elections"

[j brown's body]

Interfering in elections would mean they refused to let people vote, changed votes, hid votes, didn't count all of the votes. Twitter didn't do any of that (neither did Russia).

I think the word they are looking for is influence an election.

 

[j brown's body]

Newspapers have always sought to influence elections by endorsing candidates. In fact, many early newspapers were run by political party members.

 

[Mr Person]

They'll cheerlead anyone they think is for them. They should probably have what Musk has to say about Trump and his Trumpists before acting so sure their his darlings. . . .

 

[Mr Person]

It's the usual hypocrisy. When Trump won in 2016, alot of people said Russia interfered. They did this by using disinformation to supposedly influence people to vote for Trump. I am not one who claimed this, but it was one of the claims by several on the left.

Of course RWers said they did not, for the same reasons you list above. But now it seems they are OK with claiming supposed interference by influence by Twitter employees.

Hypocrisy.

Well, Russia did interfere. It interfered by having its intelligence services, subservient troll farms, faux-independent sites, etc, to spread all manner of misinformation in the hope that it would first get people to vote for Trump and more generally just create a shitstorm.

The question of whether it worked is entirely distinct. It seems most likely that Hillary's poor campaigning and public dislike of her (for whatever reason) sunk her.



Did Twitter have its intelligence services, subservient troll farms, faux-independent sites, etc, to spread all manner of misinformation in the hope that it would first get
people to vote for Trump and more generally just create a shitstorm? (and I am not clicking on Russian Trojan Horse site "ZeroHedge" to find out what the claim here is)

Because if it didn't, whatever it did - whether or not it can be generalized to the extreme using the naked term "interfered" - is different from what Russia did. And if what Twitter did is different from what Russia did, then there is no "hypocrisy" in noting the difference.

It's like saying "Russia executed an innnocent person and we jailed an innocent person for one year. You gotta criticize both equally or it's hypocrisy because each did a bad thing to an innocent person!"



This is the same shit wrong with so many both-sides statements. They generalize out to a broad categorization and suggest hypocrisy if two separate things can be said to be encompassed by that categorization. In doing so, they intentionally ignore all the differences between the two things. They are then thus deployed to allege hypocrisy or defend the worse of two things. It's crap.

 

[Integrityrespec]

And water is wet. This should be fun.
———

Twitter owner Elon Musk on Wednesday confirmed what everyone with two functioning brain cells and intellectual honesty already knew; the social media giant has "interfered in elections."



In a discussion over a Reuters article in which the company's former head of trust and safety says Twitter is 'not safer' under Musk, user @EvaFoxU posted: "Twitter has shown itself to be not safe for the past 10 years and has lost users’ trust.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Some of twitter's former executive has acknowledged that they acted inappropriately regarding the HB laptop and were pressured by the FBI to do so. As much as 15% of voters have said had they had the laptop information to evaluate they may have not vote for Biden. Those numbers would have created a landslide Trump victory. The left went nuts when they heard the fabricated Trump Collusion story, will they now turn on democrats and the FBI over pressuring Twitter and other social media to interfere in 2020?

 

[Rogue Valley]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

ZeroHedge’s content has been classified as “alt-right” and has been criticized for presenting conspiracy theories.

ZeroHedge - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Just sayin'

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's a good point and obliterates your first point. Twitter is not a newspaper, not even in the same business.
Newspapers have limited space and publish news and opinion. Twitter has unlimited space and does not publish its own content. It is just a platform for people to post their news and opinions. Except when it censors people and news/opinions it doesn't like.
To try to make some sort of equivalence between the two is in your own words, a "logical fallacy of equivocation".

So, you're saying Twitter didn't interfere w/ the election, Twitter users interfered with the election?​

By posting their opinions?

...almost like they were writing editorials.



ftr, that's not what the logical fallacy of equivocation is, btw

 

[eman623]

So, you're saying Twitter didn't interfere w/ the election, Twitter users interfered with the election?​

What is it with you and the giant text? Are you farsighted or something?

Twitter interfered with the election by selectively banning users who said things they didn't like. It prevented them from writing their opinions.

 

[BlueTex]

That's a good point and obliterates your first point. Twitter is not a newspaper, not even in the same business.

Newspapers have limited space and publish news and opinion. Twitter has unlimited space and does not publish its own content. It is just a platform for people to post their news and opinions. Except when it censors people and news/opinions it doesn't like.

To try to make some sort of equivalence between the two is in your own words, a "logical fallacy of equivocation".

Do social media companies have a right to association?

 

[BlueTex]

What is it with you and the giant text? Are you farsighted or something?

Twitter interfered with the election by selectively banning users who said things they didn't like.

Which is their CONSTITUTIONAL right....

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Well, Russia did interfere. It interfered by having its intelligence services, subservient troll farms, faux-independent sites, etc, to spread all manner of misinformation in the hope that it would first get people to vote for Trump and more generally just create a shitstorm.

The question of whether it worked is entirely distinct. It seems most likely that Hillary's poor campaigning and public dislike of her (for whatever reason) sunk her.



Did Twitter have its intelligence services, subservient troll farms, faux-independent sites, etc, to spread all manner of misinformation in the hope that it would first get
people to vote for Trump and more generally just create a shitstorm? (and I am not clicking on Russian Trojan Horse site "ZeroHedge" to find out what the claim here is)

Because if it didn't, whatever it did - whether or not it can be generalized to the extreme using the naked term "interfered" - is different from what Russia did. And if what Twitter did is different from what Russia did, then there is no "hypocrisy" in noting the difference.

It's like saying "Russia executed an innnocent person and we jailed an innocent person for one year. You gotta criticize both equally or it's hypocrisy because each did a bad thing to an innocent person!"



This is the same shit wrong with so many both-sides statements. They generalize out to a broad categorization and suggest hypocrisy if two separate things can be said to be encompassed by that categorization. In doing so, they intentionally ignore all the differences between the two things. They are then thus deployed to allege hypocrisy or defend the worse of two things. It's crap.

Russia has been meddling in elections for decades. Why now when Trump won, does it make a difference?!?

 

[Josie]

What is it with you and the giant text? Are you farsighted or something?

Twitter interfered with the election by selectively banning users who said things they didn't like. It prevented them from writing their opinions.

That's not interfering in an election.

 

[JasperL]

Newspapers don't censor people who say things the newspaper doesn't like.

Yeah, they do....

I wrote a letter to the editor back in the day. They didn't print it. CENSORSHIP!!!! FIRST AMENDMENT!!! FIRST AMENDMENT!@!! MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED!!!

 

[JasperL]

What is it with you and the giant text? Are you farsighted or something?

Twitter interfered with the election by selectively banning users who said things they didn't like. It prevented them from writing their opinions.

Yeah, no shit. The 1A protects their right to do just that, and virtually every website on the planet does that - it's called moderation. This place employs benevolent dictator mods who selectively bans users for the same reasons. Are you asserting DP interfered with every election since this forum was started??!!!! BIG CLAIM!!!

 

[JasperL]

Interfering in elections would mean they refused to let people vote, changed votes, hid votes, didn't count all of the votes. Twitter didn't do any of that (neither did Russia).

Twelve Russians were indicted for actual election interference....

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 U.S. ELECTIONS | Federal Bureau of Investigation

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; FALSE REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME; AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MONEY LAUNDERING

www.fbi.gov

 

[US&THEM]

And water is wet. This should be fun.
———

Twitter owner Elon Musk on Wednesday confirmed what everyone with two functioning brain cells and intellectual honesty already knew; the social media giant has "interfered in elections."



In a discussion over a Reuters article in which the company's former head of trust and safety says Twitter is 'not safer' under Musk, user @EvaFoxU posted: "Twitter has shown itself to be not safe for the past 10 years and has lost users’ trust.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

When will you create a thread “Zero Hedge” is shit.

 

[JasperL]

That's a good point and obliterates your first point. Twitter is not a newspaper, not even in the same business.

Newspapers have limited space and publish news and opinion. Twitter has unlimited space and does not publish its own content. It is just a platform for people to post their news and opinions. Except when it censors people and news/opinions it doesn't like.

You mean like virtually every website on the planet? Like you do in your kitchen? Like every church?

To try to make some sort of equivalence between the two is in your own words, a "logical fallacy of equivocation".

What's amazing is we're now in a world where the right wing believes the 1A gives government the power to compel speech. And that government should use that power to compel speech, presumably by hiring 1,000 or so Big Government Bureaucrats to oversee all of Twitter's and Facebooks and all the rest moderation decisions and overturn them when the currently Biden appointed Big Government Regulators disagree.

That's the new "conservative" view on "free speech." What it amounts to is - "We (but not everyone else) have a constitutional right to say whatever we want, wherever we want, with no negative consequences!!"

 

[TobyOne]

Twitter stifling the laptop story at the behest of the FBI is worse interference than anything the Russians did in 2016. Luckily, congress will be investigating that shit.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Stand by for something the left never has.






Proof

-narf-

You mean like DT's proof of a stolen election?

 

[FreeStorm84]

Twitter stifling the laptop story at the behest of the FBI ....

What does this mean? What did the FBI do?

 

[FreeStorm84]

Newspapers have always sought to influence elections by endorsing candidates.

I guess everyone is influencing elections to the extent that they opine on politics and policy. It isn't election interference and it certainly isn't a coup.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What is it with you and the giant text? Are you farsighted or something?

Twitter interfered with the election by selectively banning users who said things they didn't like. It prevented them from writing their opinions.

Just like how a paper refuses to print every letter to the editor?

 

[Integrityrespec]

The republican led senate released a 1000-page report describing what you claim was the lefts claim. Everything the Russians have been accused of is true. Why do we suppose a dozen Russian intelligence agents were indicted?

Are you referring to the ones our DOJ indicted in absentia? We will never see them, they will never bother to answer the charges, it's all for show because they made the accusations against Trump but the facts are it was all BS, fabricated bull done by the democrats, FBI, DOJ, Hillary campaign and a couple of foreign guys getting paid by the Hillary campaign and FBI. Our government is so corrupt now they spend half their time lying and going after political enemies, and the other half trying to cover their tracks.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I guess everyone is influencing elections to the extent that they opine on politics and policy. It isn't election interference and it certainly isn't a coup.

Endorsing a candidate is a far cry from fabricating evidence and paying foriegners to create to it. It's also a far cry from pressuring social media to cover up stories that would damage a favored candidate.

 

[Daddyo]

Is it because of Twitter's pro-democracy, anti-misinformation bias?

Was hunters laptop Russian disinformation?

Is the border in crisis?

Funny how “pro democracy “ means only one side has a platform and “anti-misinformation” means block all Republican claims that might hurt a demonrat.