Posted on 01/03/2023 2:42:39 PM PST by george76
Once Twitter began rolling over for Congress in 2017, the ending was inevitable: formal surrender to the intelligence community on content moderation.
...
From the Twitter Files, a story about media, that also sketches the origins of Twitter’s surrender to the intelligence community:
...
Twitter through the end of August, 2017 was on nobody’s radar as a key actor in the Trump-Russia “foreign influence” scandal.
By the second week in October — six weeks later — the company was being raked over the coals in the press as “one of Russia’s most potent weapons in its efforts to promote Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton,” with Clinton herself adding:
It’s time for Twitter to stop dragging its heels and live up to the fact that its platform is being used as a tool for cyber-warfare.
What happened in those six weeks? Answering that question is a key to understanding the content moderation phenomenon. In this period, crucial in the company’s history, a pattern was established. Threats from Congress came first, then a rush of bad headlines (inspired by leaks from congressional committees, and finally a series of moderation demands coming from the outside. Once the company acceded, the cycle repeated.
The documents lay out the scheme. You can see how the Russian cyber-threat was essentially conjured into being, with political and media pressure serving as the engine inflating something Twitter believed was negligible and uncoordinated to massive dimensions.
What do you know? Hillary Clinton was in the middle of it!
The whole “Russian cyberattack” hysteria was just a manufactured cover story so that Hillary wouldn’t have to admit that someone inside the DNC leaked their dirty laundry to Assange.
sounds reasonable
A communist favorite is to use up a topic to take the air out of it to block legitimate coverage. Thus Obama published TWO autobiographies about his young life, so that happy lefties could ooh and ah, but not actually assess his abilities.
Why did the leftists scream that the J6 protests were an “Insurrection”, and that questioning election fraud was an attack on Democracy? Because the Government itself had already attacked the Constitution, crippled the elected President, corrupted elections, and destroyed the People’s right to free speech, press, thought, etc. There has been an Inside Job, and they want to say, “DOn;t look at us, the insurrection’s over there.”
We need to take a hard look at the history of the Democrat Party. Slavery. Jim Crow lynchings, denial of voting rights and basic civil rights. National Socialism dressed up as the “New Deal”. American’s put in concentration camps during WWII. Election cheating. Tyranny. It’s what they have ALWAYS done. Their game isn’t new. High tech methods are just too much for them to resist — they want totalitarianism and they want it NOW.
What a coincidence!!!!
This thread number ends in 666
So they’d have an excuse for censoring people, and cancelling their accounts.
Good catch
They had the same enemy.
Why? Power is addictive. The type of people who would get a job at Twitter are going to be the introverted oddball engineering type (I know, I’m one of them) who are socially awkward and have never tasted any sort of power over anything in life before. Now, all of a sudden, they work in a company where they can control the most powerful people on earth and have access to billions of eyeballs to promote their own twisted beliefs. It must have tasted delicious.
Surprise surprise..
Tucker Carlson Reveals Two Things McCarthy Should Do To Win Speaker’s Gavel
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/03/tucker-carlson-kevin-mccarthy-speaker/
[HINT: #1, Release ALL January 6 Files]
Oops. Apologies. I posted that comment to the incorrect thread. Just ignore (unless you are interested in the subject).
p
It’s not just a supposition, there is quite a bit of evidence to support that view. Some people on reddit of all places dug into the documents when they first came out and that was the general conclusion most people investigating it came to.
One example of something that points to that:
Assange announced that he would be releasing the documents first, before anyone had ever heard of “Guccifer 2.0”. Then, this “Guccifer 2.0” character shows up and claims to the be the source, and releases some of the DNC documents, ahead of Assange, but he ONLY released documents on topics that Assange had mentioned in his press release. When Assange later releases the full DNC emails, there are a ton of of other documents that were not mentioned in the original press release, and were not included in what Guccifer 2.0 posted. So it would appear that whoever Guccifer 2.0 was, he didn’t know exactly what emails were stolen, and was just releasing stuff that Assange had mentioned in order to bolster his credibility without accidentally releasing new documents that Assange didn’t have.
There’s some harder evidence when you dig down into the metadata of both sets of documents that were released. They are actually different sets of files saved by different people, not one set of data that was obtained by Guccifer 2.0 and then copied by Assange.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.