Chief Twit

[Hoonercat]

You'd have to question why Musk wanted this gay activist kiddie drooler, who he defended as having 'high integrity', to stay on in the role, but then decides to run what many are describing as a smear campaign against him, just 2 days before dissolving Twitter's Trust and Safety Council. It's almost as if he wanted all that homophobic hate to overshadow the big story...

[Mussels]

You'd have to question why Musk wanted this gay activist kiddie drooler, who he defended as having 'high integrity', to stay on in the role, but then decides to run what many are describing as a smear campaign against him, just 2 days before dissolving Twitter's Trust and Safety Council. It's almost as if he wanted all that homophobic hate to overshadow the big story...

That's why it smells fishy to me, if it was important why did musk wait until then? If he'd only just found out then it looks like he tasked someone to go and find dirt on the guy. It's too much of a coincidence for me to think Musk was acting in good faith purely for the benefit of children. I understand his desire to discredit his opponents but labelling someone as a paedo is much more dangerous than publishing the location of his jet.

[Screwdriver]

If you make assertions without proof, expect to be asked for proof. You do the same for those with views contrary to yours, why should you be exempt?

If so then yes. If not then no.

I appear to have an opinion at odds with perhaps more "progressive" values. I am not asking for exemption, another example of a misrepresentation of my deciding it would be best if I do not pursue this topic. What I actually said was: "I dare not discuss anything further on this particular topic anyway since it will inevitably end up with this thread being locked."

Clearly that is nothing like suggesting the topic should not be up for debate. I have already answered the question you pose demanding I have to provide documentary evidence for any opinion I may dare to express.

You'd have to question why Musk wanted this gay activist kiddie drooler, who he defended as having 'high integrity', to stay on in the role, but then decides to run what many are describing as a smear campaign against him, just 2 days before dissolving Twitter's Trust and Safety Council. It's almost as if he wanted all that homophobic hate to overshadow the big story...

It is certainly questionable and "a bad move" either way under the circumstances. I am tempted to ask for evidence that Elon is conducting a smear campaign. I can see it all over the mainstream media of course but what has Elon actually done other than to release the Twitter files?

[Horse]

... much more dangerous than publishing the location of his jet.

Don't forget, 'doxing' ('doxxing'? Who knows?) an aeroplane is supposedly against the T&Cs of all social media. Oh - here's Mastedon advertising on Twitter ...

20221217_131304.jpg (96.03 KiB) Viewed 667 times

[Ant]

If you make assertions without proof, expect to be asked for proof. You do the same for those with views contrary to yours, why should you be exempt?

Yeah, a bit like how you did in page 9, then back pedalled into oblivion when asked to expand on it.....

[Screwdriver]

Note to self: @Ant really knows how to hold onto a grudge.

[Ant]

Note to self: @Ant really knows how to hold onto a grudge.

It's not a grudge at all, it's within the same thread. He's called out something which he himself back pedalled on.

[mangocrazy]

Note to self: @Ant really knows how to hold onto a grudge.

It's not a grudge at all, it's within the same thread. He's called out something which he himself back pedalled on.

I gave you a valid answer, but you didn't like it. At that point my involvement ceased. And in case you try to dredge it up again, that still stands.

And you very obviously do hold onto a grudge...

[Ant]

Note to self: @Ant really knows how to hold onto a grudge.

It's not a grudge at all, it's within the same thread. He's called out something which he himself back pedalled on.

I gave you a valid answer, but you didn't like it. At that point my involvement ceased. And in case you try to dredge it up again, that still stands.

And you very obviously do hold onto a grudge...

No you didn't, you squirmed and back pedalled and flounced saying that you're not going to answer me.

[mangocrazy]

You really do hold a grudge, don't you? Twenty pages and six weeks ago and it's still gnawing away at your insides. You really do need to learn how to let go.

[Ant]

As you quite rightly said, if you make assertions without proof, expect to be asked for proof. So don't get bitter when you're trying to hold someone else to the same standard which you couldn't uphold yourself.

[mangocrazy]

Do I have my own personal stalker? It does seem a bit that way. Look mate, give it a rest. It's done, it's been debated to death and last time it caused weeksy to intervene and briefly lock the thread. Let it go, it's done.

[Ant]

Do I have my own personal stalker? It does seem a bit that way. Look mate, give it a rest. It's done, it's been debated to death and last time it caused weeksy to intervene and briefly lock the thread. Let it go, it's done.

Stalker?

Am I seeing back pedalling at being held to the same standard that you tried to hold someone else to?



And no, please don't lie, Weeks didn't step in and lock the thread when I asked you for proof.

[weeksy]

FFS enough

[Screwdriver]

Back on topic. It seems the FBI had their own department at Twitter. Staffed by 80 agents to make sure nobody said anything they didn’t like.

Now what if I had made that suggestion a year or so ago? Oh. Wait. You know I think I did….

[irie]

... I'll be damned if I'm going to justify my opinion on any matter by having to refer to any or all of the evidence I may have seen ...

Refusing to provide evidence to support your opinions invalidates them. So you are damned for not doing so. Pure arrogance.

Edit: refusing

[wheelnut]

Back on topic. It seems the FBI had their own department at Twitter. Staffed by 80 agents to make sure nobody said anything they didn’t like.

Now what if I had made that suggestion a year or so ago? Oh. Wait. You know I think I did….

Assuming that’s true, what makes you think they were there to ‘make sure nobody said anything they didn’t like’?

[ZRX61]

Assuming that’s true, what makes you think they were there to ‘make sure nobody said anything they didn’t like’?

The fact that the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed two weeks before the last election & that the FBI claimed it was Russian misinformation when they absolutely knew it wasn't.

[Horse]

Assuming that’s true, what makes you think they were there to ‘make sure nobody said anything they didn’t like’?

The fact that the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed two weeks before the last election & that the FBI claimed it was Russian misinformation when they absolutely knew it wasn't.

Any possibility that they might have been monitoring for terrrrrst-type-aligned content?

And, potentially, although nominally FBI, they might actually be NSA?

In the UK, GCHQ are [probably] doing that monitoring, and it makes sense to embed staff within the organisation that facilitates promulgation of content.


Edit: 2013 was obviously a year when the security services felt it was important to be 'open'. That said, if they were prepared to say this a decade ago, the full details would have been far more involved. Oh, that could have been related to the Snowden leaks.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gchq-tempora-101

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun ... lance-work

GCHQ appears to have intercepts placed on most of the fibre-optic communications cables in and out of the country. This seems to involve some degree of co-operation – voluntary or otherwise – from companies operating either the cables or the stations at which they come into the country.

2015 (but references Snowden)
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gch ... dentities/

A summary report detailing the operation shows that one aim of the project was to research “potential misuse” of internet radio stations to spread radical Islamic ideas.

GCHQ spies from a unit known as the Network Analysis Center compiled a list of the most popular stations that they had identified, most of which had no association with Islam, like France-based Hotmix Radio, which plays pop, rock, funk, and hip-hop music.

They zeroed in on any stations found broadcasting recitations from the Quran, such as a popular Iraqi radio station and a station playing sermons from a prominent Egyptian imam named Sheikh Muhammad Jebril. They then used KARMA POLICE to find out more about these stations’ listeners, identifying them as users on Skype, Yahoo, and Facebook.

The summary report says the spies selected one Egypt-based listener for “profiling” and investigated which other websites he had been visiting. Surveillance records revealed the listener had viewed the porn site Redtube, as well as Facebook; Yahoo; YouTube; Google’s blogging platform, Blogspot; the photo-sharing site Flickr; a website about Islam; and an Arab advertising site.

[ZRX61]

Any possibility that they might have been monitoring for terrrrrst-type-aligned content?

Twitter suspended the account of the New York Post after they broke the story because the FBI told Twitter it was a Russian hoax... I don't think the NYPost is a known terrorist cell