Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
I've been calling for more fairness and transparency in social media for years. Of course the tweet is irrelevant; its only purpose is to catch Fauci in a "lie." And as usual it's the anti-vax loons who are lying.
I don't think you realize how much DC controls information.
-Fauci's daughter worked for Twitter
-John Podesta's niece worked for Twitter "Trust & Safety"
-former FBI general counsel James Baker was Twitter's deputy legal counsel
-former CIA and FBI operative Jeff Carlton was Head of Twitter's Strategic Response Team
People take jobs in their areas of expertise. That's not an intelligible theory of how the government controls one website, much less how it controls information.
What makes you think it wasn't the company's strategy to be a vehicle to control/influence government, and hired people accordingly? Private companies do that all the time from defense to technology, etc. in other areas. Except instead of trying to influence something like what direction future weaponry strategy goes, this was intended to influence and suppress the political and public policy direction through a coordinated manipulation of information by government and non government actors. Ironically, this is how agencies like the CIA and foreign intelligence services have influenced countries around the world for decades.
What makes you think it was? My explanation is simpler. Defense and technology companies are trying to sell weapons and technology. There's no obvious reason why suppressing political speech would be good for Twitter's bottom line.
You can't be serious. Its literal value, while rarely if ever profitable, is as an influencer in politics and culture. It's been preached since the beginning.
The literal value is the audience and the data it provides.
Wrong. The value is what you are allowed to do with that audience and data within its short messaging platform. You know, influence. From consumer and business products and services (ads), social trends, sports, public policy, politics, etc. Well before COVID, J6, or any of the recent hot buttons, Twitter was trying and being used to counter "misinformation". The question then, and as we are finding out more, who were the arbiters of misinformation, hate speech, censoring, etc. and who/what determined what did and didn't deserve to be suppressed through algorithms and evaluation teams. Then there's the why.
The fact you can't first acknowledge how easy that is to manipulate, and/or that it was, is mind boggling. As a private company it was fine until it colludes with political forces and government actors to support outcomes. At the bare minimum it functions as a media like entity (which it carries protections from being), or advocacy service. At the worst, a shadow enterprise functioning similar to a political/policy front operation.