Twitter suspends the official account of the AZ Audit
twitter.com
twitter.com
"existing news media" is saying there is no such thing as voter fraud, so they are not covering it.
So much news today is actually prompted or pulled from twitter/social media.
When the vast majority of media is left biased [0] it would be hard to have a decent amount of the population hear what you are finding.
Twitter probably now believes that @arizonaaudit has 'lost' this right. (You don't own your Twitter account anyway) But I'm sure even @arizonaaudit saw this coming in the first place.
This is unsurprising since Twitter themselves have already admitted that they have a left-bias. From the CEO [0]: 'I fully admit our bias is more left-leaning'.
They are obviously not the last but because this Twitter account leans from 'the other side', its fine to get rid of them from Twitter. /s
Their platform, their guidelines, their rules.
[0] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...
"But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added.
So either he is full on lying or he thinks we are too stupid to understand the difference?
It's hard for me to believe that this account was suspended for any real "violation". I guess they will say that the people running the audit are spreading misinformation, but the whole point of the audit is to figure out what's true, so isn't twitter taking a side here? Is that ok? I don't think so. If the audit has no basis in reality, as many claim, then it will fail. Why is it so dangerous to allow people to watch that happen?
In the dictionary definition, yes. But the problem with this "audit" is filled with such corrupt cast of characters that their results can not be trusted. Sadly they're abusing the name of the process to be able to claim that their results will be authoritive.
> If the audit has no basis in reality, as many claim, then it will fail.
And who determines that it's a failure? An audit of the audit? Ironically them making a crooked "audit" allows them to be able to turn around and say the people auditing them are the crooked ones.
A meta-audit also has to be financed, and the people living in reality-based world might not even be that bothered enough to do so, which results in this fake audit be the truth in the "alternative facts" half of the society.
Not that I'm arguing that Twitter is right in banning them...
Can you please clarify what you mean by people involved being untrustworthy, and/or other arguments against this process? I honestly fail to see any problem with auditing election results, since as far as I know there is no actual remedy regardless of the results, and it seems to me like verifying accurate results is a good thing.
Of course if there is some corruption, fraud, or similar going on with ANY kind of auditor, I'd like to know.
> The “forensic audit,” as Senate GOP leaders are calling their review, is overseen by Cyber Ninjas, a small computer security firm with no election experience before Trump began questioning the 2020 results. Its CEO, Doug Logan, spread false conspiracy theories about the election before he was hired to lead the Arizona review.
https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-arizona-gove...
It is abundantly clear that this is not what the 'audit' is about. The effort is about overturning the results of a legitimate election through propaganda and lies.
Unfortunately "news" outlets are little more than publicity arms for political parties now, much like Twitter. There's a good reason why the majority of Americans don't trust the media.
>The results go on to show that 59% of Americans said they agree with this statement: That “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.” And 61% of Americans think that “The media is not doing well at being objective and non-partisan.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2021/02/20/fewer-ameri...