[flagged]
[1] https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hear...
Or do you hate him just because he reports on things you don't like?
Why don't we start there. Can you express, what is the actual evidence behind the claim that soviets in the EU are faking a case against twitter, because they're mad about their sophisticated censorship getting stopped?
And again, this was all presented to congress, and wasn't meaningfully challenged. Only buried and handwaved away, as you're attempting to do here.
You're citing the general life's works of Matt Taibi as proof of your original claim, that sophisticated soviets are behind the OP story.
What precise item of Matt Taibi's corpus would you like to cite, to back up your claims?
I don't think pointing me to a three hour youtube video is a good response.
The government of course claimed it was fighting "disinformation" which is irrelevant - the 1st amendment protects all speech, true or not.
Then to add on top they were banning "disinformation" that was actually true, just politically inconvenient.
The old Twitter management was generally happy to play along since they're all on the same team, and hey "what's a constitutional right between friends"?
This was captured in emails and texts between government agencies (FBI, etc) and Twitter employees. Musk happily released it all when he bought X.
None of this is contested. How anyone can see that and say "yeah, that hack Taibi" is frankly shocking. He's one of the few journalists who actually bothered to report on it.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-...
As for the rest of your allegations, please provide evidence, as has been requested multiple times in this comment chain
I'm not sure how you think a Scotus decision is proof it didn't happen. That's not what the decision was at all - it was simply that the government can discuss moderation.
It's one thing to use that fallacious tactic on a general SM site, but do you really think it's a net gain here?
I would almost pay for an intellectually honest debate on these subjects. It's been years.
Oh, if you have a substantive argument feel free to share, just figured you were leading with your best.
Do you hear yourself? Do you think that's any kind of cogent defense? You and I both know that you're carrying water for a corrupt government. The only question is your motivation.
Sorry if I sound harsh.
How many of these do you really think are well-evidenced in reality
1) The European Union had sophisticated censorship and propaganda on twitter
2) Elon somehow shut the EU's sophisticated twitter usage
3) X/Twitter didnt (?) commit the three breaches of the DSA which they are accused of (do you accept they maybe did one or two of the three, or are all three soviet fakes?)
4) The EU are just pretending that X breached the DSA in three places, because they're mad about their sophisticated censorship being shut down.
Corrollary to 4 - The EU don't actually try and enforce the laws they write, except when the sophisticated tweeters in EU agencies write a memo to the prosecutors saying "Hey, we're mad that Elon shut down our sophisticated censorship, can you please open a case against X for three artificial breaches of the DSA we're going to invent?"
I don't accept that any of your conspiracy opinions are real or well-sourced in the real world.
1) I didn't say the EU had the operation, though there is extensive cooperation, especially as related to NGOs and the IC. I believe this all started with the Integrity Initiative which was based in England.
2) The NGOs had access directly to Twitter administration. They even had a Jira instance through which they handed down directives. Elon's purchase cut off that backchannel.
3) X may very well have "breached" the DSA. Considering one of the offenses is that they denied "researchers" the access I described above, it would seem the DSA is not exactly being weilded in good faith.
4) See above. And to be clear, by "soviet" I mean authoritarian bureaucracy. Small "s"
Accept what you like, but we both know this is real and well documented.
2) What's your evidence that this is true? Which NGO are you referring to, who are also related to today's news about the EU?
3) If we lived in a universe where X did breach the DSA, in three different ways, wouldn't that universe look very similar to the story in the OP? You say the law is not being wielded in good faith - would it change your opinion to learn that twitter are on this list
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_23_...
> 12. Providers of very large online platforms or of very large online search engines shall give access without undue delay to data, including, where technically possible, to real-time data, provided that the data is publicly accessible in their online interface by researchers, including those affiliated to not for profit bodies, organisations and associations, who comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 8, points (b), (c), (d) and (e), and who use the data solely for performing research that contributes to the detection, identification and understanding of systemic risks in the Union pursuant to Article 34(1).
It's literally the law.
And you say "not wielded in good faith" as though the EU should crack down on every single digital service which doesn't provide research access - when in fact, Twitter/X are a very large online platform.
4) You didn't really answer - do you agree that there are some EU prosecutions, which ARE NOT motivated by conspiracy reasons? In such a world, there would have to be a real, genuine, non-conspiracy prosecutor sitting in an EU office, looking for companies who are breaking the law. And if such a person exists - how do you know they aren't responsible for punishing this instance of law breaking? Why does it have to be a conspiracy? There's no evidence for it.
>but we both know this is real and well documented.
Not at all; I think you have a problem with your reasoning patterns.
Twitter originally introduced the feature because users were claiming to be other persons/companies.
And Musk completely replaced the "verification" part with paying a bit of money.