I'm curious where you read that, but the operation I speak of is documented pretty thoroughly and was presented to congress.
[1] https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hear...
[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.