Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
6/15/2024, 10:15:42 PM
X
In reply to:
Kael
@KaelFischer
·
599d
@mtaibbi @mgkkain @LordDSofCanada In the second clause (i.e. after the 'but'), the subject is "this." I believe the intended reading is that "this" refers to the Reuters piece discussion linked by BJG.
I agree that David's (and your) TF threads do not support the narrative that alternate reading suggests.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
599d
@KaelFischer @mgkkain @LordDSofCanada No, Brie’s sentence “The Twitter Files…, but” indicates she’s saying we were the source of the “overly broad claim.” David’s thread wasn’t about left and right either - it centered on government imposition of narrative, and people like Martin Kulldorff are hardly conservative
Kael
@KaelFischer
·
599d
@mgkkain @LordDSofCanada @mtaibbi You are correct, and that is also what BGJ is saying in the post. She calls that part you quoted an "overly broad claim." It's unfortunate that BJG's post could be misread to say that TF made that claim. The main COVID TF, by David Zweig (not Matt):
David Zweig
@davidzweig
·
1136d
1. THREAD:

THE TWITTER FILES: HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE

– By censoring info that was true but inconvenient to U.S. govt. policy
– By discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed
– By suppressing ordinary users, including some sharing the CDC’s *own data*
David Forrester
@mgkkain
·
599d
@KaelFischer @LordDSofCanada @mtaibbi "*pro-vax* misinformation from libs targeting conservative-leaning skeptics should’ve been avoided"

This is false Because the skeptics ran the range of the political spectrum. I saw left right and center get censored for opposing the goverment position on shit.
Kael
@KaelFischer
·
599d
@LordDSofCanada @mtaibbi What was the lie, in that post. She seems cagey and throws shade generally around, but I didn't notice the lie.
Lord DS
@LordDSofCanada
·
599d
@KaelFischer @mtaibbi It's not about conflict. It's just that once again, BJG is blatantly lying and calling it a fact.

The statement and its context involve a substantive engagement with public issues, specifically the discussion around the Twitter Files and their implications on public discourse, censorship, and government influence. The tone is critical and defensive, aiming to clarify and counter a critique regarding the interpretation of the Twitter Files.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the defensive tone could escalate tensions.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does involve a critique of another's argument.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion; it is more focused on defending a position.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in dialogue and critique but borders on personal attack by calling the critique 'ridiculous.' [-1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech and engages in public discourse responsibly, though the tone could be more constructive. [+1]