Matt Taibbi

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -16
1/11/2025, 1:04:07 AM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
255d
And you’re somehow implying that by saying I never saw DMs and had to sign an FTC waiver promising not to view any, that this must mean there were juicy DMs.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
255d
You’re completely nuts - I’m not “admitting” the Twitter Files were a “limited hangout” (which you should take out of quotes, because I didn’t say that) because of the obvious fact that we didn’t get every conceivable communication between Twitter and the government. I
Ayesha de Queiroz
@ayeshadequeiroz
·
255d
@flagellan @FringeViews I've been harassing him about the targeted censorship of TERFs, the moment he was announced as a publisher of Twitter Files. After 3 years he finally admits that they were a limited hangout is meaningless, because he knew before he got the files. @mtaibbi
https://nationalfile.com/matt-ta…

The statement is part of a public discourse as it engages with the debate surrounding the release of the Twitter Files and the allegations of a cover-up. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify the speaker's position and refute claims of a cover-up. The intent is to address accusations and provide a personal account of the situation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions, as it focuses on clarifying the speaker's involvement and refuting claims rather than attacking others. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It maintains a focus on the speaker's experience and perspective. [+1]
  3. 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 with those in disagreement by addressing the claims made against the speaker. It avoids personal attacks and focuses on the content of the accusations. [+1]