Matt Taibbi

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -16
1/11/2025, 1:18:35 AM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Mathew
@Mathew2338
·
255d
@ayeshadequeiroz @mtaibbi Get in touch with @Robertpandev for assistance, I was having the same issue with my account and he helped me.
Ayesha de Queiroz
@ayeshadequeiroz
·
255d
@mtaibbi My twitter account was suspended, so the only place I could harass you was Substack. That was me, The Woman In Purple who constantly poked at you to make sure the decade of targeted censorship of TERFs in Twitter Files were covered. It was our only hope of real proof.
Ayesha de Queiroz
@ayeshadequeiroz
·
255d
@mtaibbi Please don't block me before I finish, because I'm sure you will when this is done. You covered Loudoun County, Virginia, you interviewed Kara Dansky. You saw how TERFs were targeted for censorship and how Big Tech allowed all the rape death threats against us. You experienced it
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 by @mtaibbi addresses public concerns about censorship and the limitations of the Twitter Files, which are relevant to public discourse on transparency and media accountability. The tone is defensive, aiming to clarify the constraints faced during the investigation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm intentionally, but the defensive tone could be perceived as dismissive, which might not fully align with the principle of doing no harm.
  2. 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 attempts to engage in dialogue by explaining the limitations faced, but it does not address the concerns raised constructively and could be seen as dismissive of the criticism. [-1]
  3. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement acknowledges the limitation of searches, which is a form of acknowledging a shortcoming, but it does not fully address the concerns about potential bias or oversight. [+1]