No, I didn't.

I was noting that regime propagandists infamously destroyed their credibility over the past few years
>"Nobody outside of (my) group has any credibility and should be shunned"

^ These are not the same statements. Be less dishonest.

Taibbi IS one of the most prominent journalists who has built up a significant reputation and following for putting integrity and truth above partisanship and for showing a willingness to report uncomfortable truths about government and politicians.
You hate that, so you pretend hes not a 'real' journalist. Its transparent and invalid.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 9 2022 12:53pm

In one sentence you claim that people who reported negatively about Trump(which was every legit journalist) destroyed their credibility, in another sentence you claim that it's not true that those outside your small group of Trump supporting, establishment-hating people are being shunned by your pronouncement of a test again those people.

I know it's hard for you to step back and realize this, but Taibbi is not an objective journalist. The fact that you love him and enjoy every substack post he makes is further evidence that he's not a real journalist. And posting a couple Twitter pics of more right-wing aligned people's opinions does not help your case.

I don't know why it's some big hurdle to accept that a real journalist should view these Twitter files. Unless you think there's going to be information that conflicts with the narrative put forth by the "journalists" you love.

Lol do you think anyone is persuaded by this overtly dishonest spin?

Yeah just a bunch of trump loving right wing outlaws like..checks notes.. a radical Libertarian, a journalist who used to work for the Young Turks , Matt Taibbi who wrote a book called "Insane Clown President", and Noam Blum.
'You all love drumpf' is as pathetic as it gets.

Just admit you have no argument or integrity and call it a day.

If I'm the one with no integrity, why does the call for review of these documents by an objective journalist offend you so much?

Any observer here can look at the characters you listed and understand that they are all pro-Trump or anti-establishment folks. Why would letting someone with a little more objectivity and credibility in upend things?

Unless, of course, you are hoping that the only people who access the Twitter files are people who align with your viewpoint.

I've been thinking... if Musk had the goods for proving that Twitter censored right-wingers and not left-wingers, Bari's thread would've included that. The fact that her thread does not include it tells me that it probably wasn't the case. I could be wrong, but that's the issue most relevant for most right-wingers, so not including evidence of it probably means it didn't happen.

If that is true, we're faced with a bunch of internal Twitter dialogue that doesn't tell us anything new and is creating bullshit narratives for the right, which is probably what Elon wants, because he's obviously aligned with the right.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 9 2022 10:14pm

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601368195583344641

The entire thread of batch 3. While it focuses on Trump, some of the most damning stuff doesn't have to do with him
for a trump example;


And yet just like Ice was denying above, they were simultaneously allowing left-wing pundits and accounts to post doubts about election credibility / accusations of rigging;



But one of the most blatant and obvious ones has to be this Eric Holder tweet;

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601375904651182080



Which is of course precisely the kind of 'election disinformation' that Twitter was vowing to crack down upon. It was legal and safe to vote by mail and there was no conspiracy to cripple the post office, and as the next week showed, mail-in votes were counted and won the election for Biden
And yet, as soon as twitter slapped an election misinformation warning label on that tweet, liberals intervened to remove it;



The missing tweets in that chain around #27 deal with how they debated censoring Mike Huckabee for a satirical tweet in which he joked about his deceased parents and grandparents voting mail-in just like him, and the twitter staff behind the scenes messaging each other to say they don't want to make exceptions for satire or jokes. They did, however, make exceptions for any liberal pundit engaging in non-satirical election denial / misinformation, so there's the double standard

Bro why don’t you just read what was released and put your foot in your mouth. Seriously….. goomshill sums up a good portion in post 137.

If you want to play the “don’t believe your eyes” game like you have been you will keep getting called on your BS like this entire thread seems to be at this point.

Another aspect is how Jack Dorsey directly denied shadowbanning of conservatives was taking place while testifying to congress under oath, while the files show conservatives were being shadowbanned exactly as they claimed.
But this could be explained in part by how Jack Dorsey appears to have held little operational control of twitter at that point and might not have known what was actually going on- we could say he wasn't lying, he was just not in charge
Which goes to show how the people who were really in charge of corporate policy were the ones in these messages directly setting it, making those decisions. That is, people like Vijaya Gadde and Jim Baker

which of course wraps a neat bow on the incestuous twitter-FBI relationship