Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
The only person controlling the flow of information I see is Musk only allowing 1 person Matt Taibbi Analysis these releases that only are allowed on twitter
He is allowing 4 journalists. If it were only the NYT or only WAPO or only CNN or only CBS or or only NBC or only 5 of those, would you then believe what they concluded? I would guess, maybe am wrong, that you would. And if he only allowed FOX, I would guess you wouldn't believe its conclusions.
And the biggest reason he won’t release any of the major news organizations as he doesn’t want any scrutiny.
He is allowing scrutiny. The journalists he's allowing have all worked for major news orgs in the past. They're just as competent as any reporter that work for them now. And are not now bound by the bias of those orgs.
He’s in the camp of fake news they’re all in on it so he tries to twist it at this independent journalist is above reproach and no one needs to check his work for that would be called censorship
There are 4 and their work will be checked by all manner of news outlets, including major ones. As GS says, you will believe what you want to believe.
The government has always controlled the flow of information
This isn’t new.
Don't think you mean it, but this contradicts your first sentence in this post. In any event this statement seems to say that you're OK with government oversight and control of the flow of information that can be delivered to the public. That would be unconstitutional, and rather frightening.
The problem I see is your what you call factual evidence.
Is never based on facts .. it’s hearsay and innuendo and opinion
There’s never a smoking gun.
I was referring to your statement: "There ate more ask factual evidence in the January 6 commission report then there is an anything this woman says, but the same people who support her dismiss that report out of hand. Funny how that works" when I responded with "Do you believe the government should have the power to suppress the flow of information regarding that "'factual' evidence?"
Still trying to figure out what speech they suppressed because so far I haven’t seen any examples.
Can you give us a few?
|
O lord . . . if you don't see "debunking" the Hunter laptop story as Russian disinformation (when they knew it wasn't) in order to discredit and dismiss it is not suppression of speech, then why bother giving you any more examples--the examples, which you can find, even on google, of such suppression exposed in the Twitter files are numerous, but, very apparently, you will believe what you want to believe. Do your own research and believe what you want to believe.