So that's a "no" on actually glancing at what mainstream reporters and pundits retweet, and what the replies to those postings from so-called "conservatives" look like? Good to know.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter Rejects Claims It Snoops on Private User Data Including Direct Messages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So that's a "no" on actually glancing at what mainstream reporters and pundits retweet, and what the replies to those postings from so-called "conservatives" look like? Good to know.
You are speaking so vaguely but to drive home a very specific point against ALL conservatives, or a conservative bias that they’re all garbage amoral trolls, and with victimization in mind for the media’s defense and party snubbing all wrapped in one, for “journalists” who are anything but fault free, and were and continue to be dishonest at all costs.
I browse twitter, yes.
You have also conveniently omitted in your argument, all the liberals that call people nazis, fascists, Trumpers without brains, bots, Russians, Russian bots against things they dont like hearing.
I dont bathe myself in victimization. Or entertain peoples’ assertions like that to diminish anyone who isn’t a liberal to score pol points. Or to validate censorship against people they simply do not like.
So in that sense, yes, that’s a “no”
Last edited:
Liking or not liking them has nothing to do with their journalistic integrity, which is something they have effectively thrown away by trying to call wolf several times. Hell: We've seen them trying to undermine people who have legitimately been harmed just to push a narrative that stands to benefit bad people just because Republican or Conservative. It's absolutely disgusting; liars like him cannot be trusted.
They effectively try to lure people into speaking a narrative they have formulated beforehand, it's very calculated social manipulation with a splash of creative video editing.
People are not infallible, don't do well with secret tests, and video is very easy to manipulate into lies when the observer is unaware: people have been ranting oh they release full transcripts, well did they in the attack to undermine WP? Attempting to get people to conspire with voter fraud unknownly? What about ACORN? Absolutely not: he was granted freaking immunity for the release of those unedited transcripts. In fact, this is literally the exact same trick as before... Some of the quotes from his ACORN piece were astoundingly similar, here is one from the NYTimes:
Yet in the end it was absolute waste. Garage and waste. This is a man, who saw political slant among a group of people and instead of trying to convince the group why his political stance was better, decided the best course of action was to harm pretty much everyone involved using lies and slander... And he got away with the waste with the skin on his back.
Liars like him are a special breed and one I will never trust. They always lie bigger in an attempt to create blank voids of truth to effectively overwrite their original falsehoods. Give me someone with integrity backing this up with solid evidence and accuracy and I'm all about it; but I'm over this man-child who cried wolf one too many times. I take nothing from him with any real weight.
But, yeah, I also don't like him or them.
Last edited:
People can be manipulated and baited into conceding their company has hundreds of employees paid to look at d*ck pics, and they have abilities to snoop DMs, blackmail marriages as a use case example with detrimental impacts, etc? Things O'Keefe was strongly craving for them to say in advance, for pol brownie points?
Well then,
Color me surprised!
Oh by the way ,
Twitter clarified to Buzzfeed the account was "technically accurate but was "great exaggerated by being drunk"
https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewar...yees-are-not?utm_term=.fwL3r7dPkD#.ih5xjkKB0M
If that doesn't make you more skeptical, it ought to imo.
What a terribly msicalculated PR statement,
Did O'Keefe get Twitter PR to tell Buzzfeed that, too? THEY DIDNT EVEN OUTRIGHT DENY IT, JUST SAID IT WAS EXAGGERATED! HOW BAD IS THAT!
Last edited:
Do I doubt they have access to DMs? They probably do, but they never claimed not to.
Do I think hundreds of employees or really any are going through with unvetted access for pics? No, there is absolutely no evidence and anything produced by him is null and void to me. Like I said, give me proper evidence by someone with legitimate (or even neutral) journalistic integrity and I'll begin to care.
Obviously sarcasm here, but in your first edit, you said it yourself: they were talking to a single drunk guy; it shouldn't be too hard to walk your way around that mental fence for a beautifully engineered quote. Let's see a real employee show us what is happening. Let's see evidence, not some garbage pot stirring bull. Like I said, your words literally mirror those of the ACORN and several other garbage "ideas" he's touched:
In the end, it's always garbage waste with him. He will always be that special breed of liar.
Why isn't Twitter suing O'Keefe for defamation, if it is so blatantly un-true?
I just find it odd people who are dispositioned to be more skeptical of leakers, than of company's or individuals in question for doing and saying shady things. Because they don't want to even consider the possibility of corruption and would prefer to assume Silicon Valley/Hollywood/media is something of a utopia.
To each his own.
Just curious- Whats your view of Wikileaks?
Is their 100% track record of not falsifying documents or communication leaked, not enough?
That is your threshold for determining the truth from someone who is a complete trash liar? Proven through a history of the same tricks? Sorry, but he has shown time and time again that anything out of his mouth is garbage. Maybe this is the first time the wolf comes in and steals the sheep, but probably not. Nor am I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with such a history.
I assume people like you will drive the nail far enough, creating even more waste, that it will pan out to nothing soon enough.
Let's also not pretend he hasn't lost defamation suits in the past...
Because people view them similarly,
&What deflection? Were you and I engaging in debate? Have I not been talking about PV & Twitter in all posts in this thread but the one in which I asked you a simple question?
[doublepost=1516128942][/doublepost]
"Anything that comes out of his mouth is garbage"
so you are dispositioned naturally to side with Tech companies, over leakers. Even when the leakers are employees of the company.
Got it.
--
why didn't the controversy/scandal craved media hop all over this story? Cause they don't want to. That should tell all
I'm checking out from this discussion
you guys are happy to defend a company that employs hundred of people to look at individuals private part pics. And does shadowban non-liberals. Thats the company you revere.
So Who am I to wanna argue with someone who's happy with all that?
You are who you are, set in your ways as much as I am with mine.
Last edited:
Um no... the target of my words has been the utter piece of trash that is O'Keefe, keeping entire focus on the fact that his integrity value is nil. I've said nothing to the tune of "siding with tech companies over leakers" other than there is absolutely no evidence: show me this evidence by someone with value, a leaker with value, and the conversation will change. Stop with the straw-man crap by trying to misrepresent my affiliations from hating him to sopping up to [random hated tech company].
It's not because they don't want to, whatever that reasoning justifies... it's because O'Keefe and anything out of his mouth is trash garbage lies and others have fallen for these same tricks before and suffered as a result.
Last edited:
"A leaker with value"
so again, I guess many Twitter employees on tape in a candid conversation, isn't good enough for you as evidence of Twitter works internally. You would know better, as an outsider looking in.
You'd prefer people off the street, or forum anons to corroborate. Or just someone's emotions. Those are always compelling and, entertaining.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...luding-direct-messages.2101273/#post-25712642
If CNN parroted the same info verbatim, there would all of a sudden be no doubt in your mind.
its unfortunate you cannot be honest with me, but even more unfortunate you cannot be honest with yourself. Oh well,
If a freaking reputable Fox News reporter did, I would be willing to open the dialog. This has nothing to do with their affiliations: it's all about integrity. Of which O'Keefe has repeatedly shown he has none.
Last edited:
LOL I would regard all those as bots myself. Or people doing a good job of emulating bots.
Victimization? How is it victimization to glance at the replies to a journalist's retweet of something he found interesting? I like seeing how a variety of people view events in these interesting times we're in. One can certainly find that on Twitter.
However, I don't regard it as censorship for a site to remove comments that any sensible person would regard as beyond the pale. When I say "sensible person" obviously that's a POV and just like in PRSI, the point of view that counts is expressed in the site’s guidelines and ultimately as interpreted by the moderators.
I laugh every time someone in here says the conservatives get censored, never the liberals. I laugh because of a post of mine that was deleted once that was not liberal but might have been taken as anti-religious --even though I am not anti-religious-- and anyway did actually break a rule. It was history in short order, and deserved to be deleted, even though I had considered it satirical, not irreligious.
In other words, sometimes we can be wrong about suitability of a post even if we are not trying to be trolls or critics of an opposing political viewpoint.
So on balance I figure moderation is moderation, and there are ways to get a point across without being censored, which is a fact some social media complainants on both sides of the political fences seem not to understand today.
I don't really respect people who are disappointed if they can't scrape the bottom of the shopworn vulgarity barrel in making a political observation, so I don't feel badly for them if their cut and paste handiwork gets removed.
Bottom line if one doesn't like the heat in a particular kitchen, including heat from the mods, it's not against the law to go flame a sitting duck (or a head of state) somewhere else. I think people forget they may own the display receiving the posts to which they wish to respond, and reflecting the keystrokes they're making, but they don't own the internet, nor do most of us own the site to which we're trying to post our particular views. Our job can be to read, write or report a post, but it's up to mods to decide whether to take one down. I would not want their jobs anyway. Talk about victimization. Their job is thankless no matter who’s trying to beat them up, but they have to come up with a polite explanation of why we have been so boorish as to warrant “censorship”
^ concrete censorship isn't victimization. its censorship and calling it out in plain sight, as it should be.
( The fact that that's your first interpretation of things, is that censorship = playing the victim, and probably isn't a unique view by any means either that resonates with lots of people, is what troubles me more than you specifically having that take. it indicates to me, where we're headed societally as a whole seems... grim. )
getting upset people disagree with fake news journalists and have the ability to reply, is false victimization.
Your word play / poop attempt to turn it around on me is a FAIL
( The fact that that's your first interpretation of things, is that censorship = playing the victim, and probably isn't a unique view by any means either that resonates with lots of people, is what troubles me more than you specifically having that take. it indicates to me, where we're headed societally as a whole seems... grim. )
getting upset people disagree with fake news journalists and have the ability to reply, is false victimization.
Your word play / poop attempt to turn it around on me is a FAIL
On Twitter it's up to you to post whatever you want, and up to the mods to view reports and decide if the reported posts meet guidilnes or not. Sometimes the stuff Trump supporters object to that remains available ("liberal" comments") happen to be statements of fact, and invitations to try the shoe on to see if it fits. I can understand that as having potential to annoy. But it doesn't warrant posting cut and paste personal insults and attacks in return, and those often get deleted. Plenty of stuff put up by "liberals" or liberal-emulating bots also gets deleted. And put up again, and deleted again... I frankly usually operate with filters turned on so I never see a lot of the worst of it before it goes away. I'd rather focus on the tweets of both sides that are more to the point and skip the playground-level attacks.
Keep in mind that the Princeton Election Consortium made that claim, using their own methodology, but this was soundly rejected by Nate Silver, who said on ABC News that this claim failed to pass a "Common sense test."
CNN's own prediction system estimated that HRC had a 91 percent chance to win, while the NYT estimated that HRC had an 85 percent chance to win.
But, what's important in all of these analyses, and even in the worst ones, is that there still was the possibility that Trump could win.
This is a problem with political reporting and maybe there was too much reliance on national polls—which tend to be inaccurate, especially when compared to state polls.
But, overall, people reported accurately on the data that was available. Being a reporter doesn't mean one is always right, especially when it comes to predictions.
And, there's a tendency to conflate all reporters together as if we all work for CNN. Most of us don't work for CNN. In fact, rather few of us work in Atlanta or New York.
However, Trump and his acolytes don't care about the distinction and attack any report that goes against the Dear Leader like an allergic reaction.
Now, I'm a tough reporter whose spent some years working on tough stories in places that give most normal people pause, so if someone wants to say mean things about me on Twitter, I think it's hilarious.
But, the President is different. President Trump is attacking the media in an effort to distort the meaning of facts in order to make it easier to sell his agenda. And, his broadsides against the First Amendment has real long-term consequences, especially if we cannot agree on basic, checkable facts because someone can just cry "fake news" and hold their hands over their ears.
[doublepost=1516131562][/doublepost]
"Smoking gun" LOL. O'Keefe couldn't find a smoking gun if he were in front of a firing squad.
You’re lied to by multiple sources and multiple “credible” polls and still have the loyalty to them in you enough to provide a long winded apologetic explanation for it as a statistical hiccup / not at all a dishonesty in reporting thats still singular in view. Incredible!
Stockholm syndrome of fake news!
I think the engineer’s words stand on their own, drunk or not. That just means he was even more honest.
It’s a shame that it has to come to this- snooping, going undercover, and making political hacks vulnerable so they expose who they and their companies really are.
Why can’t they just be honest? Yeah these are private companies, and as such, 1st Amendment rights don’t extend there. But if Twitter and other Silicon Valley companies simply don’t like Conservatives or Republicans, why not just say so? It’s widely suspected anyway, so what’s with all the hush hush, behind-the-scenes shadow banning, double standards, etc? Why can’t they just be honest so people can come to their own conclusion and choose whether to use their product based on that?
It’s a shame that it has to come to this- snooping, going undercover, and making political hacks vulnerable so they expose who they and their companies really are.
Why can’t they just be honest? Yeah these are private companies, and as such, 1st Amendment rights don’t extend there. But if Twitter and other Silicon Valley companies simply don’t like Conservatives or Republicans, why not just say so? It’s widely suspected anyway, so what’s with all the hush hush, behind-the-scenes shadow banning, double standards, etc? Why can’t they just be honest so people can come to their own conclusion and choose whether to use their product based on that?
Haha. You're not a reasonable abrogator on this issue.
Or, life is complicated. But, since that doesn't fit within your crazy narratives, you reject a reasonable, mature explanation of what actually happened so that you can cry "fake news" again.
Maybe if you add more exclamation points, it will make your point more salient.
Calling one out for punctuation and speaking in general life philsophy platitudes. That’s rather petty and shy from the subject isn’t it?
Sorry the exclamation gets to you!