Bari Weiss should be given a listen to

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It’s more of the same noise in your last video. supposed government, censorship coordination.

This is exactly the type of "debunking" that is used to suppress interest in a subject. Label it as "noise" and "supposed," while assiduously avoiding any attempt to give any real proof that it is just "noise.

What the twitter files show is that the government coordinated censorship is actual, not "supposed."

don’t know how anyone can say they tried to bury the New York post story

Perhaps it's because you're willfully ignorant. It's buried by willful neglect.

When a leftist talking point somehow gets released in some media outlet, within hours it is regurgitated, even verbatim, on all the other news outlets and becomes a "big story" that is discussed and given credence at least for the next week and sometimes months and sometimes it is repeated, even if not verified, ad infinitum. So the left sided population of the country, as well as many "Republicans" who depend on the "mainstream" media are conditioned to see it as credible. Fox and various "alternative" media may have the opposite opinion about its credibility, but they have been cast as purveyors of misinformation. Even more importantly, it is not blocked on social media like Twitter (but negative comments about the story may be blocked as disinformation). So a majority of the country will consider it worthy of much thought and probably true.

When something like the Hunter laptop story comes out, it is immediately dismissed by the majority of big media (which is leftist) as a nothing burger, or is sometimes aided by a deep state government acency, like the FBI, etc., claiming it as some form of disinformation (Russian, etc.) so the media can claim that the story is legitimately "debunked." Fox and various "alternative" media may cover it positively, but they too have been cast as purveyors of misinformation. And, again, the social media, like Twitter, which a growing number of people, especially younger ones, use as a, or the, news sight of choice, will block it as mis or dis information. So a majority of the country will not consider it worthy of much attention, or won't even be aware of it, and will, hopefully, dismiss it. It is thus "buried" by being dismissed in the eyes of the majority population. Mission accomplished.

Whether you think the laptop story is meaningless noise, or not, it is a story, not a false story nor Russian disinformation, it is public speech that the government should have no power to squelch on any public or private platform. If you do not see the actual danger to "our democracy" when the power of government is used to suppress speech, then you're not a true believer in our constitutionally based system of government.

when it was in print it was on New York Post website it was on other websites, but they seem to be making their entire case that Twitter, is the only source of information in the country or the world. For people to be informed?

The latest complaint is that Fauci‘s daughter worked at Twitter since 2015 so she must had something to do with Covid. It’s all just more conspiracy theories !

Labeling something as "just a conspiracy story", especially without proving it, is a way of suppressing the free flow of ideas by stopping it in its tracks--shut up, don't want to hear it, its just a conspiracy.

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.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you believe the government should have the power to suppress the flow of information regarding that "factual" evidence?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Do you believe the government should have To the power to suppress the flow of information regarding that "factual" evidence?

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

And the biggest reason he won’t release any of the major news organizations as he doesn’t want any scrutiny. 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

The government has always controlled the flow of information
This isn’t new.

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.

Still trying to figure out what speech they suppressed because so far I haven’t seen any examples.

Can you give us a few?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

Do you believe the Hunter Biden laptop is going to provide what exactly because the information on that laptop is so corrupted in the chain of custody. You can’t trust anything that’s on that, but that won’t stop you from believing it.


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.

What’s frightening is you believe that it’s actually unconstitutional for the government to control the flow of information apparently, you’ve never heard of national security, top-secret information the Manhattan project I guess in your opinion does it all need to be fed to the public? As it happens

And, like I said, the Hunter, Biden laptop story was covered by many many different news agencies, someone suggesting to take something with a grain of salt, does not equal suppression


And I’m still confused by the hunter laptop story get your goat more than what happen on January 6 maybe you can explain why one is worse than the other
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Do you believe the Hunter Biden laptop is going to provide what exactly because the information on that laptop is so corrupted in the chain of custody. You can’t trust anything that’s on that, but that won’t stop you from believing it.

So why did the FBI suggest or say or imply or indicate that it was Russian disinformation when they knew it wasn't?


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.

What’s frightening is you believe that it’s actually unconstitutional for the government to control the flow of information apparently, you’ve never heard of national security, top-secret information the Manhattan project I guess in your opinion does it all need to be fed to the public? As it happens

You just said "information" which implies all information, and the Hunter laptop info was not Manhattan Project kind of stuff.

And, like I said, the Hunter, Biden laptop story was covered by many many different news agencies, someone suggesting to take something with a grain of salt, does not equal suppression

It was "debunked" as Russian disinformation, not a grain of salt. And there is no need for the FBI to tell us, or filter through any media, about any mere grain of salt. They are not paid, nor is it their mission, to waste time telling us about mere grains of salt. So why would the FBI spread false information to news outlets other than to suppress the story, to "debunk" it?

And it was falsely covered by most major news agencies, and suppressed by social media outlets, as Russian Disinformation. The lie that it was Russian disinformation was not suppressed by them. The fact that it wasn't Russian disinformation was suppressed. Ergo, the story was suppressed sufficiently enough to dismiss it in the eyes of those who trust major media and social media.


And I’m still confused by the hunter laptop story get your goat more than what happen on January 6 maybe you can explain why one is worse than the other
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am concerned about government suppression of speech. If you can show that government suppressed information about January 6, then I would be with you in saying that was wrong.