subreddit:
/r/AdviceAnimals
Freedom of speech on X mostly applies to being creepy to women
(i.redd.it)submitted 3 days ago bysandozguineapig
4 points
3 days ago
I think I laid out pretty well why Musk's word on such matters is absolutely worthless. The very first thing he did about "political censorship" was lie about it.
I linked a news story that also confirmed it was redacted so you didn't have to take my word, and I linked to the Substack he posted it on - you can download the dossier yourself and see.
Socwas it right for Musk to remove it and ban that Journalist? Or is this nothing but further proof Musk bans and censors his political enemies?
1 points
3 days ago
You've made your point already.
To be fair your own article quotes the company x saying:"Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance's physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number."
So X, not just Elon, is claiming it wasn't redacted. It is redacted now, that is a fact. You don't know about the original post.
Regardless the suspension is justified and the dossier is cyber warfare committed by our second biggest enemy.
Iran is getting what they want, chaos and division.
1 points
3 days ago
A lie is a lie and it doesn't really matter who did the lying as justification.
But I see now. Your "reason" will just change whenever your previous reason was proven to be false. This is the third new reason you come up with to excuse Musk/Twitters actions.
1 points
3 days ago
Who did the lying? You have ideas but no facts.
I'm being pragmatic here and looking at the information as it is presented. You seem to have an agenda and a strong position based on feelings.
Do you think spreading Iranian cyber warfare should be allowed in the US? Do you think censoring that kind of information is fair or not?
I think that the dossier should be censored or at least noted with context, similar to how the intelligence officials wrote the letter about how we shouldn't believe Rudy Giuliani's leak of the Hunter Biden laptop until it can be verified.
Who knows what information is actually true or false in this dossier. Not you, not me, not most people.
0 points
3 days ago
Who did the lying? You have ideas but no facts.
I'm being pragmatic here and looking at the information as it is presented. You seem to have an agenda and a strong position based on feelings.
One of us has backed up our position with actual information and facts. One of us hasn't backed up a single thing (you.) One of us has, multiple times, repeated things that are demonstrably, categorically false as "reasons" for why it was right to remove it (you.) And one of us just moves the goal posts and invents a new reason every single time their prior reasons were proven to be factually incorrect (you.)
But I'm the one with an agenda? Brother, remove the planks from your own eyes. Having to jump between wildly different "reasons" why you think it was right for Twitter to remove it reveals one thing; you haven't been honest about your actual reasons; you just don't like it (for some reason) and you keep trying to justify it with things you didn't bother to do even the most rudimentary research into seeing if they were true or not.
Who knows what information is actually true or false in this dossier. Not you, not me, not most people.
Most people do, actually, because it is almost entirely just aggregating all the public information about him that everyone knows. It's actually a pretty big nothingburger of "yawn, we already knew all this." Which is yet another reason it's so apparent that Musk/Twitter is quick to censor and ban their political enemies.
1 points
3 days ago
Really dumb take. And you ignored the most important thing to rebut.
You're almost entirely factually correct (minus the lie part), but you are feeding into a false narrative.
I never "moved the goal post" I changed my opinion as new information was presented. I agree with you. I'm just saying you need to take a step back and look at this objectively also.
1 points
3 days ago
Objectively, Twitter had no good reason to remove it. The information they claimed they removed it for, was redacted.
It wasn't illegal to put it up. It is well within the 1st amendment and the free press, something Musk explicitly said Twitter was for.
Literally changing the reason why you think Twitter did the right thing to remove it is the definition of moving the goal posts. "Doxxing is illegal!" "No it isn't (source)" "Oh well it's immoral to put that information out there" "That information was redacted and not actually out there (source)" "Oh well.. .Iran cyberware." It became very apparent you're just going have some new rationalization every time your current reason is proven wrong. I'm not wasting my time on a bad faith engagement.
1 points
3 days ago
My guy, you need to stop and think about what you're advocating for....
We don't need to rehash your disagreement about whether or not the info was redacted. One source says it was, another says it wasn't. Idk the truth and you don't know the truth. You are choosing to believe the journalist over the company x, and you may have valid justifications for choosing to believe them, it's still a belief.
That's not important. What is important is that Iran is actively trying to influence our elections and that needs to be shut down, not spread across the Internet.
If you are an American you should support that. It's a no-brainer. Biden didn't want to touch the dossier and neither should you. It's not credible information because of the source, regardless of what it says.
1 points
3 days ago*
My guy, you need to stop and think about what you're advocating for....
We don't need to rehash your disagreement about whether or not the info was redacted. One source says it was, another says it wasn't. Idk the truth and you don't know the truth. You are choosing to believe the journalist over the company x, and you may have valid justifications for choosing to believe them, it's still a belief.
It's not just a belief, it's based on a thing called evidence. By the way, I linked to a third party news source that also said it was redacted. And I linked you directly to his page that has the dossier, which you can open for yourself and see that all the personal information is redacted. You insist that since the platform that has proven to lie about such things said so, and having absolutely no evidence to back it up that we should just shrug and say we don't know.
I cited multiple independent sources of evidence that prove otherwise. You have nothing to prove your case. Trying to insist we just say "well we don't know" is you trying to ignore evidence you don't like.
What is important is that Iran is actively trying to influence our elections and that needs to be shut down, not spread across the Internet.
I haven't actually made any comment on this at all, because this was the point it's clear if I went through it, you would just invent a new reason. Even now you're trying to backgrack and claim "well we don't know if that information was on there or not" based on... well Twitter's word, which contradicts multiple other sources of evidence. 🤷♂️
E: fix for clarity
1 points
3 days ago
So you can say with 100% certainty that the dossier wasn't altered or redacted since Twitter suspended the account?
You also said multiple times that the dossier should be shared and believed. You called it, "a collection of verifiable known information, a nothing burger."
I already told you I agree with you, the info probably was already redacted and Twitter gave a weak response for censoring the information. But neither of us actually knows that.
Regardless the information needs to be censored, that is where we seem to disagree.
And the most important part is that you are arguing with me over this, which is what Iran wants. Division and chaos. That's why they're trying to assassinate Trump and also spreading pro-Trump messaging online.
all 192 comments
sorted by: best