Musk Proposes to Buy Twitter for Original Price of $54.20 a Share

Status
Not open for further replies.
quovadis said:
Look at you, once again resorting to name calling and insults. Here's a refreshing thought, engage on the substance of the debate.
Click to expand...
There is cause for calling him such. Perhaps go follow his interaction with Matt instead. I even linked an example
 
quovadis said:
Watch the interview - Taibbi is out of his depth and Mehdi makes some damn good points.
Click to expand...
Hasan got him to admit to some errors made in the reporting, which is good, but he also made some really bad comments.

quovadis said:
Once again your own bias blinds you.
Click to expand...
Bias you say? The anti Matt bias on this thread is palpable and that solely for being one of the journalists that exposed what happened behind the scenes at twitter.
I do find it funny how people's perception of others, Hasan included, can change depending on issues such as twitter or more specifically Musk.
 
Kieppie said:
Hasan got him to admit to some errors made in the reporting, which is good, but he also made some really bad comments.


Bias you say? The anti Matt bias on this thread is palpable and that solely for being one of the journalists that exposed what happened behind the scenes at twitter.
I do find it funny how people's perception of others, Hasan included, can change depending on issues such as twitter or more specifically Musk.
Click to expand...
This is not about Musk though - it's about a reporter receiving curated content and then creating a perception which, as indicated, has factual inaccuracies and omits context or even a complete picture and paints something which simply doesn't rise to the conclusion he's created. Despite this, Taibbi still does not make correction or followup - that's simply not journalism.
 
quovadis said:
This is not about Musk though - it's about a reporter receiving curated content and then creating a perception which, as indicated, has factual inaccuracies and omits context or even a complete picture and paints something which simply doesn't rise to the conclusion he's created. Despite this, Taibbi still does not make correction or followup - that's simply not journalism.
Click to expand...
Nah the curated content is a red herring.

Hasan was also wrong in some of his interpretations.
There was more than enough follow-ups and the inaccuracies do not really detract from the overall project which was demonstrably a net positive.

And as Matt correctly pointed out, these critiques coming from MSNBC is quite ironic.
 
Kieppie said:
Nah the curated content is a red herring.

Hasan was also wrong in some of his interpretations.
There was more than enough follow-ups and the inaccuracies do not really detract from the overall project which was demonstrably a net positive.

And as Matt correctly pointed out, these critiques coming from MSNBC is quite ironic.
Click to expand...
Nah, the curated content is a valid argument unless you believe somehow the omission of presidential takedown requests were irrelevant :whistling: . As for Mehdi being wrong, what exactly did Taibbi rebutt successfully? You think that whataboutism detracts from Taibbi's failures somehow?
 
quovadis said:
This is not about Musk though - it's about a reporter receiving curated content and then creating a perception which, as indicated, has factual inaccuracies and omits context or even a complete picture and paints something which simply doesn't rise to the conclusion he's created. Despite this, Taibbi still does not make correction or followup - that's simply not journalism.
Click to expand...
Confusing CISA and CIS,of which 1 is non-governmental and actually involved,and implying millions of tweets when the actual reports were under 4k,of which most weren't even actioned,and those that were were obvious TOS violations like fraud and impersonation,and biden's team involvement was on son's nudes - wow governmental overreach huh?
Tiabbi happily reported nonsense as if fact,but Kieper doesn't care about facts
 
quovadis said:
Nah, the curated content is a valid argument unless you believe somehow the omission of presidential takedown requests were irrelevant :whistling: . As for Mehdi being wrong, what exactly did Taibbi rebutt successfully? You think that whataboutism detracts from Taibbi's failures somehow?
Click to expand...
Unless you give them the whole shebang it will count as being "curated".
If you believe that Musk, or whoever, went through all that data to scrub information that would contradict the, as yet unknown, reporting the three separate journalists will do you're delusional.

Saying it was omitted when Matt said "Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored" is disingenuous. Guess they didn't do a good enough job of "curating".
Could even recommend you donning a tinfoil hat depending on which outlet you read regarding this.
 
Kieppie said:
Unless you give them the whole shebang it will count as being "curated".
If you believe that Musk, or whoever, went through all that data to scrub information that would contradict the, as yet unknown, reporting the three separate journalists will do you're delusional.

Saying it was omitted when Matt said "Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored" is disingenuous. Guess they didn't do a good enough job of "curating".
Could even recommend you donning a tinfoil hat depending on which outlet you read regarding this.
Click to expand...
It was framed as the whole shebang - all, unfettered access. :laugh::laugh: You're once again ignoring the point, the framing of the story was government overreach which relied on factually incorrect information and feelings. And you're conflating censorship with enforcement of Twitters own terms. You cannot call Biden nudes censorship by government but you can argue Trump's whitehouse actions were and was the most prime example, but somehow ignored?

Are you able to discern objective points?
 
PsyWulf said:
Confusing CISA and CIS,of which 1 is non-governmental and actually involved,and implying millions of tweets when the actual reports were under 4k,of which most weren't even actioned,and those that were were obvious TOS violations like fraud and impersonation,and biden's team involvement was on son's nudes - wow governmental overreach huh?
Tiabbi happily reported nonsense as if fact,but Kieper doesn't care about facts
Click to expand...
Still obsessing about Hunter's nudes I see.

Hasan basically pointed out two mistakes. One was confusing CISA and CIS, which he admitted, big whoop.
CIS and CISA were in partnership with EIP (Election Integrity Partnership)

As to the "4k" claim as opposed to the 22 million from the report of "Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership". Expect Matt to address this when he returns from holiday.
Although, ironically, likely not on Twitter.
 
quovadis said:
It was framed as the whole shebang - all, unfettered access. :laugh::laugh: You're once again ignoring the point, the framing of the story was government overreach which relied on factually incorrect information and feelings. And you're conflating censorship with enforcement of Twitters own terms. You cannot call Biden nudes censorship by government but you can argue Trump's whitehouse actions were and was the most prime example, but somehow ignored?

Are you able to discern objective points?
Click to expand...
Nope. The fact that he reported on both sides using such avenues shows that they did have access to such information.
The Hunter Biden laptop was much more important as a topic at that time compared to Trumps old demands.
The suppression of the laptop story by lies, parroted by MSNBC amongst others, from the intelligence community was central to all this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X