why would I need to worry about them?
By you I mean democrats. The ones who donât want him to run are unlikely to have high turn out.
I donât care about democrats. I want a sane republican to run, but the party is running short on those.
Not a Trump fan either but itâs his barring some major surprise.
Besides seeing such things blocked, I would like to see the sources tracked down and exposed. It likely is not illegal but I consider it dirty tricks. I would not assume the source is the most obvious though.
I noticed the Yahoo ânewsâ reporting of this kept emphasizing Russia. Considering the dirty tricks by intelligence agencies and the FBI to create an impression of pro Russian involvement in 2020, the source of this could be either side.
If these bots are as obvious as the ones used to hawk bitcoin salespersons they would be pretty pathetic.
1). I sure wish I knew how to make some money.
2). I made a hundred thousand dollars on a ten dollar investment in bitcoin.
1). How did you know how to do that
2). My adviser is Perceval Smythe and they told me how to do that
3). I use Perceval too and he made me a millionaire
1). Great. How can I get in touch with Perceval?
1 Like
I guarantee if Trump is the Republican nominee those dems that today do not want Biden to run will still turn out to vote for him.
Trump is a great motivator for the dems who typically are blaise about voting.
What the heck business is it of the FTC to demand to know which journalists Musk has allowed to view the Twitter files? Anyone else see a first amendment problem here?
The short answer: Twitter did shady â â â â with user PII, the FTC got mad, Twitter agreed to a consent decree, Twitter violated that consent degree by releasing the âTwitter Filesâ (which contained user PII), and the FTC got mad again.
Have you read the Twitter files? I donât recall seeing any of the consumers personal data as described in that decree being published.
However I do recall communications between the FBI and intelligence agencies and congress that could be considered embarrassing to the Biden administration being published.
The obvious chilling effect of handing over a list of journalists to the Biden administration that may be seen as hostile to the political interests of that administration are very obvious.
Either there is detail that is being left out of that story, or the FTC needs to narrow their requests.
It doesnât matter what released to the public - it matters what was released to Muskâs media pals.
Yes, thatâs how a consent decree works. Itâs meant to âchillâ a company from continuing to violate the law.
Twitter agreed to the consent decree, and Musk was well aware of what it said when he decided to break it.
1 Like
The whole point is no - they donât have to narrow anything.
Twitter agreed to allow the FTC to monitor compliance - and agreed to give them basically anything they ask for, if they ask.
This FTC action was meant to chill journalists from revealing the workings between Twitter and government agencies for the benefit of Bidenâs campaign
The consent decree even mentions advertisers. That consent agreement was clearly motivated to prevent the online practice of selling user data to advertisers without their agreement.
There is a public and a constitutional interest that is involved here. Certainly the journalists review of internal memos and communications between employees and the FBI have nothing to do,with that agreement.
They have not agreed to provide anything they ask for. The FTC must prove the nexus between the consent agreement and the request.
Further, the chilling effect of handing over journalists names on the first amendment may well take precedent over any consent agreement. Otherwise, expect agreements like âwe agree to never discuss anything with journalists that might embarrass the governmentâ.
I know thatâs the narrativr youâre obligated to push, but you have to see that it doesnât make sense.
How would this âchillâ journalists? Twitter is the only entity on the hook here.
Trying to argue that the consent decree applies only to âadvertisersâ when the plain text of the agreement says otherwise is not going to work.
It has everything to do with that agreement. Those Twitter employees whose emails were released? Theyâre full of PII, too.
A. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of a written request from a representative of the Commission, Respondent must: submit additional compliance reports or other requested information, which must be sworn under penalty of perjury; appear for depositions; and produce records for inspection and copying. The Commission is also authorized to obtain discovery, without further leave of court, using any of the procedures prescribed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 29, 30 (including telephonic depositions), 31, 33, 34, 36, 45, and 69
How would it chill journalists? Their asking for a â â â â â â â list of journalists names!
I know you must defend any nefarious act of the Biden administration, but surely there are limits.
The consent decree covers consumers. It is clearly meant for users of Twitter services. It has nothing to do with employee communications prepared as part of their job. And certainly nothing to do with the FBI involvement in Twitter.
Compliance reports upon request. Not lists of journalists. That nexus has not been shown.
And? Are these journalists supposed to be secret? Whatâs the FTC going to do them?
You guys have really lost the plot entirely.
1 Like
You have to read the whole sentence, at least. But itâs the rest of the paragraph that really counts.
What you imagine it was âmeantâ to mean does not hold any legal weight.
