Bus Driver
Bacon Quality Control Specialist
Good thread -
Now that Musk owns Twitter
- Thread starter Hard On The Wind
- Start date
Dog 2.0
Super Anarchist
- 4,965
- 805
“The original promise of the Internet was that it might democratize the exchange of information globally. A free internet would overwhelm all attempts to control information flow, its very existence a threat to anti-democratic forms of government everywhere.
What we found in the Files was a sweeping effort to reverse that promise, and use machine learning and other tools to turn the internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role”. … Matt Taibbi
What we found in the Files was a sweeping effort to reverse that promise, and use machine learning and other tools to turn the internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role”. … Matt Taibbi
From a Twitter thread by Seth Abramson, via threadreaderapp.
...
I’m seeing a lot of tweets today that imply what Matt Taibbi has been doing with Elon Musk is “journalism” and therefore discussion of it should track with discussions of journalism (e.g., as to revealing sources). In fact, Musk is a known unreliable source who gave Taibbi...
...partial access to internal Twitter data that would further the narrative Musk wanted in the public view for personal and financial reasons. Taibbi, for the sake of subscriptions to his Substack, then went on to present only information that would please his Substack readers...
...and all of this has been proven. Musk withheld internal data from Taibbi that had previously been reported on by The Guardian and showed a systemic *far-right* bias at Twitter.
And Taibbi was *repeatedly* caught framing his narratives to please Musk and his Substack audience.
The project that Taibbi embarked upon was not a journalistic project; it was corporate stenography. House Democrats were absolutely correct in implicitly *rejecting* the notion that source protection was an issue here and in focusing on Taibbi’s *financial motives*. None of us...
...is obligated to treat as journalism that which in its very parameters rejects journalism. To be clear, a journalist can move between journalistic and non-journalistic projects; many is the journalist who’s written fiction or poetry or memoir instead of any genre of journalism.
Maybe one day Matt Taibbi will *return* to journalism. He will do what journalists do: reject unreliable sources like Elon Musk; reject corporate initiatives disguised as journalism; insist on full access to a data-set rather than partial access; stop putting fraudulent frames...
...around data for the sake of pleasing an audience; stop ignoring other journalists and subject matter experts when they issue corrections on his reporting; stop appearing on networks that are political propaganda organs rather than legitimate news organizations. Last night...
...Taibbi plugged his PR work for Elon Musk and Twitter on a farcical propaganda program run by failed politician, washed-out Secret Service agent and scary aggro disinformation barker Dan Bongino. His pearl-clutching over not being treated as a journalist is genuinely pathetic.
Matt Taibbi has been a journalist long enough to know the difference between getting an exclusive and being a corporate tool.
And he’s been a journalist long enough to know that his “reporting” on Russia was repeatedly filled with Kremlin propaganda and false statements of fact.
Taibbi had a choice when Trump came to power: continue being a journalist or (a) take a run at more money than he had ever seen in his life while (b) shilling for a country he lived in for many years, engaged in a lot of misconduct in, and clearly feels a connection to (Russia).
He chose the latter, and now he can’t live with his decision, so everyone else must be smeared: critics of Twitter; House Democrats; journalists who lost respect for him; experts on the Trump-Russia scandal who’ve repeatedly called out his lies; onetime admirers who turned away.
As with every invented scandal on the right—which is more or less all that social media has time to deal with on a daily basis—the outrage from the Taibbi camp is just a massively disingenuous waste of time based on false pretenses, frames and presumptions. But it’ll still trend.
My question is why we treat any of this as surprising rather than an ancient tale: billionaires come calling on people of principle waving around untold sums of wealth directly or indirectly and some folks sell out and some don’t. Taibbi and Greenwald sold out, period, full stop.
...
I’m seeing a lot of tweets today that imply what Matt Taibbi has been doing with Elon Musk is “journalism” and therefore discussion of it should track with discussions of journalism (e.g., as to revealing sources). In fact, Musk is a known unreliable source who gave Taibbi...
...partial access to internal Twitter data that would further the narrative Musk wanted in the public view for personal and financial reasons. Taibbi, for the sake of subscriptions to his Substack, then went on to present only information that would please his Substack readers...
...and all of this has been proven. Musk withheld internal data from Taibbi that had previously been reported on by The Guardian and showed a systemic *far-right* bias at Twitter.
And Taibbi was *repeatedly* caught framing his narratives to please Musk and his Substack audience.
The project that Taibbi embarked upon was not a journalistic project; it was corporate stenography. House Democrats were absolutely correct in implicitly *rejecting* the notion that source protection was an issue here and in focusing on Taibbi’s *financial motives*. None of us...
...is obligated to treat as journalism that which in its very parameters rejects journalism. To be clear, a journalist can move between journalistic and non-journalistic projects; many is the journalist who’s written fiction or poetry or memoir instead of any genre of journalism.
Maybe one day Matt Taibbi will *return* to journalism. He will do what journalists do: reject unreliable sources like Elon Musk; reject corporate initiatives disguised as journalism; insist on full access to a data-set rather than partial access; stop putting fraudulent frames...
...around data for the sake of pleasing an audience; stop ignoring other journalists and subject matter experts when they issue corrections on his reporting; stop appearing on networks that are political propaganda organs rather than legitimate news organizations. Last night...
...Taibbi plugged his PR work for Elon Musk and Twitter on a farcical propaganda program run by failed politician, washed-out Secret Service agent and scary aggro disinformation barker Dan Bongino. His pearl-clutching over not being treated as a journalist is genuinely pathetic.
Matt Taibbi has been a journalist long enough to know the difference between getting an exclusive and being a corporate tool.
And he’s been a journalist long enough to know that his “reporting” on Russia was repeatedly filled with Kremlin propaganda and false statements of fact.
Taibbi had a choice when Trump came to power: continue being a journalist or (a) take a run at more money than he had ever seen in his life while (b) shilling for a country he lived in for many years, engaged in a lot of misconduct in, and clearly feels a connection to (Russia).
He chose the latter, and now he can’t live with his decision, so everyone else must be smeared: critics of Twitter; House Democrats; journalists who lost respect for him; experts on the Trump-Russia scandal who’ve repeatedly called out his lies; onetime admirers who turned away.
As with every invented scandal on the right—which is more or less all that social media has time to deal with on a daily basis—the outrage from the Taibbi camp is just a massively disingenuous waste of time based on false pretenses, frames and presumptions. But it’ll still trend.
My question is why we treat any of this as surprising rather than an ancient tale: billionaires come calling on people of principle waving around untold sums of wealth directly or indirectly and some folks sell out and some don’t. Taibbi and Greenwald sold out, period, full stop.
phillysailor
Super Anarchist
- 9,739
- 4,508
I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why the date Taibbi decided to write Elon’s press releases is important, or why we must get Taibbi to recognize what he is doing ain’t journalism.
This splitting hairs to own a fakebertarian ain’t worth it if it means real journalists have to give up their sources, too.
This splitting hairs to own a fakebertarian ain’t worth it if it means real journalists have to give up their sources, too.
dfw_sailor
Super Anarchist
I'm confused because I am a late entrant to this part of the discussion, and I'm not going to go back to work out what the kerfuffle is....
I took a look at reason just now.
On their front page, with prominence, is an article about how wrong the CDC was about masks for COVID.
A scientific review shows the CDC grossly exaggerated the evidence supporting mask mandates
An authoritative review of randomized controlled trials contradicts the CDC's claim that face masks dramatically reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection.
reason.com
I believe the study referred to is recognized as being fundamentally flawed because of the 18 databases referred to, 17 were studies of influenza virus transmission, and iirc correctly - I read about it 1-2 weeks ago - the 1 db/study which did include COVID data and influenza.. the authors heavily criticized the way the data was misused.
But the article is authored.
Am I supposed to be content with reason posting trash articles prominently with a banner, just because they have a link to the author?
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
So far, the only evidence I have for your claim is one anonymous guy on the internet saying it's "trash" with no evidence, which seems familiar somehow.
Maybe this time there will be evidence? Meaning, a non-anonymous source?
Sincerely,
Tom Ray from Punta Gorda, FL
It is clever how you've included a messenger attack and critique of why messenger attacks aren't helpful into one post. Well done.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
Journalists have special rights.
That's why there are disputes about whether they have a pink flag on their boat and stuff like that.
dfw_sailor
Super Anarchist
Excerpt from the statement..
"Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation".
You could have looked it up yourself, because this is actually been around for 4 weeks as a story.
And yet the reason article is still there, unchanged, promoted etc.
So again, you said reason has never failed a fact check. I look first time and immediately find a garbage article, that is pushing an idealogocially driven, factually incorrect article.
But that's ok because the article has an author?
Sincerely.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
Excerpt from the statement..
"Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation".
You could have looked it up yourself, because this is actually been around for 4 weeks as a story.
And yet the reason article is still there, unchanged, promoted etc.
So again, you said reason has never failed a fact check. I look first time and immediately find a garbage article, that is pushing an idealogocially driven, factually incorrect article.
But that's ok because the article has an author?
Sincerely.
I figured that providing a source for your claim was your responsibility, not mine.
And you did! But it does not refute anything in the Reason article you cited, which does not say that "masks don't work" at all.
It seems to me to support the headline claim, which is that the CDC exaggerated the benefits of mask mandates.
The CDC didn't characterize the results of mask mandates as inconclusive.
Clove Hitch
Halyard licker
A blast from past! 3 yrs ago:
Bus Driver
Bacon Quality Control Specialist
Well, he didn't specify which April.
I just went for a stroll through Elmo's tweets. He's seriously fucked in the head.
...
Twitter now replies to all press emails with an automated poop emoji, The Daily Beast has confirmed. CEO and professional tweeter Elon Musk announced the shift early Saturday in a tweet, although he didn’t explain if any inquiries will be followed up with genuine replies. Given Twitter’s staffing mass exodus, perhaps there isn’t a press person left to respond.
...
Twitter now replies to all press emails with an automated poop emoji, The Daily Beast has confirmed. CEO and professional tweeter Elon Musk announced the shift early Saturday in a tweet, although he didn’t explain if any inquiries will be followed up with genuine replies. Given Twitter’s staffing mass exodus, perhaps there isn’t a press person left to respond.
Bus Driver
Bacon Quality Control Specialist
Well, since he took over, the amount of shit shared has increased. Exponentially.
And, Dog likes that.
And, Dog likes that.
Sol Rosenberg
Girthy Member
Dog 2.0
Super Anarchist
- 4,965
- 805
Have any newspapers been banished for reporting the truth?
Dogs love it when their info is sold.
