throwaway20875

>Yes, you can argue that Twitter exhibits double standards in some instances. But it has nothing to do with the original debate you and I were having which is - what was the reason Greenwald's article was not published.

It absolutely is relevant. There is clear coordination between these organizations to suppress information. You can't look at the bannings occurring across multiple media platforms simultaneously (multiple instances) and not draw this conclusion. Further, there's a revolving door between government agencies and media companies - this industry is carrying water for the powers that be.

>Also, Trump's tax returns were not hacked

What is social engineering? You're arguing in trivial semantics and missing the forest for the trees.

Hacked was never a legitimate threshold for suppressing information before someone in power was threatened.

>That is false. The suppression on Twitter was based on the argument that the data was allegedly hacked, was not verified and they were being cautious. You are also ignoring the fact that even conservative leanings sites like Wall Street journal passed on the story.

So the "Collateral Murder" video, by that standard, would be suppressed too? And any mentions of it, even in private messages, would also be suppressed?

And then comes the double standards - "allegedly hacked" - Trump's tax returns and his wife's phone conversations were published and not suppressed shortly before the story on HB broke. And to be clear, because I'm sure your programmed knee-jerk reaction here will be to default to team politics, Trump's tax returns absolutely deserved to be published.

Whatever your stripe of politics, you're eventually (and painfully) going to realize that you're being systematically fed a wave of lies. WMDs (no one jailed), GFC (no recovery, no one jailed), Guantanamo (still open), drone strikes in 75+ countries (still going), NSA spying (still going), Snowden (still innocent, still a political refugee), Epstein (didn't kill himself). Crickets from the media, zero accountability. Wake up.

>The argument was never about whether a story like that was news worthy or not.

That's an interesting take. Articles and mentions were suppressed near IMMEDIATELY on Facebook and Twitter followed by waves of accounts bannings. Mandarins of the US security apparatus (some of which who draw compensation from media companies) were waltzed out to claim it was Russian disinformation (lol).

>You can click through and the article in question was Greenwald attempting to give oxygen to GOP propaganda about Hunter Biden.

Photos of drug fueled sex romps with prostitutes by the president's son are newsworthy. Same goes for his investments and work in foreign countries. The lack of investigative journalism into Hunter Biden is the product of something far worse than what Greenwald is covering. This has zero to do with the false Democrat/Republican dichotomy - this is powerful people that are doing things that the proles cannot, while being shielded by the same people tasked with holding them accountable.

>Being “right” but unconvincing because of abrasiveness is just screaming into the void, or worse, into an echo chamber. If he can’t create an article that wins people over with reason then why write the article at all?

Good question. Perhaps the answer is that we're beyond convincing at this point. A product of dispersion. We Americans all drifting apart economically, politically, and in how we perceive reality. As to where that leads us - likely chaos.

Matt Taibbi is pretty good.

>I'm honestly surprised more folks haven't seen through his shtick yet, as they saw through Taibbi's.

They're right though. One-eyed men in the land of the blind. Being right matters more than a politely crafted message.

Further, you're attacking the messenger and not the point/substance of the message. Weak.