LaxPower Back-Up Stick

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:03 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 4:43 pm On the last point, sure, quality, verifiable information is a good thing...lies, misinformation, disinformation are not. Do you agree? So, not "all".

Actually, I suspect that you don't agree given your past willingness to entertain as if true all sorts of unverified claptrap, but go ahead and clarify...

We've been over this before. All information should be allowed but not necessarily tolerated/accepted as truth. That is up to the individual to determine. In some cases that determination can take time but the outlandish stuff is easy to spot and discard. I'm sure you can handle it mdlax.

Of course "fact checkers" are helpful so long as they're objective and not a tool in advancing some predetermined narrative/agenda.

The real problem, simply put, is when government decides what is "misinformation" and what "truths" the people will be allowed to see and hear. That is totalitarianism... and isn't totalitarianism something you're most afraid of mdlax?

For example, the Twitter Files uncovered this very thing. If that revelation re governmental overreach and suppression is just "unverified claptrap" in your mind, I truly feel sorry for you.

So no, I disagree with your narrow, suppressive idea of what can and cannot be allowed re information. Yep, I have an open mind, listen to and read information from many sources. Based on your track record on this board, it's understandable you would be uncomfortable with that.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:34 am Ok, "Twitter files"...what did that selective release by a known liar with a clear bias and financial interest in picking a fight actually prove? That there was communication with government and Twitter about which information appeared to be sourced from Russians and others intending harm to the American public, intended to rip off the American public? Do you want or not want government letting these social media sites with tremendous reach and algorithmic emphasis know what is actually Nigeria-based scam? Or is that just fine with you under your "all information" should be "allowed" concept

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 11:39 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:34 am Ok, "Twitter files"...what did that selective release by a known liar with a clear bias and financial interest in picking a fight actually prove? That there was communication with government and Twitter about which information appeared to be sourced from Russians and others intending harm to the American public, intended to rip off the American public? Do you want or not want government letting these social media sites with tremendous reach and algorithmic emphasis know what is actually Nigeria-based scam? Or is that just fine with you under your "all information" should be "allowed" concept

Government gave them the information, twitter made the choice as to what to run. How is this bad?

Or better still: are Americans so stupid that they don't know that the Walter Cronkites of the world made and received phone calls to the US Government all the time. Like every day? Since the day newspapers were invented.

Woodward and Bernstein made their names using a clearly biased Federal contact. Federal gave them filtered info. Bill Bradlee chose what to run and not to run.

And when they couldn't verify the info from other sources, or didn't trust it? What happened? That's right: they didn't run it.

2020 logic claims that's censorship, and the WaPo should run it all, with no decision making or filters. And if they don't? Oh, that bad, and the Republic will fall. The logic is.....breathtaking. Next level stuff.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:34 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:03 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 4:43 pm On the last point, sure, quality, verifiable information is a good thing...lies, misinformation, disinformation are not. Do you agree? So, not "all".

Actually, I suspect that you don't agree given your past willingness to entertain as if true all sorts of unverified claptrap, but go ahead and clarify...

We've been over this before. All information should be allowed but not necessarily tolerated/accepted as truth. That is up to the individual to determine. In some cases that determination can take time but the outlandish stuff is easy to spot and discard. I'm sure you can handle it mdlax.

Of course "fact checkers" are helpful so long as they're objective and not a tool in advancing some predetermined narrative/agenda.

The real problem, simply put, is when government decides what is "misinformation" and what "truths" the people will be allowed to see and hear. That is totalitarianism... and isn't totalitarianism something you're most afraid of mdlax?

For example, the Twitter Files uncovered this very thing. If that revelation re governmental overreach and suppression is just "unverified claptrap" in your mind, I truly feel sorry for you.

So no, I disagree with your narrow, suppressive idea of what can and cannot be allowed re information. Yep, I have an open mind, listen to and read information from many sources. Based on your track record on this board, it's understandable you would be uncomfortable with that.

I didn't say anything about "allowed"...that's your "predetermined narrative/agenda" getting in the way. Information is information...what I said is that quality, verified informations is a good thing...lies, misinformation, disinformation is not. And you can't get yourself to agree, right? You're going to try to move it to "allowed".
Allowed? Interesting how that simple word has triggered the board autocrat

Here's the basic difference. I treat all information with skepticism yep, me too. no difference there and therefore look to where and how it was sourced, the track record of journalistic ethics of that source, how it was verified, the expertise of the sources, etc. Not their partisan leaning, I doubt that but rather their journalistic ethics...is it a straight journalism piece or an opinion piece? If opinion, now we're looking at potential partisan bias...if straight, then I look at journalistic ethics track record, scientific reputation, repeatability, verifiability of information. obviously That's a first step in distinguishing between what to give weight to and what gets less if any weight. But it's not sufficient, as I'm open to new contrary information from equal or better quality sources. Subjective

But when sources have a track record of poor or negative journalistic ethics, or a lack of expertise, or worse a track record of phonying data, a track record of misinformation, disinformation, and outright knowing lies, then I discount heavily that information. Again, subjective. More and more, quality, independent info/news platforms are an option to MSM.

Information from those sources is clap trap until proven otherwise.
That's not government censoring, nor my censoring, it's using my noggin to distinguish between facts and fiction, truth and lies, science and snake oil. Subjective and based very much on your opinion which you're welcome to of course

And yet, it's been obvious on here that such claptrap is particularly attractive to many people, including you. One person's "clap trap" can be another's contrary information... who's to say?

BTW, on "allowed", no I don't agree that all information should be "allowed" indeed I agree with the limitations on "free speech" that libel and false advertising don't disagree and other such provide. Some information is very damaging and those who traffic in it should be held responsible for it. And that's definitely not authoritarianism. It's rule of law. Agreed

I agree that we shouldn't have a POTUS decide what is truth and what is not, who to punish and who not...that would be authoritarian.
Agreed

Ok, "Twitter files"...what did that selective release by a known liar with a clear bias and financial interest in picking a fight actually prove? That there was communication with government and Twitter about which information appeared to be sourced from Russians and others intending harm to the American public, intended to rip off the American public? Do you want or not want government letting these social media sites with tremendous reach and algorithmic emphasis know what is actually Nigeria-based scam? Or is that just fine with you under your "all information" should be "allowed" concept? Twitter... bad choice on my part since Elon is third rail with so many on this board.

Hey, if you also tell me that you want these sites to be civilly responsible for the harm they spread, removing the protections they currently enjoy, then ok with me. The litigation market will provide incentives to be responsible to spread verified information not snake oil...good with you?
Allow the so-called "snake oil" (which is a rare extreme you love to spew),,, figure it out and ignore mdlax. If someone is breaking laws it will be addressed by the proper authorities.

But no, the Twitter files didn't prove ANY government censorship occurred. Fine, you'll claim fact but I'd say that's just your opinion. Just because something can't be proven in court, that's your entrenched mantra, and more and more a dubious method of uncovering truth.

BTW, here's some of the latest "clap trap" from Taibbi:

Tracking Orwellian Change: The Aristocratic Takeover of "Transparency"

https://substack.com/browse/politics/post/136269759

Are you a Schwab admirer mdlax?

tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 8:15 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:34 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:03 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 4:43 pm On the last point, sure, quality, verifiable information is a good thing...lies, misinformation, disinformation are not. Do you agree? So, not "all".

Actually, I suspect that you don't agree given your past willingness to entertain as if true all sorts of unverified claptrap, but go ahead and clarify...

We've been over this before. All information should be allowed but not necessarily tolerated/accepted as truth. That is up to the individual to determine. In some cases that determination can take time but the outlandish stuff is easy to spot and discard. I'm sure you can handle it mdlax.

Of course "fact checkers" are helpful so long as they're objective and not a tool in advancing some predetermined narrative/agenda.

The real problem, simply put, is when government decides what is "misinformation" and what "truths" the people will be allowed to see and hear. That is totalitarianism... and isn't totalitarianism something you're most afraid of mdlax?

For example, the Twitter Files uncovered this very thing. If that revelation re governmental overreach and suppression is just "unverified claptrap" in your mind, I truly feel sorry for you.

So no, I disagree with your narrow, suppressive idea of what can and cannot be allowed re information. Yep, I have an open mind, listen to and read information from many sources. Based on your track record on this board, it's understandable you would be uncomfortable with that.

I didn't say anything about "allowed"...that's your "predetermined narrative/agenda" getting in the way. Information is information...what I said is that quality, verified informations is a good thing...lies, misinformation, disinformation is not. And you can't get yourself to agree, right? You're going to try to move it to "allowed".
Allowed? Interesting how that simple word has triggered the board autocrat

Here's the basic difference. I treat all information with skepticism yep, me too. no difference there and therefore look to where and how it was sourced, the track record of journalistic ethics of that source, how it was verified, the expertise of the sources, etc. Not their partisan leaning, I doubt that but rather their journalistic ethics...is it a straight journalism piece or an opinion piece? If opinion, now we're looking at potential partisan bias...if straight, then I look at journalistic ethics track record, scientific reputation, repeatability, verifiability of information. obviously That's a first step in distinguishing between what to give weight to and what gets less if any weight. But it's not sufficient, as I'm open to new contrary information from equal or better quality sources. Subjective

But when sources have a track record of poor or negative journalistic ethics, or a lack of expertise, or worse a track record of phonying data, a track record of misinformation, disinformation, and outright knowing lies, then I discount heavily that information. Again, subjective. More and more, quality, independent info/news platforms are an option to MSM.

Information from those sources is clap trap until proven otherwise.
That's not government censoring, nor my censoring, it's using my noggin to distinguish between facts and fiction, truth and lies, science and snake oil. Subjective and based very much on your opinion which you're welcome to of course

And yet, it's been obvious on here that such claptrap is particularly attractive to many people, including you. One person's "clap trap" can be another's contrary information... who's to say?

BTW, on "allowed", no I don't agree that all information should be "allowed" indeed I agree with the limitations on "free speech" that libel and false advertising don't disagree and other such provide. Some information is very damaging and those who traffic in it should be held responsible for it. And that's definitely not authoritarianism. It's rule of law. Agreed

I agree that we shouldn't have a POTUS decide what is truth and what is not, who to punish and who not...that would be authoritarian.
Agreed

Ok, "Twitter files"...what did that selective release by a known liar with a clear bias and financial interest in picking a fight actually prove? That there was communication with government and Twitter about which information appeared to be sourced from Russians and others intending harm to the American public, intended to rip off the American public? Do you want or not want government letting these social media sites with tremendous reach and algorithmic emphasis know what is actually Nigeria-based scam? Or is that just fine with you under your "all information" should be "allowed" concept? Twitter... bad choice on my part since Elon is third rail with so many on this board.

Hey, if you also tell me that you want these sites to be civilly responsible for the harm they spread, removing the protections they currently enjoy, then ok with me. The litigation market will provide incentives to be responsible to spread verified information not snake oil...good with you?
Allow the so-called "snake oil" (which is a rare extreme you love to spew),,, figure it out and ignore mdlax. If someone is breaking laws it will be addressed by the proper authorities.

But no, the Twitter files didn't prove ANY government censorship occurred. Fine, you'll claim fact but I'd say that's just your opinion. Just because something can't be proven in court, that's your entrenched mantra, and more and more a dubious method of uncovering truth.

BTW, here's some of the latest "clap trap" from Taibbi:

Tracking Orwellian Change: The Aristocratic Takeover of "Transparency"

https://substack.com/browse/politics/post/136269759

Are you a Schwab admirer mdlax?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:02 am And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:28 am https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/25/tech/eu- ... index.html

Tech,

I don't have an issue with what the EU is doing with DSA or their earlier privacy regs, though I also favor removing immunity from harm as my preferred way of incentivizing responsible behavior.

I do think that the EU's "stress tests" will put pressure on these companies in ways that will encourage clean up some of the worst aspects of big tech social media.

But I'd share the concern about when this could get into actual censorship by governments.

I also agree with Amazon that if they're to be included in this list, so too should other big online retail platforms.

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:12 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:02 am And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:12 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:02 am And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:18 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:28 am https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/25/tech/eu- ... index.html

Tech,

I don't have an issue with what the EU is doing with DSA or their earlier privacy regs, though I also favor removing immunity from harm as my preferred way of incentivizing responsible behavior.

I do think that the EU's "stress tests" will put pressure on these companies in ways that will encourage clean up some of the worst aspects of big tech social media.

But I'd share the concern about when this could get into actual censorship by governments.

I also agree with Amazon that if they're to be included in this list, so too should other big online retail platforms.

I'm fine with any effort to clean up any illegal online content and/or commerce. As you know, my issue is when it comes to so-called dis/mis information. Just who is it that is deciding what information is allowed to to be seen/consumed by the public? That is the incredibly slippery slope you still don't seem to get. I guarantee governments will be censoring and suppressing info as, IMO, the Biden admin has done with both Twitter and Facebook in past.

This thread is supposed to be about Biden corruption.

Here's some latest "clap trap" from Newsweek:

Joe Biden's 5,400 Pseudonym Emails—What We Know From National Archives

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-5400 ... es-1822952

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:18 am I guarantee governments will be censoring and suppressing info as, IMO, the Biden admin has done with both Twitter and Facebook in past.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 9:05 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:12 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:02 am And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Taibbi is a $5 whore who thinks he is a $5000 a night call girl. MDlax has got him exactly right. Don't remember you or anyone else on your team saying nice things about him when he was playing for the blue team.

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:18 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:28 am https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/25/tech/eu- ... index.html

Tech,

I don't have an issue with what the EU is doing with DSA or their earlier privacy regs, though I also favor removing immunity from harm as my preferred way of incentivizing responsible behavior.

I do think that the EU's "stress tests" will put pressure on these companies in ways that will encourage clean up some of the worst aspects of big tech social media.

But I'd share the concern about when this could get into actual censorship by governments.

I also agree with Amazon that if they're to be included in this list, so too should other big online retail platforms.

I'm fine with any effort to clean up any illegal online content and/or commerce. As you know, my issue is when it comes to so-called dis/mis information. Just who is it that is deciding what information is allowed to to be seen/consumed by the public?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 9:06 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:12 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:02 am And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 9:28 am
As to these emails, I understand why you're taking this bait, but do you think DOJ hasn't had access for the past 5 years? It's not as if these sorts of inquiries about Joe and Hunter weren't present throughout the Trump admin, right? Were they simply totally inept? Or do you buy into the newest stuff that Sessions and Barr were "in on it" too?

Don't they already have Hunter's emails?? Did Joe use these pseudonyms with him?? Were they referred to by him? Did his business partner who testified get emails from Joe under these pseudonyms? Nope...

This is mudslinging at its worst...at some point maybe something will stick, but the motivations are painfully clear..."retribution"

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 4:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 9:06 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 8:12 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:02 am And you know what I think of Taibbi.

He's purposely removed himself from editorial oversight. That's his prerogative, and, like you, I'd defend his right to do so. But for me, he removes himself from journalistic rigor. I also don't see him owning up to his errors, again a breach of journalistic ethics. I see him as a sensationalist, not journalist, relying on clicks to earn a living not trust. So...I don't trust his 'reporting'. Doesn't mean he doesn't have interesting opinions, it's just that they tend to grossly overstate in order to get attention, IMO.
Yes, your opinion but please, "journalistic rigor"? Such bullsh!t. Taibbi is a fine, trust-worthy journalist. You just don't like what he says because so much goes against the establishment grain. You're piling on along with so many others that he pi$$ed off by his association with Elon, whom you all hate. The current establishment position.

During the Twitter Files hearing, Plaskett threatened Taibbi when he wouldn't reveal his sources (sounds like some journalistic rigor to me) and not long after was visited at home by an IRS agent. Just a coincidence I suppose? You OK with that? Apparently Taibbi had been cooperating on some minor tax issues when IRS made that coincidental house call. That never happens. Not even Hunter received that sort of personal attention.

Nope, Taibbi hasn't had editorial oversight since he left Rolling Stone, and that was very light oversight. They don't have a strong record and he was one of the most 'out there' writers. He's always been more sensationalist than journalist, an attention seeker. None of that makes him " a fine, trustworthy journalist". And no, I find his writing often interesting and sometimes aligned with my own views, though nearly always overstating and exaggerating for shock value. My issue with calling him a "journalist" has nothing to do with the particular views he's putting out there at any given time, it's whether his 'reporting' is factual vs grossly over stated.

The Twitter matter is a good example of gross overstatement and twisting of selected 'facts' (and errors) to put forward conclusions that are way beyond reality. All to get attention and promote a particular narrative. I get it that you resonate with that narrative, but when a journalist gets his facts wrong, he should admit his errors and strive to do better...he doesn't. Instead he only acknowledges errors when directly challenged and dismisses them as inconsequential.

And no, I don't want any journalist threatened for not revealing sources. However, the "threat" was in regard to perjury, a crime which does carry jail time potentially. Taibbi had made material ("foundational" according to Plaskett) misstatements to Congress and Plaskett was pushing him to prove what he said was based on facts not his agenda. It was not about not revealing his sources...unless you think asking him directly whether he'd had communications with Elon Musk, now owner of Twitter, is asking him to reveal his sources...She offered him the opportunity to correct and complete the record, as she and her colleagues have no prosecutorial powers though they can refer matters to the DOJ.

She certainly would have no capacity to send the IRS after him. And no, I don't think the IRS became more aggressive because they didn't like his testimony...and no, I don't think there's a global cabal of blood drinking pedophiles running the world either.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... i_redacted

Gotta love Plaskett

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and thus must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. The defense is rarely proven, even though the claim is relatively common when grand jury testimony gives rise to perjury charges."

The Democratic Party’s Crucifixion of Matt Taibbi

"In March, Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger were called to testify before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government. While Taibbi was testifying on March 9, an IRS agent visited his house in New Jersey.

Taibbi discovered that the IRS opened a case against him on the day he published his Christmas Eve Twitter thread from a letter House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel inquiring about Taibbi’s case. It was a Saturday. It was Christmas Eve. Taibbi did not owe taxes. The case was four years old. All this suggests that the IRS case was politically motivated and the FBI was monitoring Taibbi."

https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the- ... um=reader2

House Democrat Threatens Twitter Files Journalist with Prosecution and Imprisonment

Rep. Plaskett, citing MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan, floats prison time for Matt Taibbi

https://www.leefang.com/p/house-democra ... ns-twitter?