The twitter files that showed that accounts of conservatives got special treatment that explicitly prevented them from facing consequences of breaking site rules?
I have no idea how you cane to the conclusion that they showed any such thing. Even Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files) takes the stance that the points raised were generally showing bias against conservatives, and tries to downplay them.
Per Taibbi (https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...), the files consist of "thousands of internal documents". I was replying to a single-sentence post, making a bold, politically charged assertion about their contents, without any attempt at substantiation, which disagrees with a source that would ordinarily be biased in that poster's favour.
Expecting me to "actually read them" in this context is not reasonable and constitutes a massive shift of the burden of proof.
I have seen many times before the assertion made by that comment, but never anything resembling evidence for it. It's also not something seen in Taibbi's analysis (Taibbi is a former political columnist for Rolling Stone and the author of several books that clearly show he is no friend to "conservatives").
Plenty of people read the twitter files years ago... when they came out.
There's literally plenty of examples of exactly what the other poster was talking about.
Considering all the political triangulation you are relying on to make your point, I find it odd that you leave out that, ultimately, Taibbi and Musk fell out because of the twitter files, because Taibbi wouldn't say what Musk wanted him to say about them. Because they are by and large innocuous.
Now, on the other hand, "no" is a perfectly fine answer to which you seem to refuse to be willing to say, even when it is true, and instead you just go and link to summaries of things and pass that off as being informed, but you're not even skimming.
Like, there's no need for you to have posted that you have "no idea" how the other poster came to their conclusion based upon you only having skimmed a general summary, and then making assumptions about what you think it wouldn't contain based upon your perception of wikipedia's politics. That was your decision, not mine. So don't act like I'm imposing anything on you. You are playing detective when others are just conversing. At least do your research if you want to play officer.
>There's literally plenty of examples of exactly what the other poster was talking about.
The burden of proof is not on me.
>I find it odd that you leave out that
I have already gone above and beyond my obligation here. But what you say is not relevant, because I only seek to refute the claim that the files somehow demonstrate favourable treatment of conservatives. What Taibbi says about them, if anything, demonstrates the opposite.
>on the other hand, "no" is a perfectly fine answer to which you seem to refuse to be willing to say
This is just a condescending personal attack. A higher standard of discourse is expected on HN.
>but you're not even skimming
I read the link I gave you and it does not demonstrate anything that would evidence the original claim, while giving plenty of reason to doubt the original claim.
>and then making assumptions about what you think it wouldn't contain based upon your perception of wikipedia's politics
No. I surmised that Wikipedia, due to its politics, would have included such material if it existed, but does not include such material. This is reason to doubt the claim that such material exists, and therefore to reaffirm the demand for evidence.
>At least do your research if you want to play officer.
Again: the burden of proof is not and never was on me, and your rhetorical style is not in accord with my understanding of HN guidelines.
