Recent submissions

Comment · 7 years ago
Serious question, is there a blacklist of people deemed undesirable, being shared amongst Silicon Valley firms?
Comment · 7 years ago
"Introduction

1. Twitter is an information content provider. Twitter creates and develops content, in whole or in part, through a combination of means: (a) by explicit censorship of viewpoints with which it disagrees, (b) by shadow-banning conservatives, such as Plaintiff, (c) by knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform, (d) by completely ignoring lawful complaints about offensive content and by allowing that content to remain accessible to the public, and (e) by intentionally abandoning and refusing to enforce its so-called Terms of Service and Twitter Rules – essentially refusing to self-regulate – thereby selectively amplifying the message of defamers such as Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom and Devin Nunes’ cow, and materially contributing to the libelousness of the hundreds of posts at issue in this action.

2. Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon. Twitter knew the defamation was (and is) happening. Twitter let it happen because Twitter had (and has) a political agenda and motive: Twitter allowed (and allows) its platform to serve as a portal of defamation in order to undermine public confidence in Plaintiff and to benefit his opponents and opponents of the Republican Party. In this case, Twitter contributed materially to the illegal conduct of defamers Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom and Devin Nunes’ cow. Twitter, by its actions, intended to generate and proliferate the false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff in order to influence the outcome of the 2018 Congressional election and to intimidate Plaintiff and interfere with his important investigation of corruption by the Clinton campaign and alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election. Twitter knowingly acted as a vessel of opposition research."

Comment · 7 years ago
Patrick Moore writes:

"@Google has removed my photo and name from the "Founders of @Greenpeace". It was still there 2 days ago but now I am erased. Tech Tyranny!!..." https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1106924843189055488

"I was listed as a founder of @Greenpeace on their own websites for 20 years after I left. They only disowned me when I came out in favour of nuclear energy." https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1106654161788198918

Meanwhile Greenpeace USA writes:

"Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He does not represent Greenpeace. He is a paid lobbyist, not an independent source..." https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa/status/1105445951039303680

Wayback machine shows Patrick Moore listed as being a founder:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060514012451/http://www.greenp...

Perhaps the issue hinges on how one defines "co-founder" and what was or what became Greenpeace. It could be that both parties are correct in their interpretation.

"...Greenpeace was incorporated in May, 1972, more than a year after I joined the Don't Make a Wave Committee. I was a founding director of the new organization..." https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1106023923597172736

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton