zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
I don't care whether the Washington Post is right or not on this one; but it is good to see that these people are now getting a taste of their own medicine.

Nobody from that camp was lifting a finger when "conspiracy theorists" were being banned from Twitter. People were saying that "Twitter was a private company who could ban whoever it wanted".

Here is a past thread of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31154200

>>gwn7+GU
Fwiw I checked comments of the ones that commented in your past thread and from those whoever has commented on recent Twitter threads has retained their opinion. So based on that cannot imply the people saying "Twitter can do whatever it wants" and people calling out what happens now are the same.

>>forgot+7X
You mean based on 3 people. Ok.

Btw thank you so much for checking. Since you bothered that much, why not kindly share the proof with us?

Because you see I have this little problem: I cannot believe you without seeing the material that allowed to make you this conclusion.

If you don't answer, I'm afraid I might think that you weren't being truthful.

>>gwn7+Z01
>Since you bothered that much, why not kindly share the proof with us?

3/5:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916379

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33366810

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31163090

>I cannot believe you without seeing the material that allowed to make you this conclusion.

You misunderstand something. I make no conclusion. "Based on that" refers to the thread linked. It is you making an implication. It is you that is supposed to be providing proof that those are the same people.

>If you don't answer, I'm afraid I might think that you weren't being truthful.

What's up with that? Is this an interrogation and wasn't aware of? But considering you knew they're 3, will call this dishonest.