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.

>>forgot+ph1
Thank you, I didn't think you would proceed with this.

Maybe I was wrong to mention the thread. Quoting myself from earlier:

> 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".

By "nobody from that camp", I wasn't specifically meaning those people in the thread I shared. There are a lot of hypocrites in that camp. Maybe those people are among them, maybe they aren't. I don't really care as I think a few people don't matter in the big picture. And that's why mentioning that thread was wrong, because it undermined my own argument.

> those whoever has commented on recent Twitter threads has retained their opinion

I don't know if this is the case. I didn't care enough to analyze.

But apparently you did. I assumed that you were insincere in the beginning but you proved me wrong. I appreciate it.

> What's up with that? Is this an interrogation and wasn't aware of?

I was trying to manipulate you into answering. Sorry about that, my tone wasn't very nice. Of course this cannot be an interrogation and you don't owe my a damn answer.