While I understand if the author has uncharitable views about Elon Musk, Signal so far has been objective in its coverage of events. Which is why it surprised me that "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate" is called "shitposting".
Could u explain how is it shitposting, when
1. it was censored by twitter,
2. it was proven to be correct later,
3. the consequences of it had significant effect on US elections?
4. There was nothing derogatory or abusive in what Musk said.
While I understand if the author has uncharitable views about Elon Musk, Signal so far has been objective in its coverage of events. Which is why it surprised me that "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate" is called "shitposting".
Could u explain how is it shitposting, when
1. it was censored by twitter,
2. it was proven to be correct later,
3. the consequences of it had significant effect on US elections?
4. There was nothing derogatory or abusive in what Musk said.
I just read the quartz link which was referenced to this section. It is totally uncritical of Twitter's censorship while invoking woman and Indian identity of the lawyer responsible for it. Smells like bias to me.
While I understand if the author has uncharitable views about Elon Musk, Signal so far has been objective in its coverage of events. Which is why it surprised me that "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate" is called "shitposting".
Could u explain how is it shitposting, when
1. it was censored by twitter,
2. it was proven to be correct later,
3. the consequences of it had significant effect on US elections?
4. There was nothing derogatory or abusive in what Musk said.
While I understand if the author has uncharitable views about Elon Musk, Signal so far has been objective in its coverage of events. Which is why it surprised me that "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate" is called "shitposting".
Could u explain how is it shitposting, when
1. it was censored by twitter,
2. it was proven to be correct later,
3. the consequences of it had significant effect on US elections?
4. There was nothing derogatory or abusive in what Musk said.
While I understand if the author has uncharitable views about Elon Musk, Signal so far has been objective in its coverage of events. Which is why it surprised me that "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate" is called "shitposting".
Could u explain how is it shitposting, when
1. it was censored by twitter,
2. it was proven to be correct later,
3. the consequences of it had significant effect on US elections?
4. There was nothing derogatory or abusive in what Musk said.
I just read the quartz link which was referenced to this section. It is totally uncritical of Twitter's censorship while invoking woman and Indian identity of the lawyer responsible for it. Smells like bias to me.
While I understand if the author has uncharitable views about Elon Musk, Signal so far has been objective in its coverage of events. Which is why it surprised me that "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate" is called "shitposting".
Could u explain how is it shitposting, when
1. it was censored by twitter,
2. it was proven to be correct later,
3. the consequences of it had significant effect on US elections?
4. There was nothing derogatory or abusive in what Musk said.