It's not a matter of BELIEVING...it's been shown unequivocally that DiResta et al are at the forefront of the bureacracy that is responsible for throttling information. Censoring. What makes u think she is NOT a peddler of false narrative? Cuz she's an academic? That's precisely the issue: the illegitimatacy of all this is couched as legitimate. It's not.
It's not a matter of BELIEVING...it's been shown unequivocally that DiResta et al are at the forefront of the bureacracy that is responsible for throttling information. Censoring. What makes u think she is NOT a peddler of false narrative? Cuz she's an academic? That's precisely the issue: the illegitimatacy of all this is couched as legitimate. It's not.
This is a completely useless exchange, people can read and listen (to Taibbi, Shellenberger, DiResta, Stanford amicus at SC, etc) and decide for themselves. Waste of time engaging with you on this, I regret it. Will stop.
It's not a matter of BELIEVING...it's been shown unequivocally that DiResta et al are at the forefront of the bureacracy that is responsible for throttling information. Censoring. What makes u think she is NOT a peddler of false narrative? Cuz she's an academic? That's precisely the issue: the illegitimatacy of all this is couched as legitimate. It's not.
This is a completely useless exchange, people can read and listen (to Taibbi, Shellenberger, DiResta, Stanford amicus at SC, etc) and decide for themselves. Waste of time engaging with you on this, I regret it. Will stop.
Why do think its a waste of time I wonder?