>>103625 (lb)

>>103629 (lb)

some sanity restored today

Lin Wood:

"The apology below is accepted and appreciated.

In order to be forgiven, we must forgive.

[…]

This “incident” is now in the rear view mirror. We move forward united in our fight to FIX 2020 and to preserve our freedom."

IET:

"[…]after my review the posts have been deleted.

We The Media retracts its position and offers a sincere apology to Phil Godlewski and Lin Wood. We would also like to notify the public that the person who wrote the posts is no longer associated with We The Media."

IET:

"It wasn’t PepeDeluxe.

The name of the person will be kept private.

It wasn’t Qtah either"

IET states that one unnamed guy will be let go for writing the messages written in the collective we yesterday

hopefully this will be the end of all this

>>103743

whoever wrote that yesterday was trying to get to Lin Wood by association, for having claimed a while ago someone was posting interesting things about current events, that someone being later revealed to potentially having been involved in something nasty

this was supposedly meant to discredit Lin Wood for asking someone to reconsider their endorsement of someone else, after he discovered untowardly things in the background of that someone else

funny kind of logic

IET's retraction doesn't mention that

no ill intentions implied, just an observation

>>103747

>>103748

agreed that it could be perceived this was put out in this way because they realized they dun goofed

the part where a single guy whose name will not be revealed is said to be behind a series of posts that stayed all day yesterday and were written in the collective voice is odd too

but I don't know how their channel works

and olive branch was extended by IET and accepted by Lin Wood, so let that be that

I have nothing against named anons making a joint channel on telegram

don't like the anonymous "We" though

don't like the not owning to whoever was behind those attack posts

don't like the grandstanding of some either

>>103749

>>103748

>>103746

you're right that the name "we the media", given to an opaque structure where only some anons can post things, and where they discuss their editorial matters in background channels we cannot see, is not very much related to "we the people" or "we are the news now"

"we are the news" is "everybody is the news", completely decentralized to prevent gatekeeping

"we the media" is just a news channel ran by some anons

not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that

>>103752

agreed

as long as there is no drama, gnore

similar assessment of Lin

and a sharp guy actually

good luck with your IRL duties

'later