In Bizarre Response, Twitter Tells Trump It Does Not "Shadowban" Even As It Confirms It Does

Fri, 07/27/2018 - 11:01

IN response to growing outrage over the practice of "shadow banning" conservatives, as confirmed last week by the liberal publication VICE and promptly tweeted about by President Trump, Twitter issued a strange explanation to "set the record straight," where they explicitly state that they do not engage in the practice - except then they describe how they do exactly that.

"People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?”

The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster." -Twitter

Then, Twitter reiterates they don't shadow ban - with the caveat in parentheses that you may need to go directly to the timeline of some users in order to see their tweets. (tee hee!)

"We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology." -Twitter

In other words, Twitter says they don't shadow ban - it's just that tweets from people you follow may never appear unless you click directly into their timeline.

The first clip features a former Twitter software engineer who explains how/why Twitter "shadow bans" certain users:

Abhinav Vadrevu: "One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don't know they've been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content."

"So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don't know if Twitter does this anymore."

Then there was Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:

“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

https:// www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-27/bizarre-response-twitter-tells-trump-it-does-not-shadowban-even-it-confirms-it-does

Dershowitz: Who Leaked The Trump Tape?

07/27/2018 - 10:43

Someone leaked the lawyer/client confidential tape containing a conversation between President Donald J. Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen. A former judge, assigned by the presiding judge to evaluate the seized tapes, reportedly concluded that this conversation was privileged. Yet someone leaked their contents. The President Trump's current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, then waived the privilege as to that tape. He said he never would have waived it had its existence and content not been improperly leaked.

So, the question remains: Who leaked this privileged material? If it was anyone in the Trump camp, there would be no violation of confidentiality, as the privilege belongs to the client, namely Trump, who can waive it. But no one else, most especially his lawyer, may properly waive the privilege. And Giuliani has categorically denied that it was leaked by Trump or anyone on his behalf. Indeed, he has expressed outrage at the leak.

Whom does that leave? Cohen is an obvious suspect, although I am confident that his excellent and experienced lawyer, Lanny Davis, would not have done so. Perhaps Cohen himself, who ran into Michael Avenatti at a restaurant, told him about the tape. We simply do not know.

It is unlikely that any judicial or prosecutorial authority is responsible for the leak, because they would have more to lose than to gain if they were caught.

The reason this is important to all Americans, beyond the immediate parties to this taped conversation, is that it may well discourage clients, patients, penitents and others from confiding in their lawyers, doctors, priests and the professionals who promise them confidentiality. Cohen promised confidentiality and yet the world heard what his client confided in him. We know he recorded the confidential conversation without the knowledge of his client. That is bad enough. Then it was deliberately leaked by someone who must have believed he or she would reap some benefit or advantage from having the public hear it.

We must find out who is the source of this damaging leak — damaging to all Americans who place their faith in the promise of confidentiality from the professionals in whom they confide.

It is an ethical violation, subject to serious sanctions including disbarment, for a lawyer to disclose, or cause to be disclosed, privileged conversations. And for good reason. The obligation of a lawyer not to disclose confidential information is codified in Rule 1.6 of the New York Bar. This broad rule prohibits, subject to exceptions not present in this case, any knowing disclosure of confidential information. That plainly covers the kind of conversation we have all now heard in the leaked tape: namely, the discussion between Trump and his attorney as to how to deal with a potential messy problem. We may not like the subject matter under discussion, but it is fully covered by the privilege, as the former Judge rightly found. That is why this leak is so difficult to fathom. The risks to the leaker are greater than any short-term benefit. But the fact remains that the leak occurred, and now it is imperative that the leaker be exposed and held to account.

Read More: https:/ /www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-27/dershowitz-who-leaked-trump-tape

>>2310449

4 am

>>2310523

She playing hard to get. Not good.

>>2310622

Lisa Lisa Lisa … what did you promise girlfriend. Don't back off now. Your have only one real friend now. Save yourself, they already did and it don't include you.