The Twitter Files - Part 3 - the Coup against Donald Trump

berry, you can't even answer a simple question because the answer puts an end to this fantasy post. All you can do is keep restating people's opinions while I state quantifiable facts that easily dispute those opinions.

If Twitter censored Trump in the days leading up to the election, how was he able to tweet 65 time on November 1, 2020, and how were people able to favorite and retweet those tweets over 3 MILLION TIMES?

On November 2, 2020 he tweeted 73 times and was favorited and retweeted well into the MULTIPLE MILLIONS AGAIN. How could he have more reach than almost any other Twitter user if he were censored?


You keep repeating people's nonsensical opinions, but in the face of cold hard facts, you clam up and refuse to answer the question.

Compare those days to November 2, 2017, three years earlier, in a non election year, when he tweeted 15 times and was favorited and retweeted around one million times, and it becomes clear that he actually had more reach on Twitter in the days leading up to the election. Why do you spread misinformation?

berry, you can't even answer a simple question because the answer puts an end to this fantasy post. All you can do is keep restating people's opinions while I state quantifiable facts that easily dispute those opinions.
Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

No, I am not stating people's opinions. I am stating well respected reporters conclusions after examining the facts and evidence unlike you

And you do realize don't you that Twitter activist employees, without basis, could suppress and censor the President of the United States, in the days before the 2020 election while not suppressing and censoring every single thing he tweeted.

You do understand how Twitter works, don't you? How search bans, visibility bans, etc. all work?

Because from all the misinformation you keep sharing, it is clear that you do not. Pretty sad if you ask me

I understand how twitter works well enough to see that he had MORE reach in the days leading up to the election. If he were shadow banned, he would not have been retweeted and favorited more than 3 million times a day, more than he was on the same day in a non election year. Theses are facts. Cold hard numbers. What you call "conclusions" are opinions.


Sadly it's not against the rules of the forum for you to continue to spread these lies in here, so I'll leave it at this: Reasonable people can see those factual numbers which clearly demonstrate that his reach on Twitter was not suppressed in the days leading up to the election. Saying that it was is like saying that Barry Bonds home run totals were suppressed in the year 2001, or Ben Roethlisberger's passing numbers were suppressed in 2018. The days leading up to the election were some of the most prolific days for favorites and retweets of his tweets. People need to see the tweets to be able to retweet or favorite them, so that demonstrates that he was not in fact shadow banned.

Sad but expected from you.

You can keep burying your head to the truth. And you can keep on spreading your lies. The fact remains, which any fair minded intelligent person can clearly see, that:

Files show Twitter activist employees, without basis, suppressed and censored the President of the United States, in the days before the 2020 election. This is damning evidence of election interference. Several well respected reporters reviewed the evidence and reported this including a very well respected liberal reporter who has no love for President Trump.
And Elon Musk confirmed this saying "Unequivocally true. The evidence is clear and voluminous."

That is the fact, no matter what you believe or post

You can make the text as big and colorful as you like but it's still meaningless, considering the mathematical fact that his reach on twitter was as big in the days leading up to the election as it ever was.

I understand how twitter works well enough to see that he had MORE reach in the days leading up to the election. If he were shadow banned, he would not have been retweeted and favorited more than 3 million times a day, more than he was on the same day in a non election year. Theses are facts. Cold hard numbers. What you call "conclusions" are opinions.


The days leading up to the election were some of the most prolific days for favorites and retweets of his tweets. People need to see the tweets to be able to retweet or favorite them, so that demonstrates that he was not in fact shadow banned. Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

that's not how shadow banning works. shadow banning is not a total block, that would be too obvious. it limits the reach of the account. if twitter hadn't shadow banned those tweets, how many times would they have been seen/retweeted? 4 million? 5 million? 6 million? that's the point of shadow banning accounts.

that's not how shadow banning works. shadow banning is not a total block, that would be too obvious. it limits the reach of the account. if twitter hadn't shadow banned those tweets, how many times would they have been seen/retweeted? 4 million? 5 million? 6 million? that's the point of shadow banning accounts. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

LOL No one said that he was totally blocked. If he was totally blocked he would not have been retweeted and favorited 300 times let alone 3 million. His reach on Twitter during the days leading up to the election was as great as it ever was. Greater than it was during the same dates on non election years. That's the math of the situation. Musk's bullshit lies are irrelevant. It's delusional to believe his lies when the statistics prove the exact opposite.

LOL No one said that he was totally blocked. If he was totally blocked he would not have been retweeted and favorited 300 times let alone 3 million. His reach on Twitter during the days leading up to the election was as great as it ever was. Greater than it was during the same dates on non election years. That's the math of the situation. Musk's bullshit lies are irrelevant. It's delusional to believe his lies when the statistics prove the exact opposite. Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

so internal twitter comm's showing that twitter did indeed use various tools to censor accounts are lies. interesting. what would convince you? jack dorsey admitting it? oh wait. he did!

Trumps reach during that time. The statistics. I get it. Not everyone understands math well. They'd rather let someone tell them lies.

Trumps reach during that time. The statistics. I get it. Not everyone understands math well. They'd rather let someone tell them lies. Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

i have a degree in Mathematics. and Computer Science with a minor in Business Administration. hardly an "uneducated Trump supporter".

simple question


if Trump's account's "reach" was affected .. is that censorship?

His reach was quantifiably as good during those days as it ever was. Reasonable people can see that they didn't censor him. No reason for me to keep going back and forth. Have a nice evening.

His reach was quantifiably as good during those days as it ever was. Reasonable people can see that they didn't censor him. No reason for me to keep going back and forth. Have a nice evening. Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

we'll never know because his was censored. can you quantify how that affected the election?

so internal twitter comm's showing that twitter did indeed use various tools to censor accounts are lies. interesting. what would convince you? jack dorsey admitting it? oh wait. he did! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You are wasting your breath. Nothing will convince him.

Not Matt Taibbi, a liberal journalist who dislikes President Trump reporting it.

Not Bari Weiss and several other journalists who all had access to the data and evidence reporting it

Not Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter who has reviewed the data and evidence reporting it

Not even Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter admitting it

Files show Twitter activist employees, without basis, suppressed and censored the President of the United States, in the days before the 2020 election. This is damning evidence of election interference. Several well respected reporters reviewed the evidence and reported this including a very well respected liberal reporter who has no love for President Trump.

Anyone who can't see and admit that reality here is deluding themselves