Calling out @normative @Robyn_Greene @Richardson_Mich @astepanovich for takes on this strange thing; numbers weirdhttps://twitter.com/JakeLaperruque/status/859508747760218112 …
-
-
Replying to @JakeLaperruque @normative and
You're really not going to flag
@emptywheel for this thing that she explicitly predicted at length?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SeanVitka @normative and
Given that it's not number of individuals affected .... no
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque @SeanVitka and
How many individuals are affected?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @SeanVitka and
That's the whole point of the question - the number doesn't tell us
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque @SeanVitka and
Huh. What do you think the number tells us, Jake?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @SeanVitka and
The number of indiviual call detail records. If you have something to write I'll read it but I don't see why you think Charlie is wrong
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque @emptywheel and
As you're trying to parse this number, don't assume it's limited to phone calls. That's not what the statute says.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
Which is precisely what I said at start of thread, which Jake is disputing. It's not just phone CALLS, and it's not just CALLS and TEXTS.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.