emptywheel

I’m not going to get into a debate with you over the indictment. My story was about the tweets of a Facebook executive in charge of ads on the platform.

Thanks. When I do that, then it will be an appropriate response. I'm not debating the indictment obviously. I'm pointing out laughable errors you refuse to even review.

We obviously disagree based on one underlying fact. You think Goldman was referencing the entirety of the indictment, and more broadly, all IRA activity on his platform. I am taking him at his word when he specifically tweeted about ads.

Aha! You've now admitted your fundamental error. Goldman was referring to "all the ads." Not "all the ads in the indictment." See your error now? Which is why it's an analytical error to use JUST the ads in the indictment to assess his claims about ALL the ads.

Again. Are you in his head? He specifically discusses the indictment. Unless he wants to weigh in (and I’m happy to hear from him). You are guessing.

Look. Maybe start by fixing your laughable Hillary at the non-Hillary anti-Islamic protest claim, bc once you do that you'll see that's another piece of evidence you ignored that he's not talking about the indictment.

The reason the protests HE discusses (that you got laughably wrong) aren't in the indictment is bc they're probably not illegal under the theory Mueller used.