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.
-
-
Replying to @sheeraf
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sheeraf
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sheeraf
Can you point to the word indictment here? It's not there. So where do YOU invent the claim he's talking about the indictment when two details show he's speaking more broadly? You, not me, are guessing.pic.twitter.com/1dNzwoT2gt
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @sheeraf
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @sheeraf
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @sheeraf
Here's a definition of the word "all," which you seem to have mis-read as "indictment." You'll see "indictment" is not listed as a synonym. Glad to be of help on basic reading.pic.twitter.com/EWX9LZMOBK
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @sheeraf
Here's a link you probably should have followed before doing a so-called "fact check." It's to a report on "all" the ads. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/ … Reminder: "all" is not a synonym for "indictment."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Here's another link you should have followed before doing a so-called "Fact check." It's to the story abt the protests you got laughably wrong. See all the Hillary ads? Oh, wait. No Hillary. https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/11/01/russian-trolls-organized-both-sides-of-an-islam-protest-in-texas …pic.twitter.com/6GvVs7plld
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.