←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
djohnston ◴[] No.23322847[source]
The head of integrity has unabashedly showcased his strong political bias on Twitter, and I suspect things will begin going poorly for either him or Twitter shortly.
replies(6): >>23322949 #>>23322950 #>>23322971 #>>23323003 #>>23323336 #>>23323566 #
adwww ◴[] No.23322949[source]
lol what, he is biased for pointing out misinformation from a prominent public figure, after years of Twitter being criticised for allowing false information to proliferate?
replies(4): >>23322994 #>>23323001 #>>23323038 #>>23325325 #
plehoux ◴[] No.23323001[source]
I think he is referencing those tweets: https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/126545757821512499...
replies(3): >>23323209 #>>23323281 #>>23323730 #
pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.23323730[source]
That's attacking the person rather than the action - were the fact checking moderations wrong?

Sure, their personal political bias should put them up to a greater level of scrutiny; but it they can still fact check without bias.

So, have they?

replies(2): >>23326006 #>>23327007 #
free_rms ◴[] No.23326006[source]
The appearance is disqualifying on its own.

They're gonna get dragged for these tweets any time they fact check anything, even if their judgment is always impeccable.

replies(1): >>23326809 #
surfpel ◴[] No.23326809[source]
> They're gonna get dragged for these tweets

They’ll get dragged for doing anything that doesn’t align with X party. If not his tweets than something else.

Not saying people shouldn’t have common sense about what they post on a public forum tho...

replies(1): >>23327418 #
1. free_rms ◴[] No.23327418{5}[source]
Yeah, but why hand them ammo. Like you say.

I'm pretty sure most judges would recuse if they had statements like that surface.

Sections (a) (1) and especially (a) (5) here, for example: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...