The Twitter admins have major Russiagate brain poisoning, and are incredulous to anything that appears to "exonerate" Russia.
By their own guidelines, leaked documents are legit.
What is not a violation of this policy?
We recognize that source materials obtained through leaks can serve as the basis for important reporting by news agencies meant to hold our institutions and leaders to account. As such, we defer to their editorial judgement in publishing these materials, and believe our responsibility is to provide additional context that is useful in providing clarity to the conversation that happens on Twitter.
It's 100% Russiagate. In libs' brains "hacking" is now equal to "Russian lies". Any information obtained by hacking is automatically assumed to be false (which doesn't even make sense, how do you get false info from hacking, but that's libs).
I'm 99% sure the "this may have been obtained by hacking" tagging is an automated process, because it tags the most random bullshit possible, including apolitical shitposts. It's similarly inaccurate to the "this may contain sensitive information" image hiding algorithm, and just as vague and incoherent.
What is that even supposed to mean?
"The people who control this information didn't want you to see it."
The Twitter admins have major Russiagate brain poisoning, and are incredulous to anything that appears to "exonerate" Russia.
By their own guidelines, leaked documents are legit.
deleted by creator
It's 100% Russiagate. In libs' brains "hacking" is now equal to "Russian lies". Any information obtained by hacking is automatically assumed to be false (which doesn't even make sense, how do you get false info from hacking, but that's libs).
I'm 99% sure the "this may have been obtained by hacking" tagging is an automated process, because it tags the most random bullshit possible, including apolitical shitposts. It's similarly inaccurate to the "this may contain sensitive information" image hiding algorithm, and just as vague and incoherent.