Top Democrat Twitter Accounts Share Fake Email Stating Joni Ernst Lost Iowa Farm Bureau’s Support
Gee, why isn’t Twitter deleting these tweets with obvious fake news?
Weird. Twitter deleted a tweet from a COVID-19 advisor to President Donald Trump because he said masks don’t work. The platform didn’t allow people to post articles from The New York Post about Hunter Biden’s emails.
Yet they did nothing about a tweet shooting around with a fake email from the Iowa Farm Bureau stating it doesn’t support Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst. SO WEIRD.
Joni Ernst
.@rachelgirwin is the comms director for Schumer’s Super PAC. Here she is sharing a doctored email suggesting Joni lost the Iowa Farm Bureau endorsement.
This misinformation was shared and retweeted by @davidaxelrod, @greenfield64, and several other large accounts pic.twitter.com/bzCTk9cl2f
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 18, 2020
The Iowa Farm Bureau quickly responded to the fake email:
Recently, a fake email has been circulating through social media that Senator Ernst no longer has the support of Iowa Farm Bureau or our members. This email is fake, and any news reports that speak to its validity are false. Iowa farmers know Senator Joni Ernst understands agriculture and works tirelessly to increase the economic opportunities for Iowa farmers and rural America, and that is why the Iowa Farm Bureau was proud to designate her as a Friend of Agriculture. She continues to have our full support.
Julie Gammack, the woman who posted the fake email, deleted the tweet.
Gammack admitted she tweeted the fake email before she verified it.
How about you verify before you post something? If it seems too good to be true then most likely it is too good to be true.
Oh, wait. She gets all uppity because people called her out. But it’s okay to excuse her because so many people “spread vile lies” on Twitter, including Trump.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, lady.
… but I don’t want to play any role in disinformation if it’s not real
— Julie (@JulieGammack) October 18, 2020
The post was up for just a few minutes but since it got traction I wanted to verify so took it down. Wish we all were so mindful. Still, wouldn’t be surprised one whit if there are a lot of farmers shocked by Ernst debate performance on ag prices. https://t.co/AQEd2fxtNM
— Julie (@JulieGammack) October 18, 2020
Ironic. Many who spread vile lies about politicians’ personal lives, their adult children with addiction issues, pizza gate, and foment domestic terrorism plus the daily lies by @realDonaldTrump get all huffy with an unverified retweet. Media literacy needs to be taught to all.
— Julie (@JulieGammack) October 18, 2020
More Fake News From Democrats
Matt Whitlock, a National Republican Senatorial Committee senior advisor, pointed out other times Democrats lied and posted doctored information.
Again, Twitter has not done anything to these tweets with obvious fake news.
Here’s the full answer they cut off.
I’ve been informed that about 1,000 people have reported @elenakuhn to @Twitter because this fits their standard for labeling as deceptively edited manipulated media.
I’m hopeful they’ll do the right thing here. @TwitterSupport @TwitterDC https://t.co/LAAoXMy0Yq
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 18, 2020
Last but not least, here’s @harrisonjaime relying on deceiving voters into voting for a candidate who dropped out and endorsed Graham.
Cc @SenSchumer @amyklobuchar @ChrisMurphyCT lots of additional things for you to discuss. https://t.co/xy2YJft7DH
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 18, 2020
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I thought the cesspool removed all this kind of thing.
These are not the actions of a Left confident of victory.
She could take a job doing commercials for “Reese’s”
Sorry…Not Sorry!!!!
It’s not fake until Twitter’s “fact checkers” say its fake. That could take years.
Or before a single person can read it, who can tell? And there seems to be no way to predict which it will be. Well, OK, maybe one way.
The liability protection granted by Congress to these hosting platforms and other sites, such as this one were intended to make it unnecessary to moderate third party content.
That was and is a common sense policy. Just because some random child molester posts child porn doesn’t mean Jack or Zuck should be liable. In the first place it would be costly to set up moderation capabilities and due to time lag they couldn’t prevent only remove content.
We have entered a new phase. Now the platforms are voluntarily choosing to moderate content. This is very troublesome. Anecdotally it seems these decisions cut one way, in favor of blue policies/candidates/causes.
IMO by engaging in moderation these companies should be held not a transparent and consistent standard. Further when a posted view point is offered backed by facts the companies must come under elevated scrutiny for choosing to suppress content.
So in sum, these companies can choose to retain liability protection by refraining from moderating content or choose to moderate content without liability protection. My opinion.
The Big Tech desire is to have it both ways. They claim they are not moderating content to avoid section 230, but they do obviously moderate content.
They are heavily allegient to China. So what China wants, China gets.
Lastly, they have now unmasked themselves to show they will do everything in their power to take Trump out and give the Dems full power, else they are going to be in the sights of Section 230 or worse, breaking them up.
Money begets power. They are sowing to that increasingly, day by day.
You have it exactly backwards. The whole point of section 230 was to allow them to moderate user content. It was passed in response to an awful state court decision that the moment they do any moderation they become liable for everything they don’t delete.
And they’re going to KEEP DOING IT until the RINOs pick their balls up off the floor and DO SOMETHING.
They censored the White House Press Secretary 3 weeks before an election. They have absolutely no fear.
“”They have absolutely no fear.””
They have no integrity, they have no honor, and they lack honesty. But you’re wrong about the fear. If they weren’t afraid, (and not just about losing an election), they wouldn’t be going to these extremes.
If their balls could hang to the floor none of this mess would have happened in the first place. What they need is to get the damned things descended like those of fully grown adult males.
Their business model is manipulating people to be profiled n available, so access n profilesg can be sold to advertisers to better manipulate the people being sold.
Why would they have any notion of “tweets” other than as the manipulation they achieve?
Why do things have to be “banned?”
Why would TheTwits need to label, throttle, or block “questionable” content if their assessment of “questionable” had any weight?
Put a set of verification badges on content, n let people do what they want otherwise. Problem solved. It doesn’t have the SPLC “advances the agenda” seal of GoodThink, you know.
Their choice here, and the other tech-oligarchs, shows their inherent mindset. Informing you, so you can choose isn’t their first choice, or their second. Blocking, so you can’t see is.
It’s their world; you’re just living in it. Or so they’d like.