,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
It's weird how the men who write pieces disparaging Joy Reid never actually get her side of the story correctly. Almost like they're not listening and knew what they wanted to write, no matter what she says.
They will confidently and paternalistically explain "Little lady Joy Reid says the Internet Archive was hacked, but I, wise and male, realize that's not correct." Meanwhile this whole time she's only said her *blog* was hacked.
Yes, *at first* when the content she didn't recognize showed up via Archive links, her cyber people considered that maybe the Archive had been hacked. That's how you investigate stuff, check every angle.
Oh and by the way, Wise Smug Pundits, we know that her login info *was* available on the darkweb. So...that's...actually a pretty good reason to suspect you might have been hacked.
Hell the supposed "clips from her blog" that started the whole outrage in the first place were screenshots altered by the tweeter, to put words in Joy's mouth that she was quoting someone *else* saying.
In fact it was the altering of those screenshots that led to the question of whether the Archive had been hacked in the first place, because the content in those photos did not, and still does not, appear anywhere on the blog. It was altered by the tweeter.
The bit about not liking to see men kiss? That was a quote that Joy was reporting. People running a smear campaign edited screenshots to make it appear that those were her thoughts, not a quote from someone else that she was reporting on and actually criticizing.
You'd think that an organized group running a smear campaign against a journalist, faking up screenshots to try to get her fired, would be a story all on its own. You'd think.
