1/ Yes, it is good for FB to take the action against QAnon groups. But a few things:
1) It has already metastized. Too late to contain now.
2) FB let this thing grow unchecked.
3) Remember: Other tech companies cracked down way months ago - Roku, Apple, Eventbrite.
2/ Oh and don’t get me started on pandering to right-wing.
They can’t crack down against QAnon alone. Facebook has to pair it with a crackdown on anti-fascist pages. So FB is pro-fascism?
What they shoulda done was crack down on the really far out there anti-vax communities.
3/ This is important too: In the past when Facebook has done this, they put out these numbers of pages affected.
The last time they did a big fake news crack down, they also lumped in police accountability pages. Disproportionately hit those pages.
I fear you’ll see that here.
4/ It took about 30 secs and we already found very obvious QAnon content still being advertised.
Last point: It says nothing about private/closed groups. FB has consistently misled tech reporters with this stuff. They announce these things...and it only applies to public groups
5/ And to clarify: that’s is cuz you can apparently still advertise QAnon content, even with this latest supposed crackdown.
Gee. Wonder why. Well for starters, it would affect republican candidates that have used QAnon hashtags in ads.
Beyond that: it’s cuz it’s windowdressing
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ Project 2025 shutting down policy work isn't significant because: a) the bulk of the policy work is already done. The 900 page policy book is already written; and, b) the other 3 Project 2025 pilars remain in place -- especially the Playbook pilar.
3/ Project 2025 still plans on doing personnel work and still plans on doing the training work. Essentially, Project 2025 will still be the foundation of staffing a Trump admin should he get back into office.
1/ So this might partially help explain the delay: Last evening (4/16), Fox submitted a motion to the court. The motion asked the court to allow Fox to introduce as evidence that Donald Trump and others (Trump was the only one Fox named) made the same claims about others.
2/ A previous ruling said Fox wasn't really allowed to do this and they needed to keep focus on what they did. But, Fox is asking for the court to clarify and also approve this for 2 reasons (and this is kinda amusing)...
3/ First, basically to argue that because Trump was saying it, they had to cover it. I'm not sure they will prevail here. The judge has already said they don't get to use the neutral reportage defense and that's basically what this would be.
1/ There's something incredible in the background during this Dominion trial that is at least as significant (and possibly even more significant) as the trial itself for Fox News' bottom line.
My goodness is this a doozy...
2/ As the trial is happening, Fox News will be renegotiating or gearing up to renegotiate carriage renewal with 3 cable providers -- Xfinity, Chater and Cox.
It's hard to overstate how significant this and how potentially consequential this is for Fox News' future. Here's why...
3/ The dirty secret is that Fox News is the only commercial tv channel that actually doesn't need a single adl. They could have $0 in ad revenue and they'd still have more than a 35% profit margin.
That's cuz Fox is the 2nd most expensive channel on every cable bill (ESPN is #1)
1/ Judge issued ruling on the summary judgment motions in the Dominion v Fox News case.
Fox Corp and Fox News' motions for summary judgment to dismiss the case have been denied.
Domion's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Details to follow...
2/ In its partial ruling in favor of Dominion, the court did determine statements made by Fox were statements of fact and were not statements of opinion.
3/ The court ruled that Fox News is responsible for the claims made about Dominion; but, it left open the question for the jury as to whether Fox Corporation (Fox News' parent company) is responsible.
1/Some Dems are really gonna throw Fox a life raft just as it’s drowning, huh?
If you’re Dem leader, regardless what you think, recognize you don’t need to go on in this moment.
Better off saying nothing than criticize Fox while confirming you’ll treat them same as always.
2/Recognize that “should Democrats go on Fox” debate is actually 2 distinct questions.
1) Should Democrats go on Fox? 2) Should Democrats go on Fox right now?
I can make strong case for both. But I feel like 2 is obvious. There is no valid reason for going on Fox right now.
3/If a Democrat goes on Fox right now, given all that we have seen, they should be asked and forced to explain why they will go on Fox but won’t go on InfoWars or OAN. The deliberate deceit and extremism is the same. Why give Fox a pass?
1/ Given all the recent revelations about Fox News' internal machinations from the Dominion filings, I'd like to give a sense of just how delicate this moment is for Fox..
I'll start with advertisers, then talk about cable agreements and close with likely cascading litigation
2/ Advertisers. Fox News is already suffering with advertisers quite a bit. Yea, they have MyPillow and vegetable pill sponsors. But, overall, advertising isn'tas robust as it could be -- especially for prime time.
For ex, Fox is currently Fox News' 4th biggest advertiser. Weird
3/ For the most part though, the really big and beloved brands largely eschew Fox. That said, pharmaceutical companies heavily advertise on Fox and then it's companies like @GM and @LibertyMutual that are largely left funding Fox partisan deceptions.