I tweeted today that "the [sedition-hunter] individuals/groups mentioned by Bloomberg are great follows [on Twitter]." I stand by that—even though some anonymous folks I don't know are now saying I declared "war" on them by recommending folks follow them. The internet is strange.
There are a lot of people out there who say "follow me and do *not* follow them," and then try to claim that "they" are "frauds." That's what these anonymous folks chose to do for some reason. What I did today—and will keep doing—is recommending folks I think are worth following.
That said, if you have a high-traffic Twitter feed and mostly just want to do your work and leave it at that, sometimes folks come at you anyway to build their own following. As they're doing it, they always say they're not. So sometimes these fake "wars" are planned—I hate that.
I don't want to be in a fake "war" with anyone in order to build their profile online, especially when they're anonymous, so I don't even know who I'm talking to—and they can attack me but they can't be criticized because they've chosen to be anonymous to avoid any such pushback.
All of which is to say I stand by what I said: the folks Bloomberg mentioned are worth following, and the fact that their focus is a bit different from PROOF is more than fine as long as both the foot soldiers and the politicos behind January 6 get arrested as they deserve to be.
That doesn't mean I won't block people who lie about my feed, my background, my motivations, my research. I don't have time to get in fake arguments with anonymous collectives—and won't allow this feed to be a welcome mat for whatever manufactured tilt some folks are angling for.
That's all I've got to say about it. But I figure folks deserve to know why they've been blocked, and why some folks who've never said a word about my feed in the 6 years I've been doing the work I've been doing here are suddenly saying things about me they've never said before.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
