Sunday, May 8, 2011

Daily Mail [REDACTED] into twitter madness


Following the outing of various details regarding super injunctions by @injunctionsuper as reported on this blog, the Daily Mail, a UK based news outlet, have tried to stir up the gossip with a story about another tweeter @superinjunction.

I don't quite get what has happened because I never known Twitter to redact tweets - they tend to to delete them completely - so reading some of the comments have been redacted is either:

a joke
alarming
the beginning of censorship on twitter

I trust it is the first one.

6 comments:

  1. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
    Dr.Katherina Gaspar.

    Brilliant work. Nice to see someone with cojones. Is it possible to find out if the McCanns or Paynes have a Super Injunction on this statement. This is part of the PJ files and released when the case was shelved. This witness statement is in the book of Goncalo Amaral and explains why the McCanns are spending so much money trying to keep this book from reaching British shores, public opinion would change over night and they know it. With Kate McCann now trying to sell a book I believe it is only fair the British public should know about this statement. Online we know of its existance unfortunately Joe Public does not.

    Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I pretty much guarantee that Twitter is not censoring the tweets, and that [REDACTED] was in the original text. It's a joke account.

    What's happened here is that the Daily Mail has become confused, thinking that @superinjunction is the user everyone is talking about rather than @injunctionsuper, and making wild guesses rather than actually doing any research.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Have you thought that the Mail may have set up that account deliberately, reported on it in order to give clues to the real account. The press have clearly been itching to get these stories out for ages.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The @superinjunction account has been around since last August at least - look at the timestamps on the tweets. I don't think the account belongs to the Daily Mail.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Avaragado is right - I stumbled across the @superinjunction account the other day and it had details there at the time. This must've been within the past week. However, the DM claims that it's nort Twitter that's redacting the tweets. Wonder who it is...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding the initial comment above, if you read the Gaspars' statements with an open mind they prove absolutely nothing. Indeed, it seems the husband is a LOT less certain about what the wife claimed to have seen than she was. Whatsmore these documents aren't inducted, they're in the public domain.

    More sick conspiracy theorising and finger-pointing aimed at the parents of an abducted child, I'm afraid.

    Presumably you get some kind of sick kicks from posting such poisonous rubbish.

    Cojones my arse.

    ReplyDelete