.png "back to home page")
China's three state-owned carriers will turn on the country's first 5G networks in about 50 major cities on Friday, putting China way ahead of other nations in deploying the superfast cellular technology.@stuwoohttps://t.co/CTfnY1SAo9
— Jonathan Cheng (@JChengWSJ) October 31, 2019
5G in China allows for distance surgery: “Two robots accurately planted 12 guide pins into the patients’ spines...The signal transmission ran smoothly during the surgery without latency, despite the distance of over 1,000 miles.”
— Scott Kennedy (@KennedyCSIS) November 1, 2019
https://t.co/COosRzeIZg
China announces its rolling out 5G today.
— Gerry Shih (@gerryshih) November 1, 2019
“In the middle of the trade dispute and the actions against Huawei, it’s even more important for China to show that they are continuing to move forward” @pstAsiatech says to @annafifield https://t.co/CbCzHBoht9
#China launches commercial #5G, but it’s a month late https://t.co/U81ninB3Ip
— Evan Kirstel at #xMed #SanDiego (@evankirstel) November 1, 2019
"There are mounting reasons to believe that the Chinese firms Huawei and ZTE pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security,” Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said in a speech this week."https://t.co/AD1wwiOY8D
— Theresa Fallon (@TheresaAFallon) November 1, 2019
China is switching to 5G while U.S. is struggling. I believe China will overtake the US as a Superpower in decades, since it is investing strategically in key next gen technologies like AI & renewables while US is paralyzed debating abortion rights, etchttps://t.co/gQn1bFYh8l
— Sol (@forwardarc) November 1, 2019
Chinese cellphone carriers began offering super-fast, next-generation 5G service on a commercial basis today. v @annafifield https://t.co/n7WffWbiOd
— Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) November 1, 2019
5G in China allows for distance surgery: “Two robots accurately planted 12 guide pins into the patients’ spines...The signal transmission ran smoothly during the surgery without latency, despite the distance of over 1,000 miles.”
— Scott Kennedy (@KennedyCSIS) November 1, 2019
https://t.co/COosRzeIZg
China Mobile is selling 5G at a 30% discount to 4G – and that's just one of the reasons that #5G in China could expand far more quickly than in the US and elsewhere. https://t.co/ZRYCF1n7zM? pic.twitter.com/2A1fbBM3T3
— Mike Dano (@mikeddano) October 31, 2019
"Operators in China and South Korea are mainly using midband spectrum like 3.5GHz for their 5G buildouts, while operators in the US are using bands ranging from 600MHz to 28GHz because there isn't much available midband spectrum for 5G in the US." https://t.co/zBqVPtW9qQ
— Tren Griffin (@trengriffin) November 1, 2019
ACLU sues FBI, DOJ over facial-recognition technology, criticizing ‘unprecedented’ surveillance and secrecy https://t.co/8pFuANtQ34
— Rich Tehrani (@rtehrani) November 1, 2019
My column at @washingtonpost today https://t.co/ItWNs0CVpK @USAinKSA
— Ali AlAhmed (@AliAlAhmed_en) November 1, 2019
And the dirty deals keep coming! #RebelResisters
— purple teacher #ProtectOurDemocracy (@peaceandteachin) October 26, 2019
Company with ties to Trump’s brother Robert awarded $33 million government contract - The Washington Post https://t.co/NQuvm1eDbq
#OneVoice1
— SAVE AMERICA (@vietthanhsports) November 1, 2019
Opinion | Every House Republican just ignored their oaths of office
A party devoid of principle.https://t.co/b4nHbkWhtA
New developments confirm it: Pompeo and Barr are all in on Trump’s corrupt scheme (https://t.co/QzGTVPiyxl)
— The Christian Left (@TheChristianLft) November 1, 2019
TCL: All three of them need to go. This is ridiculous. We... https://t.co/FJuDHNTKHm
As one Washington Post writer asks, 'Could Lindsey Graham be any more shameful?' (https://t.co/1wznzDlEkl) let's recall how he felt about impeachment back in '98 pic.twitter.com/EMPLJXzBdI
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) October 25, 2019
we Need your help.
— Maiquel.2509 (@Maiquel59232858) August 3, 2019
⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇#CFRP#HavEmbassyForThePeople
20 mil familiashttps://t.co/rsXvSEgBX1 pic.twitter.com/MiWySXmnIL
https://t.co/rsXvSEgBX1
— Maiquel.2509 (@Maiquel59232858) August 19, 2019
After almost two years of having stopped the #CFRP, thousands of families that were invited to participate in the program are still waiting for their cases to be resolved.@realDonaldTrump@MarcoRubioCuba@RepDMP @USRepKCastor @WHAAsstSecty @StateDept
25 years ago today my little man arrived. He wasn't very well at the time. https://t.co/q6Q0cR8jUW…/drawing-dc-together/wp/201… Doing fine now though. He is the baby who taught me to draw. I love him very much. That should embarrass him nicely. pic.twitter.com/jpKDbQcLU4
— Richard Johnson (@newsillustrator) October 31, 2019
Breaking: #Peruvian loggers charged with #Saweto murders in #Peru, after five years https://t.co/cP8GYaqk5v
— Coimbra Sirica (@Coimbra_) October 31, 2019
I am a fan-Alice Neel’s captivating double portrait “Two Girls in Spanish Harlem” makes deep, human connections. By @SebastianSmee https://t.co/Lrbvcclgwc pic.twitter.com/5gkhhztQuJ
— alain servais (@aservais1) November 1, 2019
China is turning on 5G tomorrow.
— Stu Woo (@stuwoo) October 31, 2019
While the U.S. already has 5G, China is about to leapfrog America in 5G service - and it won’t be close. China will have # 130,000 major cellular sites by the year’s end. The U.S. is projected to have 10,000.https://t.co/HDxRAhUyxC
China's three state-owned carriers will turn on the country's first 5G networks in about 50 major cities on Friday, putting China way ahead of other nations in deploying the superfast cellular technology.@stuwoohttps://t.co/CTfnY1SAo9
— Jonathan Cheng (@JChengWSJ) October 31, 2019
China Is About to Switch On 5G. It’s Behind the U.S., but Not for Long. https://t.co/5IOo2wxPR4 pic.twitter.com/Hr4iO1492O
— Rich Tehrani (@rtehrani) November 1, 2019
China's turning on its first 5G networks this Fri. China Mobile, China Telecom & China Unicom will open 5G network for public use in about 50 major cities, including Beijing and Shanghai. https://t.co/kaBm3w2E3v By @stuwoo
— Yoko Kubota (@Kubota_Yoko) October 31, 2019
#CyberDigest | China Is About to Switch On 5G. It’s Behind the U.S., but Not for Long. | @stuwoo | https://t.co/j4iVgYNI63
— ASPI Cyber Policy (@ASPI_ICPC) November 1, 2019
State of #5G in China:
— CaliCali2000 (@CaliCali2000) October 31, 2019
?50 Chinese cities will have 5G starting tomorrow
?Rates starting at $18/month
?130,000 5G base stations by the end of the year (US will be 10,000)
?250 million 5G users by the end of next year #infrastructure #technews https://t.co/D86XWoUOr3
China Is About to Switch On 5G. It’s Behind the U.S., but Not for Long. https://t.co/1zLTaNVqeW pic.twitter.com/1daC2YubV9
— Bradley Leimer (@leimer) October 31, 2019
#RaceTo5G Hardly behind, actually substantially ahead....China Is About to Switch On 5G. It’s Behind the U.S., but Not for Long. - WSJ https://t.co/QXKPN8J9zJ
— Paul Triolo (@pstAsiatech) October 31, 2019
It’s almost like Zucks thought about this, and realized it’s impossible to ban political advertising since we’re in 2019 where everything is political. The controversy isn’t worth the 0.5% loss in revenue, cause the headache of what is or isn’t political will cost more. https://t.co/w8iwUkG9kN
— David Herrmann (@herrmanndigital) November 1, 2019
For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well...they can say whatever they want! ?”
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
The problem with banning political advertising is that almost everything is political. I wrote about how Twitter’s widely applauded new policy could backfire: https://t.co/Js0rbSUOfy
— Will Oremus (@WillOremus) November 1, 2019
We’ll share the final policy by 11/15, including a few exceptions (ads in support of voter registration will still be allowed, for instance). We’ll start enforcing our new policy on 11/22 to provide current advertisers a notice period before this change goes into effect.
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
Oh God but... if this doesn't work, what if we have to break up the Internet oligopoly? The horror. ;) https://t.co/PMzCNnKstY
— peterkirn (@peterkirn) October 31, 2019
A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money.
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
PSA: This is a bad decision and it won't have the impacts than anyone is talking about... Thread ?https://t.co/mzEtLN9pl5
— Jessica Alter (@jalter) October 30, 2019
We considered stopping only candidate ads, but issue ads present a way to circumvent. Additionally, it isn’t fair for everyone but candidates to buy ads for issues they want to push. So we're stopping these too.
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
Twitter wasn't the first platform to ban political ads. LinkedIn, Pinterest & TikTok made the calculation that whatever benefits are to be gained from politicians paying to reach voters, they are outweighed by the drawbacks.@CaseyNewton https://t.co/80sMksl2Oh
— Scott Galloway (@profgalloway) October 31, 2019
strong recommend. if this policy ends up in effect privileging high-follower count politicians over new entries and marginalized voices, it’s not really a ‘win for democracy’ is it https://t.co/q8TMryolBJ
— David Kaye (@davidakaye) November 1, 2019
Which is why Twitter banning political ads is woke but wrong https://t.co/DjckbHVw7M https://t.co/2xWaYIGtxZ
— Albert Wenger ??⌛ (@albertwenger) November 1, 2019
So here's Twitter's "Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead" with the incredibly alarming details pic.twitter.com/EQ3Q3Chypi
— mcc (@mcclure111) October 30, 2019
What I find interesting -- Dorsey is willing to over correct now until a better solution on political ads problem presents itself. And it'll happen with minimal impact to business. Plus, people can still tweet whatever they want. https://t.co/yXpwyWFfuN
— Steve Kovach (@stevekovach) October 31, 2019
For everyone pointing out this story: Yes Twitter was making less money from political ads than other tech companies, but no company turns its back on $2 million regardless of its revenue. https://t.co/93ovMxGiEh
— Heidi N. Moore (@moorehn) October 30, 2019
I would argue that all media should avoid political advertising all together. Google should follow Twitter. If we can not reform campaign finance, why not just make it difficult to use that cash. Just a thought. https://t.co/gmOByzmgAp
— OM (@om) October 31, 2019
Mad how impressed people are with @jack for shooting into the biggest open goal ever. I guess that's why he did it. A very effective, and not very costly, PR boost.
— Charlotte Jee (@charlottejee) October 31, 2019
The devil, as ever, will be in the details. Mark Zuckerberg being bad does not make Jack Dorsey good.
Facebook says Political Ad dollars are less than 0.5% of revenues -- based on 2019 consensus revs that is ~$350 million of political ad dollars
— Rich Greenfield (@RichLightShed) October 30, 2019
Twitter has said Political Ad dollars are less than $3 million, which implies about 0.1% of revs based on 2019 consensus $FB $TWTR pic.twitter.com/hjDgSZxolo
These challenges will affect ALL internet communication, not just political ads. Best to focus our efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings. Trying to fix both means fixing neither well, and harms our credibility.
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
Reading Jack's summary of the policy and it sounds to me like it will be legal for Shell to purchase ads but illegal to purchase ads talking about how Shell is causing global warming, because that's "political" or an "issue ad"? Uhhhhh https://t.co/tG5vHodV4q
— mcc (@mcclure111) October 30, 2019
Ads about climate change are political, Twitter says. But what about ads by oil companies, car companies, and steakhouses? They’re political too, in a sense—but not the sense that will get them banned. https://t.co/Js0rbSUOfy pic.twitter.com/JYztIylR2N
— Will Oremus (@WillOremus) November 1, 2019
While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
"Twitter was not the first platform to ban political ads. It was preceded by LinkedIn, Pinterest, and TikTok, among others"https://t.co/6oukmN5VXp
— Fabio Chiusi (@fabiochiusi) October 31, 2019
Twitter wants to ban all political advertising.
— Makena Kelly (@kellymakena) October 31, 2019
Well, Facebook did that in Washington state and it was a complete disaster. I spoke to a weed entrepreneur + a bouncy house tycoon who ran for Seattle City Council to find out why it's been such a failure.https://t.co/J3FBn3QxVH
Can I raise my hand and suggest that both Twitter and FB are wrong and that the best solution is to allow political ads but to stop manifestly false ones? ?♂️?♂️ https://t.co/hnmxQhE1EK
— Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson) October 31, 2019
A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
This is the right thing to do for democracy in America and all over the world.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 30, 2019
What say you, @Facebook? https://t.co/dRgipKHzUG
Since we are getting questions: This decision was based on principle, not money. As context, we’ve disclosed that political ad spend for the 2018 US midterms was <$3M. There is no change to our Q4 guidance. I am proud to work @twitter! #LoveWhereYouWork https://t.co/U9I0o1woev
— Ned Segal (@nedsegal) October 30, 2019
This is a very bad idea. Goading Facebook to be the speech police even more than already it is will backfire first and foremost on the left and marginalized voices and help elites consolidate their hegemony. https://t.co/YNqZpjPrin
— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) October 30, 2019
In addition, we need more forward-looking political ad regulation (very difficult to do). Ad transparency requirements are progress, but not enough. The internet provides entirely new capabilities, and regulators need to think past the present day to ensure a level playing field.
— jack ??? (@jack) October 30, 2019
This is a good call. Technology - and social media especially - has a powerful responsibility in preserving the integrity of our elections.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 30, 2019
Not allowing for paid disinformation is one of the most basic, ethical decisions a company can make.
/1 https://t.co/YtNawdnJfj
The Guardian view on political advertising: time to regulate it, Mr Zuckerberg | Editorial https://t.co/KVT91kwzOy pic.twitter.com/JXgdXOx0lO
— QuorumCall ????? (@QuorumCall) November 1, 2019
Yesterday, @Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg said the company hasn't banned political ads b/c the platform is “focused and leading on transparency.” No matter what they claim, this isn't true. https://t.co/r5GtpP3Bk8
— ashleyboyd (@ashleyboyd) October 31, 2019
Facebook Is Still Failing at Ad Transparency (No Matter What They Claim) https://t.co/W1PKZkqy5S via @mozilla
— Mark Surman (@msurman) October 31, 2019
We know quite well how Facebook's ad library works. Or doesn't work. https://t.co/n5h2rqnCvU https://t.co/vBKexg0Oeq
— Mathias Vermeulen (@mathver) October 31, 2019
Campaigns shrug off Twitter's political ad ban, but some advertisers are worried. https://t.co/zl3LiU1z45
— Adweek (@Adweek) November 1, 2019
Why Facebook’s response to Twitter ceasing political ads isn’t satisfactory https://t.co/uOOOjzEjYa
— TNW (@thenextweb) November 1, 2019
Why Facebook’s response to Twitter ceasing political ads isn’t satisfactory https://t.co/f8pFopkMjN
— TNW (@thenextweb) November 1, 2019
Implementing a ban on political ads is no easy taskhttps://t.co/yH4V2Nggpl
— Axios (@axios) November 1, 2019
Great short read. Aaron Sorkin also wrote a great piece in Nov. of '16 to his children and wife when Trump was elected. If you'd like to read it see my pinned tweet!
— ?HIPPIE 1977??TRUMPISM IS A DISEASE?? (@My_Eyes__Only14) November 1, 2019
https://t.co/TCCZcYJAsg
"And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo."https://t.co/zh8ttSR1v0
— Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) October 31, 2019
“this can’t possibly be the outcome you & I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together...”-Aaron Sorkin on #FB political ads that lie: “An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg https://t.co/Dr0fZMz9tC
— Maya Wiley (@mayawiley) November 1, 2019
"This can’t possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together," writes Aaron Sorkin in an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg https://t.co/62ezrZ0ZPu
— Karine Jean-Pierre (@K_JeanPierre) November 1, 2019
Famed writer Aaron Sorkin, who wrote “The Social Network” movie about Facebook, in an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on MZ’s view that lies are ok in political ads: “If I’d known you felt that way, I’d have had the Winklevoss twins invent Facebook.” https://t.co/AZ0qxzugxZ
— Walt Mossberg (@waltmossberg) October 31, 2019
“You’re not protecting free speech, Mark, you’re assaulting the truth.”
— Matina Stevis-Gridneff (@MatinaStevis) October 31, 2019
Aaron Sorkin’s open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on the matter of demonstrably false political ads & other content on Facebook. Must read. https://t.co/B0oBR8BjbE via @NYTOpinion
Facebook asked Aaron Sorkin to change the company's name in The Social Network, and Sheryl Sandberg tried to claim it was being unfair to a (27-year-old) "kid" https://t.co/CrxfQVI32H pic.twitter.com/FYlCOq75E1
— David Meyer - Gov.UK/registertovote (@superglaze) October 31, 2019
Sorkin empieza una carta abierta a Mark Zuckerberg con su humildad característica: "I wrote 'The Social Network' and I know you wish I hadn’t." https://t.co/hMCqPiS4cS
— Marta Peirano (@minipetite) November 1, 2019
Ya got one thing right... people should NOT be using Facebook for their news. Hell, you can’t even trust CNN and MSNBC #FakeNews
— KilllerBee ☠? (Kevin✝️) (@KilllerBee777) November 1, 2019
One thing is true ALL speech is free speech... that includes ideas you don’t like.
An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg https://t.co/Mx0g3IaCfp
"Now you tell me. If I’d known you felt that way, I’d have had the Winklevoss twins invent Facebook." https://t.co/KhK2BBiWhU pic.twitter.com/g5e70cpY5H
— Tricksy Chou ??♀️ (@triketora) November 1, 2019
Good Morning: This is a must read article about Facebook. Now we know why Trump was so mad when Twitter said they won't run political ads. https://t.co/JzRIPZ8oFH
— Lee8772-HOW LOW MUST WE GO? (@Lee8772) October 31, 2019
"The tagline on the artwork for 'The Social Network' read, in 2010, 'You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.' That number sounds quaint just nine years later because one-third of the planet uses your website now."https://t.co/bXToSWvaXM
— Travis Clark (@TravClark2) October 31, 2019
Calling for bans on speech, Aaron Sorkin attacks @facebook's Mark Zuckerberg for saying "In most cases, I believe ppl should be able to see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying and judge their character for themselves." https://t.co/Ne6PP3l9kV
— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) November 1, 2019
Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg
— Father Edward Beck (@FrEdwardBeck) October 31, 2019
Facebook isn’t defending free speech, it’s assaulting truth.
Nice piece by Aaron Sorkin.https://t.co/lviySy4ugj via @NYTOpinion
Facebook allowing lies in political ads got Aaron Sorkin’s attention. In his piece, he delivers some behind-the-scenes detail about how Sheryl Sandberg handled “The Social Network” movie.... https://t.co/qIAtqqoWoo pic.twitter.com/NPiU3CMf8U
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) October 31, 2019
Zuckerberg defends political ads that will be 0.5% of 2020 revenue – TechCrunch https://t.co/0VP37VsmdF pic.twitter.com/YsGNDVdN6N
— Rich Tehrani (@rtehrani) October 31, 2019
Zuckerberg: “Frankly, if our goal was that we’re trying to make either side happy then we’re not doing a very good job because I’m pretty sure everyone is frustrated.”https://t.co/BwIBch4mt9
— Nieman Lab (@NiemanLab) October 31, 2019
"Still, Zuckerberg failed to delineate between freedom of expression, and freedom of paid amplification of that expression which inherently favors the rich" https://t.co/ViyJ1Xgokb
— Fabio Chiusi (@fabiochiusi) October 31, 2019
중국 5G 개시 https://t.co/09qr7PYSJr
— editoy (@editoy) November 2, 2019
• 예를 들어 미국은 5G에 가장 많은 스펙트럼이 할당되었다고 말할 수 있지만 밀리미터 파에서 더 높은 대역은 중국과 같은 장소에서 사용하는 중간 대역만큼 유용하지 않습니다.
"Originally, China tried to launch 5G with a Standalone 5G New Radio core. “That didn’t happen,” said Roger Entner. https://t.co/aZCCYEPMN7 "non-standalone (NSA) version that uses LTE as an anchor ...provides faster internet, but not the bells and whistles that SA offers."
— Tren Griffin (@trengriffin) November 1, 2019
Another great piece from @IgnatiusPost I wish I had found months ago. Giuliani represents himself aboard as Trump’s Cybersecurity Advisor. I have video links of him making policy promises to foreign officials, who are paying him for “consulting services”.https://t.co/HmNtJV696S
— Portlus Glam (@PortlusGlam) October 25, 2018
Why #Facebook’s response to Twitter ceasing political ads isn’t satisfactory...#socialmedia #fakenews @jblefevre60 @kalydeoo @mallys_ @Ym78200 https://t.co/cOO3Af5vrO via @thenextweb pic.twitter.com/Dn6Z4PZ5RQ
— Olivier Laborde at #CapGeminiUnexpected (@labordeolivier) November 2, 2019
Why Facebook’s response to Twitter ceasing political ads isn’t satisfactory https://t.co/BK5d5ixfKl
— TNW (@thenextweb) November 2, 2019
“Mark, In 2010, I wrote 'The Social Network' and I know you wish I hadn’t.”
— Frank Pallotta (@frankpallotta) October 31, 2019
Aaron Sorkin, the Oscar-winning writer of the hit film about Facebook’s origin story, pens an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg. https://t.co/em7uJaCz9u
Aaron Sorkin says it best, "That’s not defending free speech, Mark, that’s assaulting truth."https://t.co/avg6zh7NiB
— mazal bohbot berrie (@lezelmaz) November 2, 2019
Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg https://t.co/nPJq0Zo5sd
— Richard Gutjahr (@gutjahr) November 2, 2019
Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg ??????
— ?Robyn D? (@KoparaFallsKid) November 2, 2019
https://t.co/bO8uv5oXmt
Sorkin: "I hope your C.O.O. walks into your office, leans in (as she suggested we do in her best selling book), and says, 'How can we do this to tens of millions of kids?'"https://t.co/qeN3LbK6An
— Dr. Rebecca M. Townsend (@RebeccaTownsend) October 31, 2019
In today's @nytimes, Aaron Sorkin blasts Mark Zuckerberg for not fact-checking political ads.
— Will Oremus (@WillOremus) October 31, 2019
Ironically, it seems no one fact-checked Sorkin's own column, which falsely claims that half of Americans say Facebook is their main source of news. https://t.co/m5wzMN2djZ pic.twitter.com/cKoVbMGRVO
Aaron Sorkin makes the point in a more personal way in an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg...https://t.co/z5XVxCkgG9
— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) October 31, 2019
and oh btw, aaron sorkin's response to Zuckerberg quoting aaron sorkin on free speech, "That’s not defending free speech, Mark, that’s assaulting truth."https://t.co/avg6zh7NiB
— mazal bohbot berrie (@lezelmaz) November 2, 2019
Anything for a buck, eh Zuck? https://t.co/VVKbxkBj1v
— Tim Matheson (@Tim_Matheson) October 31, 2019
Clearly not the takeaway of this fascinating op-ed but Sorkin apparently forgot what year his own movie was released https://t.co/BWcBIYjf8Y pic.twitter.com/jBqFiv47eh
— Victoria McGrane (@vgmac) October 31, 2019
Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg https://t.co/IPQ0IGdw4c
— Jon Meacham (@jmeacham) October 31, 2019
Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg https://t.co/dlBL4EbMXt
— Rodolfo Belcastro (@belcastrotw) November 2, 2019
Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg https://t.co/jCVS9JnRUB
— MY CRIMES CAN’T BE INVESTIGATED... I’M PRESIDENT! (@13thPanther) November 2, 2019
Now Facebook says 0.5% of 2020 revenue is for politician ads only, not including PAC & issue ads Twitter is banning too https://t.co/HHyX9BI2Kn
— Josh Constine (@JoshConstine) October 31, 2019