Taylor Lorenz is apparently so focused on Marc Andreesen blocking her on Clubhouse that she admitted (in another since-deleted tweet)[1] that she had created a "burner" account, a violation of Clubhouse rules ("We [Clubhouse] prohibit the creation of duplicate or multiple accounts by one individual, whether representing themselves or another entity")[2]. She has a long history of tweeting at Andreesen on Twitter about her block. An argument that she's simply a neutral reporter soberly seeking out "abuse" and "harassment" strains credibility (especially given that her behavior toward Andreesen on Twitter is actually harassment).
How would you characterize an organization that sends its agents out to harass and stalk perceived enemies, trying to catch them in any act that can be portrayed as wrongdoing or wrongthink, and even going so far as to spread demonstrable lies about them? Stasi seems only mildly hyperbolic.
[1] https://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1358349374749769730
[2] https://www.notion.so/Community-Guidelines-461a6860abda41649...
(1) You leapt from "Taylor Lorenz did this" to "The New York Times sends out agents to harass and stalk perceived enemies"; those two things are not the same, and I suspect if we were talking about entities you had more positive feelings about, you wouldn't conflate the two. (This is not to say that what an NYT reporter does on their own time can't reflect on the Times, but that the NYT is not automatically responsible for it.)
(2) "Going so far as to spread demonstrable lies about them" is... not how I would be comfortable describing what happened in this case. Again, Taylor Lorenz's Twitter account is not the same as a bylined article in the NYT, and you seem to be conflating them. Furthermore, there's no compelling evidence that her original accusation about Andreessen was made in bad faith. "She tried real hard to get into those private chats" may be a demonstration of nosiness, but not automatically one of ill intent.
(3) "Stasi seems only mildly hyperbolic": Sorry, but I'm going to insist that comparing four decades of what's widely considered to be one of the most oppressive state security agencies that ever existed and a reporter falsely tweeting "Marc Andreessen called somebody a retard in a private chat" is more than mildly hyperbolic.
Yes there is. According to others on the call, the word "retard" was uttered by a woman, and in a completely appropriate manner given the context. Taylor claimed Mr. Andreesen said it, and that he said it in a manner that warranted calling out. When her "mistake" was revealed, she responded not with an apology, but another lie to divert blame. Her claims had no apparent relation with reality, and her recent antagonism of Mr. Andreesen gives us no reason to assume this was all a big misunderstanding.
He literally calls out Kyle Chayka for trying to shame Substack for hosting Weiss in this very article. Greenwald was no fan of Weiss but I've seen no evidence that he was in favour of her cancelling.
? I don't recall him being on board with Weiss getting shown the door.
Okay, Glenn, we get it. You don't like -- say it with me in your spookiest voice, everyone! -- CAAAAAAAANCELLLL CUUUUUUUUUUULTURRRRRE. I mean, sure, it was fine when they were cancelling Bari Weiss, because he was on board with that, but then they came for him! (And by "they," I mean fact-checkers, or as I believe Greenwald refers to them, Paramilitary Death Squads.)
I'm just saying, maybe we should stop treating "but he's the guy that Edward Snowden worked with!" as some kind of Get Out of Making Sensible Arguments Free card.