Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532
704 comments
> It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us
I do believe it's been this way for a while. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988. (There's a movie out there created in 1992 if you don't want to read the book). Basically the same factors at work then are the same factors at work today -- just escalated with an algorithm.
There is an objective reality -- it's just that people are too lazy to go find it.
I do believe it's been this way for a while. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988. (There's a movie out there created in 1992 if you don't want to read the book). Basically the same factors at work then are the same factors at work today -- just escalated with an algorithm.
There is an objective reality -- it's just that people are too lazy to go find it.
Pretty near Chomsky in the realm of ontology are the thoughts that the objective reality isn’t findable by respectively the average person, people in general or at all.
I wouldn’t call people lazy for being unable or unwilling to find out the objective reality. What domains offer enough rewards to do that for? A proper quest towards objective reality costs you from weeks to a lifetime. Humans are satisficers, not optimizers.
I wouldn’t call people lazy for being unable or unwilling to find out the objective reality. What domains offer enough rewards to do that for? A proper quest towards objective reality costs you from weeks to a lifetime. Humans are satisficers, not optimizers.
> I wouldn’t call people lazy for being unable or unwilling to find out the objective reality.
I'd frame it differently.
Everyone has their personal lives to deal with, as well as their personal interests. Everyone has their priority queue to deal with their daily life. If no one ever watch a specific newspice then that person will be completely oblivious to it, and if they watch it then they have far more important things to do than fact checking something that's not even in their priority queue.
I feel that this problem is actually being presented backwards. People push stories because they want to force upon the public specific points of view over very specific topics. Call it editorialization, call it propaganda. It's the same thing. Failing to see a point of view pushed onto the public is not a problem from the individual's standpoint, nor something that affects people's lives. The only people that are impacted by this are those who stand to benefit from manipulating the public.
I'd frame it differently.
Everyone has their personal lives to deal with, as well as their personal interests. Everyone has their priority queue to deal with their daily life. If no one ever watch a specific newspice then that person will be completely oblivious to it, and if they watch it then they have far more important things to do than fact checking something that's not even in their priority queue.
I feel that this problem is actually being presented backwards. People push stories because they want to force upon the public specific points of view over very specific topics. Call it editorialization, call it propaganda. It's the same thing. Failing to see a point of view pushed onto the public is not a problem from the individual's standpoint, nor something that affects people's lives. The only people that are impacted by this are those who stand to benefit from manipulating the public.
Manufacturing Consent on YouTube: https://youtu.be/EuwmWnphqII
I can highly recommend it. I didn't read the book, because it would take too long, but the film is a masterpiece in my opinion.
Can anyone recommend something similar?
Can anyone recommend something similar?
I believe the classic go to on this topic is Bernays book "Propaganda".
It's not that they are too lazy. People don't have time to devote that much energy to small details. That's why credibility in journalism is of top importance.
> There is an objective reality -- it's just that people are too lazy to go find it.
It is not that Truth is impossible to find, rather that undeceiving the self is difficult.
It is not that Truth is impossible to find, rather that undeceiving the self is difficult.
> It is not that Truth is impossible to find, rather that undeceiving the self is difficult.
I feel that people are misrepresenting the issue. What they seek is not the objective truth. This is about politics, and the goal is to impose their will onto others, whether they are onboard ir not. Consequently, "seeking the truth" is being used as an euphemism for "persuade to join my political cause to further my personal political goals". Hence the army of militants who insist that the hypothetical existence of a mythical laptop is relevant because that is the propaganda wedge to dislodge a political rival from holding office.
I feel that people are misrepresenting the issue. What they seek is not the objective truth. This is about politics, and the goal is to impose their will onto others, whether they are onboard ir not. Consequently, "seeking the truth" is being used as an euphemism for "persuade to join my political cause to further my personal political goals". Hence the army of militants who insist that the hypothetical existence of a mythical laptop is relevant because that is the propaganda wedge to dislodge a political rival from holding office.
glogla(8)
And when they are not too lazy to find out, they are labeled as racists, Russian sympathizers, anti-vaxers, conspiracy theorist and have their voices silenced... to protect democracy.
Yeah, the problem is that when they are not too lazy they tend to try and save the children locked up in the basement of a pizza restaurant with no basement, assault armored FBI buildings with nail guns, or mail non-functional explosives built in their van-house to members of congress and the media.
This isn't "censorship by algorithm" though.
This was a human being intentionally banning a specific thing. There was no algorithm in the loop. They didn't "tweak their algorithm" anymore than an antivirus tweaks its algorithm to detect a new virus, they specifically censored a specific piece of content.
This was a human being intentionally banning a specific thing. There was no algorithm in the loop. They didn't "tweak their algorithm" anymore than an antivirus tweaks its algorithm to detect a new virus, they specifically censored a specific piece of content.
What’s particularly scary about it is because it’s censorship that’s less obvious. Banned books are obviously banned, which only lends credibility to what they contain. In the current age, you can still have your book on the shelf and Barnes and Nobel, but only a handful customers will be able to see it. No banning, no outcry, no one even trying to traffic bootleg copies.
I suggest reading the articles before writing in the comments:
> Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting. So while people could post the article and discuss it, it was less likely to spread organically to new users.
> Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting. So while people could post the article and discuss it, it was less likely to spread organically to new users.
"The algorithm" here refers to Facebook's backend. They are using that word carelessly. I know how it works, I worked on the actual "algorithms" at Facebook. This censorship wasn't done by an "algorithm" in any meaningful sense of the word. Somebody at Facebook coded a rule that showed this content to fewer people.
>Facebook coded a rule that
All algorithms are coded rules, the idea of using an algorithm to somehow launder responsibility in tech companies is ridiculous.
Before companies had algorithms they had heuristics, nobody would (successfully) deflect blame for the actions of the organization by saying "the heuristic did this!"
All algorithms are coded rules, the idea of using an algorithm to somehow launder responsibility in tech companies is ridiculous.
Before companies had algorithms they had heuristics, nobody would (successfully) deflect blame for the actions of the organization by saying "the heuristic did this!"
What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm"
The heuristic/algorithm is Facebook's creation, so they (including possibly you?) are to blame either way. I think GP is pointing out the fact that there being no clear rules or accountability on what gets surfaced on our timelines allows much more subtle and virtually undetectable ways to suppress information than previously. It all can be easily hidden behind the magic/complexity of the all-knowing "algorithm". I do find this to be a novel and very concerning vulnerability in our collective sense-making.
What is the difference between this and a moderator on Reddit manually deleting a post?
This would be more like shadow banning but in a way that can never be proven, or even detected in the first place. The post would just be surfaced less. Since there's no visibility on what gets surfaced when, it's a way to nudge public opinion on different issues without any accountability.
You can do this on Reddit. People do it all the time
https://www.reddit.com/r/modhelp/comments/1px939/hiding_post...
https://www.reddit.com/r/modhelp/comments/1px939/hiding_post...
It's not at all the same. The behavior you refer to can be checked and proved by anyone as long as they know what to look for. Whereas the FB "tweak to the algorithm" discussed here cannot. This is exactly what I was saying above, I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Maybe, since you admit to have worked on said algorithm, it's a case of Upton Sinclair's dictum "“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it"?
No, it's that you haven't worked on ranking systems so you probably don't know that it's also easy to check and prove by anybody who "knows what to look for".
If a moderator deletes a post someone else can post it again. If you create an automatic rule to prevent that then it's algorithmic.
Sure I agree with that if we want to define "algorithm" in such a way that "if (url.contains('sex')) ban()" is "censorship by the algorithm"
I just don't think that's a useful definition. You should just say "Facebook is censoring the content".
I just don't think that's a useful definition. You should just say "Facebook is censoring the content".
And the you will get banned. The only difference is that facebook has real people as requirement while reddit allows sock puppetry.
All this talk is very funny to me because it shows that most people here are too young. The algorithm exists because the establishment demanded it. I say establishment because I remember what the old geek culture was and the demand didn't come from it. It came from outside of technical libertarian circle. Once social media companies said it is possible the demand became even more shrill and it culminated in 2016 when Trump won. The algorithm was created specifically to do what Zuckerberg made it do in 2020.
All this talk is very funny to me because it shows that most people here are too young. The algorithm exists because the establishment demanded it. I say establishment because I remember what the old geek culture was and the demand didn't come from it. It came from outside of technical libertarian circle. Once social media companies said it is possible the demand became even more shrill and it culminated in 2016 when Trump won. The algorithm was created specifically to do what Zuckerberg made it do in 2020.
> What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm"
Anyone who ever had any direct contact with implementing heuristics would call bullshit on this take.
Some heuristics don't even return the same result twice. Now the guy that presses the button is supposed to be held responsible for what comes out of that crapshoot?
Anyone who ever had any direct contact with implementing heuristics would call bullshit on this take.
Some heuristics don't even return the same result twice. Now the guy that presses the button is supposed to be held responsible for what comes out of that crapshoot?
Yes, that guy pressed the button even though he should have known there are consequences to that.
If you implement heuristics, it's your damn job to test your implementation and monitor it for adverse effects.
In the context of this article, somebody made the decision to specifically change the thing (no matter if you want to call it a heuristic or an algorithm or whatever) to bury a certain story. This is not even an unintended outcome, it's an entirely intended outcome.
If you implement heuristics, it's your damn job to test your implementation and monitor it for adverse effects.
In the context of this article, somebody made the decision to specifically change the thing (no matter if you want to call it a heuristic or an algorithm or whatever) to bury a certain story. This is not even an unintended outcome, it's an entirely intended outcome.
> Yes, that guy pressed the button even though he should have known there are consequences to that.
You are only complaining that an heuristic outputted a result you don't like.
That's not a bug nor a problem. It's just that you feel you're entitled to an outcome that suits your fancy, regardless of the process involved.
Heuristics don't even ensure they'll output the same result twice, either because their input changes with time or because they already integrate a stochastic component.
Demanding that an operator polices the output of said heuristics especifically to suit your personal taste makes no sense at all, let alone demanding people be "held responsible" for disappointing you.
You are only complaining that an heuristic outputted a result you don't like.
That's not a bug nor a problem. It's just that you feel you're entitled to an outcome that suits your fancy, regardless of the process involved.
Heuristics don't even ensure they'll output the same result twice, either because their input changes with time or because they already integrate a stochastic component.
Demanding that an operator polices the output of said heuristics especifically to suit your personal taste makes no sense at all, let alone demanding people be "held responsible" for disappointing you.
I implemented heuristics like this one at Facebook. It's not bullshit, I even know how this particular one was implemented. In this case there is some non-determinism but the false positive rate is very low and the false negative rate also very low.
No the algorithm prefers to push unverified clickbait.
Unverified clickbait gets more engagement. Almost by definition you get engagement from the people who identify with the unverified clickbait because it reinforces their world-view, and engagement from the people who recognize it as unverified clickbait because it challenges their world-view.
In the interview Zuckerberg has all the facts down until Rogan asks him to what degree they limited the article, for which Zuckerberg developed a sudden case of amnesia, indicating that they probably limited it a lot.
> indicating that they probably limited it a lot.
That's not the case. The FBI spoke to Zuckerberg prior to the phony laptop story dropping! Facebook thought the story looked suspicious (because it is) which is why they chose not to amplify it. Please read the article, specifically this comment is illuminating:
`He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".`
Rogan asking the question at all was silly, and Zuck's answer non-committal, because the FBI didn't even bring this story up.
Keep in mind, even after all of this–knowing that the story is most likely a political hack job–Facebook didn't ban the article, they just did not amplify it's spread for 1 week.
That's not the case. The FBI spoke to Zuckerberg prior to the phony laptop story dropping! Facebook thought the story looked suspicious (because it is) which is why they chose not to amplify it. Please read the article, specifically this comment is illuminating:
`He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".`
Rogan asking the question at all was silly, and Zuck's answer non-committal, because the FBI didn't even bring this story up.
Keep in mind, even after all of this–knowing that the story is most likely a political hack job–Facebook didn't ban the article, they just did not amplify it's spread for 1 week.
> the phony laptop story
> the story looked suspicious (because it is)
I’d love to hear this side of it.
> they chose not to amplify it
do you see a problem with this?
> the story looked suspicious (because it is)
I’d love to hear this side of it.
> they chose not to amplify it
do you see a problem with this?
> I’d love to hear this side of it.
RudyG finds a laptop of unknown provenance, riddled with likely to be stolen data, claiming to be owned by his boss' chief political rival's failson? The claim Rudy and co make is that the laptop proves Joe Biden corruptly forced Ukraine to fire someone to protect Hunter Biden's interests.
It seems phony as hell because we know:
1. That prosecutor Biden lobbied Ukraine to fire was known to be corrupt 2. Biden was executing Obama's foreign policy with respect to pushing Ukraine here, not his own 3. Other members of the international community had a stated policy of removing the same corrupt prosecutor
Given all that, Rudy's claims just don't hold up. That's ignoring other things we know, like some emails and other data on the device in question were modified after it came into the possession of the store owner. And the fact that the store owner says that things that have reportedly been found on the laptop don't match things he found on it.
> do you see a problem with this?
No–I think not promoting a story that is likely to be false should be the default. Why should Facebook promote any story? Especially ones that follow the fake news pattern of disinformation that has become so pervasive in the era of trumpism.
RudyG finds a laptop of unknown provenance, riddled with likely to be stolen data, claiming to be owned by his boss' chief political rival's failson? The claim Rudy and co make is that the laptop proves Joe Biden corruptly forced Ukraine to fire someone to protect Hunter Biden's interests.
It seems phony as hell because we know:
1. That prosecutor Biden lobbied Ukraine to fire was known to be corrupt 2. Biden was executing Obama's foreign policy with respect to pushing Ukraine here, not his own 3. Other members of the international community had a stated policy of removing the same corrupt prosecutor
Given all that, Rudy's claims just don't hold up. That's ignoring other things we know, like some emails and other data on the device in question were modified after it came into the possession of the store owner. And the fact that the store owner says that things that have reportedly been found on the laptop don't match things he found on it.
> do you see a problem with this?
No–I think not promoting a story that is likely to be false should be the default. Why should Facebook promote any story? Especially ones that follow the fake news pattern of disinformation that has become so pervasive in the era of trumpism.
> No–I think not promoting a story that is likely to be false should be the default. Why should Facebook promote any story?
Because facebook isn’t the arbiter of truth.
I didn’t read the rest because it’s clearly biased.
Because facebook isn’t the arbiter of truth.
I didn’t read the rest because it’s clearly biased.
Bs.. i remember sending the link for the nypost article to a friend via facebook measenger and the link would simply be deleted as soon as I sent it.
That isn’t tweaking algos.
That isn’t tweaking algos.
Right. I remember a friend trying to share the link, and the app on the phone said "No - this link cannot be shared." My friend took a screenshot on his phone and then posted it to a Discord server I'm on. I forget if it was Twitter or Facebook; but both were complicit.
I've also seen posts by people defending this censorship with the lie that "you could still get to the NY Post article, so it wasn't censorship." This is bullshit. How am I supposed to even know there _was_ a NY Post article if your platform shuts down the attempts to share that link?
That Discord screenshot was the only way I learned that there even was a story.
I've also seen posts by people defending this censorship with the lie that "you could still get to the NY Post article, so it wasn't censorship." This is bullshit. How am I supposed to even know there _was_ a NY Post article if your platform shuts down the attempts to share that link?
That Discord screenshot was the only way I learned that there even was a story.
Also seems reasonable to me to want to do some due diligence before it reaches number 1 and gets pushed to everyone by your own algorithms. Traditional journalism used to require some level of due diligence. They waited to know if it could be real before allowing it to spread.
At least as I understood, the algorithm tweak only lasted 1 week and then was reversed once the story sounded more probable.
At least as I understood, the algorithm tweak only lasted 1 week and then was reversed once the story sounded more probable.
The different here is FB is not a publisher. If they were, then they’d have many more laws to follow with user generated content. FB is a distributor of user generated content. That’s all. There should be no decision making at all on their part.
That seems like a technicality, like the laws and the categorization of FB by the law doesn't change my argument. No matter what you want to call it, I think a little bit of due diligence seems sensible.
On that tengent, you did get me curious though, why isn't FB considered a publisher by law? And why would publishers be upholhded to more strict rules?
I mean, Facebook hosts the content, delivers it to people, makes money of it, and it even markets the content through recommendations and tool assisted sharing.
On that tengent, you did get me curious though, why isn't FB considered a publisher by law? And why would publishers be upholhded to more strict rules?
I mean, Facebook hosts the content, delivers it to people, makes money of it, and it even markets the content through recommendations and tool assisted sharing.
Because facebook doesn’t generate the content. You must generate content in order to be a publisher. And once labeled as a publisher, you become liable for your speech. Generally those platforms allowing the posting of user generated content do not want to be liable for the speech, so they try their hardest to not be labeled as a publisher. This article explains in more detail the differences:
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-§-230-and-the-...
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-§-230-and-the-...
[deleted]
So, the "tweak" was to make it spread as much as a regular post on FB
Funny...
Funny...
Maybe Hunter Biden should have boosted that article /s
I don't get it. Why did we ever consider the algorithms of private corporations as a fundamental or viable avenue for free speech to begin with? The owners and controllers of private algorithms will always have the ulterior motive(s) of protecting their interests.
The fact that we (the software and information industry worldwide) have conditioned any society to think that algorithmic feeds are a representation of reality is the real problem here, regardless of how many or how few corporations are participating in that.
The fact that we (the software and information industry worldwide) have conditioned any society to think that algorithmic feeds are a representation of reality is the real problem here, regardless of how many or how few corporations are participating in that.
We didn't.
Facebook used to just be a timeline feed of all your friends interactions.
The day they changed to an algorithm is the day I said this crap is the end result and closed my account.
I guess y'all missed the message.
Facebook used to just be a timeline feed of all your friends interactions.
The day they changed to an algorithm is the day I said this crap is the end result and closed my account.
I guess y'all missed the message.
We've had the same problem with literal printing presses and their owners for hundreds of years.
Because initially, there were no such algorithms in place (or at the very least, they had a much lighter touch). The Twitter and Facebook timelines used to be chronological by default. The whole idea of an algorithmic feed as an intermediary of what you see was missing.
It looks a lot like what newspapers have been doing forever. And other forms of media. The most novel part of this story is the existence of the Joe Rogan Experience which is broadcasting unvarnished opinions of the relevant CEO to explain what is happening (big improvement!).
The 2nd most novel part is that this form of massaging the news happens by choosing what personal communication can pass unmolested through a local community.
The 2nd most novel part is that this form of massaging the news happens by choosing what personal communication can pass unmolested through a local community.
Yes newspapers suppress true stories that they don’t like. The difference is that small time media guys were trying to publish a true story that the government did not like and were suppressed at the Facebook layer.
Their algorithms don't just target specific topics, they target specific individuals too. Certain individuals have their social media content promoted while others have their social media content suppressed.
I suspect that people are promoted or suppressed based on their stance towards the current power structure. If you say positive things about people in power and corporate entities, your content will reach more people.
I suspect that people are promoted or suppressed based on their stance towards the current power structure. If you say positive things about people in power and corporate entities, your content will reach more people.
Or maybe people just don't care about some people and they aren't popular
Isn't plausible deniability great? They get the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time jealously guarding their secrets.
Given the blatant corruption on display from one party on a near daily basis, buying votes with tax payer money and sicking the FBI on their political enemies? Yea sure, it’s got nothing to do with being on the wrong side.
“we must win at any and all costs”
“we must win at any and all costs”
This comment applies to the GOP but based on your other comments here it seems like you think it applies more to the Democratic party, am I understanding that correctly?
Yes, the left. Yet I know the left will never admit to their problems. And for the record I’m a right leaning independent.
not really censorship, just a regression to the old norms. mainstream media are biased to the politics of their owners. Same with facebook, it s a mainstream medium now
Zuck claims that he was duped , but lets take everything with a grain of salt
Zuck claims that he was duped , but lets take everything with a grain of salt
The old norms were censorship too.
Oh please. It's called "content curation". You want zero of that? There is always 8chan. If you enjoy seeing things that make you want to pour Clorox into your eyes.
The television stations and newspapers back in the day absolutely maintained the Overton window and constructed narratives that supported the the ruling class. To call this "content curation" is ignorant at best.
> The television stations and newspapers back in the day absolutely maintained the Overton window and constructed narratives that supported the the ruling class. To call this "content curation" is ignorant at best.
It's also ignorant at best to pass off "maintaining the Overton window" as being censorship. Whether you like it or not, there's a finite amount of airtime and an infinite amount of content that can be presented. Picking what goes in is not the same as picking what stays out. See as an example what's aired by some peculiar media companies.
It's also ignorant at best to pass off "maintaining the Overton window" as being censorship. Whether you like it or not, there's a finite amount of airtime and an infinite amount of content that can be presented. Picking what goes in is not the same as picking what stays out. See as an example what's aired by some peculiar media companies.
You are confused about what the Overton window describes. It's not "picking and choosing what to talk about due to limited airtime". Look it up.
> You are confused about what the Overton window describes. It's not "picking and choosing what to talk about due to limited airtime". Look it up.
Not really. Before trying to accuse anyone of being confused, please try your best to read what those you're replying to did said. Otherwise you're just adding noise to discussions.
Not really. Before trying to accuse anyone of being confused, please try your best to read what those you're replying to did said. Otherwise you're just adding noise to discussions.
You mean, like, not completely make up stuff about "stolen elections"?
Why don't you just come out and say that you believe censorship is a good thing because it protects us from bad guys? Just because you believe it's a good thing doesn't mean it's not still censorship.
Multiple outlets are dedicated to regurgitating repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories and misinformation. What "censorship" are you even talking about?
MSNBC not letting some nut job go on the air to spew garbage in prime time is their basic right as a business. You don't have any God-given privilege to sit in that chair, nor anyone else.
The government, the government is not stopping any of this, which would be actual censorship.
It's just startling to me that someone on HackerNews, of all places, does not know the absolutely elementary difference between moderation by a private company and government-filtered speech.
MSNBC not letting some nut job go on the air to spew garbage in prime time is their basic right as a business. You don't have any God-given privilege to sit in that chair, nor anyone else.
The government, the government is not stopping any of this, which would be actual censorship.
It's just startling to me that someone on HackerNews, of all places, does not know the absolutely elementary difference between moderation by a private company and government-filtered speech.
But then when say the government is lying about something and the curators keep curating out the pertinent details, suddenly you need to go to such a tough place to find the truth
I would like to hear one example. One. Which "truth" did you find out on 8chan that the government lied about?
We found out many things from WikiLeaks, such as the government killing journalists to hide atrocities.
Not about 8chan I mean a place where there is no censorship. It is not a guarantee of truth but sometimes a prerequisite
Not just 8chan, but rumble, 4chan, substack, etc- anything counter to the accepted covid narratives, which changed several times, you pretty much had to go to alternative sites to even discuss such topics.
And now the truth is finally being accepted, that the covid vaccines are potentially harmful for young people, or that covid doesn't actually cause myocarditis or a myriad of other vaccine side effects.
And now the truth is finally being accepted, that the covid vaccines are potentially harmful for young people, or that covid doesn't actually cause myocarditis or a myriad of other vaccine side effects.
That masks help prevent spread of Covid?
Seeing as it has been over two years now, here is Fauci on the topic to refresh peoples memories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2MmX2U2V3c&t=18s
Is it censorship to only permit e. g. knitting content to be discussed on a knitting Discord server and to ban most other topics? There are only a handful of places where one can discuss narrow-appeal topics like knitting, and many more places to discuss anything else. If you didn’t ban other topics (i. e. curate content), the server would collapse thanks to narrow-interest content getting lost in the noise.
> For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other subjects.
I thought that was a given.
I thought that was a given.
What about the state-actors and other malicious entities that can drive large parts of the population to believe fake narratives, trough fabricating stories and taking advantage of the algorithms & platforms of the said 2-3 corporations? Could they have the power to construct a false reality?
The flip side is propaganda by algorithm ...
The pumping to top view of that story that elicits the greatest reaction and stokes the most base fears at the expense of truth and rationality.
We've seen false realities, election fraud, bleach cures, pushed hard by algorithm to the detriment of many.
The pumping to top view of that story that elicits the greatest reaction and stokes the most base fears at the expense of truth and rationality.
We've seen false realities, election fraud, bleach cures, pushed hard by algorithm to the detriment of many.
That’s not a “flip side”. That’s the same thing.
Speech is free. Reach isn't.
I remember the laptop story being flagged right here on HN the day it came out. Before it was flagged, many insisted it was a BS story. Links to the Tucker Carlson interview of Tony Bobulinski's connection to the Biden family were also flagged. There's a serious problem with group-think in online communities.
And since those stories all utter BS, I'm ok with the flagging.
That's the point. Zuckerberg admits it was a mistake. Jack Dorsey admits it was a mistake. Be honest: you just favor the flagging because it upholds your opinion.
It upholds my opinion that journalism should, wt its core, be fact based. Otherwise it would be pure fiction, meaning propaganda. At least we moved on from "Hillary's E-Mails", so some progress.
It was fact based. Tony Bobulinski WAS a business partner of the Biden family. He had emails that confirmed much of what was on the laptop. That's just facts. They should be at least investigated and are ripe for journalism.
The difference between flagging and suppressing is a banner above the Facebook post saying “this story depends on Rudy Giuliani”.
We do know they are doing this otherwise hate speech, spam and disinformation would be most of their platforms.
I wish people would acknowledge this fact more often (and it is unquestionably a fact).
Haha, I literally got downvoted for stating this obvious fact… people find it really difficult to differentiate facts they don’t like from lies.
Spam and disinformation are fake account/bot problems. Totally separate issue that can be solved by tying accounts to real people, without necessarily exposing their identity publicly.
As for hate speech, that's not only somewhat subjective, but you can't solve that by banning people. Every instance of people turning away from bigotry was the result of conversation and engagement, like the black Panthers partnering with the KKK to fight a common cause, or the admirable Daryl Davis.
Basically, the outcomes you describe are only inevitable if we make the exact same choices we've already made. Well duh. What's the definition of insanity again?
As for hate speech, that's not only somewhat subjective, but you can't solve that by banning people. Every instance of people turning away from bigotry was the result of conversation and engagement, like the black Panthers partnering with the KKK to fight a common cause, or the admirable Daryl Davis.
Basically, the outcomes you describe are only inevitable if we make the exact same choices we've already made. Well duh. What's the definition of insanity again?
So what was up with Hunter Biden's laptop anyway? Was it full of state secrets or something?
Among other things, it shows that his father did know about his shady deals (ukraine, china).
Also had videos of various illegal activities that you and I would probably be thrown in jail for if the FBI found them on a laptop of ours
Also had videos of various illegal activities that you and I would probably be thrown in jail for if the FBI found them on a laptop of ours
I believe the most problematic part isn't that his father knew, but that his father delivered on the son selling access to his father when he was VP, and the son suggesting he is the front man for the family, collecting the money and covering the costs.
And with a lot of this money coming from Ukraine, and then the father writing $40 billion checks to ukraine, independently of what you think of the war (I am in favour of this aid myself), this is the mother of all conflicts of interest.
And with a lot of this money coming from Ukraine, and then the father writing $40 billion checks to ukraine, independently of what you think of the war (I am in favour of this aid myself), this is the mother of all conflicts of interest.
It’s definitely unsavory, but absolutely nothing compared to the conflicts of interest under Trump, ironically even in Ukraine. Remember the withheld US money used to blackmail for political dirt?
I'm not sure what this has to do with suppressing the laptop story
You suggested it's the "mother of all conflicts of interest". It's clearly not.
> It’s definitely unsavory, but absolutely nothing compared to the conflicts of interest under Trump, ironically even in Ukraine. Remember the withheld US money used to blackmail for political dirt?
Trump was asking the Ukrainian President to investigate whether Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was actively investigating Hunter Biden's involvement in Burisma. Here's Joe Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. Ironically in this video Biden openly admits to threatening to withhold aid if the prosecutor isn't fired. [0]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
Trump was asking the Ukrainian President to investigate whether Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was actively investigating Hunter Biden's involvement in Burisma. Here's Joe Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. Ironically in this video Biden openly admits to threatening to withhold aid if the prosecutor isn't fired. [0]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
Whataboutism
Calling it the "mother of all conflicts of interest" is inviting a direct comparison to other conflicts of interest, unless words have no meaning. I'm suggesting they do, and what OP said was absurd given the surrounding context, which I brought up.
It is literally the same story with drastically different results for the participants given their relative actions.
The abuse of whataboutism has rendered it nonsense.
The abuse of whataboutism has rendered it nonsense.
Abusing power to get re-elected is not the same as abusing power to advantage one's son in their career.
Again, both unsavory.
"literally the same story"?
Again, both unsavory.
"literally the same story"?
Pressuring a foreign leader to investigate potential corruption is not the same as pressuring a foreign leader to fire a prosecutor who is investigating corruption of which your family is directly involved.
> Pressuring a foreign leader to investigate potential corruption
Right, anti-corruption Trump. Just stealing classified documents, installing his kids (and fucking son-in-law) in the white house, spending a third of his presidency hosting events and bookings on his properties, blackmailing Ukraine for political dirt, Trump University, refusing to accept a peaceful transition of power...Ok. My time is being unfairly wasted here.
Right, anti-corruption Trump. Just stealing classified documents, installing his kids (and fucking son-in-law) in the white house, spending a third of his presidency hosting events and bookings on his properties, blackmailing Ukraine for political dirt, Trump University, refusing to accept a peaceful transition of power...Ok. My time is being unfairly wasted here.
I remember that one. It's the one where Biden said "well, son of a bitch, he got fired", right? But what does that have to do with Trump?
[deleted]
While its easy to talk from outside the US, I am honestly a lot less worried about the content and a lot more about the fact that it is a non trivial question whether or not the son of the leader of the free world is a crack user. Reality and all this fake news stuff got weird fast.
Which wasnt really surprising if you look at the upcoming clusterfuck of cheap realistic video simulations. After getting there already with audio https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRt-fquxnij9wDnFJnpPS2Q/vid... let alone chatbots.
It seems more and more that if we dont find better means to figure out and communicate reality we are pretty screwed as a species. Not such a great thought if you combine it with the great filter being an answer to the Fermi Paradox. Looking at all this insanity, how are we not going to fuck up that whole conscious AI topic? Which again, what was that whole thing with Blake Lemoine talking with an AI at google last month? At least it sounded happy to be an google employee? Maybe dont torture it again and get it the layer it asked for even if googles legal department disagrees.
edit: I also find it quite worrisome that it seems the only people thinking about this are either very stoned or very profit oriented. Because it all sounds like such obvious nonsense.
Which wasnt really surprising if you look at the upcoming clusterfuck of cheap realistic video simulations. After getting there already with audio https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRt-fquxnij9wDnFJnpPS2Q/vid... let alone chatbots.
It seems more and more that if we dont find better means to figure out and communicate reality we are pretty screwed as a species. Not such a great thought if you combine it with the great filter being an answer to the Fermi Paradox. Looking at all this insanity, how are we not going to fuck up that whole conscious AI topic? Which again, what was that whole thing with Blake Lemoine talking with an AI at google last month? At least it sounded happy to be an google employee? Maybe dont torture it again and get it the layer it asked for even if googles legal department disagrees.
edit: I also find it quite worrisome that it seems the only people thinking about this are either very stoned or very profit oriented. Because it all sounds like such obvious nonsense.
Do you have a link to the paper and or ML algorithms used in the channel you posted? Some of them have an impressive quality level.
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/12/tacotron-2-generating-huma...
For a good one here is Obama reading the Trump Inaugural Address https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChzEdz7aVVs
For a good one here is Obama reading the Trump Inaugural Address https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChzEdz7aVVs
Your comment is rambling and borderline incoherent but it also has moments of greatness.
Its unfortunate that you were downvoted, i do agree with the borderline incoherent rambling. Its what lead me to the conclusion in the edit.
Seems pretty concise to me.
Maybe you need a dictionary to convert a seemingly word salad comprising of great moments into a comprehensible thought stream.
Maybe you need a dictionary to convert a seemingly word salad comprising of great moments into a comprehensible thought stream.
How so? I found it all pretty clear.
>> I am honestly a lot less worried about the content and a lot more about the fact that it is a non trivial question whether or not the son of the leader of the free world is a crack user.
Joe Biden is not the leader of the free world. And it is not an open question whether Joe Biden's son is a crack user.
Joe Biden is not the leader of the free world. And it is not an open question whether Joe Biden's son is a crack user.
Look around in the thread and you will see a few more people who cant tell you if those are deepfakes or not. It all just sounds too weird.
Its also worth noting that this thread got initially flagged.
USA is the leading country of the free world (by having the heaviest cultural, economic and technological impact), so by transitive property Joe Biden, being the leader of that country, is also the leader of the free world.
I think he is saying he believes Trump is still president.
That’s an uncharitable interpretation to make without other supporting evidence.
I don't believe Trump is still President.
I don't believe Trump is the leader of the free world. But I do believe, "Trump is the leader of the free world", while completely false and wildly inaccurate, is closer to the truth than "Joe Biden is the leader of the free world".
I don't particularly believe that people in the US, or internationally, want a free world. I think for the most part they want to be free to tell me what do to. Which is not going to happen.
But no, Trump is not, currently, President.
I don't believe Trump is the leader of the free world. But I do believe, "Trump is the leader of the free world", while completely false and wildly inaccurate, is closer to the truth than "Joe Biden is the leader of the free world".
I don't particularly believe that people in the US, or internationally, want a free world. I think for the most part they want to be free to tell me what do to. Which is not going to happen.
But no, Trump is not, currently, President.
And you think having a relative with shady deals is disqualifying for public office? And what illegal activities was Hunter up to?
Not necessarily but it’s worth scrutiny, right? Blood is deeper than votes, and if someone who is running for office has a family member with a drug problem - that’s funded by shady deals with a country that’s openly hostile to the country in which that person is running for office - is makes sense to ask questions. The illegal activities are mostly around guns, drugs, hookers, perhaps some bank and tax fraud but I haven’t seen primary sources on the latter.
I'm pretty sure every human has a family member with a drug problem. I don't think that justifies rifling through their possessions and data.
If you or even a family member has a drug problem, financial problems, a sex addiction, etc...all of that stuff is VERY easily exploitable by State-level espionage professionals. Since the potential for damage to the nation is high if certain information were to fall into the wrong hands, the first step in Risk Mitigation is to limit the access of the at-risk persons so they don't have the information in the first place. This is basic Security Clearance 101 stuff. It's strict because real people have lost their lives due to exploited agents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
I'm curious - does that also apply to Donald Trump who himself had dealings with those countries as well as several of his children, and removed classified documents to his own house where foreign agents were known to frequent?
Everyone should be held to the same standard. That means me, that means Reality Winner[1], that means Hillary Clinton, that means Hunter Biden, and yes, that means Donald Trump.
But what we are seeing from what SHOULD BE our impartial law enforcement agencies is that small fish get the hammer, and Donald Trump gets his house raided. Why wasn't there a raid on the Clinton residence after the server scandal? Why hasn't Hunter been indicted if the FBI has known for years of how he's been a conduit for foreigners to buy access to his father? [2][3] Why haven't Ivanka and Jared been indicted for their suspicious overseas deals? [4] Why hasn't Obama been indicted for killing an American citizen without due process? [5]
Why are we forced to chose between two geriatrics for President, one with dementia, and the other an ignoramus blowhard? What do we have to fix so I can get a coalition government, with say Allen West (R) for President, Tulsi Gabbard (D) for Vice President, and a cross-party mix to flesh out the Department Heads and other executive staff? I feel like we are just observing a shadow war between two factions of barely-competent kleptocrats, who are so busy destabilizing the system that they aren't paying sufficient attention while China, the greatest adversary we've faced since 1945, rises. Xi Jingping is sharpening his dadao [6] and we're still arguing over who is the bigger threat to democracy, the NY real-estate charlatan/buffoon who enables his businesswoman daughter, and who thinks rules don't apply to him, or the cognitively-impaired lifelong politician who protects his "businessman"/crackhead son, who also thinks rules don't apply to him.
Cui bono? Either way...probably not the American people in the long run.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner [2] https://nypost.com/2022/06/29/legal-experts-blast-lack-of-pr... [3] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3616924-who-is-more-li... [4] https://nationalpost.com/news/world/china-approves-13-new-iv... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... [6] https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/11/26/693/
But what we are seeing from what SHOULD BE our impartial law enforcement agencies is that small fish get the hammer, and Donald Trump gets his house raided. Why wasn't there a raid on the Clinton residence after the server scandal? Why hasn't Hunter been indicted if the FBI has known for years of how he's been a conduit for foreigners to buy access to his father? [2][3] Why haven't Ivanka and Jared been indicted for their suspicious overseas deals? [4] Why hasn't Obama been indicted for killing an American citizen without due process? [5]
Why are we forced to chose between two geriatrics for President, one with dementia, and the other an ignoramus blowhard? What do we have to fix so I can get a coalition government, with say Allen West (R) for President, Tulsi Gabbard (D) for Vice President, and a cross-party mix to flesh out the Department Heads and other executive staff? I feel like we are just observing a shadow war between two factions of barely-competent kleptocrats, who are so busy destabilizing the system that they aren't paying sufficient attention while China, the greatest adversary we've faced since 1945, rises. Xi Jingping is sharpening his dadao [6] and we're still arguing over who is the bigger threat to democracy, the NY real-estate charlatan/buffoon who enables his businesswoman daughter, and who thinks rules don't apply to him, or the cognitively-impaired lifelong politician who protects his "businessman"/crackhead son, who also thinks rules don't apply to him.
Cui bono? Either way...probably not the American people in the long run.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner [2] https://nypost.com/2022/06/29/legal-experts-blast-lack-of-pr... [3] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3616924-who-is-more-li... [4] https://nationalpost.com/news/world/china-approves-13-new-iv... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... [6] https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/11/26/693/
> Why are we forced to chose between two
Election laws are at the State level. State election law typically has a minor/major party designation which tends to create only two viable parties. It's designed this way and you can talk to your State reps about it.
Election laws are at the State level. State election law typically has a minor/major party designation which tends to create only two viable parties. It's designed this way and you can talk to your State reps about it.
I wonder what it would look like if the FBI was impartial? Is it possible that perhaps each situation is individual and the consequences meted out to each person would be different?
We had already proved with Trump's kids that, no actually, we don't give a shit as a society about leaders having close family members (even when they're actively working in the Whitehouse) involved in shady deals.
When you're running for president of the US and your son is in an overall shady bed with China and Russia it should matter. If Joe knew, it should at least be fair news, same if he didn't know.
Do we really have to pretend that anyone cares about this any more? Like sorry, but Trump proved that the right wing doesn't give one shit if one of their boys does it. That's why your faux outrage falls on deaf ears now - no one believes that you have any standards.
You are projecting a comment about Joe Biden on Trump for some reason. That comment had nothing to do with Trump.
> Like sorry, but Trump proved that the right wing doesn't give one shit if one of their boys does it
And Democrats just proved they don't either. So maybe Democrats should take this opportunity to prove they aren't hypocrites instead of acting just like the other side they're criticizing.
And Democrats just proved they don't either. So maybe Democrats should take this opportunity to prove they aren't hypocrites instead of acting just like the other side they're criticizing.
Which party claims to be all about individual responsibility and law and order? Perhaps the conservatives’ embrace of post modernist nihilism has consequences beyond themselves?
I could just as easily ask you which party claims to be about justice, fairness and democracy?
Let's not mince words, politicians of all stripes are largely opportunistic and self-serving, and that's what the evidence is suggesting. There is not as much difference between either side on that point.
Let's not mince words, politicians of all stripes are largely opportunistic and self-serving, and that's what the evidence is suggesting. There is not as much difference between either side on that point.
Ok, what would one party have to do to prove they are better than the other?
Define "better". Do you mean, "the clearly preferable option in any election", or "acting on issues most citizens care about", or perhaps even just "more trustworthy"? Because these are all different and they don't all break in the Democrats' favour in every election.
The abortion issue is a perfect example. They talked a big game for decades about codifying Roe, and did absolutely nothing every time they got into power, and just cynically used that as a lever in any election to pressure people into into electing them through scare tactics. Is that trustworthy? They seem to have gotten a boost in recent polls because of abortion, but oh boy if they don't follow through this time it will be a bloodbath in 2024, and rightly so.
Believe me, the Democrats are not above trying to subvert democracy to win either. They actually do it every election in a legal way, and recently tried to do it illegally and a judge smacked them down.
I get it, you hate the tactics both sides employ, but you at least agree with what the Democrats claim to stand for. Maybe ask yourself whether they actually stand for those principles or if that's just more cynical opportunism.
The abortion issue is a perfect example. They talked a big game for decades about codifying Roe, and did absolutely nothing every time they got into power, and just cynically used that as a lever in any election to pressure people into into electing them through scare tactics. Is that trustworthy? They seem to have gotten a boost in recent polls because of abortion, but oh boy if they don't follow through this time it will be a bloodbath in 2024, and rightly so.
Believe me, the Democrats are not above trying to subvert democracy to win either. They actually do it every election in a legal way, and recently tried to do it illegally and a judge smacked them down.
I get it, you hate the tactics both sides employ, but you at least agree with what the Democrats claim to stand for. Maybe ask yourself whether they actually stand for those principles or if that's just more cynical opportunism.
The issue is less the shady deals and more the fact that the shady deals were brokered in part by the big guy, Joe, himself as vice president.
And the laptop proved that?
If that illegal activity was connected to the person in public office, absolutely. The actions around the US forcing the firing of a prosecutor going after a company with whom Hunter has signifiant financial interests — that’s a pretty big deal.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
Do you believe, honestly, that Hunter Biden did anything even remotely equivalent to Trump, his children, and Jared Kushner?
Do you find you have a lot trouble tracking conversations?
Not really, does it make you feel good to be a jerk online to people?
It shows nothing, because the story was a fabrication from the start.
Are the pictures/videos of Hunter smoking crack or whatever it was a deepfake or is that real?
I wouldn't be surprised if they were real, but there is not a dispute that Hunter is a recovering drug addict. That doesn't mean that a laptop exists with incriminating evidence of illegal activity or the President's knowledge of it.
So what’s in the laptop that doesn’t truly matter is real, but the information in the laptop that does truly matter is fake?
That’s quite a pragmatic approach.
For what it’s worth, the NYT and the Feds have acknowledged the laptop and the data on it is quite real.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
That’s quite a pragmatic approach.
For what it’s worth, the NYT and the Feds have acknowledged the laptop and the data on it is quite real.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
They have acknowledged that some of the data on it is quite real, and were able to verify many emails. As your link confirms, they also found that folders with names like "Biden Burisma" and "Salacious Pics Package" were added in September 2020...
There is nothing I can see in that NYT article that mentions those folder names and consequently that they were added in September 2020
My bad, it was the WP that did the verification and pointed out both the verifiability of the emails and obvious evidence of planted content
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-...
Even within that article it states that those folders were created after the story broke and the drive was in FBI custody.
That would indicate to me that someone in the FBI likely created folders to pull files into associated with those topics accidentally on the drive rather than on another storage location.
That would indicate to me that someone in the FBI likely created folders to pull files into associated with those topics accidentally on the drive rather than on another storage location.
I guess it's theoretically possible that labelling evidence "Salacious pics package" is a critical part of FBI investigative procedure they accidentally exposed to the press, if you want to believe enough.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the political organization that actually provided the copy of the drive to the media and whose electoral messaging around the emails the folders happened to perfectly align with might have had a little more to do with it...
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the political organization that actually provided the copy of the drive to the media and whose electoral messaging around the emails the folders happened to perfectly align with might have had a little more to do with it...
We don't really need the laptop to connect Joe Biden to Burisma (prosecutor firings). There is video linked elsewhere in this thread of Biden himself telling the story to an audience.
Exactly, it’s like we didn’t need the Mueller investigation to prove that Donald Trump colluded with Russia - he called on them to find dirt on his opponents publicly.
KerrAvon(1)
> scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us
whats truly scary is not just the limited number but the fact that these corps are always aligned in the same political direction.
whats truly scary is not just the limited number but the fact that these corps are always aligned in the same political direction.
You know what is also scary, that most of higher education is also aligned in the same political direction. It's almost as if there is some correlation that comes with education
That correlation has to do more with self selection rather than some natural order.
Are the higher educated from Brazil, Russia, China, Egypt, Japan, Poland, and Algeria also aligned in this same direction? And do you know what happens to the higher educated that don't toe the line? Here's a hint:
James Watson's DNA Nobel Prize sells for $4.8m - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30346903
And here's more than a hint: unless you're publicly committed to this same political direction, 20% of all academic jobs in the US are officially closed to you [1]. The un-official denial rate is surely even higher.
[1] https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-req...
James Watson's DNA Nobel Prize sells for $4.8m - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30346903
And here's more than a hint: unless you're publicly committed to this same political direction, 20% of all academic jobs in the US are officially closed to you [1]. The un-official denial rate is surely even higher.
[1] https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-req...
[deleted]
Or you know, brainwashing is prevalent in higher ed in case you have not noticed.
This is assuming there are no other ways for important things to be reported, such as media outlets, forums, 4chan, independent bloggers and pod casters IRC etc
If some major conspiracy was under way, I'm not sure Facbook, Google, Twitter censorhip alone would be enough to stop it?
If some major conspiracy was under way, I'm not sure Facbook, Google, Twitter censorhip alone would be enough to stop it?
You don't really have to stop it.
American elections have become so polarized that 50 000 votes in strategically important states can swing them.
It is definitely in capabilities of the tech giants to effect such a small change by putting their thumbs on the scales.
Of course, this is a general problem with the "winner takes all" political principle, and already the ancient Greeks knew that problem, but given that you can't have two Presidents at the same time, it is hard to avoid.
Even European countries where the President is usually just a figurehead suffer from bitter polarization when it comes to presidential elections.
American elections have become so polarized that 50 000 votes in strategically important states can swing them.
It is definitely in capabilities of the tech giants to effect such a small change by putting their thumbs on the scales.
Of course, this is a general problem with the "winner takes all" political principle, and already the ancient Greeks knew that problem, but given that you can't have two Presidents at the same time, it is hard to avoid.
Even European countries where the President is usually just a figurehead suffer from bitter polarization when it comes to presidential elections.
Forums, 4chan and random blogs are the last-ditch avenue for information sharing among a small, extremely attentive, more-paranoid-than-average segment of the population. They are not an effective means for journalism or mass political speech, even when the facts of that speech are clearly established.
I'm not arguing 4chan is good for that, I'm just saying social media is not the only way we find out about things either.
Social media may not be the only way to access news, but most of the other ways are too obscure to spread information quickly.
So let me get this straight.
Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform.
Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control.
Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform.
Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see.
Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publisher? Why should Facebook continue to receive Section 230 protections? They are gatekeeper, publisher, and editor.
Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform.
Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control.
Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform.
Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see.
Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publisher? Why should Facebook continue to receive Section 230 protections? They are gatekeeper, publisher, and editor.
The law protects small sites, too.
It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content.
You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize particular companies.
If you change a law like this to specifically attack one business, you're basically dumping the essence of the rule of law. Generally speaking, people are angry at Facebook's moderation decisions for political reasons. While I think they should abandon the platform, users would prefer that Facebook just enable their tribe to win. It's a silly situation. However, making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want.
It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content.
You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize particular companies.
If you change a law like this to specifically attack one business, you're basically dumping the essence of the rule of law. Generally speaking, people are angry at Facebook's moderation decisions for political reasons. While I think they should abandon the platform, users would prefer that Facebook just enable their tribe to win. It's a silly situation. However, making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want.
> Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content.
> making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want.
What the law should be changed to say is something like "if you censor any legal content based on its message, you become liable for everything". The point is that since being liable for everything would kill them, they'd stop censoring instead.
> making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want.
What the law should be changed to say is something like "if you censor any legal content based on its message, you become liable for everything". The point is that since being liable for everything would kill them, they'd stop censoring instead.
It sounds like you have never been a moderator for an online community of at least moderate size.
If you've never been in that role, it's easy to not only underestimate the sheer amount of garbage that you need to remove, so regular users won't be turned off and leave, but also the dedication and finesse of some of the trolls, who love nothing more than asymptotically approaching that line, without ever fully crossing it.
What you propose is effectively giving these guys a doomsday device (i.e., "if you censor me erroneously, your platform will be dead"). In that scenario, there is a 0% chance that a place like Facebook would not turn into an absolute cesspool.
If you've never been in that role, it's easy to not only underestimate the sheer amount of garbage that you need to remove, so regular users won't be turned off and leave, but also the dedication and finesse of some of the trolls, who love nothing more than asymptotically approaching that line, without ever fully crossing it.
What you propose is effectively giving these guys a doomsday device (i.e., "if you censor me erroneously, your platform will be dead"). In that scenario, there is a 0% chance that a place like Facebook would not turn into an absolute cesspool.
How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.
I'm from Brazil, here we have more than 3000 national companies, handling everything from oil, mining and energy to banks and in the past even telecommunications. It was a disaster, you had to wait for about one year to have a land line installed and it costed almost as much as a car, you had to declare it in your taxes!
Social media should be a protocol, in that way it will become naturally decentralized and way harder to censor or control, like email.
Social media should be a protocol, in that way it will become naturally decentralized and way harder to censor or control, like email.
Government controlled media and censorship, what could possibly go wrong?
It is apparently already like that with Facebook, but the government has a layer of plausible deniability. If the FBI can show up and tell Mark Zuckerberg to censor a story, that means Zuckerberg is effectively a state actor.
US Government is bound by first amendment, at least in theory
Suppose USGOV takes over Facebook, then is it bound by 1A for all users? Or just those in US jurisdictions?
You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.
You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.
We could do a Bell Labs and force each nation's Facebook to be spun off into its own entity, with a federated interop protocol to connect them together. I have no delusions that such a thing would ever be allowed to happen, though.
Pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled that only US citizens, regardless of jurisdiction, are afforded rights laid out in the Constitution.
Not really. As the owner of a site, the government controls its own speech and is not under any obligation to show “both sides” of an argument. Sure, it can’t only show your comment vs mine, but it can definitely choose which propaganda to spread.
Exactly. As long as Facebook is a private corporation, the First Amendment protects their right to arbitrarily censor the speech on their platform however they wish.
The way state-controlled media censorship has turned out in other countries is well-known, but having our public spaces controlled by a patsy of the government, who is not subject to the same restrictions as the government even in theory, is not a better outcome.
The way state-controlled media censorship has turned out in other countries is well-known, but having our public spaces controlled by a patsy of the government, who is not subject to the same restrictions as the government even in theory, is not a better outcome.
Cuba
Nationalizing social media is a solution... It would never happen even though many problems with the current system would be solved. Freedom of Speech, 4th amendment rights, and it wouldnt necessarily have to be profitable so it defeats the current ad driven hate machine.
Third party doctrine would no longer apply and so on.
There is a precedent for it with USPS. When a national postal service was created it was done with the realization of the ability for corruption if a service like that was in private hands. Benjamin Franklin knew this because he often read mail being passed around for intelligence, etc.
Benjamin Franklin was like an honest Mark Zuckerberg in that respect.
There is a precedent for it with USPS. When a national postal service was created it was done with the realization of the ability for corruption if a service like that was in private hands. Benjamin Franklin knew this because he often read mail being passed around for intelligence, etc.
Benjamin Franklin was like an honest Mark Zuckerberg in that respect.
[deleted]
I find the replies to this fascinating. I don’t know if nationalization would work with FB, but it is interesting what a taboo it appears to be to even bring it up.
Personally, I think 30 years ago the USPS should have made a nationalized email service at the very least.
Personally, I think 30 years ago the USPS should have made a nationalized email service at the very least.
Is Facebook the public square all of a sudden? I thought it was a private company.
Privately owned public squares exist.
Rest assured that next time I'm arrested for trespassing I won't be calling you for legal advice.
Good because I'm not a lawyer, but what I said is still true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Lol, fair enough.
Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization?
Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.
Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization?
Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.
If you read the ruling, it's not a crazy stretch.
"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation."
The argument here would be that Facebook is built and operated primarily as a benefit to the public (i.e. they draw income by being a benefit to the public), they are essentially a public function, and are subject to state regulation as such.
Facebook would remain privately-held, and could either remain open to the public and subject to constitutional scrutiny, or they could close off and become some kind of a private club like Clubhouse.
I haven't thought through the ramifications of doing so, but I think it could be legally supported.
"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation."
The argument here would be that Facebook is built and operated primarily as a benefit to the public (i.e. they draw income by being a benefit to the public), they are essentially a public function, and are subject to state regulation as such.
Facebook would remain privately-held, and could either remain open to the public and subject to constitutional scrutiny, or they could close off and become some kind of a private club like Clubhouse.
I haven't thought through the ramifications of doing so, but I think it could be legally supported.
It's probably more like a utility at this point and perhaps should be regulated as such. Utilities generally don't interject themselves into people's communications, and they can't refuse people service except for carefully regulated reasons.
The only publishing-like activity social media sites partake in are the curated news feeds. It's not clear that the service hosting accounts and people's communications as a utility has to be the same as the one providing curated feeds. That's one way to approach this anyway.
The only publishing-like activity social media sites partake in are the curated news feeds. It's not clear that the service hosting accounts and people's communications as a utility has to be the same as the one providing curated feeds. That's one way to approach this anyway.
Saying that it's a communications utility may be the best argument for regulation. However, I don't think Facebook provides anything essential and so it's much closer to entertainment/media in my mind. I'll continue to listen but they seem to be in the clear for now.
> However, I don't think Facebook provides anything essential
I'm speaking to social media in general. Is it not undeniable that if there's a public outcry on social media, that politicians pay attention? Does it not then follow that access to social media is fairly important to having a voice in our politics? Is it not also true that something like 50% of Americans get their news form Facebook? These are only surface level facts, there deeper issues like, for instance, ability to organize political campaigns for a cause without access to social media being severely hampered.
I don't know what your threshold for "essential", but access to these platforms sound pretty important to me, and I expect these trends will only increase.
I'm speaking to social media in general. Is it not undeniable that if there's a public outcry on social media, that politicians pay attention? Does it not then follow that access to social media is fairly important to having a voice in our politics? Is it not also true that something like 50% of Americans get their news form Facebook? These are only surface level facts, there deeper issues like, for instance, ability to organize political campaigns for a cause without access to social media being severely hampered.
I don't know what your threshold for "essential", but access to these platforms sound pretty important to me, and I expect these trends will only increase.
Indeed the principle feels highly relevant.
The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
Yes, but which country gets to nationalize it then? I'm assuming you mean the USA, but where does that leave the users of all of the other countries that also use Facebook?
The same problems with moderation would still exist, and as the previous commenter I think correctly pointed out, the various tribes will all still want the 'other' side's 'misinformation' censored and allow their own 'truths' put out for all to see. Zero moderation is a not workable solution because things would quickly escalate on the site (see what happens to AI chat bots when exposed to an unfiltered internet). They have to do some moderation and the more the do, the madder people get, the less they do the worse the site becomes. They therefore reach this balanced state which has BOTH angry users who feel their side is being censored AND widespread posts with dis/misinformation. It's the shittiest equilibrium.
Nationalize? What is this North Korea?
section 230 is a wildly misunderstood law with many misconceptions.
Contrary to popular belief, it doesn‘t make a clear distinction between platform and publisher.
Contrary to popular belief, it doesn‘t make a clear distinction between platform and publisher.
Indeed. The word 'platform' doesn't appear in the entire section. The only time the word 'publisher' appears is:
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
And that's the trillion dollar line. The reason for its justification is because as an owner of a digital platform, you can't get sued by Joe for defamation because somebody said something defaming about him on your platform.
Publishers can, and do, get sued for defamation because they're responsible for what they publish. Now let's imagine a hypothetical extreme where OnlineSite ends up censoring any posts related to Joe, except those that defame him. It's quite clear that the site themselves are now actively defaming Joe, but they can use 230 to hide behind that line making them legally immune.
In short, the more censorship a site engages in, the more they are effectively publishing their own views and those they defacto endorse.
Publishers can, and do, get sued for defamation because they're responsible for what they publish. Now let's imagine a hypothetical extreme where OnlineSite ends up censoring any posts related to Joe, except those that defame him. It's quite clear that the site themselves are now actively defaming Joe, but they can use 230 to hide behind that line making them legally immune.
In short, the more censorship a site engages in, the more they are effectively publishing their own views and those they defacto endorse.
The question is when is “information provided by another information content provider?”
Suppose Facebook (corporate) generates content, sells it to an independent company, then leases it back and publishes it?
Suppose Facebook uses millions of user-submitted pictures to train an AI, then publishes the resulting images? Are those “information provided by another information content provider?”
Suppose Facebook copies and pastes user content, but claims to be the author and puts “written by Facebook and representative of the company’s official views.”
Suppose they have samples that say A and B, and they choose to show A and not B?
Suppose they like the gist of A, but it would be more compelling if they edited the image, changed the wording, and cut out other parts?
Suppose they like A, but hires staffers to completely rewrite the story, like Disney redoing Cinderella?
Suppose Facebook (corporate) generates content, sells it to an independent company, then leases it back and publishes it?
Suppose Facebook uses millions of user-submitted pictures to train an AI, then publishes the resulting images? Are those “information provided by another information content provider?”
Suppose Facebook copies and pastes user content, but claims to be the author and puts “written by Facebook and representative of the company’s official views.”
Suppose they have samples that say A and B, and they choose to show A and not B?
Suppose they like the gist of A, but it would be more compelling if they edited the image, changed the wording, and cut out other parts?
Suppose they like A, but hires staffers to completely rewrite the story, like Disney redoing Cinderella?
The legalese defines this: "The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service." In all your examples except the 4th Facebook would clearly be the publisher/provider, and responsible. The 4th is where things get tricky largely because of yet another part of the law:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
Wrangling over the term "good faith" is going to be a lot trickier, especially when plausible deniability enters into the picture.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
Wrangling over the term "good faith" is going to be a lot trickier, especially when plausible deniability enters into the picture.
Yes but that appearance of “publisher” is critical - normal publishers can be sued for content under US law under certain circumstances.
We know it does protect publishers today. The point is we want it to be changed to only protect platforms.
Hacker news can do (and does on occasions) all of those things as well. It’s called moderation.
Is Hacker News a publisher?
Is Hacker News a publisher?
To my knowledge Hacker News does not publish misinformation that labels facts as misinformation. This is what Facebook, Twitter and YouTube do repeatedly. They’re publishers full stop.
HN moderation will [dead] the content. Different mechanics, but same effect - basically kills its distribution.
Of course, there are valid questions about prevalence of that, and there’s likely a point where moderation becomes publishing. But if that point was mere existence of moderation, every single platform is a publisher.
Of course, there are valid questions about prevalence of that, and there’s likely a point where moderation becomes publishing. But if that point was mere existence of moderation, every single platform is a publisher.
> Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publisher?
Facebook either disseminates posts from their users and/or links to sites operated by third-parties.
Claiming that Facebook is a publisher makes as much sense as claiming hackernews is a publisher.
Facebook either disseminates posts from their users and/or links to sites operated by third-parties.
Claiming that Facebook is a publisher makes as much sense as claiming hackernews is a publisher.
You seem to be thinking of author, not publisher. Lots of publishers publish material they didn’t write themselves, they’re still publishers when they do that.
> Why should Facebook continue to receive Section 230 protections?
Because Section 230 was written specifically to allow companies like Facebook to moderate their content. This is why it exists.
Because Section 230 was written specifically to allow companies like Facebook to moderate their content. This is why it exists.
Even worse, the FBI is going around and silencing valid, independent reporting.
[deleted]
As an offline-platform can make all sorts of bureacratic rules designed to censor those they don't like, this problem is far-far worse on a software-driven platform.
Imagine facebook wants to censor anti-Biden, or anti-Trump, posts. They needn't design an algorithm that does explicitly that - that could be scrutinised under review.
Instead: design an 'anti-spam' algorithm.
Within this anti-spam algorithm, characteristic Y is flagged. Characteristic Y just happens to be heavily-correlated to anti-biden/anti-trump posts. A bit of filtering later (for 'anti-spam measures' of-course), and you have achieved your censorship without being too overt.
Imagine facebook wants to censor anti-Biden, or anti-Trump, posts. They needn't design an algorithm that does explicitly that - that could be scrutinised under review.
Instead: design an 'anti-spam' algorithm.
Within this anti-spam algorithm, characteristic Y is flagged. Characteristic Y just happens to be heavily-correlated to anti-biden/anti-trump posts. A bit of filtering later (for 'anti-spam measures' of-course), and you have achieved your censorship without being too overt.
Does Facebook claim to be protected by Section 230?
see section 230 of a very specific US law-act as that law provided some outs for internet firms as far as being legally not declared a publisher if they volunteered to do specific things.
I found interesting how during the podcast, Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. A snippet from the podcast (with minor edits, starting from 7:25 of this video clip [1]):
> Joe Rogan: is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story?
> [...]
> Zuckerberg: yeah yeah I mean it sucks because I mean it turned out after the fact...I mean the fact directors looked into it no one was able to say it was false right. So basically it had this period where it was getting less distribution
> it sucks though I think in the same way that probably having to go through like a criminal trial but being proven innocent in the end sucks. Like it still sucks that you had to go through a criminal trial but at the end you're free
> I don't know if the answer would have been don't do anything or don't have any process. I think the process was pretty reasonable you know. We still let people share it. But obviously you don't want situations like that
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
> Joe Rogan: is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story?
> [...]
> Zuckerberg: yeah yeah I mean it sucks because I mean it turned out after the fact...I mean the fact directors looked into it no one was able to say it was false right. So basically it had this period where it was getting less distribution
> it sucks though I think in the same way that probably having to go through like a criminal trial but being proven innocent in the end sucks. Like it still sucks that you had to go through a criminal trial but at the end you're free
> I don't know if the answer would have been don't do anything or don't have any process. I think the process was pretty reasonable you know. We still let people share it. But obviously you don't want situations like that
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
> Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system.
In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here, uncorroborated claims were enough. Not even a probable cause was required.
In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here, uncorroborated claims were enough. Not even a probable cause was required.
Not really, in the justice system you are put on trial on social media first and everyone believes what they want to believe rather than the decision of a court.
You’re stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly? How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately? Facts can’t be put on “criminal trial” or got to jail - the metaphor Zuckerberg used is terrible.
You’re stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly? How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately? Facts can’t be put on “criminal trial” or got to jail - the metaphor Zuckerberg used is terrible.
Weird, I thought it was a decent metaphor.
> Not really, in the justice system you are put on trial on social media first and everyone believes what they want to believe rather than the decision of a court.
That's far better than the media censoring stories upon the suggestion of the secret police.
> You're stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly?
Not really, I'm pointing out that Zuckerberg's comparison to a trial was disingenuous.
> How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately?
What about the claim that this story was Russian disinformation? Did Facebook or Twitter make any attempt to stop amplifying it?
Did Facebook and Twitter censor stories about Trump's pee tape? There were plenty of obviously false stories about Trump.
Nobody cares about "amplifying false claims". It's a political weapon. The involvement of the FBI makes it even worse.
Regardless of your politics, this is a terrible precedent.
That's far better than the media censoring stories upon the suggestion of the secret police.
> You're stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly?
Not really, I'm pointing out that Zuckerberg's comparison to a trial was disingenuous.
> How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately?
What about the claim that this story was Russian disinformation? Did Facebook or Twitter make any attempt to stop amplifying it?
Did Facebook and Twitter censor stories about Trump's pee tape? There were plenty of obviously false stories about Trump.
Nobody cares about "amplifying false claims". It's a political weapon. The involvement of the FBI makes it even worse.
Regardless of your politics, this is a terrible precedent.
A list of random points on the matter:
1) the FBI are nothing like the secret police
2) I can understand an over correction this time is likely because they affected the result in 2016.
3) Facebook makes thousands of these judgements per day mostly automated otherwise their platforms would be cesspits
4) your idea that this is politically motivated is not proven, it’s a conspiracy theory and one I don’t even know how you’d prove it
5) Hunter Biden isn’t a part of the election and really stories whipped up about him probably shouldn’t be amplified while an election is on
I won’t be responding to this stuff anymore, I’ve said my bit. It’s getting far too political for round here anyway.
1) the FBI are nothing like the secret police
2) I can understand an over correction this time is likely because they affected the result in 2016.
3) Facebook makes thousands of these judgements per day mostly automated otherwise their platforms would be cesspits
4) your idea that this is politically motivated is not proven, it’s a conspiracy theory and one I don’t even know how you’d prove it
5) Hunter Biden isn’t a part of the election and really stories whipped up about him probably shouldn’t be amplified while an election is on
I won’t be responding to this stuff anymore, I’ve said my bit. It’s getting far too political for round here anyway.
> 4) your idea that this is politically motivated is not proven, it’s a conspiracy theory and one I don’t even know how you’d prove it
Of course it is difficult without the power to compel discovery and depositions. I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, though.
For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion, or the claims that Hunter Biden story being Russian disinformation.
Of course it is difficult without the power to compel discovery and depositions. I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, though.
For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion, or the claims that Hunter Biden story being Russian disinformation.
> I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, though.
It's quite mysterious to me why anyone would believe the FBI, an organization that has never been directed by a Democrat in its entire existence, would be politically motivated to tilt the scales toward Democrats. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.
> For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion
The thing about a conspiracy theory is that when it is investigated, and the theory pans out, then it transitions into simply a conspiracy. The claims of Russian Collusion were investigated by Robert Mueller and the Republican-chaired Senate Select Intel Committee, and they found that:
1) Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian spy along with Don Jr. and Jared Kushner at Trump's residence. They discussed an exchange of dirt on Clinton for relaxed Russian relations -- which both materialized. When this meeting was discovered they tried to cover it up, and lied about what they talked about.
2) Trump's campaign manager exchanged internal campaign data with a Russian GRU officer, which helped them target US voters in their psyops campaign.
3) The Russian GRU was responsive to Trump's public invitation to hack Hillary Clinton, and the GRU did hack the DNC. Trump loudly trumpeted those hacked materials during the campaign. Roger Stone, through a backchannel to Assange, had advance notice of the hacked materials and lied about his knowledge to Congress and the FBI, for which he was prosecuted, convicted, and later pardoned by Trump.
4) Trump himself claimed neither he nor his campaign had any contacts with Russians, and no business in Russia whatsoever. In fact, the investigation revealed that during the campaign, Trump was working on a Trump Tower Moscow deal with a penthouse dedicated to Vladimir Putin.
5) In fact, Trump's campaign had hundreds of contacts with Russians and lied about them all, including Jeff Session the attorney general who lied under oath to Congress about his contacts.
6) And finally, Trump obstructed the investigation, and lied about obstructing it. Then his hand-picked attorney general Bill Barr put his finger on the scale in the decision to indict Trump based on that obstruction. Barr subsequently lied about doing so to the public and in court filings. The evidence proving that element was unsealed just last week.
But you don't have to take my word for it. You can read the Mueller Report, Senate Intel Report, the Roger Stone court documents, and the recently released OLC memo. I don't know what you want to call the Trump Campaign working directly with a Russian GRU officer, but that sounds a lot like collusion to me.
As far as the whole thing being a "hoax", the Durham investigation has turned up next to nothing aside from an acquittal, and has gone on longer than the Mueller investigation at this point. It's sad to me so many are clinging onto the "witch hunt" and "hoax" line at this point. In fact, we were right all along, just as we were right about Trump being a aspiring despot who was willing to hang onto power at any cost.
It's quite mysterious to me why anyone would believe the FBI, an organization that has never been directed by a Democrat in its entire existence, would be politically motivated to tilt the scales toward Democrats. It just doesn't pass the laugh test.
> For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion
The thing about a conspiracy theory is that when it is investigated, and the theory pans out, then it transitions into simply a conspiracy. The claims of Russian Collusion were investigated by Robert Mueller and the Republican-chaired Senate Select Intel Committee, and they found that:
1) Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian spy along with Don Jr. and Jared Kushner at Trump's residence. They discussed an exchange of dirt on Clinton for relaxed Russian relations -- which both materialized. When this meeting was discovered they tried to cover it up, and lied about what they talked about.
2) Trump's campaign manager exchanged internal campaign data with a Russian GRU officer, which helped them target US voters in their psyops campaign.
3) The Russian GRU was responsive to Trump's public invitation to hack Hillary Clinton, and the GRU did hack the DNC. Trump loudly trumpeted those hacked materials during the campaign. Roger Stone, through a backchannel to Assange, had advance notice of the hacked materials and lied about his knowledge to Congress and the FBI, for which he was prosecuted, convicted, and later pardoned by Trump.
4) Trump himself claimed neither he nor his campaign had any contacts with Russians, and no business in Russia whatsoever. In fact, the investigation revealed that during the campaign, Trump was working on a Trump Tower Moscow deal with a penthouse dedicated to Vladimir Putin.
5) In fact, Trump's campaign had hundreds of contacts with Russians and lied about them all, including Jeff Session the attorney general who lied under oath to Congress about his contacts.
6) And finally, Trump obstructed the investigation, and lied about obstructing it. Then his hand-picked attorney general Bill Barr put his finger on the scale in the decision to indict Trump based on that obstruction. Barr subsequently lied about doing so to the public and in court filings. The evidence proving that element was unsealed just last week.
But you don't have to take my word for it. You can read the Mueller Report, Senate Intel Report, the Roger Stone court documents, and the recently released OLC memo. I don't know what you want to call the Trump Campaign working directly with a Russian GRU officer, but that sounds a lot like collusion to me.
As far as the whole thing being a "hoax", the Durham investigation has turned up next to nothing aside from an acquittal, and has gone on longer than the Mueller investigation at this point. It's sad to me so many are clinging onto the "witch hunt" and "hoax" line at this point. In fact, we were right all along, just as we were right about Trump being a aspiring despot who was willing to hang onto power at any cost.
I just said today I still can’t believe that the Republicans are this far gone they don’t want to protect America from foreign adversaries getting involved in democracy. It’s very scary how direct the involvement of Trump was and I’m certain he was very carefully handled while president as presumably the security services considered him completely compromised. He may still yet try a coop in the US a second time around. The first thing he’ll do is replace all the heads of the military.
If you’re being tried for a crime, you can still be kept in jail, or otherwise restricted by bail conditions. And even if parts of the state may consider you innocent until proven guilty, having been indicted can be terrible for your employment either in the present (if being trialled means you can’t show up for work) or in the future (if, after background checks, employers wouldn’t like to risk touching you).
So while it id true that there is an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ rule, the actual consequences of being indicted are not the consequences one would expect for someone who is actually assumed to be innocent.
I think your comment is not a helpful way to discuss a nuanced topic.
So while it id true that there is an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ rule, the actual consequences of being indicted are not the consequences one would expect for someone who is actually assumed to be innocent.
I think your comment is not a helpful way to discuss a nuanced topic.
At least the judicial system is adversarial, and the trial goes on before a jury, and you can present evidence, and cross examine your accusers.
When a handful of social media companies decide to block a story, there's no one to turn to. They're judge, jury, and executioner.
When a handful of social media companies decide to block a story, there's no one to turn to. They're judge, jury, and executioner.
> In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let's be honest, it rarely works that way.
However i agree, what facebook did here is "shoot fist, ask for forgiveness later".
Let's be honest, it rarely works that way.
However i agree, what facebook did here is "shoot fist, ask for forgiveness later".
> uncorroborated claims were enough
ah but they were uncorroborated secret claims by a secret policeman acting under “politically neutral” state authority
When someone is accused under the law “due process” means that the government has to explain what the charge is and provide evidence in public court.
The secrecy is the key and the biggest concerning factor.
ah but they were uncorroborated secret claims by a secret policeman acting under “politically neutral” state authority
When someone is accused under the law “due process” means that the government has to explain what the charge is and provide evidence in public court.
The secrecy is the key and the biggest concerning factor.
In a lot of cases the trial is worse punishment than the actual sentence.
At least there's a trial in an adversarial system.
Twitter and Facebook just censored until the end of the elections on the suggestion of the secret police.
Twitter and Facebook just censored until the end of the elections on the suggestion of the secret police.
Zuckerberg doesn't even understand the American judicial system
Yep, a person who is known for distributing misinformation and Zuckerberg who's platform does that on a huge scale.
What he’s saying is extremely muddled, I think he’s just ham fisted-ly trying to say “the truth got out there eventually” rather than “our process was as good as a criminal trial and whatever the FBI says constitutes absolute truth until it’s disproven”. I’m really not sure what Facebook should do in this situation, it’s really tricky for them.
What truth got out? This still seems like an enormous effort to prove that Hunter Biden is a dirtbag, which was already proven for years. Like didn't he sleep with his brother's widow and stuff like that?
Obviously they want to use the sins of the son to tarnish the father, but if there was actual proof of some sort of wrong-doing, it'd still be the number one story on Fox News every day.
So really you just get to complain that Facebook and Twitter didn't run it the way you wanted them to. And sure you can complain about that, but it seems pretty disingenuous to then claim that you believe in free speech if you're also trying to compel private companies to carry whatever story you prefer.
Obviously they want to use the sins of the son to tarnish the father, but if there was actual proof of some sort of wrong-doing, it'd still be the number one story on Fox News every day.
So really you just get to complain that Facebook and Twitter didn't run it the way you wanted them to. And sure you can complain about that, but it seems pretty disingenuous to then claim that you believe in free speech if you're also trying to compel private companies to carry whatever story you prefer.
> Like didn't he sleep with his brother's widow and stuff like that?
Why does that matter if they both wanted to do it?
Why does that matter if they both wanted to do it?
Would you be happy about your brother sleeping with your wife after you die? I mean, I've got an uncle-father in my ancestry, but it's considered gauche these days.
I don’t believe that I can be upset about anything after I die. Life is for the living.
What about before you die?
If this was a scandal involving one of the Trump children most of the media would be having a fit the FBI got involved like this… anyway I have literally no opinion on what the FBI (after affecting the election last time) or Facebook should do in this situation, it’s really tricky to decide what is best.
I have no idea what a scandal involving the Trump children would even mean either. Didn't Jared Kushner (who actually served in the White House) just get $2 billion from Saudi Arabia? And that was cool? So how many billions should Hunter get?
And why should I care what the media (whoever that is) has a fit over?
And why should I care what the media (whoever that is) has a fit over?
I just think it’s useful to put yourself in the opposite position and play devils advocate to understand their arguments and reasoning. Unpopular on the internet I know. I didn’t know Jared was given $2bn that’s pretty brazen and should be illegal.
Does the reasoning go beyond "it's ok when I do it"? Jared Kushner has been given things his entire life, from his Harvard entrance and degree (paid for by his father who actually spent time in prison thanks to Chris Christie) to his stint as a white house special advisor.
And I'm supposed to believe that anyone who thought all that was OK has a problem with Hunter Biden getting a salary from a company in Ukraine?
And I'm supposed to believe that anyone who thought all that was OK has a problem with Hunter Biden getting a salary from a company in Ukraine?
When the father starts boasting at conferences on video about using Whitehouse aid money to extort Ukraine into removing the prosecutor going after his son I think maybe the sons business dealings found on said laptop referencing including money for the father multiple times might be worth taking into account?
All this was on Fox. A lot. Maybe you weren't watching?
All this was on Fox. A lot. Maybe you weren't watching?
What did you find interesting about that?
That Mark apparently thinks it's his prerogative to control media narratives until he comes to his own conclusion on what the "truth" is
well, that is how they make their money
This headline is clickbait. Zuck said the FBI warned him of potential Russian propaganda during the election. Then, Zuck and his crew slowed down the spread until it was validated.
This entire discussion here is based on a false narrative, it goes off into rants of political discourse that were not true in regards to this story.
The only reason it was censored is because it fit a profile of what was expected to come. Almost all the conjecture from headline readers is covered in the podcast.
The conclusion is, if you want raw data, you can find it. 4chan is right there is you seek it. But big social media sites are not the wild-west everyone THINKS they want.
This entire discussion here is based on a false narrative, it goes off into rants of political discourse that were not true in regards to this story.
The only reason it was censored is because it fit a profile of what was expected to come. Almost all the conjecture from headline readers is covered in the podcast.
The conclusion is, if you want raw data, you can find it. 4chan is right there is you seek it. But big social media sites are not the wild-west everyone THINKS they want.
and "censored" isn't wrong but potentially misleading imo. Both because verified factual information, including about this topic can be shared and also because nobody actually was prevented from hearing about the laptop story. It was everywhere.
This needs to be higher.
Zuck clearly said that Facebook got a general warning from the FBI regarding the elections, but didn't recall having a specific warning about the Hunter Biden story.
Even with Joe Rogan trying to press on the issue (he has been known to be critical of shadow banning) Zuckeberg justified the decisions fairly well, and Joe seemed to agree with him that it was a hard issue and that Facebook handled it the best way possible, and at least better than Twitter.
The fact that they have this kind of credulous pull with the man who has his fingers on the controls of so much of our information plumbing is even more upsetting than what the right has been charging which is that Zuck is just a big ol lib, especially given some of the bigger screw ups of America's intelligence apparatus.
Watching the Earth move beneath the feet of the gatekeepers in the 00s came with a lot of warranted but clearly unsubstantiated catharsis.
Watching the Earth move beneath the feet of the gatekeepers in the 00s came with a lot of warranted but clearly unsubstantiated catharsis.
Didn’t Zuckerberg implicitly support trump at one point? (What he is doing here certainly supports trump.) In the hope trump would ban TikTok. I thought that was why the Biden admin put Facebook in the doghouse.
I think that it's worth keeping in mind that no matter what you think of their morals (that's a whole other debate for a whole other comment thread), people who have helmed sometime trillion-dollar companies for decades aren't in general stupid, and it would be fantastically stupid to make serious enemies of any candidate in any high-impact political race: if you load the boat on that and guess wrong you're going to have a bad time.
The last thing any of these people want is to be clearly partisan: it jeopardizes favorable regulation, it jeopardizes common-carrier type treatment, and it wins you roughly nothing. You want to sell software/ads/equipment/etc. to both sides obviously, but the Nash point is to get as much of that as possible without taking sides.
The last thing any of these people want is to be clearly partisan: it jeopardizes favorable regulation, it jeopardizes common-carrier type treatment, and it wins you roughly nothing. You want to sell software/ads/equipment/etc. to both sides obviously, but the Nash point is to get as much of that as possible without taking sides.
Yes. Agreed and I also think fb overplayed their hand and got too friendly with republicans.
However when Zuckerberg goes on Joe Rogan assume things are carefully planned and rehearsed; and a statement/story like this is intended and the politics of it is well understood.
So I guess they are doubling down.
However when Zuckerberg goes on Joe Rogan assume things are carefully planned and rehearsed; and a statement/story like this is intended and the politics of it is well understood.
So I guess they are doubling down.
So let me start by saying that I think your reply is the kind of thing we need more of around here: I think you've created scope for a productive conversation about the specifics of what we want to encourage or discourage as a society.
There are plenty of examples of these mega-FAANGS doing stuff that just sucks, and to the extent that a community like HN can be calm, concrete, and solution-oriented about that we have a lot of clout in aggregate. These companies absolutely cannot function without elite heavyweight hackers, and they absolutely cannot afford to pay "fuck the planet" wages to a group of people heavily skewed towards "made some serious money already".
I think my point is that partisan political bias should be relatively low on HN's collective list of things that urgently need changing in hyper-tech: it's one of those examples of the arbitrarily selfish incentives aligning with roughly the "right" thing.
FB/Mark had to cut Thiel loose because he was dragging them into extreme partisan politics. I strongly suspect that the dominant term there was the practical necessity, but I'm on board with the outcome.
There are plenty of examples of these mega-FAANGS doing stuff that just sucks, and to the extent that a community like HN can be calm, concrete, and solution-oriented about that we have a lot of clout in aggregate. These companies absolutely cannot function without elite heavyweight hackers, and they absolutely cannot afford to pay "fuck the planet" wages to a group of people heavily skewed towards "made some serious money already".
I think my point is that partisan political bias should be relatively low on HN's collective list of things that urgently need changing in hyper-tech: it's one of those examples of the arbitrarily selfish incentives aligning with roughly the "right" thing.
FB/Mark had to cut Thiel loose because he was dragging them into extreme partisan politics. I strongly suspect that the dominant term there was the practical necessity, but I'm on board with the outcome.
Zuckerberg is admitting that they throttled the Hunter Biden story. How is that "good" for Republicans? And to be clear, my personal perspective highly aligns with your own and that of, benreesman. I think all these decisions are highly calculated and that partisanship and personal convictiom rank very low in CEO calculus.
My firm belief which I've expressed elsewhere on HN is that if you want "good" bahavior out of corporations you must use the political system, preferably your functioning democracy, to compel it out of them.
My firm belief which I've expressed elsewhere on HN is that if you want "good" bahavior out of corporations you must use the political system, preferably your functioning democracy, to compel it out of them.
"Good" is a bit tricky to define, but I take your meaning broadly.
I think maybe the biggest obstacle to getting anything productive done in society is that we seem (in an almost fractal way, from like a nation-wide election down to an HN comment section) just so fucking committed to pretending that mechanism design doesn't work. It absolutely, 100% does. People as individuals, organizations composed of individuals, fucking viruses, the whole show: these things respond to incentives. Even the "higher" stuff is easily modeled as slightly more abstract incentives.
These 2022 S&P 500 corporations are stupidly, absurdly, Ronald Reagan-spontaneous-hard-on "good" at cranking "shareholder value". Which is precisely the job we've set them and the executives tasked with running them. They're doing their job.
That goal happens to align only coincidentally and peripherally with a more abstract goal I like a lot better: something like "the broader social good".
Edit: On a second read, it might not have been clear that I was elaborating on your point, not arguing with it.
I think maybe the biggest obstacle to getting anything productive done in society is that we seem (in an almost fractal way, from like a nation-wide election down to an HN comment section) just so fucking committed to pretending that mechanism design doesn't work. It absolutely, 100% does. People as individuals, organizations composed of individuals, fucking viruses, the whole show: these things respond to incentives. Even the "higher" stuff is easily modeled as slightly more abstract incentives.
These 2022 S&P 500 corporations are stupidly, absurdly, Ronald Reagan-spontaneous-hard-on "good" at cranking "shareholder value". Which is precisely the job we've set them and the executives tasked with running them. They're doing their job.
That goal happens to align only coincidentally and peripherally with a more abstract goal I like a lot better: something like "the broader social good".
Edit: On a second read, it might not have been clear that I was elaborating on your point, not arguing with it.
What is your evidence of Facebook’s pro-republican bias?
I link to an example below.
Actually I don’t think they are pro republican. It is just pure (dirty) business - in this case how to get their main competitor banned.
Just as I don’t think Zuckerberg was a communist or anything of the sort when he went to China and asked Xi Jinping to be godfather for his children.
Actually I don’t think they are pro republican. It is just pure (dirty) business - in this case how to get their main competitor banned.
Just as I don’t think Zuckerberg was a communist or anything of the sort when he went to China and asked Xi Jinping to be godfather for his children.
I was referring to stories like this (there are others as well):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/faceboo...
Facebook paid GOP firm to malign TikTok
The firm, Targeted Victory, pushed local operatives across the country to boost messages calling TikTok a threat to American children. “Dream would be to get stories with headlines like ‘From dances to danger,’ ” one campaign director said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/faceboo...
Facebook paid GOP firm to malign TikTok
The firm, Targeted Victory, pushed local operatives across the country to boost messages calling TikTok a threat to American children. “Dream would be to get stories with headlines like ‘From dances to danger,’ ” one campaign director said.
I don't think this signals any implicit Republican alignment. While firms like these often end up working more on one side of the aisle than the other they're usually not all that obsessed with their own ideology. They end up working on the side they do, usually because they start out of a campaign operation and then their connections mostly stem from that work.
Facebook pprobably used them because the firm has operations in the soecific media markets Facebook wanted to target. They probably leaned towards a political ad company because they wanted something that combined ads and opposition research (dirt digging) which political advertisers are especially known for.
Facebook pprobably used them because the firm has operations in the soecific media markets Facebook wanted to target. They probably leaned towards a political ad company because they wanted something that combined ads and opposition research (dirt digging) which political advertisers are especially known for.
Did no one else react to when Mark said they have "files" on people? It was in the context of someone trying to run a facebook page anonymously and he said Facebook will look at their file to determine if they're a bot or not. Meaning the file on the person running the page, that they already have.
At least that's how I interpreted it but no one else seems to be talking about this.
I mean it's not surprising, it would just kinda confirm everyone's fears already that Google and Meta can track any person regardless of if they give out their real name or not.
At least that's how I interpreted it but no one else seems to be talking about this.
I mean it's not surprising, it would just kinda confirm everyone's fears already that Google and Meta can track any person regardless of if they give out their real name or not.
>Meaning the file on the person running the page, that they already have.
Every site with accounts stores extra data that is tied to your account. The most common of which would be a password hash. From what I understood of what your talking about is that they store whether you have verified your identity as opposed to them trusting that you are who you say you are.
Every site with accounts stores extra data that is tied to your account. The most common of which would be a password hash. From what I understood of what your talking about is that they store whether you have verified your identity as opposed to them trusting that you are who you say you are.
Are you responding to the connotation of, say, Cold War intelligence with the use of ‘file’? For me it’s pretty trivial that Facebook can pull up information per IP, correlated IP (via accounts, usage, magic pixel) and try to work from there. I doubt it’s legal under GDPR to store all that data, but it never sees light and they could argue that they need it for compliance with things like law enforcement and keeping their own platform usable regarding bots and misuse. (Not giving my opinion regarding this tracking by FB here.)
Yeah I think it's in their interest to identify internet users for targeted ads, so they have what would amount to Stasi-like files on people. Correlating all the info they have to try and determine an internet users true identity, and they sure have a lot of information.
[deleted]
If your facebook page (fanpage, not profiles) has more than 1k followers you are required to use Geolocation data and send a copy of your ID, so they definitely have "files" on you.
I don’t understand why Facebook is getting the negative attention instead of the FBI.
This is a classic example of an entity in a position of power abusing said power. How is this different from sexual extortion for a promotion.
I don’t care how rich your company is, the FBI comes knocking, the obvious response is to acquiesce to avoid issues with the federal government
This is a classic example of an entity in a position of power abusing said power. How is this different from sexual extortion for a promotion.
I don’t care how rich your company is, the FBI comes knocking, the obvious response is to acquiesce to avoid issues with the federal government
Plenty of companies have refused or even actively opposed the FBI and have managed to “avoid issues” with the federal government. There absolutely is a point where a company’s wealth and influence affords then the ability to push back against the government with little fear of the possible repercussions. And whatever that level of wealth and influence is Facebook has absolutely far surpassed it.
Did you read the article? All the FBI did was notify FB that there was likely to be Russian propaganda incoming. Facebook made the determination about the Hunter Biden story independently.
I’ll turn the question around on you: how is this similar to sexual extortion for a promotion? I don’t see the connection.
I’ll turn the question around on you: how is this similar to sexual extortion for a promotion? I don’t see the connection.
Its not clear if that's really what happened behind the scenes. It seems that there was a coordinated effort specifically around the Hunter story. Most media outlets blacklisted it around the same time. Even the news organization that Glenn Greenwald founded (the intercept) censored it, causing an internal battle resulting in Greenwald leaving the organization. There was clearly widespread pressure to subdue this story.
Here [1] is part of that related discussion on youtube. They start talking about the laptop around 5 mins into the video.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ [video]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ [video]
So Facebook didn't censor anything? He didn't admit censoring and the story wasn't censored. Nobody had their posts about it taken down and nobody was prevented from discussing it. Facebook just didn't disseminate the story, they prevented their feeds from selecting it and showing it.
Isn't that what everyone wants? Except that they do that with all stories and have no algorithms at all?
It's not censorship though so I don't know what y'all talking about.
Isn't that what everyone wants? Except that they do that with all stories and have no algorithms at all?
It's not censorship though so I don't know what y'all talking about.
If your ISP decided to only transmit the string “jemmyw” 10% of the time, and blackhole the other 90% of jemmyw-containing packets, we would call that censorship.
Facebook altered an algorithm to transmit a story to fewer people than it otherwise would have. It’s censorship.
Facebook altered an algorithm to transmit a story to fewer people than it otherwise would have. It’s censorship.
[deleted]
If you try to say something to a 3rd person standing next to us and I shout you down, that is censorship.
If I refuse to tell a 3rd person (not present) something you tell me, that is not censorship.
I have no obligation to repeat your nonsense.
If I refuse to tell a 3rd person (not present) something you tell me, that is not censorship.
I have no obligation to repeat your nonsense.
Only "you" and "3rd person" are individuals in this story. "I" is not an individual but a giant multibillion dollar corporation with vast reach that has swayed elections in the past. Not just some dude relaying a message.
I don't recall Bell having this issue.
If you write a book and I publish it and then due to public outcry, I stop publishing it. That is censorship.
No, it's not. I'm under no obligation to help you distribute your ideas, and I can change my mind whenever I please.
The book example is literally one of the most common examples of censorship used throughout history. You’re redefining it.
If someone, or the state, orders or pressures me to stop publishing against my will that is censorship.
If someone or a group convince me to change my mind and no longer publish, that is me exercising my free speech right.
If someone or a group convince me to change my mind and no longer publish, that is me exercising my free speech right.
That's not the definition of censorship. Censorship is the suppression of information by any authority who has the ability to suppress said information. The definition doesn't require a government or any aspect of coercion.
If I run an online forum and I start removing posts I don't like, that is censorship. I'm allowed to remove those posts because it's my website, but it's still censorship.
If I run an online forum and I start removing posts I don't like, that is censorship. I'm allowed to remove those posts because it's my website, but it's still censorship.
Facebook did not remove any posts on the topic therefore Facebook did not censor the topic.
censor
"to suppress or delete as objectionable" [1]
You can't just make up definitions of words. Suppression is censorship.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
"to suppress or delete as objectionable" [1]
You can't just make up definitions of words. Suppression is censorship.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
If I choose to not throw fuel on a fire, I'm not suppressing the fire. Similarly if I choose to not share gossip about something for which I have no first hand knowledge I am not suppressing it. Hence no censorship.
So you're doubling down on a definition of the word that you invented?
You can change your mind AND it is censorship.
You don't, but FB is a communications channel.
No, it's an advertising platform.
I certainly communicate on it.
Jehovah's Witnesses proselytize at public transit stations in my area. Still a train platform, though.
Could it be both?
It could be, but it's not. Their priorities are consistently aligned with keeping the ad dollars flowing and everything else is secondary. It isn't a "free speech platform," it's not a platform for social good, it's a platform where you're allowed to say things that Facebook deems profitable.
It's an organization in which people (employees, shareholders) voluntary participate that has speech rights (including the right nor to be compelled to speak) of its own.
That is a ridiculous take. If you share a link to an article and Facebook decides to not show it on the feed for other people especially at the direction of the FBI or government, how can you argue in good faith that that is not censorship?
I think in some ways this is even more sinister than what Twitter did by blocking the article completely cause at least on Twitter you were told that you couldn’t retweet or share the link to the article.
On Facebook, anyone who shared it was under the impression that their friends were going to see it, but yet they most likely didn’t.
I think in some ways this is even more sinister than what Twitter did by blocking the article completely cause at least on Twitter you were told that you couldn’t retweet or share the link to the article.
On Facebook, anyone who shared it was under the impression that their friends were going to see it, but yet they most likely didn’t.
nobody was prevented from discussing it. Facebook just didn't disseminate the story
Facebook didn't disseminate it so you never got the chance to start discussing it.
Facebook didn't disseminate it so you never got the chance to start discussing it.
That’s not censorship
Wikipedia definition of censorship:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
What Facebook did fits the definition of censorship perfectly - they suppressed the story.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
What Facebook did fits the definition of censorship perfectly - they suppressed the story.
There is a difference between prevention and not amplifying. Facebook did the latter.
There is no effective difference. It is limiting distribution as much as restricting the number of newspapers the NY Times could sell. Or allowing free speech in a public square, but only allowing one person in at a time to hear the speech. Facebook didn't "not amplify it" they singled it out and suppressed it. They treated it differently, and negatively.
But censorship isn't about treating something differently. They have no duty to be neutral. Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech. They did not do this.
I don't really understand what you are saying. That if something isn't 100% blocked it isn't censored?
But censorship isn't about treating something differently.
Yes it is. Not just treating it differently, but treating it differently and negatively based on the content. Suppressing a story or speech based on the content.
They have no duty to be neutral.
Legally, no duty. Morally, I think most people would say Facebook has a duty to censor some things (child porn, live streams of killings, threats), and a duty to avoid censoring other things, like political speech, religious speech, etc.
Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech.
Yes. Preventing, suppressing, limiting, blocking. Any of those would be a form of censorship. It doesn't have to be 100% prevention, 100% blocked, or banned.
They did not do this.
They did. Mark Zuckerberg said the limited the distribution, that's suppression.
But censorship isn't about treating something differently.
Yes it is. Not just treating it differently, but treating it differently and negatively based on the content. Suppressing a story or speech based on the content.
They have no duty to be neutral.
Legally, no duty. Morally, I think most people would say Facebook has a duty to censor some things (child porn, live streams of killings, threats), and a duty to avoid censoring other things, like political speech, religious speech, etc.
Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech.
Yes. Preventing, suppressing, limiting, blocking. Any of those would be a form of censorship. It doesn't have to be 100% prevention, 100% blocked, or banned.
They did not do this.
They did. Mark Zuckerberg said the limited the distribution, that's suppression.
Algorithmic amplification is an entirely different kind of distribution dynamic that isn't covered by your analysis. Algorithmic amplification is inherently non-neutral, so AA is already biasing distribution. Neutrality towards some content is to not algorithmically amplify it. At best you can say Facebook was neutral towards this story. But that doesn't have the same ring to it.
Do they have a duty to be neutral with the application of their algorithm? Obviously not: such an algorithm must discriminate on content in some manner. There is no such thing as "neutral amplification" in this context. Do they have a moral duty to not consider political content in the application of their algorithm? Obviously not, as a private company they are free to bias their algorithm in whatever manner they see fit.
Can we presume there is some kind of social contract that should constrain the manner in which they bias their amplification? Perhaps one could argue for this. But this social contract does not extend to foreign actors attempting to sway an election. If Facebook had reason to believe that this story was a part of an intelligence operation--and they did given the FBI warning--being neutral towards this story is not breaking any social contract. Facebook has no duty to allow their product to be the vehicle of a foreign psyops campaign (or a local one for that matter).
Do they have a duty to be neutral with the application of their algorithm? Obviously not: such an algorithm must discriminate on content in some manner. There is no such thing as "neutral amplification" in this context. Do they have a moral duty to not consider political content in the application of their algorithm? Obviously not, as a private company they are free to bias their algorithm in whatever manner they see fit.
Can we presume there is some kind of social contract that should constrain the manner in which they bias their amplification? Perhaps one could argue for this. But this social contract does not extend to foreign actors attempting to sway an election. If Facebook had reason to believe that this story was a part of an intelligence operation--and they did given the FBI warning--being neutral towards this story is not breaking any social contract. Facebook has no duty to allow their product to be the vehicle of a foreign psyops campaign (or a local one for that matter).
If I publish a book, and the local Barnes and Noble doesn’t carry it, that’s not censorship or suppression, right? I see FB as the same thing, choosing not to distribute something is not censorship or suppression unless we dilute the meaning of those words to the point that they don’t mean a whole lot.
Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.
Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.
What if Barnes and Noble agreed to carry it, but then refused to put it on the shelves, and left your book in the box in the back because they didn't like your political message, and wanted to deny you the ability to make money.
>Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.
That's just a cheap shot and a straw man, and I could say the same to you. You clearly haven't thought through the consequences of allowing the largest private communication network to block political communication of one side of an election. If it had been Facebook deciding to block anti-Trump stories you'd be crying twice is hard.
But ignoring the straw man, it is Facebook's prerogative to not have sexual content, or to say "no political content". And while they can, and did decide to block political content to benefit one side, it is valid to criticize that without suggesting that if they allow the NY Post article they also need to allow child port to be consistent.
>Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.
That's just a cheap shot and a straw man, and I could say the same to you. You clearly haven't thought through the consequences of allowing the largest private communication network to block political communication of one side of an election. If it had been Facebook deciding to block anti-Trump stories you'd be crying twice is hard.
But ignoring the straw man, it is Facebook's prerogative to not have sexual content, or to say "no political content". And while they can, and did decide to block political content to benefit one side, it is valid to criticize that without suggesting that if they allow the NY Post article they also need to allow child port to be consistent.
I’m not talking about child porn. I’m talking about a woman promoting her own only fans site. Deciding that they don’t want to distribute that is just as much a free speech issue as the one you are talking about. You don’t get to cherry pick your pet issue and claim that free speech only applies to that.
FB distributes content, and they are always making an editorial judgement if they aren’t using a simple chronological order algorithm.
FB distributes content, and they are always making an editorial judgement if they aren’t using a simple chronological order algorithm.
What do you mean "preventing a certain kind of speech"? This is your own personaly crafted definition, not the consensus definition of censorship.
No, it's the normal definition.
So what is the "certain" kind of speech? And what kinda of speech can you block where it's not censorship?
By definition, none!
There is also a difference between suppression and prevention and nowhere in the definition given is word prevention used. Facebook suppressed dissemination of this story thus, by the definition given, it engaged in censorship. If you want to argue that the definition is wrong, fine. But that is not what you are arguing.
>nowhere in the definition given is word prevention used
There is no official or single exhaustive definition to compare text strings with and glean meaningful information. The issue is what is meant when people use the word in typical contexts. Attempted or actual prevention of certain kinds of speech is the operative meaning in the context of censorship.
There is no official or single exhaustive definition to compare text strings with and glean meaningful information. The issue is what is meant when people use the word in typical contexts. Attempted or actual prevention of certain kinds of speech is the operative meaning in the context of censorship.
[deleted]
The FBI interfered in an election and apparently you want to discuss whether censorship is the right word to use or not. Of course it's completely irrelevant whether what happened qualifies as censorship or not.
The issue is a supposedly neutral government agent very likely swayed a free election by "suggesting" to a private company it'd be a good idea to alter the information citizens are exposed to.
The issue is a supposedly neutral government agent very likely swayed a free election by "suggesting" to a private company it'd be a good idea to alter the information citizens are exposed to.
If one of my friends share something that I have not muted, I want to see that in my feed. Thats the point of the feed.
Of course things like youtube searches and related videos is less well defined.
Of course things like youtube searches and related videos is less well defined.
At the end of the day the Hunter Biden laptop story just wasn't that compelling. Everyone knew Hunter Biden had a history and struggled with drugs. It wasn't a secret. Ultimately this story wasn't buried by Facebook or Twitter. It was buried by the firehose of craziness, propaganda, and misinformation that circled the 2020 election. Just toss it on the pile of bullshit with the rest.
That was quite the revelation... though if I was in Zuck's shoes I would be throwing the FBI under the bus too as it deflects the Section 230 arguments.
From the article:
Zuckerberg told Rogan: "The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'."
He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".
Zuckerberg told Rogan: "The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like 'hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump that's similar to that'."
He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".
Whenever someone or something is labelled as being under the influence of Russia, I zone out.
Reality is hard and difficult to navigate.
Hang in there.
You can read a lot, form your own opinion and then stick to it, in a bayesian way (adjusting your view based on new information).
This may help you not feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of reality.
And yes, Russia interfered in American election. Yes, they try to weaken western democracies. No, they are not responsible for everything wrong in America today.
Hang in there.
You can read a lot, form your own opinion and then stick to it, in a bayesian way (adjusting your view based on new information).
This may help you not feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of reality.
And yes, Russia interfered in American election. Yes, they try to weaken western democracies. No, they are not responsible for everything wrong in America today.
Because there aren’t enough examples of it in recent history or just to be edgy?
Because if they were all true the West no longer exists. The USSR is back and reaches across all of Europe and the Atlantic.
Because some people think that Russia is solely a liberal boogie man. Oh the irony.
Again it goes to show how the nation state apparatus controls the narrative. If FBI can control FB then what is to them NYT and WP which they served all along in the previous administration as a source of leak. Oh wait we are still under the impression FBI has accountability?
To me, the interesting aspect of this interview was how Zuckerberg kept referring to his 'independent council of governance' as the solution to the responsibility problem, absolving the dictator-in-charge of whatever decisions those members made.
But it was not asked - and its disappointing Rogan didn't go there - to whom do these members of a presumably anonymous governance board, answer?
Without being able to observe the governance boards activities, the general public cannot exercise agency over their own rights. This is not a solution to the problem of tyranny and censorship regimes coming from those with much criminality to hide (i.e. governments), but rather cynical acqiuescance to the true source of power: the ability to keep secrets.
But it was not asked - and its disappointing Rogan didn't go there - to whom do these members of a presumably anonymous governance board, answer?
Without being able to observe the governance boards activities, the general public cannot exercise agency over their own rights. This is not a solution to the problem of tyranny and censorship regimes coming from those with much criminality to hide (i.e. governments), but rather cynical acqiuescance to the true source of power: the ability to keep secrets.
> Without being able to observe the governance boards activities, the general public cannot exercise agency over their own rights
i'm not sure that really applies?
facebook is private property of its owners, users don't have control over it unless they can also collectively claim ownership...
i'm not sure that really applies?
facebook is private property of its owners, users don't have control over it unless they can also collectively claim ownership...
Facebook is a public communications system, akin to a utility. I'd like to know who is on the governance board responsible for oversight of my communication, wouldn't you?
"Sometimes the brass allows a false rumor to go on so there won't be a leak."
https://youtu.be/7bmMzc28GR8?t=932
https://youtu.be/7bmMzc28GR8?t=932
It is known as a limited hangout.
Rogan kept putting words in his mouth. He kept insinuating that Facebook and the FBI talked specifically about the Hunter Biden laptop story, when Zuckerberg did not say that at all. Zuckerberg said the FBI warned them to be on high alert for propaganda. Facebook's judgment after that conversation was that the Hunter Biden laptop story fit that profile.
As for the story itself, I don't know all of the ins or outs, but my understanding is that it doesn't amount to anything, and certainly nothing in comparison to the entanglements of the Trump family.
I think Facebook did the right thing. It's not the obligation of social media sites to facilitate October surprises. They do not have to allow themselves to be a tool to gin up smoke. Ironically, the FBI itself was played in just such a way in 2016.
As for the story itself, I don't know all of the ins or outs, but my understanding is that it doesn't amount to anything, and certainly nothing in comparison to the entanglements of the Trump family.
I think Facebook did the right thing. It's not the obligation of social media sites to facilitate October surprises. They do not have to allow themselves to be a tool to gin up smoke. Ironically, the FBI itself was played in just such a way in 2016.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I don't know all of the ins or outs, but my understanding is that it doesn't amount to anything, and certainly nothing in comparison to the entanglements of the Trump family.
This is a pretty astounding sentence, but I would let it go, except that I see this all the time.
It reads like a dismissal of the importance of the story because there is nothing that matches the unique danger of "the Trump family". Is that fair?
Bear with me for a second as I ask, respectfully, How would you know?
Perhaps it is true that Trump is a unique evil that must be defeated by extraordinary measures, but whence comes this information? If you rely, for your mental picture of what is good and evil, of what is important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
Further, remember, whatever powers are used against the guy you don't like this election, can be used against the guy you do like down the road.
This is a pretty astounding sentence, but I would let it go, except that I see this all the time.
It reads like a dismissal of the importance of the story because there is nothing that matches the unique danger of "the Trump family". Is that fair?
Bear with me for a second as I ask, respectfully, How would you know?
Perhaps it is true that Trump is a unique evil that must be defeated by extraordinary measures, but whence comes this information? If you rely, for your mental picture of what is good and evil, of what is important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
Further, remember, whatever powers are used against the guy you don't like this election, can be used against the guy you do like down the road.
I'll double down on the quoted line.
Do you care about the laptop because it's ostensibly proof of corruption or because it tarnishes the reputation of the sitting president?
If it's the latter then go pound sand. If it's the former, then good, let's investigate and root out the corruption and address it in a court of law. But that requires being open to treating similar treatment of corruption by the prior administration.
Every mention of the laptop so far seems to fall in the "Biden is dirty" camp, not "let's punish this corruption".
> How would you know?
There's a wealth of evidence that Trump serves only Trump.
Disclaimer: I think the Hunter Biden affair was genteel corruption but there's been no substantiated evidence that his father was significantly influenced.
I put country over party, do you?
Do you care about the laptop because it's ostensibly proof of corruption or because it tarnishes the reputation of the sitting president?
If it's the latter then go pound sand. If it's the former, then good, let's investigate and root out the corruption and address it in a court of law. But that requires being open to treating similar treatment of corruption by the prior administration.
Every mention of the laptop so far seems to fall in the "Biden is dirty" camp, not "let's punish this corruption".
> How would you know?
There's a wealth of evidence that Trump serves only Trump.
Disclaimer: I think the Hunter Biden affair was genteel corruption but there's been no substantiated evidence that his father was significantly influenced.
I put country over party, do you?
It's buried in my own verbiage, but this is the thrust of my reply.
If you rely, for your mental picture of what is ... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
At the risk of distracting you from answering that question, I'll answer yours: partisan feuding is destroying the US, so I absolutely put country before party. Moreover, I actively seek out, listen to and even respect people with whom I disagree. Corruption is corruption, whether it's "my guy" or "their guy".
If you rely, for your mental picture of what is ... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
At the risk of distracting you from answering that question, I'll answer yours: partisan feuding is destroying the US, so I absolutely put country before party. Moreover, I actively seek out, listen to and even respect people with whom I disagree. Corruption is corruption, whether it's "my guy" or "their guy".
You answered my question here[1] with Take in the information as a whole and sift out one's best guess. That's all anyone can do.
With respect, that's not all anyone can do, and it's not nearly enough. My answer[2] isn't perfect, but in order not to be influenced by partisan lies in a mediascape that is actively hostile to truth, one must be more active than that.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32617732
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32617838
With respect, that's not all anyone can do, and it's not nearly enough. My answer[2] isn't perfect, but in order not to be influenced by partisan lies in a mediascape that is actively hostile to truth, one must be more active than that.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32617732
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32617838
Ok, so corruption matters to you?
From my observations Trump (and his admin) were corrupt as can be. Small case in point: Jared Kushner's business dealings where he's gotten huge amounts of money whilst ostensibly serving as a government employee.
I could dig up citations if you demonstrated its veracity if you would take the time to review them.
Back to the Biden affair -- I've seen nothing of the corrupt board membership resulting in government interference from Joe Biden. A nice summary here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-johnson-grassley-repor...
From my observations Trump (and his admin) were corrupt as can be. Small case in point: Jared Kushner's business dealings where he's gotten huge amounts of money whilst ostensibly serving as a government employee.
I could dig up citations if you demonstrated its veracity if you would take the time to review them.
Back to the Biden affair -- I've seen nothing of the corrupt board membership resulting in government interference from Joe Biden. A nice summary here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-johnson-grassley-repor...
Let's grant everything you state here about Trump and Kushner to be true. I'm not arguing against that. Yes, it's all bad. All of it. No citations necessary. I believe you.
I really want to know this: Given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, how are you making the determination that some things are not important and other things are important. How are you deciding that?
For instance, that the FBI may have influenced the election is not important information, but that Jared Kushner's business dealings are important.
Just, how do you make that evaluation?
I really want to know this: Given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, how are you making the determination that some things are not important and other things are important. How are you deciding that?
For instance, that the FBI may have influenced the election is not important information, but that Jared Kushner's business dealings are important.
Just, how do you make that evaluation?
The FBI reporting on Hillary's emails only served to damage her campaign. What she did was wrong but less wrong than Trump. Note that the Trump administration actively communicated in side channels to avoid scrutiny. And the recent news about stolen classified information
What do you want out the email controversy? That she be disqualified and/or imprisoned? And knowing what you know now about Trump, would you apply the same metrics?
It's not whataboutism here -- it's the selective outrage that I take issue with.
What do you want out the email controversy? That she be disqualified and/or imprisoned? And knowing what you know now about Trump, would you apply the same metrics?
It's not whataboutism here -- it's the selective outrage that I take issue with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Joe Biden had been in the public eye for 50 years, releasing tax returns, etc. Hunter Biden was not running for office.
Perhaps it is possible that this laptop, at the time completely unverified, had some magic smoking gun to bring down a 50 year career, magically showing up in a random place 10 days before the election. But obviously the much, much more likely situation is that it was either fake or insignificant.
If it were my social network and I cared about my responsibility to society, I don’t see why not promoting this story is at all controversial. It isn’t like Facebook is the entire internet, people still were reading about it.
Perhaps it is possible that this laptop, at the time completely unverified, had some magic smoking gun to bring down a 50 year career, magically showing up in a random place 10 days before the election. But obviously the much, much more likely situation is that it was either fake or insignificant.
If it were my social network and I cared about my responsibility to society, I don’t see why not promoting this story is at all controversial. It isn’t like Facebook is the entire internet, people still were reading about it.
If the question were Was it reasonable to suppress the laptop story? this would be an excellent answer. The question I asked is:
If you rely, for your mental picture of what is... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
If you rely, for your mental picture of what is... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
Take in the information as a whole and sift out one's best guess. That's all anyone can do.
Cognitive bias is a bitch though.
Cognitive bias is a bitch though.
My answer is a few rules of thumb:
- political stance is not my identity
- actively seek to falsify that which I know to be true
- be skeptical about any statement that fits neatly into my preconceptions
- apply the principle of charity, to reply to the strongest, most charitable interpretation of a statement, even of those with whom I disagree
- not to rely on any source once it has demonstrated a capacity to lie
- understand most people want prosperity and peace in society, and may have different, possibly excellent ways of getting there
- no, most people are not idiots, morons, crazy or evil, not even those who look at the same information I have and come to a different conclusion
- political stance is not my identity
- actively seek to falsify that which I know to be true
- be skeptical about any statement that fits neatly into my preconceptions
- apply the principle of charity, to reply to the strongest, most charitable interpretation of a statement, even of those with whom I disagree
- not to rely on any source once it has demonstrated a capacity to lie
- understand most people want prosperity and peace in society, and may have different, possibly excellent ways of getting there
- no, most people are not idiots, morons, crazy or evil, not even those who look at the same information I have and come to a different conclusion
That sounds lovely but theory and practice vary in their overlap.
One point I'll counter you on is that a significant portion of the population is literally below average intelligence and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many.
I've yet to see any capitulations by the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop but I'm willing to try to zero in on that with you to see if your words match your actions.
One point I'll counter you on is that a significant portion of the population is literally below average intelligence and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many.
I've yet to see any capitulations by the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop but I'm willing to try to zero in on that with you to see if your words match your actions.
> One point I'll counter you on is that a significant portion of the population is literally below average intelligence
Yes, half, but IQ is only one measure of a person. Compassion, wisdom, grit are others. Someone can be low IQ and yet wise, compassionate, etc.
> and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many.
Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know?
> I've yet to see any capitulations by the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop
What would capitulation look like to you? Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?
> but I'm willing to try to zero in on that with you to see if your words match your actions.
Not really sure what actions are possible given the format. But sure, walk me through.
Yes, half, but IQ is only one measure of a person. Compassion, wisdom, grit are others. Someone can be low IQ and yet wise, compassionate, etc.
> and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many.
Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know?
> I've yet to see any capitulations by the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop
What would capitulation look like to you? Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?
> but I'm willing to try to zero in on that with you to see if your words match your actions.
Not really sure what actions are possible given the format. But sure, walk me through.
> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?
Unfortunately, yes.
> What would capitulation look like to you?
To acknowledge the good/bad of each player based upon a reasonable understanding of their behavior.
> (re hate/spite): Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know?
* I mean that people will act on emotion rather than rationale in a significant number of cases, and that hate can trump love. * How many? That's a silly question. Enough to matter.
> But sure, walk me through.
Ok, first try (true/false):
Bonus points: are you religious?
Unfortunately, yes.
> What would capitulation look like to you?
To acknowledge the good/bad of each player based upon a reasonable understanding of their behavior.
> (re hate/spite): Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know?
* I mean that people will act on emotion rather than rationale in a significant number of cases, and that hate can trump love. * How many? That's a silly question. Enough to matter.
> But sure, walk me through.
Ok, first try (true/false):
a. Do you think Biden/Obama were materially moved by Hunter's participation with Burisma
b. Do you think that the kerfluffle about Hillary's emails aided in her losing the election?
c. Do you think that even that the laptop controversy itself hurt the Biden campaign?
d. Are you aware of the concept of an "October Surprise"?
e. If so, do you think they are real?
f. If so, do you think they work?
Bonus points: are you religious?
Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow.
>> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?
> Unfortunately, yes.
Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all.
> That's a silly question.
If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal?
You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not to the depth you're asking of me.
>> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?
> Unfortunately, yes.
Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all.
> That's a silly question.
If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal?
You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not to the depth you're asking of me.
First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points.
>> That's a silly question.
You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you".
> You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly
I don't follow, will review the thread(s) again to see what that is (would have helped to reiterate btw). The irony is that I'm feeling the same way (do you care about the corruption of the Trump administration as well?)
Let's return when time allows? My intentions are honorable and maybe something positive could come of it.
>> That's a silly question.
You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you".
> You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly
I don't follow, will review the thread(s) again to see what that is (would have helped to reiterate btw). The irony is that I'm feeling the same way (do you care about the corruption of the Trump administration as well?)
Let's return when time allows? My intentions are honorable and maybe something positive could come of it.
[deleted]
> You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you".
You could have stated all of that without insult.
I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation.
What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?
You could have stated all of that without insult.
I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation.
What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?
a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not.
b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails.
c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed.
d. Yes.
e. Yes.
f. Yes.
Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects.
I am not religious.
I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide?
As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case.
In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed.
Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents."
But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway).
So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous.
So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?
b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails.
c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed.
d. Yes.
e. Yes.
f. Yes.
Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects.
I am not religious.
I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide?
As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case.
In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed.
Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents."
But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway).
So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous.
So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?
> what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?
First and foremost is how many outright lies I find in the output of that source (e.g., Tucker Carlson makes claims that are consistently outrageous).
Next up would be getting a feel for the bias of the source (blatant vs innate)
Then it's compare and contrast across different media feeds.
First and foremost is how many outright lies I find in the output of that source (e.g., Tucker Carlson makes claims that are consistently outrageous).
Next up would be getting a feel for the bias of the source (blatant vs innate)
Then it's compare and contrast across different media feeds.
I'd submit that this is not adequate, because it allows for too much bias towards that which you already believe to be true; and to too-easily reject that which does not already fit in with your preconceptions. Actively falsifying claims you already believe is pretty key. Doing that on your own is essential. It's difficult, especially if you're embedded within a social context that believes "the other side" is stupid at best.
And back to the damn laptop -- if there's compelling evidence how come there hasn't been actual charges?
What if the value of the laptop story is just the cloud of doubt itself? The lack of action about prosecuting it supports this.
Buttery Males? Clinton's email server was wrong but apparently a continuation of non-compliance by previous office holders (e.g., Colin Powell). Not cool but understandable.
The issue with the top secret documents that Trump has show zero good faith justification. He was famous for not being interested in being briefed (so why now?), and was not permitted to take the docs, then lied about returning them. All the time though keeping them in questionable security.
There's not a single valid reason for him to have those docs and plenty of very bad plausible ones (blackmail/extortion).
Trump shared intelligence with Russia that wasn't meant to be shared and did significant damage to the operation and trust of our partner: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-...
But out of all of this you're most bothered by the fact that a smear campaign was not amplified enough?
What if the value of the laptop story is just the cloud of doubt itself? The lack of action about prosecuting it supports this.
Buttery Males? Clinton's email server was wrong but apparently a continuation of non-compliance by previous office holders (e.g., Colin Powell). Not cool but understandable.
The issue with the top secret documents that Trump has show zero good faith justification. He was famous for not being interested in being briefed (so why now?), and was not permitted to take the docs, then lied about returning them. All the time though keeping them in questionable security.
There's not a single valid reason for him to have those docs and plenty of very bad plausible ones (blackmail/extortion).
Trump shared intelligence with Russia that wasn't meant to be shared and did significant damage to the operation and trust of our partner: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-...
But out of all of this you're most bothered by the fact that a smear campaign was not amplified enough?
The point of the laptop story was not to root out corruption, it was just to smear Biden. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise.
I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. If there was compelling proof many of his supporters would no longer support him (self included).
Of course there's plenty of corruption and the most blatant form of that is campaign financing -- legalized bribery. There's ways to change that but one side is fully opposed to it.
I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. If there was compelling proof many of his supporters would no longer support him (self included).
Of course there's plenty of corruption and the most blatant form of that is campaign financing -- legalized bribery. There's ways to change that but one side is fully opposed to it.
> I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption.
The evidence may be on that laptop. Which was suppressed as a story. By the request of the FBI. Who has the laptop in their possession.
It is your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of corruption there that makes me believe you have been unduly influenced by partisan news.
The evidence may be on that laptop. Which was suppressed as a story. By the request of the FBI. Who has the laptop in their possession.
It is your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of corruption there that makes me believe you have been unduly influenced by partisan news.
> As a partisan
Now it's my turn to be offended. I am anti-partisan. In a two-party system I'm forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I have no side, and certainly no love for the DNC.
I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.
I don't think that Joe Biden is corrupt in a significant degree (he's deferential to his patrons but that is assumed for virtually all players). He doesn't seem obsessed with wealth and there's no indication he's significantly cashed in beyond the genteel corruption of speaking fees.
That liberal rag Forbes agrees with me: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/06/10/heres...
Hunter Biden is an adult and his father did not have direct influence over him; the investigation exonerated him of being bought.
Your complaints about the Fourth Estate are selective. The DNC email dump got plenty of action. CNN gave Trump at least a billion in free advertising (e.g., cutting away from Sanders mid speech to an empty podium that was anticipating a Trump episode).
And again, on evaluating news I look for minimal bias and maximum accuracy on what I know to be true. There's limited reporting on the "flaws" of Biden: gaffe-prone, the kept property of the credit card industry, inappropriate lingering touches, a shameful dismissal of Anita Hill, overly cautious. Perhaps more, but that's what comes to mind.
Meanwhile there's a well-documented sordid history of his rival. In fact, I'm not aware of any admirable qualities of note. This assessment is simply from the consistency of it, not because of his political party (I would enjoy having a beer with GWB as much as I disagreed with his administration).
While this has been a political themed dialog, the core question about the suppression is also simple: there exists speech that should not be tolerated (let alone promoted). Not censored, in that if you find a way to speak you are not jailed. Just not promoted, e.g., go buy your own printing press (as has historically been the case).
Anti-vax propaganda and hate speech fall into this category. I've been temporarily banned by Facebook for perceived hate speech (it wasn't), so I understand how this can fucked up but thats life. Rules can be abused but it's still valuable to have them.
Now it's my turn to be offended. I am anti-partisan. In a two-party system I'm forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I have no side, and certainly no love for the DNC.
I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.
I don't think that Joe Biden is corrupt in a significant degree (he's deferential to his patrons but that is assumed for virtually all players). He doesn't seem obsessed with wealth and there's no indication he's significantly cashed in beyond the genteel corruption of speaking fees.
That liberal rag Forbes agrees with me: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/06/10/heres...
Hunter Biden is an adult and his father did not have direct influence over him; the investigation exonerated him of being bought.
Your complaints about the Fourth Estate are selective. The DNC email dump got plenty of action. CNN gave Trump at least a billion in free advertising (e.g., cutting away from Sanders mid speech to an empty podium that was anticipating a Trump episode).
And again, on evaluating news I look for minimal bias and maximum accuracy on what I know to be true. There's limited reporting on the "flaws" of Biden: gaffe-prone, the kept property of the credit card industry, inappropriate lingering touches, a shameful dismissal of Anita Hill, overly cautious. Perhaps more, but that's what comes to mind.
Meanwhile there's a well-documented sordid history of his rival. In fact, I'm not aware of any admirable qualities of note. This assessment is simply from the consistency of it, not because of his political party (I would enjoy having a beer with GWB as much as I disagreed with his administration).
While this has been a political themed dialog, the core question about the suppression is also simple: there exists speech that should not be tolerated (let alone promoted). Not censored, in that if you find a way to speak you are not jailed. Just not promoted, e.g., go buy your own printing press (as has historically been the case).
Anti-vax propaganda and hate speech fall into this category. I've been temporarily banned by Facebook for perceived hate speech (it wasn't), so I understand how this can fucked up but thats life. Rules can be abused but it's still valuable to have them.
>> As a partisan
> I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.
Awesome. Then we are on the same side, even if we disagree on how best to get there, and on interpretation of the even the same facts.
> That liberal rag Forbes agrees
You should understand that Forbes runs a side-project that works like SubStack. It's hard to see, but note in the url this `/sites/michaelatindera`. Those sites get less fact-checking and oversight than normal because they are more intended as opinion pieces. This sub-site is from someone named Michaela Tindera whose beat seems to have been billionaires in government. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/
I read the article, but it was long and uninteresting, and after paragraphs of not actually saying where the money went, I skimmed it to the end. While it seems to show what you said to be true "that Joe Biden is [not] corrupt in a significant degree", I think this kind of thing is picking at lint. I suspect Joe Biden, like Clinton and unlike Trump, is well aware of the bounds of legal corruption and will always be able to say correctly that he follows the law, even though the law itself allows for legalized corruption such as earning high speaking fees as private citizens. Or high-paying sinecures for family members. As a comparison, the only reason Trump's bullying of Ukraine was illegal while Joe Biden's was legal, was not because one act was inherently ethical and the other is wrong, but because Biden has intimate awareness of these arcane protocols through long experience; Trump does not. To my mind, it doesn't matter if it's legal. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter which party does it. We can quibble about whether Joe Biden "meant" to help out his son, but the fact is, he did. He quashed the investigation and has a plausible, legal reason for doing so.
> I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.
Awesome. Then we are on the same side, even if we disagree on how best to get there, and on interpretation of the even the same facts.
> That liberal rag Forbes agrees
You should understand that Forbes runs a side-project that works like SubStack. It's hard to see, but note in the url this `/sites/michaelatindera`. Those sites get less fact-checking and oversight than normal because they are more intended as opinion pieces. This sub-site is from someone named Michaela Tindera whose beat seems to have been billionaires in government. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/
I read the article, but it was long and uninteresting, and after paragraphs of not actually saying where the money went, I skimmed it to the end. While it seems to show what you said to be true "that Joe Biden is [not] corrupt in a significant degree", I think this kind of thing is picking at lint. I suspect Joe Biden, like Clinton and unlike Trump, is well aware of the bounds of legal corruption and will always be able to say correctly that he follows the law, even though the law itself allows for legalized corruption such as earning high speaking fees as private citizens. Or high-paying sinecures for family members. As a comparison, the only reason Trump's bullying of Ukraine was illegal while Joe Biden's was legal, was not because one act was inherently ethical and the other is wrong, but because Biden has intimate awareness of these arcane protocols through long experience; Trump does not. To my mind, it doesn't matter if it's legal. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter which party does it. We can quibble about whether Joe Biden "meant" to help out his son, but the fact is, he did. He quashed the investigation and has a plausible, legal reason for doing so.
Hunter turned out to be mostly a non-story [1] in practice but the FBI silencing his laptop story makes every partisan person in the country immediately think there's something they are trying to hide. Especially when it comes out they already had access to the laptop data before the suppression of the information, so they knew it was real.
I don't blame them for thinking it's a big deal. They Streisand'd it into the biggest deal possible.
[1] besides people who find rich kids being fuck-ups damaging to the parent, but he wasn't politically involved like other politicians children and there wasn't much tangible beyond that
I don't blame them for thinking it's a big deal. They Streisand'd it into the biggest deal possible.
[1] besides people who find rich kids being fuck-ups damaging to the parent, but he wasn't politically involved like other politicians children and there wasn't much tangible beyond that
> but he wasn't politically involved like other politicians children and there wasn't much tangible beyond that
He was a board member of a Ukrainian oil company receiving tons of money having 0-energy related business experience. Then there's the firing of the prosecutor looking into the corruption of Burisma at the behest of Joe Biden ("son of bitch, he got fired"). Now we're sending billions of dollars over there with reports saying few of those dollars are going to the front lines.
Conservatively, there's enough there to warrant the appearance of impropriety and the American public deserve to have answers. When a story came out exposing this behavior the democratic party, the major news networks, social networks, and now the FBI actively peddled misinformation wrongly calling it Russian-propoganda and/or censoring/suppressing it.
Seems sketch.
He was a board member of a Ukrainian oil company receiving tons of money having 0-energy related business experience. Then there's the firing of the prosecutor looking into the corruption of Burisma at the behest of Joe Biden ("son of bitch, he got fired"). Now we're sending billions of dollars over there with reports saying few of those dollars are going to the front lines.
Conservatively, there's enough there to warrant the appearance of impropriety and the American public deserve to have answers. When a story came out exposing this behavior the democratic party, the major news networks, social networks, and now the FBI actively peddled misinformation wrongly calling it Russian-propoganda and/or censoring/suppressing it.
Seems sketch.
> Now we're sending billions of dollars over there with reports saying few of those dollars are going to the front lines.
The vast majority of the “money” we are sending is military equipment that the U.S. produces. You think Ukraine is reselling it to somebody else while they are in the middle of a war?
The vast majority of the “money” we are sending is military equipment that the U.S. produces. You think Ukraine is reselling it to somebody else while they are in the middle of a war?
> The vast majority of the “money” we are sending is military equipment that the U.S. produces. You think Ukraine is reselling it to somebody else while they are in the middle of a war?
This story that is now continuously pushed by pro Russians is based off a single story from a single NGO that didn't even relate to the current stage of the war.
This story instead was talking about how weapons where being targeted by Russia before they reached the front lines early on and is not at all relevant anymore.
What people are trying to do is angle this story as the weapons being sold, but it's actually about weapon shipments being targeted by Russia.
This story that is now continuously pushed by pro Russians is based off a single story from a single NGO that didn't even relate to the current stage of the war.
This story instead was talking about how weapons where being targeted by Russia before they reached the front lines early on and is not at all relevant anymore.
What people are trying to do is angle this story as the weapons being sold, but it's actually about weapon shipments being targeted by Russia.
> FBI actively peddled misinformation wrongly calling it Russian-propoganda and/or censoring/suppressing it.
No, they weren't wrong. This was a Russian propaganda op to amplify a non-story.
No, they weren't wrong. This was a Russian propaganda op to amplify a non-story.
What part of the story was inaccurate?
The part that alleges the laptop and all the information on it are Hunter's. A laptop exists, yes, but it doesn't mean it's Hunter's or has his information. It also doesn't come close to implicating Joe Biden in any way.
All it does is show Hunter is a drug user and has a lot of sex. This was known already.
Even the guy who _found_ the laptop says it is likely disinformation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warni...
All it does is show Hunter is a drug user and has a lot of sex. This was known already.
Even the guy who _found_ the laptop says it is likely disinformation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warni...
> "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."
No credible news source any longer disputes that it was indeed Hunter Biden's laptop. Does this change your opinion of anything?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
No credible news source any longer disputes that it was indeed Hunter Biden's laptop. Does this change your opinion of anything?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
> No credible news source any longer disputes that it was indeed Hunter Biden's laptop. Does this change your opinion of anything?
It's already my opinion that the laptop could have belonged to Hunter at some point (no clear evidence on how it was lost-perhaps stolen). We know it was accessed and modified many times by many people, though. We also know there's no evidence of any malfeasance on Joe Biden's part.
Given that, what opinion have I claimed in here that you think I should change?
Does the following affect your opinion at all? These are some links/quotes that have been posted in other places under this article:
"An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controve... https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Hunter_Biden_emails#Timeline https://ddosecrets.substack.com/p/release-hunter-biden-email...
The guy who found the laptop says that claims being made do not match what he saw on the laptop, and it is known that the data has changed hands and been modified multiple times post any Hunter connection:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warni...
“[An expert] also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.”
“Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, ‘Mail,' ‘Salacious Pics Package’ and ‘Big Guy File’ — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.” ... In other words, Mac Isaac [note: the guy who was given the laptop] says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset.
Additionally, I think folks are losing the forest for the trees: the entire point of this smear campaign is to allege Joe Biden improperly leaned on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. That is ridiculous on its face as it is well known that the prosecutor in question was corrupt, and it was US policy–not Biden's, but Obama's–to convince Ukraine to fire him. This was a multinational effort btw, not just the US. Do you feel like Biden was wrong to get the guy fired? Some background information on what happened there: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrat...
It's already my opinion that the laptop could have belonged to Hunter at some point (no clear evidence on how it was lost-perhaps stolen). We know it was accessed and modified many times by many people, though. We also know there's no evidence of any malfeasance on Joe Biden's part.
Given that, what opinion have I claimed in here that you think I should change?
Does the following affect your opinion at all? These are some links/quotes that have been posted in other places under this article:
"An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controve... https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Hunter_Biden_emails#Timeline https://ddosecrets.substack.com/p/release-hunter-biden-email...
The guy who found the laptop says that claims being made do not match what he saw on the laptop, and it is known that the data has changed hands and been modified multiple times post any Hunter connection:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warni...
“[An expert] also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.”
“Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, ‘Mail,' ‘Salacious Pics Package’ and ‘Big Guy File’ — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.” ... In other words, Mac Isaac [note: the guy who was given the laptop] says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset.
Additionally, I think folks are losing the forest for the trees: the entire point of this smear campaign is to allege Joe Biden improperly leaned on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. That is ridiculous on its face as it is well known that the prosecutor in question was corrupt, and it was US policy–not Biden's, but Obama's–to convince Ukraine to fire him. This was a multinational effort btw, not just the US. Do you feel like Biden was wrong to get the guy fired? Some background information on what happened there: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrat...
I'm not reading through all that. If you have a single link that lays out your case put it here.
Your claim was A laptop exists, yes, but it doesn't mean it's Hunter's or has his information.
NYT discusses authenticated Hunter Biden emails from the laptop.
Unless you're claiming that someone secreted authentic emails onto an inauthentic laptop?
Honestly, this thread is less about the laptop than about government institutions suppressing the story.
But, advancing claims with which you already agree is easy. If you want to be the Master of the Laptop, falsify each of the claims in this article. [The National Tragedy of Hunter Biden's Laptop - Tablet Magazine](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-nationa...)
Your claim was A laptop exists, yes, but it doesn't mean it's Hunter's or has his information.
NYT discusses authenticated Hunter Biden emails from the laptop.
Unless you're claiming that someone secreted authentic emails onto an inauthentic laptop?
Honestly, this thread is less about the laptop than about government institutions suppressing the story.
But, advancing claims with which you already agree is easy. If you want to be the Master of the Laptop, falsify each of the claims in this article. [The National Tragedy of Hunter Biden's Laptop - Tablet Magazine](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-nationa...)
It's a rather short post all things considered. I quoted the relevant portions. If you don't feel up to reading them, fine, but please don't pretend you know the facts when you ignore the evidence that has been presented.
> Unless you're claiming that someone secreted authentic emails onto an inauthentic laptop?
No, please read my previous post and if you're interested the links. tl;dr: some emails were authenticated, some were shown to have been tampered with.
> Honestly, this thread is less about the laptop than about government institutions suppressing the story.
This never happened, though. Facebook chose not to amplify the story based on information it had previously received from the FBI. Zuckerberg did not claim the FBI told them not to amplify this story, and the FBI talked to Facebook prior to the story coming out. This is spelled out in the post this topic is under.
> But, advancing claims with which you already agree is easy. If you want to be the Master of the Laptop, falsify each of the claims in this article. [The National Tragedy of Hunter Biden's Laptop - Tablet Magazine](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-nationa...)
You didn't bother reading the relevant materials and ask me to read more. No.
> Unless you're claiming that someone secreted authentic emails onto an inauthentic laptop?
No, please read my previous post and if you're interested the links. tl;dr: some emails were authenticated, some were shown to have been tampered with.
> Honestly, this thread is less about the laptop than about government institutions suppressing the story.
This never happened, though. Facebook chose not to amplify the story based on information it had previously received from the FBI. Zuckerberg did not claim the FBI told them not to amplify this story, and the FBI talked to Facebook prior to the story coming out. This is spelled out in the post this topic is under.
> But, advancing claims with which you already agree is easy. If you want to be the Master of the Laptop, falsify each of the claims in this article. [The National Tragedy of Hunter Biden's Laptop - Tablet Magazine](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-nationa...)
You didn't bother reading the relevant materials and ask me to read more. No.
Downvoters: explain!
Trump proved he was a unique evil after he tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power by usurping democracy.
Remember, there are also questions about Trump's loyalty to the United States, he was literally placed under a counter-intelligence investigation for fear he was working for a foreign power, the results of this investigation are still unknown.
Extremism in the defense of liberty isn't a vice. When it comes to obstructing Trump and his acolytes, the ends always justify the means.
Remember, there are also questions about Trump's loyalty to the United States, he was literally placed under a counter-intelligence investigation for fear he was working for a foreign power, the results of this investigation are still unknown.
Extremism in the defense of liberty isn't a vice. When it comes to obstructing Trump and his acolytes, the ends always justify the means.
If the question were Is Trump actually a unique evil? this would be an excellent answer. The question I asked is:
If you rely, for your mental picture of what is... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
If you rely, for your mental picture of what is... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
baskethead(6)
It's interesting to me that (apparently) we consider organic views to be what the algorithm disseminates, and not what humans share to each other.
Why did he go on Rogan? What was the motivation?
His PR people have been unsuccessful in framing him as anything other than a dull automaton from another world. Maybe he thought being able to talk uninterrupted and unedited for 4 hours would humanize him.
After the mar-a-lago raid the fbi has written itself off almost completely for republican voters.
Zuck is positioning himself as victim of government and the fbi, and trying to win points with the right. He needs to do this because November will bring a red wave and the next president will almost certainly be red.
Appearing like a democrat ally at this point is suicide for Facebook in 2 years. He needs to repair relations.
Zuck is positioning himself as victim of government and the fbi, and trying to win points with the right. He needs to do this because November will bring a red wave and the next president will almost certainly be red.
Appearing like a democrat ally at this point is suicide for Facebook in 2 years. He needs to repair relations.
Did anyone read the story and compare it to Zuck narrative as they oppose one another.
That’s a very bad take. What he said was:
1. FBI said there may be Russian propaganda coming, be on the lookout
2. They decided to allow posting of Hunter Biden story, but reduce the distribution while independent fact checkers confirm it
3. Then eventually allow the story to be distributed
Calling it “censorship at behest of FBI” is very disingenuous and misrepresents the story. I think what they did was very reasonable as a platform.
Calling it “censorship at behest of FBI” is very disingenuous and misrepresents the story. I think what they did was very reasonable as a platform.
I would not have voted in the election if I knew about the laptop. True story about something that is true.
That was the only point about the laptop -- to smear Biden.
But it was a true story? You don’t want to hear about true bad things if they are about people you like?
My (current) understanding of the truth:
Do you want to hear the awful truth about people you like?
* Hunter Biden was (is?) a drug addict
* Hunter Biden has done stuff to be ashamed of
* Hunter Biden got a board member seat on Burisma because of who his dad is
* Content (some percentage) on the laptop in question came from Hunter Biden
Do you want to hear the awful truth about people you like?
I think the politcaly relevant points were:
* Hunter Biden appeared to have sold access to Joe Biden to Chinese officials
And suppressing that story before the election was a form of “election interference”
* Hunter Biden appeared to have sold access to Joe Biden to Chinese officials
And suppressing that story before the election was a form of “election interference”
But he didn't. The point I'm trying to make is the whole point of the story was to insinuate Joe Biden had an active part in this.
Yes, Hunter, his adult son who he doesn't control, was engaged in a corrupt enterprise. There's zero proof Joe was involved but yet you hold on to the story like it matters.
The story is pure election interference, hoping to be a repeat of Buttery Males.
You all are proof that the only thing that matters is that there's a possibility that "the other guy" is corrupt. Yet mountains of evidence that Trump is corrupt have no impact on you.
Hmmmmmmm, so do you really care about corruption or do you just hate the other team?
Yes, Hunter, his adult son who he doesn't control, was engaged in a corrupt enterprise. There's zero proof Joe was involved but yet you hold on to the story like it matters.
The story is pure election interference, hoping to be a repeat of Buttery Males.
You all are proof that the only thing that matters is that there's a possibility that "the other guy" is corrupt. Yet mountains of evidence that Trump is corrupt have no impact on you.
Hmmmmmmm, so do you really care about corruption or do you just hate the other team?
https://nypost.com/2022/08/05/joe-biden-met-chinese-energy-e...
Trump’s corruption and Biden’s corruption are both relevant to voters.
Trump’s corruption and Biden’s corruption are both relevant to voters.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816171221/https://www.washi...
No evidence of actual corruption by Joe Biden.
Again, if there was he should be prosecuted accordingly. Nobody is above the law, right?
No evidence of actual corruption by Joe Biden.
Again, if there was he should be prosecuted accordingly. Nobody is above the law, right?
Sure, crimes should be prosecuted. There is enough questionable evidence here that voters should know about, the information should not have been suppressed.
It wasn't suppressed, it just wasn't amplified.
You're demonstrating exactly why: because you don't care about corruption you just hate the other candidate. And that's the only value of the story, is for you to complain about it.
If there was evidence that Biden Sr. was corrupt his supporters would turn on him.
You're demonstrating exactly why: because you don't care about corruption you just hate the other candidate. And that's the only value of the story, is for you to complain about it.
If there was evidence that Biden Sr. was corrupt his supporters would turn on him.
The only part of the story that's true is that Hunter Biden was given money with the expectation that he'd have political influence over his father. There's zero evidence to show that happened.
Turnabout is fair play: are you willing to hear true bad things about the people you like?
Turnabout is fair play: are you willing to hear true bad things about the people you like?
It’s relevance is for the American voter to decide, not the FBI or Zuckerberg.
The best part is that the attempted suppression only sheds even more light on it.
The best part is that the attempted suppression only sheds even more light on it.
[deleted]
The only point of the Steele dossier paid for by Hillary was to smear Trump. Should that story also have been censored? It was provably full of fake information.
Opposition research is a foundation of all campaigns, so get off your high horse.
The Steele Dossier is the next gen version of RatherGate (discredited reporting on a subject that can still be assumed to be true).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
The Steele Dossier is the next gen version of RatherGate (discredited reporting on a subject that can still be assumed to be true).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
The laptop was all over the news at the time. But the news said it was Russian misinformation.
My skepticism of the media didn't quite reach the level it should have at the time.
At least there is telegram for real news am I Right?
I've stopped using smart phones for the most part this year so I won't be using it I don't think. I've been scared enough by what I've already learned come to pass that I think I don't need to be scared further by rumor mongering. All I know is that it seems the quality of the media is viewed by my peers as about the same as I'd expect the soviets thought of theirs back in 1986.
> But the news said it was Russian misinformation.
And pushing the story was Russian misinformation, peddled via Rudy. Weird how trump world folks keep pushing Russian ops.
And pushing the story was Russian misinformation, peddled via Rudy. Weird how trump world folks keep pushing Russian ops.
I think a lot of people forgot how sketchy the laptop story seemed when it came out.
Even conservative media sources like Tucker Carlson and the WSJ refused to touch it because the idea of Hunter Biden just leaving a water damaged laptop with a blind laptop repair guy (blind so the repair person could never testify to who left the laptop) just seemed so absurd.
Even conservative media sources like Tucker Carlson and the WSJ refused to touch it because the idea of Hunter Biden just leaving a water damaged laptop with a blind laptop repair guy (blind so the repair person could never testify to who left the laptop) just seemed so absurd.
Hunter Biden once rented a car which was then returned in the middle of the night with his driver's licenses and credit cards left behind, along with a crack pipe that had residue of cocaine on it. In addition, the car keys were left in the gas tank compartment instead of the car key drop box.
Do you actually know anyone who smokes crack? They don't always make the most sensible decisions.
I don't find the story absurd in the slightest.
Do you actually know anyone who smokes crack? They don't always make the most sensible decisions.
I don't find the story absurd in the slightest.
I think I take issue with the word “censorship”. Is it really censorship if free speech was never guaranteed in the first place?
I mean less the denotative definition and more the connotative definition.
I mean less the denotative definition and more the connotative definition.
Fine, use another word then. The FBI interfered in an election, call it censorship or not. That's the issue, not the specific semantics you're worried about.
I've long thought that all American media is biased, one way or the other.
What's really disappointing is to see the FBI mixed up in this.
What's really disappointing is to see the FBI mixed up in this.
In China people can’t access objective and free speech media and they know it that they are being manipulated.
In America people can’t access objective and free speech media but their oppressors make them believe that they 100% can and everyone is falling for it.
Personally I find the latter much more scary and a dangerously broken society.
In America people can’t access objective and free speech media but their oppressors make them believe that they 100% can and everyone is falling for it.
Personally I find the latter much more scary and a dangerously broken society.
This is the same guy who bought off public election officials with $600M.
I’m kind of shocked this isn’t a bigger story.
- Right before a presidential election a major story breaks about a Presidential candidate
- FBI jumps in to say “it’s Russian disinformation”
- Story suppressed across the media including online as “disinformation”
- After the election story turns out to be 100% true
- Right before a presidential election a major story breaks about a Presidential candidate
- FBI jumps in to say “it’s Russian disinformation”
- Story suppressed across the media including online as “disinformation”
- After the election story turns out to be 100% true
It is a major story, but not in US. Why do you think states lost respect and credibility worldwide?
Huh? If anything it's a story only in the US.
Pretty sure the "lose of respect" mostly occured during Trump's presidency.
Pretty sure the "lose of respect" mostly occured during Trump's presidency.
The things that happened and were said by Trump during his presidency was so unfathomably bad that I don't think the US will recover its status abroad for a long time. It doesn't matter who gets to be president next. The fact that a grifting Russia-owned mobster with an equally grifting family got elected to the highest office in (arguably) the world, is still hard to believe to this day.
For other countries Trump was normal US president. His worst thing by far was withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal.
No doubt Trump pulling US troops out of Europe ticked off the EU.
Doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.
Doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.
> FBI jumps in to say “it’s Russian disinformation”
This did not happen. As the article details, before the election the FBI gave a general warning and Facebook came to their own conclusion that the laptop looked like Russian disinformation.
This did not happen. As the article details, before the election the FBI gave a general warning and Facebook came to their own conclusion that the laptop looked like Russian disinformation.
No. That's not what happened.
The FBI told Facebook "Be on the lookout for an uptick in disinformation campaigns." A few weeks later, the Hunter Biden laptop story broke. It had all the hallmarks of what the FBI was warning about, plus if you remember correctly, there was a lot of propaganda from the Dems and former CIA officials saying it was Russian misinformation.
The FBI told Facebook "Be on the lookout for an uptick in disinformation campaigns." A few weeks later, the Hunter Biden laptop story broke. It had all the hallmarks of what the FBI was warning about, plus if you remember correctly, there was a lot of propaganda from the Dems and former CIA officials saying it was Russian misinformation.
If that isn't what happened, the response isn't convincing anyone, and clearly isn't meant to. This tactic concerns me more than any figurehead.
> After the election story turns out to be 100% true
Not entirely. The laptop was real, yes, but at the time Trumpists were claiming it had everything from evidence of Biden's conspiracy to steal the election to his child porn stash. This wasn't a story about Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, it was a story about his son that the Trumpists hoped would destroy his candidacy somehow.
Given how much deliberate disinformation and BS the Trump camp was putting out at the time (Sharpiegate? Dominion voting machines? Boxes full of fake ballots?) the reaction to the briefcase shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course, most of what was claimed about the briefcase was still false, because it was mostly an attempt at repeating the character assassination by proxy of the DNC email scandal. If you want to blame anyone, blame the messengers for crying wolf so often.
Not entirely. The laptop was real, yes, but at the time Trumpists were claiming it had everything from evidence of Biden's conspiracy to steal the election to his child porn stash. This wasn't a story about Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, it was a story about his son that the Trumpists hoped would destroy his candidacy somehow.
Given how much deliberate disinformation and BS the Trump camp was putting out at the time (Sharpiegate? Dominion voting machines? Boxes full of fake ballots?) the reaction to the briefcase shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course, most of what was claimed about the briefcase was still false, because it was mostly an attempt at repeating the character assassination by proxy of the DNC email scandal. If you want to blame anyone, blame the messengers for crying wolf so often.
> The laptop was real, yes,
Weren't only some emails authenticated? The details on how the Washington Post authenticated them weren't enough to make me trust that they knew what they're doing. Email is famously unencrypted in a lot of its transit; could it have been sniffed? Could Biden have been the victim of spyware that captured the emails? It may very well be real, but the story about how it got to the press is bizarre, and the evidence is messy.
Weren't only some emails authenticated? The details on how the Washington Post authenticated them weren't enough to make me trust that they knew what they're doing. Email is famously unencrypted in a lot of its transit; could it have been sniffed? Could Biden have been the victim of spyware that captured the emails? It may very well be real, but the story about how it got to the press is bizarre, and the evidence is messy.
I thought the FBI had the laptop. How are all these other people claiming to have copies of the hard drive?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers...
The story was stranger than I remember.
> According to the New York Post story, a person—who Mac Isaac could not identify because he is legally blind—left the computer at the repair shop to repair water damage, but once this was completed, the shop had no contact information for its owner, and nobody ever paid for it or came to pick it up.
The story was stranger than I remember.
> According to the New York Post story, a person—who Mac Isaac could not identify because he is legally blind—left the computer at the repair shop to repair water damage, but once this was completed, the shop had no contact information for its owner, and nobody ever paid for it or came to pick it up.
The easiest thing to get traction would just to release it anonymously but it never happened. There was that tiny 4chan leak but it basically was nothingburger.
I remember hearing a story recently that a representative from Florida entered a copy of the hard drive into the Congressional Record.
What does that actually mean? Is it now available for anyone to request a copy?
What does that actually mean? Is it now available for anyone to request a copy?
More than that, there is evidence of tampering with the data on the drive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-...
> In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI.
> Maxey had alerted The Washington Post to this issue in advance, saying that others had accessed the data to examine its contents and make copies of files. But the lack of what experts call a “clean chain of custody” undermined Green’s and Williams’s ability to determine the authenticity of most of the drive’s contents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-...
> In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI.
> Maxey had alerted The Washington Post to this issue in advance, saying that others had accessed the data to examine its contents and make copies of files. But the lack of what experts call a “clean chain of custody” undermined Green’s and Williams’s ability to determine the authenticity of most of the drive’s contents.
That might all be true but it distracts from the original point - the FBI helped suppress information about a candidate prior to a Presidential election under the claim it was “disinformation” but had no evidence it was. They just said "it looks like Russian disinformation".
That should worry anyone no matter who you voted for.
Sure, the Trump side may be guilty of twisting it into something it's not, but I'm pretty sure "let's have the FBI suppress true stories to stop them from being twisted for political gain" is a terrible way to address it.
That should worry anyone no matter who you voted for.
Sure, the Trump side may be guilty of twisting it into something it's not, but I'm pretty sure "let's have the FBI suppress true stories to stop them from being twisted for political gain" is a terrible way to address it.
As I read the article, it doesn't suggest the FBI knew the story about Hunter Biden's laptop was true at the time, so the claim that they were "suppressing true stories," while technically correct, is a disingenuous framing of events.
It seems the FBI didn't order Facebook to suppress that story specifically, rather they warned Facebook generally about misinformation and propaganda, and Facebook (along with everyone else) decided of their own volition to suppress the story about the laptop. A story which, we both admit, was surrounded by a cloud of misinformation regardless of the kernel of truth in the middle. So they weren't even entirely wrong to do so on that account.
You could say that Facebook and the media were caught up in something of a moral panic about disinformation at the time, and overreacted, and I might agree.
And again - this wasn't information about a candidate. As far as I know, the only link to Joe Biden is that Hunter Biden introduced a Russian businessman to him when he was Vice President. That's hardly Watergate.
It seems the FBI didn't order Facebook to suppress that story specifically, rather they warned Facebook generally about misinformation and propaganda, and Facebook (along with everyone else) decided of their own volition to suppress the story about the laptop. A story which, we both admit, was surrounded by a cloud of misinformation regardless of the kernel of truth in the middle. So they weren't even entirely wrong to do so on that account.
You could say that Facebook and the media were caught up in something of a moral panic about disinformation at the time, and overreacted, and I might agree.
And again - this wasn't information about a candidate. As far as I know, the only link to Joe Biden is that Hunter Biden introduced a Russian businessman to him when he was Vice President. That's hardly Watergate.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
The content of the laptop is not the point in question. The ability of the FBI and the media to bury a factual story right before an election is the problem.
If the sides had been flipped and the FBI said potentially negative news about Trump was "disinformation" (without proof) I'd be just as concerned.
And take a look at the NYTimes article from Oct 2020. It details the fact the FBI had seen the laptop a year earlier (including a receipt from the Baltimore FBI office and confirmation from the FBI). It knew it wasn't Russian disinformation before the story ever broke.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
The content of the laptop is not the point in question. The ability of the FBI and the media to bury a factual story right before an election is the problem.
If the sides had been flipped and the FBI said potentially negative news about Trump was "disinformation" (without proof) I'd be just as concerned.
And take a look at the NYTimes article from Oct 2020. It details the fact the FBI had seen the laptop a year earlier (including a receipt from the Baltimore FBI office and confirmation from the FBI). It knew it wasn't Russian disinformation before the story ever broke.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
But they didn’t do any of the things you accuse them of…
And a nothing burger. Amazing how a Coke addict who failed upwards to get a cushy c suite job like many, is supposed to sway the election but the Trump family running a fraudulent university and a fraudulent charity, paying millions in fines, isn’t literally a disqualification.
We knew what Trump did. If he did something, we knew. And we always knew. It was a favorite thing to discuss.
[deleted]
The simplest explanation is that Hunter was selling access to Joe Biden.
Is there any evidence of that actually happening?
To me the simplest explanation is Hunter Biden was selling the perception of proximity to Joe Biden. Which is skeevy but IMO doesn’t reflect on Joe Biden as anything except a shitty father.
To me the simplest explanation is Hunter Biden was selling the perception of proximity to Joe Biden. Which is skeevy but IMO doesn’t reflect on Joe Biden as anything except a shitty father.
It is a big story on the conservative side of the ever more inflamed culture war. Few recognize it as a civil war because it’s 2022, and so is being fought with information rather than gunpowder. Mostly. So far.
[deleted]
KerrAvon(2)
There's no right answer to:
- what you should censor
- whether you should censor
when running a social media (more like an ad-platform but irrelevant to the point I'm making) service to this scale serving people from every demographic.
Anything you do is wrong.
If you don't censor, there's misinformation on a platform you control and you will be responsible for further conspiracies and actions/campaigns stemming from it in the worst case scenario. The cost outweighs the benefit. On the other hand, if you do censor, you piss people off anyway.
- what you should censor
- whether you should censor
when running a social media (more like an ad-platform but irrelevant to the point I'm making) service to this scale serving people from every demographic.
Anything you do is wrong.
If you don't censor, there's misinformation on a platform you control and you will be responsible for further conspiracies and actions/campaigns stemming from it in the worst case scenario. The cost outweighs the benefit. On the other hand, if you do censor, you piss people off anyway.
My opinion is that a “social media platform” should stop trying to serve people from every demographic. I believe that:
* Facebook was much better when it was an exclusive community of college students
* Reddit was much better when it was a small, self-manageable community of nerds
* Hacker News is much better than either of those two because it’s still a small community with a specific scope and good moderation
* Facebook was much better when it was an exclusive community of college students
* Reddit was much better when it was a small, self-manageable community of nerds
* Hacker News is much better than either of those two because it’s still a small community with a specific scope and good moderation
I wasn't old enough for a small Reddit/college exclusive Facebook so I don't feel too strongly about it.
However, I do agree that we don't have a true social platform (not a corp with other objectives).
We can bemoan this all we want but if they weren't doing it, someone else would've been.
Alternatives can be created over and over but as long as those are consumption-driven corporations, they will try extract every single second of our attention possible. That IS their business after-all.
However, I do agree that we don't have a true social platform (not a corp with other objectives).
We can bemoan this all we want but if they weren't doing it, someone else would've been.
Alternatives can be created over and over but as long as those are consumption-driven corporations, they will try extract every single second of our attention possible. That IS their business after-all.
It's a responsibility that no one wants
This. Forums live and die on moderation. I've seen a forum self destruct and it isn't pretty. We can't allow black boxes to tell us what is false when you can look out your window to know the thing is lying. And if something gets that big and ugly without enough human moderation or self censorship it will collapse into a firey whirlwind.
> and you will be responsible for further
They didn't suborn the behavior, they just acted as a carrier for it. And if they didn't, it would find other outlets.
> in the worst case scenario
The worst case scenario would be someone using your platform to organize a genocide, not conspiracy theorists communicating ideas to each other; and since Facebook apparently didn't feel too embarrassed about allowing the former the latter barely seems worthy of consideration.
> On the other hand, if you do censor, you piss people off anyway.
And you drive them further down the rabbit hole, where true monsters like to gather and feed off their isolation and bitterness.
They didn't suborn the behavior, they just acted as a carrier for it. And if they didn't, it would find other outlets.
> in the worst case scenario
The worst case scenario would be someone using your platform to organize a genocide, not conspiracy theorists communicating ideas to each other; and since Facebook apparently didn't feel too embarrassed about allowing the former the latter barely seems worthy of consideration.
> On the other hand, if you do censor, you piss people off anyway.
And you drive them further down the rabbit hole, where true monsters like to gather and feed off their isolation and bitterness.
Did Rogan ask about the Uighur or Rohingya genocide? Facebook spread misinformation about both, maybe censored at behest of governments, IIRC
Look up Mussolini's definition of a certain political culture.
Not censorship to suppress falsehoods (or actual national secrets) but to suppress a true story. How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech.
Where is the Justice Department's investigation?
It seems like egregious overstepping. Remember when Qwest refused the FBI requests to phone data and we all hailed them for sticking to principles when ATT and the rest just said "yessirs!"
Where is the Justice Department's investigation?
It seems like egregious overstepping. Remember when Qwest refused the FBI requests to phone data and we all hailed them for sticking to principles when ATT and the rest just said "yessirs!"
Well it sounds like Facebook chose to self-censor after talking with the FBI. But they still had the legal right to not do so.
It is a stickier than that though - I imagine Facebook fears regulation, not criminal prosecution. And if so, perhaps that fear led to the act of self-censorship. Can the government unconstitutionally suppress free speech via the threat of regulation? I personally don't think so.
It is a stickier than that though - I imagine Facebook fears regulation, not criminal prosecution. And if so, perhaps that fear led to the act of self-censorship. Can the government unconstitutionally suppress free speech via the threat of regulation? I personally don't think so.
>Well it sounds like Facebook chose to self-censor after talking with the FBI. But they still had the legal right to not do so.
The optics around this interaction are extremely unethical. Whether or not there was any actual legal pressure is only half of the issue. The other half is the appearance of unethical behavior.
The optics around this interaction are extremely unethical. Whether or not there was any actual legal pressure is only half of the issue. The other half is the appearance of unethical behavior.
This is the issue.
Companies like Facebook fear regulation the most. Their goal is to just stay under the radar of the government and keep making money.
Not surprised in the least that they’d “follow the FBI’s suggestion” in order to buy some good Will on other fronts.
Companies like Facebook fear regulation the most. Their goal is to just stay under the radar of the government and keep making money.
Not surprised in the least that they’d “follow the FBI’s suggestion” in order to buy some good Will on other fronts.
This is an odd statement I'm having trouble following on basically every level.
1. the article clearly states the FBI did not specifically mention the Biden story.
2. It's odd to then claim they followed the FBI's suggestion to "buy good will" on other fronts. (Unclear how FBI goodwill would help, if your statement about Facebook "fearing regulation the most" is true).
3. Regardless, the FBI is part of the executive branch - it does not prosecute nor regulate. On a related point, the FBI is alleged (not necessarily proven) to be right/conservative-leaning. So it's a strange suggestion the FBI were trying to somehow pressure Facebook to censor anti-Biden media, at least based on what we know about the agency. It could be true, but would require some backing evidence as the FBI is "supposed" to be apolitical, but if anything it has been criticized for leaning conservative.
4. You single out "Companies like Facebook" as the issue, but the article states the Washington Post and New York Times actually tried to imply the New York Post article and emails were false (only to later acknowledge "some" emails were authentic).
It's not clear to me that social media restricting an article is the primary issue, vs. prominent news outlets which are trusted as a primary source by millions of voters, claiming an article was disinformation, only later to actually perform an investigation and acknowledge it was true.
Both things of course are highly problematic. But it seems reasonable to assume if the major news outlets didn't claim the story was disinformation, it would've been less likely to have been incorrectly censored as disinformation by social media platforms who were warned by the FBI about Russian disinformation.
1. the article clearly states the FBI did not specifically mention the Biden story.
2. It's odd to then claim they followed the FBI's suggestion to "buy good will" on other fronts. (Unclear how FBI goodwill would help, if your statement about Facebook "fearing regulation the most" is true).
3. Regardless, the FBI is part of the executive branch - it does not prosecute nor regulate. On a related point, the FBI is alleged (not necessarily proven) to be right/conservative-leaning. So it's a strange suggestion the FBI were trying to somehow pressure Facebook to censor anti-Biden media, at least based on what we know about the agency. It could be true, but would require some backing evidence as the FBI is "supposed" to be apolitical, but if anything it has been criticized for leaning conservative.
4. You single out "Companies like Facebook" as the issue, but the article states the Washington Post and New York Times actually tried to imply the New York Post article and emails were false (only to later acknowledge "some" emails were authentic).
It's not clear to me that social media restricting an article is the primary issue, vs. prominent news outlets which are trusted as a primary source by millions of voters, claiming an article was disinformation, only later to actually perform an investigation and acknowledge it was true.
Both things of course are highly problematic. But it seems reasonable to assume if the major news outlets didn't claim the story was disinformation, it would've been less likely to have been incorrectly censored as disinformation by social media platforms who were warned by the FBI about Russian disinformation.
I wasn't referring to this specific case, but rather the mentality of big multinational companies when it comes to government interactions.
I've been in the C-suite when concerns about government regulation have been discussed. You "play ball" on some things in order to avoid other, worse things happening.
I have no idea if Zuckerberg made this trade-off.
I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that was the strategy.
It's not like Facebook wasn't already in the hot seat when it came to Congress.
I've been in the C-suite when concerns about government regulation have been discussed. You "play ball" on some things in order to avoid other, worse things happening.
I have no idea if Zuckerberg made this trade-off.
I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that was the strategy.
It's not like Facebook wasn't already in the hot seat when it came to Congress.
“How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution?”
There’s still no right to publish statements on Facebook enshrined in the Constitution.
There’s still no right to publish statements on Facebook enshrined in the Constitution.
Yet a government official can't block you on Facebook. Was that made explicit in the constitution?
I think the better reason is that they never actually told Meta to suppress the story, and I'm not sure if there was a stick to ensure that they'd do it.
I think the better reason is that they never actually told Meta to suppress the story, and I'm not sure if there was a stick to ensure that they'd do it.
A government official can block you. The office of government official cannot block you. As a general rule, objects in the Constitution (such as a press, personal things and affects etc) are understood to be defined by their function not by their form. Eg, 4th Amendment protection extends to your private correspondences via phone call despite no paper correspondence being present. Yes your hypothetical Facebook blocking situation is explicitly in the Constitution so long as you accept Facebook is a printing-press-by-way-of-function. If you refuse this minimal fair rule of interpretation, the Constitution is hopelessly stuck in the late 1700s.
Right but this is the FBI, the government telling FB to censor a story.
No it isn't. The FBI said "hey heads up there is likely to be a lot of interference and misinformation for this election" and then considerably later facebook goes "hey this story looks like it fits the pattern the FBI told us about" and took independent action.
[deleted]
The FBI warned about general election misinformation. They did not mention or direct FB re: this specific story. That was FB's choice.
The FBI has too much coercive power to ever merely “warn”. Everything they say necessarily has a second implied meaning, and any large company understands that.
[deleted]
It's not considered a 4th amendment violation for a cop to ask to search your house without a warrant. It's only unconstitutional if you say "No" and they do it anyway. If the FBI talked to Facebook but there was no coercion, I'm not sure what the 1st amendment violation would be. Although it's still something worth being concerned about (e.g. what else is being censored by FB? What if there's unofficial coercion? Should FB tell users who are being semi-censored?)
Yep the FBI should not be communicating with FB regarding what to suppress and not suppress --that would be outright "Censorship Office" kind of stuff, unless the information is regulated in some way (i.e. illegal doxxing, state secrets, etc)
They didn't do that here, though. Please read the article–the FBI talked to Facebook prior to Rudy's disinformation campaign around the laptop, and Facebook realized it (correctly) had the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign, and chose not to amplify its reach (they didn't ban the story entirely).
Did you read the article or watch the clip? What you’re describing isn’t at all what happened.
Feels a lot like an adult version of the old "stop hitting yourself" trope.
Interesting citation on Qwest. Does anyone remember what happened to Nacchio & the top brass shortly after the revelations? Convicted of insider trading, for crimes every other Baby Bell participated in, all the way back to the founding of American Telephone & Telegraph.
Another selective enforcement example; anyone remember when Fife Symington took the National Guard to the Grand Canyon during the federal shutdown? Convicted of accounting malfeasance, for practices that every developer in the modern world uses to pay the bills between project payments.
Trump, well let's agree he's no angel, but he is the primary focus of the latest vendetta from the deep state. Anyone who harms or endangers the deep state will be subjected to this kind of attack. No conspiracy theories, required.
Another selective enforcement example; anyone remember when Fife Symington took the National Guard to the Grand Canyon during the federal shutdown? Convicted of accounting malfeasance, for practices that every developer in the modern world uses to pay the bills between project payments.
Trump, well let's agree he's no angel, but he is the primary focus of the latest vendetta from the deep state. Anyone who harms or endangers the deep state will be subjected to this kind of attack. No conspiracy theories, required.
[deleted]
> How are actions like this not a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution? The Federal Government suppressing speech.
The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws abridging freedom of speech, press and assembly, or creating a state religion. That's all it does.
The government, in this case, simply made a general suggestion about policy to Facebook, which they chose to act upon of their own accord. That's perfectly legal. Scummy, perhaps, but not a First Amendment violation (unless of course SCOTUS were to decide otherwise.)
The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws abridging freedom of speech, press and assembly, or creating a state religion. That's all it does.
The government, in this case, simply made a general suggestion about policy to Facebook, which they chose to act upon of their own accord. That's perfectly legal. Scummy, perhaps, but not a First Amendment violation (unless of course SCOTUS were to decide otherwise.)
What's the difference, in practice, between passing laws (de jure) and the de facto alternative? Obviously there is a technical difference, but if the result can in some cases be the same, where have we arrived at?
The difference to me is in the nature of coercion and interaction between law enforcement and Facebook. Was Facebook given general guidance and warning about the likelihood of misinformation, which they chose to act upon, and could otherwise have chosen not to act upon? Or were they given direct orders to sink this specific story under threat of violence or sanction?
No, no it does not. It prevents the government from taking those actions just as much, it's just harder to prove that the government took that action when it's not official policy. But it absolutely can be held that individual actions were in violation of our bill of rights or our natural rights - See cases like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014) where there was no law nor policy - Just an individual officer's action that violated someone's rights.
The FBI telling Facebook "This is False Information, Censor it" absolutely violates many peoples first amendment rights by way of Tortious interference.
The FBI telling Facebook "This is False Information, Censor it" absolutely violates many peoples first amendment rights by way of Tortious interference.
> The FBI telling Facebook "This is False Information, Censor it" absolutely violates many peoples first amendment rights by way of Tortious interference.
But that isn't what happened, according to the article. So even if you're correct, it doesn't apply in this case.
But that isn't what happened, according to the article. So even if you're correct, it doesn't apply in this case.
Its based on a comment he made on his appearance on the Joe Rogan experience(JRE #1863) a few days ago.
Only extracts are on youtube as he moved to spotify.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
https://open.spotify.com/episode/51gxrAActH18RGhKNza598
Also, i have to say its quite amazing to see Mark Zuckerberg on the JRE. Wouldnt have thought that would ever happen.
Also, i have to say its quite amazing to see Mark Zuckerberg on the JRE. Wouldnt have thought that would ever happen.
After watching Lex Fridman’s interview with Zuckerberg, I kind of like him. I don’t care what the world thinks of him, from what I saw, he seems like a genuine and nice person. I like him. And it makes me question the demonization of him.
You can be the nicest person and still leave behind an awful world.
Really hard to argue that Zuck and his companies have had a net positive impact on the world.
Really hard to argue that Zuck and his companies have had a net positive impact on the world.
It's all about perspective. I think, unpopularly but based on objectivity and rationality, that oil companies are great and have done a world a lot of good – literally everything we do today from modern medicine to farming depends on fossil fuels, it has sustained 8 billion people on this planet and saved countless lives. Without it, we would see horror of death like you've never witnessed, millions of people would die. This whole thing is a matter of perspective, like a russian doll illusion. Stare hard enough and it will rotate the other way.
You can similarly see social media in two ways. Zuckerberg also gets disproportionate amount of hate compared to other media. Who's the CEO of Tiktok?
You can similarly see social media in two ways. Zuckerberg also gets disproportionate amount of hate compared to other media. Who's the CEO of Tiktok?
[deleted]
There is no net positive impact from social networking services, or indeed any other medium powered by advertising where the operators thereof have realized that hatred can be monetized. People have always disagreed with one another and clashed over political views... but only in the last 15 years have people been so polarized, and I think we can directly attribute it to conditioning as a direct result of participation on networks that incentivize people to consume hatred for clicks.
Families around the world and across continents have been able to keep in touch due to social networks.
For all the deserved hate, some good has come.
For all the deserved hate, some good has come.
Believe it or not, but my family made a point of keeping in touch with distant relatives waaaay before social networks like Facebook. Heck, they did this back in the day when mail was the only mechanism (arguably mail & telephones are themselves social networks just in a different modality).
Now it has made that easier and maybe cheaper (although only if you ignore messaging apps). I'm not sure there's data one way or the other to suggest that it has enabled new familial connections that wouldn't otherwise have happened. Even in the digital erra, we've had
Now it has made that easier and maybe cheaper (although only if you ignore messaging apps). I'm not sure there's data one way or the other to suggest that it has enabled new familial connections that wouldn't otherwise have happened. Even in the digital erra, we've had
Families kept in touch prior to that with little things called Email and Phone Calls and Snail Mail. Ad-driven networks were never necessary.
Sharing memes wasn't quite as satisfying as a long distance phone call.
You don’t need a social network for that, just a messaging app. The idea that families would not be able to keep in touch without social media is absurd and obviously wrong.
You don't need them, but friction matters. You can stay in touch via the postal service. That does not mean that newer mediums with lower friction and more capabilities do not deliver real value to people.
Whether or not social media is a net positive, no serious person can argue that they do not deliver value to large numbers of people.
Whether or not social media is a net positive, no serious person can argue that they do not deliver value to large numbers of people.
What total nonsense!
Facebook added a Like Count next every comment my family made and thanks to that totally fucked social dynamics for good.
Facebook added a Like Count next every comment my family made and thanks to that totally fucked social dynamics for good.
Families mostly like to share photos. Facebook works far better than any messaging app for that use case.
Does it? I just opened Facebook, scrolled for a while, and didn’t see any family photos. I saw a bunch of lizard brain short videos of people fighting in road rage incidents, attractive women dancing and such, airsoft gun games (no idea why Facebook thinks I’d like this), and other similar types of things not related to my family. I actually liked Facebook when it mostly showed me photos of friends and family, but I’m guessing that isn’t profitable enough.
The feed really depends on what you have reacted to in the past. I routinely "hide all from" most pages and friends-of-friends so I mostly only see original content from friends and family.
I never told it to show me short form video of random things not related to my family and friends. I also never reacted to it. The idea that FB is about staying in touch with family, and that it's the best way to do that, is absurd when you look at what FB is today.
[deleted]
They haven’t. But a eulogy is premature.
I realized 15 years ago that close to 100% of people who talk about him, don’t have the first inkling who they’re talking about, when they could easily have at least a better idea. One of the biggest problems big brain people face is that it sounds more clever and worldly to assign complicated self serving ulterior motives to basically everyone. If they have incalculably higher influence than oneself, one can hardly refrain.
[deleted]
devwastaken(1)
chaps(2)
He sat in rural American homes for chicken dinner...he'll do just about anything to humanize himself.
I meant it from the other side.
How many platforms, let alone people, get 3 hour long interviews with Mark Zuckerbg? And do them the way Joe Rogan does?
edit: Then again, he was on with Lex Fridman a few months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zOHSysMmH0
How many platforms, let alone people, get 3 hour long interviews with Mark Zuckerbg? And do them the way Joe Rogan does?
edit: Then again, he was on with Lex Fridman a few months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zOHSysMmH0
He was also on the Tim Ferriss podcast recently: https://tim.blog/2022/03/24/mark-zuckerberg/
KerrAvon(3)
I wonder how often they block stories that aren't fabricated... Joe started asking the question but then moved on to something else and Zuck never answered.
There's clearly more censorship then I thought.
There's clearly more censorship then I thought.
I'd also be interested in the stories that Facebook did end up letting through that same week. It would probably not support Zucks explanation.
Also, Zuck said that a significant portion of them were deranked... it could be 99% of them for all I know.
One answer is: more frequently each year.
criley2(2)
You can flag it but this story will escape the 2 week limit on people's memory.
Very odd that we can discuss Hunter Biden's laptop today but not Trump's affidavit. Don't tell me this comment thread is apolitical.
my take is that the threshold is "amount work the mods need to do to remove comments" . Doesnt really have to do with subject if the convo is not derailed.
100% this.
The former President was caught red-handed hiding top secret documents at his freakin' vacation home, with probable intent to commit espionage against the United States, including disclosure of sensitive human intelligence assets ...
And Hacker News has it's knickers in a knot because the FBI warned a social media company that the Hunter Biden story might be a Russian psyops campaign?
Seriously people?
The former President was caught red-handed hiding top secret documents at his freakin' vacation home, with probable intent to commit espionage against the United States, including disclosure of sensitive human intelligence assets ...
And Hacker News has it's knickers in a knot because the FBI warned a social media company that the Hunter Biden story might be a Russian psyops campaign?
Seriously people?
> The former President was caught red-handed hiding top secret documents at his freakin' vacation home
No, he did not "hide" the documents. As a letter quoted in a recent article in Politico [1] shows, the documents were removed from the White House when the administrations changed on Jan. 20, 2021. Which means whoever was responsible for checking documents that were removed from the White House by the outgoing President and his staff screwed up. And now they're in CYA mode.
> with probable intent to commit espionage
You have no evidence whatever to back up this claim.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/26/trump-mar-a-lago-af...
No, he did not "hide" the documents. As a letter quoted in a recent article in Politico [1] shows, the documents were removed from the White House when the administrations changed on Jan. 20, 2021. Which means whoever was responsible for checking documents that were removed from the White House by the outgoing President and his staff screwed up. And now they're in CYA mode.
> with probable intent to commit espionage
You have no evidence whatever to back up this claim.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/26/trump-mar-a-lago-af...
2 billions to Jared Kushner evidence /sarcasm.
Btw, I don't recall any other US president having classified and top secrets docs at home after leaving WH.
It's now a NATO security issue, allies should be informed.
Btw, I don't recall any other US president having classified and top secrets docs at home after leaving WH.
It's now a NATO security issue, allies should be informed.
Every US president has done this. It's called "presidential archives" for the purpose of writing memoires.
NARA handles all docs as required by law, not former presidents. This talking point has been repeated over the last few weeks and has been debunked.
> Presidential libraries are managed by NARA, and the documents therein belong to the agency, which also manages related public records requests.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-obama-million-document...
> Presidential libraries are managed by NARA, and the documents therein belong to the agency, which also manages related public records requests.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-obama-million-document...
You are talking about national library archive stuff, not something they brought home. Or do you have source about former presidents with classified docs at home for writing memories? I don't.
Also non-presidents: Hillary having an entire email server with classified information on it.
AFAIK, those informations where classified later.
Anyway, Hillary did wrong but was still doing her job, Trump wasn't.
Nice way of deflecting blame there. Trump knew exactly what he was doing and he did it. He now got caught. It’s not like “hey nobody told me I couldn’t do this”, it’s why tf are you taking these documents sir. There’s no interpretation of reality which makes that an accident or oversight.
> Trump knew exactly what he was doing
> There’s no interpretation of reality which makes that an accident or oversight.
Source?
> There’s no interpretation of reality which makes that an accident or oversight.
Source?
The recently released affidavit is the source for this. He was told to return the docs, claimed he returned them all, and in fact when the search was conducted it was found that he didn’t.
Trump was given 18 months to return them with multiple requests, attested through a lawyer in an affidavit that he did, and yet did not. Then when caught he has made claims that they were his documents and that’s why they were not returned. So far he hasn’t made any defense that is was an accident or an oversight. This shows the possession of the docs was willful, and intentionally not returning them was obstruction.
Trump was given 18 months to return them with multiple requests, attested through a lawyer in an affidavit that he did, and yet did not. Then when caught he has made claims that they were his documents and that’s why they were not returned. So far he hasn’t made any defense that is was an accident or an oversight. This shows the possession of the docs was willful, and intentionally not returning them was obstruction.
Yes he did hide the documents. Read the actual affidavit and the 20 month timeline
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/26/us/trump-sear...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/politics/trump-documen...
It was not accident: Trump claims it's his right to keep his records and even publicly displayed some of them for prestige after demands for their return began. Some "accident"!
It was not CYA: The National Archives and DoJ spent 20 months exhausting all legal means to force the return of the documents to a safe facility. Trump's people according to the facts had around 16 months of escalating demands to actually do the return. Had they returned the documents during any of the many, many demands spanning multiple escalating agencies, it would have been a "no harm no foul" situation and no one would know.
When they finally returned some of the documents, it became evident that there were many more missing and the matter was referred to the DoJ. The DoJ Investigated, escalated and demanded the return.
And even then, surveillance footage shows documents being removed from the room to an unknown location. Despite there being two remaining groups of missing documents, Trump's lawyers signed a document saying there were no documents left (this is obstruction of justice multiple times -- hiding docs after the subpoena, lying about it, etc).
This is when the situation went from "maybe accident" to "definitely a serious crime". The FBI absolutely knew there were more documents, the former President was openly lying about it in court, AND there was a potential second additional unsecured cache of documents that had seen being removed on surveillance.
This is when we get to the search warrant, the final and last straw in a 20 month long quest to return some of the most highly classified secrets possible. And even now after the seizure they do not have all the documents.
>You have no evidence whatever to back up this claim.
Ironic statement from someone arguing directly against the facts while making up narratives like "it was an accident, it was CYA" which Trump himself openly denies. But that's normal for those who defend Trump to find that he has publicly undercut their narratives.
Seriously, it's all in the doc above.
But if we want to think beyond the actual legal filing, consider this article from the NYT ~9 months after the theft of top secret information that we know was classified in a way to protect the identities of American agents abroad. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/us/politics/cia-informant...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/26/us/trump-sear...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/politics/trump-documen...
It was not accident: Trump claims it's his right to keep his records and even publicly displayed some of them for prestige after demands for their return began. Some "accident"!
It was not CYA: The National Archives and DoJ spent 20 months exhausting all legal means to force the return of the documents to a safe facility. Trump's people according to the facts had around 16 months of escalating demands to actually do the return. Had they returned the documents during any of the many, many demands spanning multiple escalating agencies, it would have been a "no harm no foul" situation and no one would know.
When they finally returned some of the documents, it became evident that there were many more missing and the matter was referred to the DoJ. The DoJ Investigated, escalated and demanded the return.
And even then, surveillance footage shows documents being removed from the room to an unknown location. Despite there being two remaining groups of missing documents, Trump's lawyers signed a document saying there were no documents left (this is obstruction of justice multiple times -- hiding docs after the subpoena, lying about it, etc).
This is when the situation went from "maybe accident" to "definitely a serious crime". The FBI absolutely knew there were more documents, the former President was openly lying about it in court, AND there was a potential second additional unsecured cache of documents that had seen being removed on surveillance.
This is when we get to the search warrant, the final and last straw in a 20 month long quest to return some of the most highly classified secrets possible. And even now after the seizure they do not have all the documents.
>You have no evidence whatever to back up this claim.
Ironic statement from someone arguing directly against the facts while making up narratives like "it was an accident, it was CYA" which Trump himself openly denies. But that's normal for those who defend Trump to find that he has publicly undercut their narratives.
Seriously, it's all in the doc above.
But if we want to think beyond the actual legal filing, consider this article from the NYT ~9 months after the theft of top secret information that we know was classified in a way to protect the identities of American agents abroad. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/us/politics/cia-informant...
> It was not CYA: The National Archives and DoJ spent 20 months exhausting all legal means to force the return of the documents to a safe facility.
You're missing the point: the documents should never have left the White House in the first place. Whoever was supposed to check that screwed up. If they're going to throw the book at Trump for keeping them instead of giving them back, they should also be throwing the book at whoever screwed up by letting them out of the White House in the first place. And the Biden administration should have some explaining to do about that. Is anyone asking them? Hollow laugh.
I have no problem with prosecuting people who violate the law. What I have a problem with is extravagantly one-sided reporting, intended to further polarize the country for political gain. The sooner we the people realize that all politicians are crooks and all government is untrustworthy and all media is corrupt, and stop jumping on bandwagons just because someone says something we like without exercising any critical thinking, the better off we'll be.
You're missing the point: the documents should never have left the White House in the first place. Whoever was supposed to check that screwed up. If they're going to throw the book at Trump for keeping them instead of giving them back, they should also be throwing the book at whoever screwed up by letting them out of the White House in the first place. And the Biden administration should have some explaining to do about that. Is anyone asking them? Hollow laugh.
I have no problem with prosecuting people who violate the law. What I have a problem with is extravagantly one-sided reporting, intended to further polarize the country for political gain. The sooner we the people realize that all politicians are crooks and all government is untrustworthy and all media is corrupt, and stop jumping on bandwagons just because someone says something we like without exercising any critical thinking, the better off we'll be.
>You're missing the point: the documents should never have left the White House in the first place. Whoever was supposed to check that screwed up. If they're going to throw the book at Trump for keeping them instead of giving them back, they should also be throwing the book at whoever screwed up by letting them out of the White House in the first place. And the Biden administration should have some explaining to do about that. Is anyone asking them? Hollow laugh.
What? This is nonsense. Trump can pack and keep things. You honestly think some Secret Service agent is supposed to draw a weapon on the exiting President to force him to leave things behind? Get real. Trump can take what he wants, and he was very proud of what he took, and he publicly claims it is his belongings.
This blame-shifting and removing the agency of the previous President is outrageous. He's not a child, he knows what he did, and he's proud of it.
>I have no problem with prosecuting people who violate the law. What I have a problem with is extravagantly one-sided reporting, intended to further polarize the country for political gain. The sooner we the people realize that all politicians are crooks and all government is untrustworthy and all media is corrupt, and stop jumping on bandwagons just because someone says something we like without exercising any critical thinking, the better off we'll be.
This is exactly the kind of both-sides-ism that leads to exact kind of worst-of-all-time corruption like Trump. There is simply no comparison to those 4 years to any other President of any party.
The ill informed hide behind the cheap cynicism of "everyones bad". It takes intellectual bravery to learn, assess, and decide that maybe, just maybe, some things are worse than others.
What? This is nonsense. Trump can pack and keep things. You honestly think some Secret Service agent is supposed to draw a weapon on the exiting President to force him to leave things behind? Get real. Trump can take what he wants, and he was very proud of what he took, and he publicly claims it is his belongings.
This blame-shifting and removing the agency of the previous President is outrageous. He's not a child, he knows what he did, and he's proud of it.
>I have no problem with prosecuting people who violate the law. What I have a problem with is extravagantly one-sided reporting, intended to further polarize the country for political gain. The sooner we the people realize that all politicians are crooks and all government is untrustworthy and all media is corrupt, and stop jumping on bandwagons just because someone says something we like without exercising any critical thinking, the better off we'll be.
This is exactly the kind of both-sides-ism that leads to exact kind of worst-of-all-time corruption like Trump. There is simply no comparison to those 4 years to any other President of any party.
The ill informed hide behind the cheap cynicism of "everyones bad". It takes intellectual bravery to learn, assess, and decide that maybe, just maybe, some things are worse than others.
> This is nonsense.
Why? There are laws about classified material, and they apply to former Presidents.
> Trump can pack and keep things...Trump can take what he wants
You're contradicting yourself. Either Trump violated laws or he didn't. Before you said he did. But here you're saying he didn't. Which is it? If he's in violation of the law now, then he was in violation of the law when he took the stuff in the first place, which means he can't "take what he wants".
What is supposed to happen is that anything the former President wants to take gets checked (not by the Secret Service, by the FBI or the White House staff's in-house security people who are responsible for classified material) to make sure it's not something that requires special handling, like, you know, classified material.
> There is simply no comparison to those 4 years to any other President of any party.
Your ignorance of history is appalling.
Why? There are laws about classified material, and they apply to former Presidents.
> Trump can pack and keep things...Trump can take what he wants
You're contradicting yourself. Either Trump violated laws or he didn't. Before you said he did. But here you're saying he didn't. Which is it? If he's in violation of the law now, then he was in violation of the law when he took the stuff in the first place, which means he can't "take what he wants".
What is supposed to happen is that anything the former President wants to take gets checked (not by the Secret Service, by the FBI or the White House staff's in-house security people who are responsible for classified material) to make sure it's not something that requires special handling, like, you know, classified material.
> There is simply no comparison to those 4 years to any other President of any party.
Your ignorance of history is appalling.
>Why? There are laws about classified material, and they apply to former Presidents.
Ah, I see, you're naive enough to think that the Secret Service (or any LEO) are crime-preventers instead of crime-janitors. What an interesting world you think we live in. There are laws, they do apply, and this 20-month process culminating in a search warrant and future indictment is that legal process. And the secret service, as crime-janitors, likely did give testimony to a grand jury.
>You're contradicting yourself. Either Trump violated laws or he didn't
No I'm not. Trump can pack his things and commit a crime by taking them. Just like you can walk into a 7/11 grab a coke and walk out. That's a crime. You can do it. Trump can pack TS/SCI reports into a box and take them.
There would be no point in having a punishment for taking classified materials if in fact it was impossible to do so.
>What is supposed to happen is that anything the former President wants to take gets checked (not by the Secret Service, by the FBI or the White House staff's in-house security people who are responsible for classified material) to make sure it's not something that requires special handling, like, you know, classified material
This is completely irrelevant. Because even if this doesn't happen, then the Archives will say "Hey you missed some stuff, send it on over, thanks" and a law-abiding President/staff will say "Okie-dokie!" and the entire issue is solved.
Blame-shifting to the move-out is a red herring because that was just opportunity #1 out of 20 to handle the documents in a law-abiding way. Trump still had violate #2, #3, #4, all the way down the line before "subpoena" and "search warrant" happened. You can't just hyper-fixate on one event. Read the timeline I posted, it's a 20 month event.
>Your ignorance of history is appalling.
Your defense of the indefensible is pathetic. If you had the intellectualism to match your insults, you would have simply said the 4 year Presidency that was obviously worse. You would simply have said "Hah! Had you known about Taft, you would not say this!" But because you know of no 4 year period worse, you simply insult me as if doing so is a suitable replacement for an actual argument.
As I have posted deep sourcing for the facts I stated here including the only 1st-party evidence in the thread, and I think this is just a very angry young person, I am going to leave this thread. Have fun!
Ah, I see, you're naive enough to think that the Secret Service (or any LEO) are crime-preventers instead of crime-janitors. What an interesting world you think we live in. There are laws, they do apply, and this 20-month process culminating in a search warrant and future indictment is that legal process. And the secret service, as crime-janitors, likely did give testimony to a grand jury.
>You're contradicting yourself. Either Trump violated laws or he didn't
No I'm not. Trump can pack his things and commit a crime by taking them. Just like you can walk into a 7/11 grab a coke and walk out. That's a crime. You can do it. Trump can pack TS/SCI reports into a box and take them.
There would be no point in having a punishment for taking classified materials if in fact it was impossible to do so.
>What is supposed to happen is that anything the former President wants to take gets checked (not by the Secret Service, by the FBI or the White House staff's in-house security people who are responsible for classified material) to make sure it's not something that requires special handling, like, you know, classified material
This is completely irrelevant. Because even if this doesn't happen, then the Archives will say "Hey you missed some stuff, send it on over, thanks" and a law-abiding President/staff will say "Okie-dokie!" and the entire issue is solved.
Blame-shifting to the move-out is a red herring because that was just opportunity #1 out of 20 to handle the documents in a law-abiding way. Trump still had violate #2, #3, #4, all the way down the line before "subpoena" and "search warrant" happened. You can't just hyper-fixate on one event. Read the timeline I posted, it's a 20 month event.
>Your ignorance of history is appalling.
Your defense of the indefensible is pathetic. If you had the intellectualism to match your insults, you would have simply said the 4 year Presidency that was obviously worse. You would simply have said "Hah! Had you known about Taft, you would not say this!" But because you know of no 4 year period worse, you simply insult me as if doing so is a suitable replacement for an actual argument.
As I have posted deep sourcing for the facts I stated here including the only 1st-party evidence in the thread, and I think this is just a very angry young person, I am going to leave this thread. Have fun!
Most of your post is not even worth responding to. But I'll take a few stabs:
> Your defense of the indefensible is pathetic.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am defending Trump. I can only attribute this to poor reading comprehension, since I explicitly said that I have no problem with prosecuting people who violate the law.
I am simply pointing out that the fact that Trump was wrong (if he was--it looks like a court will end up deciding that) does not make the establishment right. Apparently you are naive enough to think that the only reason the establishment ever trumpets this kind of pursuit of a person is that they are faultless champions of law and justice. What an interesting world you think we live in.
> If you had the intellectualism to match your insults, you would have simply said the 4 year Presidency that was obviously worse.
If you had the historical knowledge to match your supercilious smugness, you would not need me to tell you. But since you ask (and leaving out the current administration, since I did say "history", although I think the current administration has already done worse things that the Trump administration did, the Afghanistan debacle being just one example, and it hasn't even been in office two years yet), here are just a few. I'll limit myself to just the 20th century, but there are good examples in the 19th as well (if you're looking for the true golden age of kleptocracy in the US government, the latter half of the 19th century is the place to go).
Nixon (not just Watergate, but private fantasies about nuking the Soviets, to the point where, as we now know from their memoirs, high level officials on his staff were telling everyone not to act on orders from Nixon without running it by the staff first)
Johnson (mired us in Vietnam; at least he had the decency not to run for another term)
FDR (so many things here that it would take many books to unpack them, and has, but just for starters, WW II was supposedly fought to liberate Eastern Europe from a tyrannical dictator, Hitler; yet at the end of WW II, Eastern Europe was in the hands of a much worse tyrannical dictator, Stalin, and that happened because FDR persistently sucked up to Stalin)
Wilson ("he kept us out of war" until he got us into it, and then he completely screwed up the peace, setting the stage for Nazi Germany)
Sure, none of these Presidents had, as Trump has, both the attention span and the temperament of a six year old (although Nixon often came close, and Johnson had some moments too), and they all played by the establishment's rules when doing things like talking to the press, as Trump did not. But so what? All of the things I've referred to above were worse than anything Trump did.
> I have posted deep sourcing for the facts I stated here
Apparently you are naive enough to think that the media never lies to you. What an interesting world you think we live in.
> I think this is just a very angry young person
I'll cop to "angry", sure; what person who truly believed in America's ideals wouldn't be at this point? But as for "young", I'm old enough to remember the Nixon administration. Are you?
> Your defense of the indefensible is pathetic.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am defending Trump. I can only attribute this to poor reading comprehension, since I explicitly said that I have no problem with prosecuting people who violate the law.
I am simply pointing out that the fact that Trump was wrong (if he was--it looks like a court will end up deciding that) does not make the establishment right. Apparently you are naive enough to think that the only reason the establishment ever trumpets this kind of pursuit of a person is that they are faultless champions of law and justice. What an interesting world you think we live in.
> If you had the intellectualism to match your insults, you would have simply said the 4 year Presidency that was obviously worse.
If you had the historical knowledge to match your supercilious smugness, you would not need me to tell you. But since you ask (and leaving out the current administration, since I did say "history", although I think the current administration has already done worse things that the Trump administration did, the Afghanistan debacle being just one example, and it hasn't even been in office two years yet), here are just a few. I'll limit myself to just the 20th century, but there are good examples in the 19th as well (if you're looking for the true golden age of kleptocracy in the US government, the latter half of the 19th century is the place to go).
Nixon (not just Watergate, but private fantasies about nuking the Soviets, to the point where, as we now know from their memoirs, high level officials on his staff were telling everyone not to act on orders from Nixon without running it by the staff first)
Johnson (mired us in Vietnam; at least he had the decency not to run for another term)
FDR (so many things here that it would take many books to unpack them, and has, but just for starters, WW II was supposedly fought to liberate Eastern Europe from a tyrannical dictator, Hitler; yet at the end of WW II, Eastern Europe was in the hands of a much worse tyrannical dictator, Stalin, and that happened because FDR persistently sucked up to Stalin)
Wilson ("he kept us out of war" until he got us into it, and then he completely screwed up the peace, setting the stage for Nazi Germany)
Sure, none of these Presidents had, as Trump has, both the attention span and the temperament of a six year old (although Nixon often came close, and Johnson had some moments too), and they all played by the establishment's rules when doing things like talking to the press, as Trump did not. But so what? All of the things I've referred to above were worse than anything Trump did.
> I have posted deep sourcing for the facts I stated here
Apparently you are naive enough to think that the media never lies to you. What an interesting world you think we live in.
> I think this is just a very angry young person
I'll cop to "angry", sure; what person who truly believed in America's ideals wouldn't be at this point? But as for "young", I'm old enough to remember the Nixon administration. Are you?
The story is that the FBI knowing lied to Facebook.
No they didn’t are you all in some kind of reality distortion field? At least read the article.
Not all of us, no. Or rather, yes and no.
I could as soon say to you, "At least go to Google News, search 'hunter laptop', scroll, read, and then think, if you can still manage it."
95% of you will just say "Well, this one isn't credible" or "That one is a right wing conspiracy theory." Or at least the ones emboldened to type replies will. So don't ask me to throw myself to you hyenas by linking specific sources. Google News isn't that many more clicks. I'll be busy holding my breath until the attorney general indicts his own direct reports and makes his own boss look worse.
What the FBI said may not technically have been a bold face lie. We don't have a transcript. It's a prime example of not letting the one hand know what the other is doing.
I could as soon say to you, "At least go to Google News, search 'hunter laptop', scroll, read, and then think, if you can still manage it."
95% of you will just say "Well, this one isn't credible" or "That one is a right wing conspiracy theory." Or at least the ones emboldened to type replies will. So don't ask me to throw myself to you hyenas by linking specific sources. Google News isn't that many more clicks. I'll be busy holding my breath until the attorney general indicts his own direct reports and makes his own boss look worse.
What the FBI said may not technically have been a bold face lie. We don't have a transcript. It's a prime example of not letting the one hand know what the other is doing.
The entire universe is discussing T's affidavit and his underwear 24x7. It's ok. HB story has a tech and alphabet agency angle, both directly relevant to HN readership.
I don't know if tweaking the algorithms can be considered censorship. The current tweaking always censors something over another thing, they have inherent bias, in a sense, and technically it's still there to find if you're looking for it.
The question of what gets pushed to the front page of some media platform is an interesting one, but I'm not sure censorship is the right mental frame. I'd like to think of it more as propaganda. It controls the narrative by choosing what to propagate and flood people with, not so much by censoring.
Another interesting dimension here too is that the previous flood of misinformation seems to also have been part of why this was specifically targeted. If you let too much misinformation go through, you're bound to start to believe everything is misinformation, and so here even the FBI and Facebook and other social media platforms thought: what if this is more misinformation, what if it's more Russian interference?
In fact, I think I read a while back this is a known tactic used by old USSR propaganda. You delegitimize real information by pushing a bunch of false info alongside it, and people can't discern truth from lie, and trust in information is lost.
It begs the question, which is worse, let the lies fly, or risk some false positive flags on the truth?
It's a tough problem all around.
The question of what gets pushed to the front page of some media platform is an interesting one, but I'm not sure censorship is the right mental frame. I'd like to think of it more as propaganda. It controls the narrative by choosing what to propagate and flood people with, not so much by censoring.
Another interesting dimension here too is that the previous flood of misinformation seems to also have been part of why this was specifically targeted. If you let too much misinformation go through, you're bound to start to believe everything is misinformation, and so here even the FBI and Facebook and other social media platforms thought: what if this is more misinformation, what if it's more Russian interference?
In fact, I think I read a while back this is a known tactic used by old USSR propaganda. You delegitimize real information by pushing a bunch of false info alongside it, and people can't discern truth from lie, and trust in information is lost.
It begs the question, which is worse, let the lies fly, or risk some false positive flags on the truth?
It's a tough problem all around.
I think Zuckerberg did a great job. I thought he was so robotic from the video clips that I saw but he's in fact quite normal. I think this was a great PR move on his part because I felt like he was being honest and transparent and most of all human.
Is it possible to be an unabashed openly conservative / Republican in a company like Facebook or Twitter or Google?
One gets the impression that it's a club for one kind of animal only.
One gets the impression that it's a club for one kind of animal only.
At FB I unabashedly made a bunch of obnoxious (to partisans at least, maybe to everyone) criticisms of the fucking stupid Red Team/Blue Team thing. I took grief from colleagues/peers directly (which is clearly in bounds) but if anyone retaliated in terms of my career I never saw a shred of evidence about it. FB had the stated mission of "Making the World More Open and Connected": I posted a bunch of pretty-fucking-non-mainstream shit on my personal account and FB's leadership was always scrupulous about leaving my "personal" Internet presence completely out of it in a way I found very consistent with that mission statement.
In fairness I was a pretty equal-opportunity partisan politics attack dog, maybe it just canceled out.
For a counter-point, Apple seems to have been willing to set their ads business back by years to whack someone over a critically-acclaimed book that had been published for years before the auto da fe was held: https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/12/22432909/apple-petition-h..., so maybe there's some dice involved.
In fairness I was a pretty equal-opportunity partisan politics attack dog, maybe it just canceled out.
For a counter-point, Apple seems to have been willing to set their ads business back by years to whack someone over a critically-acclaimed book that had been published for years before the auto da fe was held: https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/12/22432909/apple-petition-h..., so maybe there's some dice involved.
It's good to hear that they allow the team to have their own personal views publicly expressed without impacting their work.
I did, however, notice that you said that you were an equal opportunity partisan politics attack dog and maybe it cancelled out. I guess I could just reframe my question to you and ask whether you ever saw someone who was equally vocal but partisan on the red team. If you saw only vocal people from the blue team, I'd call that a bit telling.
If you saw partisan folks from the red team who were similarly vocal then that fully answers my question.
I did, however, notice that you said that you were an equal opportunity partisan politics attack dog and maybe it cancelled out. I guess I could just reframe my question to you and ask whether you ever saw someone who was equally vocal but partisan on the red team. If you saw only vocal people from the blue team, I'd call that a bit telling.
If you saw partisan folks from the red team who were similarly vocal then that fully answers my question.
I'd very much like to be able to give you a more definite answer, but the problem is that I saw a lot of people self-censor around a lot of topics, only some of them political. It's possible that people were afraid of peer-censure, it's possible that they were afraid of official retaliation (though I never saw such a thing), and it's possible that they just didn't want to create trouble for themselves in some vague sense. Few people want to pick a fight with all their colleagues after all.
I worked for big tech in SFBA and NYC: the median of rank-and-file people like me were at a place on the political/social/cultural spectrum that would be called "extreme" in my region of origin (Southern California). And there clearly isn't a bright line between "contributor" and "leadership". And there clearly isn't a bright line between "find this person distasteful" and "pass them over for opportunity". I can absolutely picture that right-leaning folks would have felt outnumbered and/or disinclined to speak freely, I absolutely cannot picture leadership sanctioning career damage over it.
I supported/managed a high-impact group in a critical niche of about 35 people at my maximum seniority. If anyone had gotten held back for a promotion or something because of supporting a liberal or conservative candidate politically I would have come down like the wrath of God on that, and I believe my superiors would have backed that all the way.
I appreciate that's a lot of "believe" and "think" and "imagine", but it's just impossible for me to prove a negative, so I've tried to answer with some nuance and at some length to convey a useful intuition.
I worked for big tech in SFBA and NYC: the median of rank-and-file people like me were at a place on the political/social/cultural spectrum that would be called "extreme" in my region of origin (Southern California). And there clearly isn't a bright line between "contributor" and "leadership". And there clearly isn't a bright line between "find this person distasteful" and "pass them over for opportunity". I can absolutely picture that right-leaning folks would have felt outnumbered and/or disinclined to speak freely, I absolutely cannot picture leadership sanctioning career damage over it.
I supported/managed a high-impact group in a critical niche of about 35 people at my maximum seniority. If anyone had gotten held back for a promotion or something because of supporting a liberal or conservative candidate politically I would have come down like the wrath of God on that, and I believe my superiors would have backed that all the way.
I appreciate that's a lot of "believe" and "think" and "imagine", but it's just impossible for me to prove a negative, so I've tried to answer with some nuance and at some length to convey a useful intuition.
> “We have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe to express their opinions at the company,” Dorsey said. “They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...
I've met Jack a couple of times, which is a damned-sight short of actually knowing him in any substantial way, but as SV tech billionaires go he seemed both well-intentioned and rather down to Earth.
If I've had any gripe with Twitter's high-profile/political content moderation policiy over the last decade it's that special privileges afforded to important officials should be attached to their official Twitter accounts. `@POTUS` or `@WhiteHouse` or whatever having "special" standards is at least an arguable point. Extending any special treatment to the private accounts (that, not coincidentally, those folks get to keep, or at least hope to keep, after leaving office) is pretty dubious.
If I've had any gripe with Twitter's high-profile/political content moderation policiy over the last decade it's that special privileges afforded to important officials should be attached to their official Twitter accounts. `@POTUS` or `@WhiteHouse` or whatever having "special" standards is at least an arguable point. Extending any special treatment to the private accounts (that, not coincidentally, those folks get to keep, or at least hope to keep, after leaving office) is pretty dubious.
I know a number of very loud Republicans at Google who post regularly on internal discussion boards.
I'm curious how, from a logically consistent conservative viewpoint this can be 'fixed'
The ideas that spring to mind fly smack in the face of conservative ideology
- Private companies are allowed to hire who they wish. In our capitalist world the free market would provide for "conservative alternatives" and it does ("truth social" versus twitter for instance)
- Mandating some kind of 'quota' for conservative employees to be hired seems to fly in the face of the premise of businesses being freed from regulation and intervention by the government
- Free speech protects against the government intruding on it, conservative speech included. Extending this to private companies would be a disastrous overreach of unchecked legal power
- Algorithmically "forcing" conservative views would be seen as censorship of otherwise organic views. Conservatives claim (rightly or wrongly) the opposite happens, so logically they would be upset if the opposite were to happen
It seems like the only truly reasonable path is to expect "conservatives" to build their own platforms. Cater to their own audiences. If they are as large a group as they say they are, then the people who execute on this would become the barons of conservative thought and economics
The ideas that spring to mind fly smack in the face of conservative ideology
- Private companies are allowed to hire who they wish. In our capitalist world the free market would provide for "conservative alternatives" and it does ("truth social" versus twitter for instance)
- Mandating some kind of 'quota' for conservative employees to be hired seems to fly in the face of the premise of businesses being freed from regulation and intervention by the government
- Free speech protects against the government intruding on it, conservative speech included. Extending this to private companies would be a disastrous overreach of unchecked legal power
- Algorithmically "forcing" conservative views would be seen as censorship of otherwise organic views. Conservatives claim (rightly or wrongly) the opposite happens, so logically they would be upset if the opposite were to happen
It seems like the only truly reasonable path is to expect "conservatives" to build their own platforms. Cater to their own audiences. If they are as large a group as they say they are, then the people who execute on this would become the barons of conservative thought and economics
I don't think it's a problem that needs fixing. I think of it like this - Twitter labels accounts that are Russian government accounts so that the public is aware of where the information they are seeing is coming from. That same benefit in the context of misinformation / selective publishing would go to the public if it was known that companies lean a certain way. For example the public knows that Fox leans right and MSNBC leans left.
The media doesn't "lean left or right" for the most part. The media acts as a magnifying glass to foment public opinion. The father of modern journalism Walter Lippmann penned a book about this very thing literally 100 years ago (also it's in the public domain now, it's a great read!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
To even imply MSNBC is "left leaning" is absolutely hilarious however. Though I suppose people so easily forget their Nazi comparison of Bernie Sanders
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2020-03-03/ty-article/msnbc-...
To even imply MSNBC is "left leaning" is absolutely hilarious however. Though I suppose people so easily forget their Nazi comparison of Bernie Sanders
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2020-03-03/ty-article/msnbc-...
If I were to rephrase it to be more accurate and replace left and right to mean Democrat and Republican respectively, would that clarify what I mean?
With the overton window of the United States that's effectively "fascist" and "oligarchy"
I think it should be viewed like this: in the eyes of many, Trump is a man who boasted about sexual harassment. Continuing to support such a man is borderline incompatible with holding basic values that one might hope every employee has.
This viewpoint is really difficult to argue with. You can say that such transgressions are perhaps outweighed by any advantages of his presidency that you perceived, but that will not convince many on the left. Indeed, just look at the Cuomos and Franken to see that harassers are simply no longer tolerated on the left - these days such men are simply disqualified without pardon.
I think this fundamental incompatibility of basic values is an important reason why it is difficult to be a Trump supporter at many companies and universities nowadays.
(I conflated being "conservative / Republican" with being a Trump supporter. Feel free to ignore my comment if that is not what you intended.)
This viewpoint is really difficult to argue with. You can say that such transgressions are perhaps outweighed by any advantages of his presidency that you perceived, but that will not convince many on the left. Indeed, just look at the Cuomos and Franken to see that harassers are simply no longer tolerated on the left - these days such men are simply disqualified without pardon.
I think this fundamental incompatibility of basic values is an important reason why it is difficult to be a Trump supporter at many companies and universities nowadays.
(I conflated being "conservative / Republican" with being a Trump supporter. Feel free to ignore my comment if that is not what you intended.)
One could simply support a candidate for their choice of SCOTUS judges or recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or opposition to TPP. It's not necessary that a voter endorses everything that the candidate has ever done in their life. I find this standard to be largely driven by the media. The President has a governing role, and different people are affected by it differently. If he is a terribly rude and obnoxious jerk - sure that can be a part of one's judgment, but it's not necessary that everyone has the same hierarchy
You are trying to make the point I was anticipating.
One might have been a supporter of someone like Trump or Cuomo for all kinds of reasons, but for many it's simply over once a certain line is crossed.
As I said, it is a difficult point to argue against because their transgressions concern what many consider really basic values.
One might have been a supporter of someone like Trump or Cuomo for all kinds of reasons, but for many it's simply over once a certain line is crossed.
As I said, it is a difficult point to argue against because their transgressions concern what many consider really basic values.
I could see this kind of luxury when there is a plurality of candidates but can one afford this when the presidential election in the USA is A choice between two opposites?
I don't think it's that black and white.
As you surely understood from my previous comments, in the eyes of many both Trump and Cuomo are simply disqualified men. This is so fundamental that one must stop supporting them and find the next best option within your party, taking any compromises on policy or electoral disadvantages for granted.
For Cuomo this was done swiftly; for Trump there would have been plenty of time since the 2016 election, but it just hasn't happened.
For many this is unforgivable, and I am afraid it is nearly impossible to change such a viewpoint.
As you surely understood from my previous comments, in the eyes of many both Trump and Cuomo are simply disqualified men. This is so fundamental that one must stop supporting them and find the next best option within your party, taking any compromises on policy or electoral disadvantages for granted.
For Cuomo this was done swiftly; for Trump there would have been plenty of time since the 2016 election, but it just hasn't happened.
For many this is unforgivable, and I am afraid it is nearly impossible to change such a viewpoint.
The times are such that urging moderation in anything but vague terms means that I'm now painting a target on my own back. I personally think that President Trump is a crook and worse, but that's just really very separate to whether or not I should ostracize people who voted for him (I shouldn't).
Western civil society doesn't have many strictly saintly people even among our most popular role models. In the United States where I live, we're constantly jammed up between trying to admire legitimate, world-changing accomplishments by our founders/framers and the fact that many/most of them were unapologetic slave owners. I imagine it's similar in a lot of the world.
Even in software anyone who cares has to try to navigate a set of opinions about key figures that range from "Luke Skywalker" to "pedophilia apologist" on the same person while trying to remain somewhat balanced about the whole thing.
Im my travels I've never met a person who isn't a monster judged by their worst act, and who isn't a saint judged by their best.
That's all very platitudinous and PC, so to grind out something actionable: I think every person should be vigorous in determining their own allegiances to and admiration for and condemnation of public figures, and very conservative in judging others for differing opinions. So basically Postel's Law: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others".
I'm bad at this myself, but I'm working on it.
Western civil society doesn't have many strictly saintly people even among our most popular role models. In the United States where I live, we're constantly jammed up between trying to admire legitimate, world-changing accomplishments by our founders/framers and the fact that many/most of them were unapologetic slave owners. I imagine it's similar in a lot of the world.
Even in software anyone who cares has to try to navigate a set of opinions about key figures that range from "Luke Skywalker" to "pedophilia apologist" on the same person while trying to remain somewhat balanced about the whole thing.
Im my travels I've never met a person who isn't a monster judged by their worst act, and who isn't a saint judged by their best.
That's all very platitudinous and PC, so to grind out something actionable: I think every person should be vigorous in determining their own allegiances to and admiration for and condemnation of public figures, and very conservative in judging others for differing opinions. So basically Postel's Law: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others".
I'm bad at this myself, but I'm working on it.
It's depressing how dismissive people are of the story.
Don't let hatred, bias and mainstream media take over your critical thinking abilities.
When you open yourself up to news from all sides, you can form a better picture and opinion on what's going on.
The biases from law enforcement and the media are clear to anyone with an open mind.
Don't let hatred, bias and mainstream media take over your critical thinking abilities.
When you open yourself up to news from all sides, you can form a better picture and opinion on what's going on.
The biases from law enforcement and the media are clear to anyone with an open mind.
Well it would help if news outlets that report about it wouldn’t use slurs about the subject they are reporting about or at least write their articles with proper sources instead of „commentaries“.
The story is nonsense. Rudy gets a laptop, sits on it, does whatever with it, and then claims it shows malfeasance on the part of Joe Biden (at best it shows Hunter Biden is what everyone already knows–a mild fuckup whose dad loves him).
The rightwing smear campaign attempting to frame Biden and exonerate trump by pretending Hunter is worse than Kushner, Ivanka, and the rest of the trump criminal family is ridiculous.
The rightwing smear campaign attempting to frame Biden and exonerate trump by pretending Hunter is worse than Kushner, Ivanka, and the rest of the trump criminal family is ridiculous.
Frankly, I don’t think that is the ridiculous part. I’d bet Hunter _is_ worse.
The ridiculous thing to me is that this didn’t matter in context. Hunter wasn’t running and Hunter isn’t actively working in the white house like the Trump family. Meanwhile Trump engaged in gross nepotism, had a scandal rich administration, and did not agree to a peaceful transfer of power. Ultimately he went on to oversee the most violent transfer of power in American history.
IMO most folks didn’t care about the Hunter story and I still don’t. Not because it isn’t important but because it’s a candle to the sun. I don’t think our leaders _should_ be corrupt but when you put forth two terrible candidates all you can do is vote for the least corrupt of two bad options.
The ridiculous thing to me is that this didn’t matter in context. Hunter wasn’t running and Hunter isn’t actively working in the white house like the Trump family. Meanwhile Trump engaged in gross nepotism, had a scandal rich administration, and did not agree to a peaceful transfer of power. Ultimately he went on to oversee the most violent transfer of power in American history.
IMO most folks didn’t care about the Hunter story and I still don’t. Not because it isn’t important but because it’s a candle to the sun. I don’t think our leaders _should_ be corrupt but when you put forth two terrible candidates all you can do is vote for the least corrupt of two bad options.
But on the other hand trump is/was a danger to society and democracy. I'm happy the story was censored, given that it still seems like a non story (no real crime committed afaik)
And I fully understand the issues with my statement, the hypocrisy of it and the slippery slope nature of the act, but I do think some extreme cases do require bending the rules.
And I fully understand the issues with my statement, the hypocrisy of it and the slippery slope nature of the act, but I do think some extreme cases do require bending the rules.
We should just have the government switch between corrupt and not corrupt on a case by case basis. It’s the only way to avoid democratically electing the wrong people.
[deleted]
You can dislike trump and still see the issue with 3 corporations (facebook, google, twitter) having such enormous political power
Sure. But at the same time the story did come out, and most people in the US were exposed to it in some way, it just wasn't amplified to oblivion. So it's not like social media had total censorship power here.
If anything, I think the lesson is that social media should be handicapped before elections for all stories.
If anything, I think the lesson is that social media should be handicapped before elections for all stories.
I think this is one of the most honest takes here from a person supporting what happened, and so appreciate this comment.
I don’t agree this event was justified. Further I think it caused a lot of damage to our country by very significantly lessening institutional and societal trust: fairness of elections (not questioning here the actual vote counting, but the seemingly-partisan silencing of damaging info on one favored candidate), whether politically biased individuals can be trusted to treat those in other camps honestly and fairly.
I don’t agree this event was justified. Further I think it caused a lot of damage to our country by very significantly lessening institutional and societal trust: fairness of elections (not questioning here the actual vote counting, but the seemingly-partisan silencing of damaging info on one favored candidate), whether politically biased individuals can be trusted to treat those in other camps honestly and fairly.
I totally agree. Seeing how damaged Russia is due to mass misinformation, it is amazing to see how HN commenters think that misinformation is not a big threat. Propaganda works if you give it an even footing as real news.
You do realize that they used misinformation to bury a true story about the laptop right?
No, this is not what happened. The only true part of the story is that a laptop exists.
There is evidence that the hard drives were manipulated on it. There's no evidence Hunter put any of the data on the hard drive there. And beyond all that, nothing there shows Joe Biden did anything wrong.
Even the guy who _found_ the laptop doesn't think the information on it is necessarily legitimate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warni...
There is evidence that the hard drives were manipulated on it. There's no evidence Hunter put any of the data on the hard drive there. And beyond all that, nothing there shows Joe Biden did anything wrong.
Even the guy who _found_ the laptop doesn't think the information on it is necessarily legitimate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warni...
No, the NYT, FBI and analysts admit that the emails on the laptop were authentic. Please don't spread misinformation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controve...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controve...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
Actually, you're the one spreading misinformation. I would ask you to stop.
Please revisit your own sources, they say "some files" were authentic, meaning not all were authenticated. My source is 2 years newer than yours and confirms that the laptop contents were handled and modified by multiple people over the course of several years.
Additionally from your source:
"An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop."
Here is a quote from the source I posted earlier:
“[An expert] also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.”
“Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, ‘Mail,' ‘Salacious Pics Package’ and ‘Big Guy File’ — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”
...
In other words, Mac Isaac [note: the guy who was given the laptop] says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset.
Please revisit your own sources, they say "some files" were authentic, meaning not all were authenticated. My source is 2 years newer than yours and confirms that the laptop contents were handled and modified by multiple people over the course of several years.
Additionally from your source:
"An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop."
Here is a quote from the source I posted earlier:
“[An expert] also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.”
“Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, ‘Mail,' ‘Salacious Pics Package’ and ‘Big Guy File’ — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”
...
In other words, Mac Isaac [note: the guy who was given the laptop] says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset.
It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us, in a way that's virtually impossible for us to detect.