351–360 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservatives: we don't need the government censoring things! Trust the free market Free market: censors things Conservatives: no, not like that
You're thinking of libertarians, not conservatives.
To be fair, the fact that it was published by the New York Post already seriously undercuts the article's credibility. Edit: and also the fact that it was written in collaboration with the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.) But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked.
Also the point about the backstory not making sense. It basically says "The Biden Campaign checked Biden's schedule, and said that Biden didn't attend an illegal meeting at that time". The rush to cover and dismiss the story makes it seem more likely that it's true (I have no idea either way), than if people could just write it off as another crackpot story from the NY Post.
Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. Controlling "disinformation" is a dog whistle for censorship, hoping that average citizens don't realize what they're really after. We all know who is going to be the moderators in flagging "disinformation" and we all know which ideology they overwhelmingly favor. I'd sooner trust a pyromaniac as fire chief of my local county than I wou…
disinformation is a dog whistle for censorship, but fake news is...? Censorship for thee but not for me.
Also as a comedic medium, it's an art form nobody else is doing. He isnt even indecent compared to just full of themselves types. He's just rants on hypothetical nonsense.
The interview with the repair shop owner is also reduces this story’s already dwindling credibility: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...
IMO it's relevant that twitter is blocking the story due to their rules about releasing hacked material, not misinformation. If the hard drive is a hoax, I think it's important to have an open discussion to shine a light on it. Banning the article in a way that appears to validate its claims will only embolden claims of a conspiracy. I think it's also interesting that the "hacking" ban doesn't have an exemption for t…
The FBI has confirmed the authenticity of subpoenas in the past and I'm confident that they'd be able to do so before November. Determining if the pictures are photoshopped is trickier but could probably also be done relatively quickly
Edit- I hit reply on the wrong comment, whoops
The interview with the repair shop owner is also reduces this story’s already dwindling credibility: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, fake news was originally used by the left, but co-opted by Trump.
It doesn't matter, the claim " Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. " is demonstrably false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Email headers would trivially prove if that was actually an email sent via gmail. The rest of the email account would do a lot to back up the claim it was actually his laptop.
Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.
And it’s not a lack of easy confirmation. It’s trivial to say conclusively whether or not that email was processed by Gmail. If it wasn’t it’s 100% guaranteed to be a really poor quality fake.
If it went through Gmail and has the proper signatures, then it’s not as easy to confirm or refute because you’d need a lot more info from the mail providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they had to give me five dollars for every spam call that got through, I bet they'd find a way to stop it. T-mobile already classifies these calls as 'Scam likely' and they've never seemed to misclassify any, so obviously it can be done.
> and they've never seemed to misclassify any They do, my local politician robo-calls all his constituents with info, and T-Mobile always flags his calls as spam. I guess in a way it's spam since it's unsolicited? But it's real info, and relevant to the local people he's calling, and keeping people informed is part of his job.
That's the way pretty much every spammer justifies their existence and somehow manages to sleep at night.
The only reason robocalling by politicians is not illegal is because it's them who get to make the laws. They should all get in the sea, alongside all the other spammers.