I think the key mistake was that the NY Post didn't cite "anonymous sources." That would have made it bulletproof.
Instead of Guilianni, they could have just said "persons familiar with the contents of the emails."
Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
21–30 of 1001 posts
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#22European here, but I can definitively see how someone would come to that conclusion. Both platforms bans anyone mentioning the supposed "whistleblower" (whom actually only had newspaper articles as 'evidence'), bans anyone mentioning Bidens kid, bans anyone mentioning the death of Clintons ex-staffers, Wikileaks content related to Dems is blacklisted, and they remove videos of Bidens gaffes for being "manipulative" w…
[deleted]
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#23The story reeks from top to bottom. The owner of the repair shop that allegedly received the laptop from Biden is a super far right conspiracy theorist. To the point where he literally believes that the Clintons are out to kill him for the information he has [1].
The whole story is that this is Hunter Biden's laptop, but in reality some random dude dropped it off and the owner said that "he had a medical condition that prevented him from actually seeing who dropped off the laptop but that he believed it to be Hunter Biden’s because of a sticker related to the Beau Biden Foundation that was on it." [1].
Then, it gets passed off to Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani back at the start of the year when Guiliani is already trying to get Ukraine to stir up a story on Hunter Biden. They then sit on it for most of the year and release it 20 days before the election.
Something like this, even as absurd as it is, will take weeks to thoroughly debunk. Meanwhile, people are literally in lines voting and stuff like this has an effect. That's probably why it was released right now, because even though it's most likely false, by the time it has flown around the internet unimpeded the damage will have already been done.
[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#24Ignore the NYPost for the moment.
A US government website put the details on their website. Twitter is now blocking the US government webpage hosting the details. They are blocking actual politicians linking these details. https://twitter.com/CongressmanHice/status/13167418079595724...
Worse yet, they have highlighted the exact opposite story. They are featuring washington post who are calling it false.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1316398754883272704
I'm not an American. Any Americans want to weigh in on your views of this?
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#25Ignore the NYPost for the moment. A US government website put the details on their website. Twitter is now blocking the US government webpage hosting the details. They are blocking actual politicians linking these details. https://twitter.com/CongressmanHice/status/13167418079595724... Worse yet, they have highlighted the exact opposite story. They are featuring washington post who are calling it false. https://twitt…
Well, if it is false, then they are performing the stated goal of stopping the spread of “fake news”, which need not discriminate on whether the entity pushing it is associated with a government or not. Whether or not I want Twitter to be an arbiter of truth, some very basic research does seem to make it seem this story is a bit on the order of a conspiracy theory.
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#26I think the key mistake was that the NY Post didn't cite "anonymous sources." That would have made it bulletproof.
Instead of Guilianni, they could have just said "persons familiar with the contents of the emails."
That or "anonymous sources" wouldn't have helped. That works with papers that have a long earned reputation of mostly reporting facts. They may have biases in their selection of which stories to run, or what angles to approach those stores from, but what they report as a fact is in fact a fact far far far far more often than not.
(Pause for people to jump in to cite examples of such papers getting it wrong. This will be the small set of examples that is always cited).
The Post is not such a paper.
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#27In the first post about this, people were like, how come they didn't do this to the Democrats in 2016.. Uhhh because they were not taking ANY aggressive actions in 2016 against anyone, that's why we are here. They are trying to correct a wrong. I applaud them for trying. Also it's unfair to say they are doing this for political favoritism. Democratic politicians are the loudest ones calling for their breakup, ie. Ber…
> Democratic politicians are the loudest ones calling for their breakup, ie. Bernie, AOC, Warren.
Incidents like this may make Republicans a lot more interested in breaking up Facebook and Twitter...
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#28Ignore the NYPost for the moment. A US government website put the details on their website. Twitter is now blocking the US government webpage hosting the details. They are blocking actual politicians linking these details. https://twitter.com/CongressmanHice/status/13167418079595724... Worse yet, they have highlighted the exact opposite story. They are featuring washington post who are calling it false. https://twitt…
Would not be the first time the US government has transparently tried to lie about and smear families of government critics.
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#29I wonder if Twitter is also going to block links to this BBC article...
Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims
#30Censorship is when the government, not private enterprises, stifle speech. When it a private entity, it’s called free market. This is a difficult concept for whiners to accept.
That’s literally not the definition of censorship: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship Otherwise the phrase “government censorship” would be redundant. And that’s why the Hollywood Production Codes were a kind of censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code And the idea that criticizing censorship when private organizations do it is “whining” is quite odd. Not everything…
You do realize that the literal meaning and the legal meaning are two separate things, right?
Censorship in a privately owned entity is 100% legal. As is bias...