Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#791

Post by chenzhekl »

sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

I don't think platforms like Twitter should act like such a gatekeeper. It's like being a rule maker and a judge at the same time, which could lead to abuse easily.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#792

Post by jonnycomputer »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #144
taxicab wrote: post #23

The 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 th…

1. That the FBI subpoenaed the laptop is sort of interesting. That usually requires a grand jury, doesn't it? But this is really weird: >During the subsequent summer and fall, Mac Isaac said he became alarmed after browsing through the computer's files. He claims he then spoke with an associate more versed than him in the law and in current events. >That unnamed person then contacted the FBI, Mac Isaac said. >Federal…

And, soon after:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-exam...

>Federal investigators are examining whether the emails allegedly describing activities by Joe Biden and his son Hunter and found on a laptop at a Delaware repair shop are linked to a foreign intelligence operation, two people familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The story is light on details.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#793

Post by croes »

sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

"A spokesman for the Biden campaign, Andrew Bates, said that Mr. Biden’s official schedules showed no meeting between Mr. Biden and the advisor." Sounds different to Biden did not meet the advisor. Overly specific dementi are suspicious. And is GRU using authentic emails or fake ones? Because if they are valid, it doesn't matter who obtained them. Just like when the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders during Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#794

Post by kyle_martin1 »

whatever1 wrote: post #743
kyle_martin1 wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't hacked. It was legally obtained as it was left and became business property after repeated attempts of returning the machine. Jack's response came much after the censorship actions were taken. You have to analyze with timelime. his PR firm told him he needed to do damage control. Moreover why was this policy not applied to Trump's alleged tax return? This is one of many examples one could give. You may be…

Having my data in your hard drive does not mean that it allows you to view my my data, unless I specifically I allowed you to do so.

Please look into how this data was obtained rather than making up legal stuff to feel you’re on the right side.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#795

Post by seppin »

CivBase wrote: post #200
sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

How does this constitute hacking? The repair shop almost certainly retains ownership of unclaimed deviced after some period of time. The shop owns the laptop. The data is theirs to do with as they please and they chose to publish it (at least, that's the story). No hacking necessary.

> The repair shop almost certainly retains ownership of unclaimed deviced after some period of time. The shop owns the laptop. The data is theirs to do with as they please and they chose to publish it (at least, that's the story). No hacking necessary.

The "repair shop" is almost certainly a poorly-convinced backstory as to the origin of the hacked materials.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-analysts-hac...

But you are right in saying that hasn't been confirmed yet.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#796

Post by kyle_martin1 »

kyle_martin1 wrote: post #700
sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

This wasn't hacked. It was legally obtained as it was left and became business property after repeated attempts of returning the machine. Jack's response came much after the censorship actions were taken. You have to analyze with timelime. his PR firm told him he needed to do damage control. Moreover why was this policy not applied to Trump's alleged tax return? This is one of many examples one could give. You may be…

So many people downvoting my comment but no substantive replies. No irony wrt censorship here.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#797

Post by celdon25 »

sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

> Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses.

Give me a break. The unauthorized leak of Trump's Tax Returns were all over social media and nothing was done about that.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#798

Post by scarmig »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #758
CivBase wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this constitute hacking? The repair shop almost certainly retains ownership of unclaimed deviced after some period of time. The shop owns the laptop. The data is theirs to do with as they please and they chose to publish it (at least, that's the story). No hacking necessary.

Wouldn't it classify as hacking if the data had any encryption? Bypassing encryption to reach copyrighted media would be a DMCA violation if nothing else. No clue if any encryption was used though, and either way the doxxing restriction could stop it.

OSX has had FileVault enabled by default since 2014, though we don't know how old the laptop in question actually is.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#799

Post by seppin »

qqqwerty wrote: post #725
CivBase wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this constitute hacking? The repair shop almost certainly retains ownership of unclaimed deviced after some period of time. The shop owns the laptop. The data is theirs to do with as they please and they chose to publish it (at least, that's the story). No hacking necessary.

Here is a good explanation of what likely happened[1]. The laptop shows up at this repair shop in early 2019, and the shop owner "declared that because he is legally blind, he could not identify the person who brought it in". Supposedly, this blind shop owner then gains access to the computer (doesn't say how, was it unprotected?) and it contains lewd videos of Hunter (again, blind shop owner). So he copies the drive…

Hunter Biden's iCloud backup was hacked, which isn't too hard. Combine those real photos with some real (and some fake) emails the GRU hacked from Burisma last year, you have a ready-made "October surprise".

The degree in which you "fall for it" is the degree in which you want to see Trump reelected. No one that could fog a mirror would normally believe such nonsense.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#800

Post by nobody9999 »

nickysielicki wrote: post #732
snowwrestler wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Even if it is a very popular website. If they make bad decisions, then people can go to competitors; it's as easy as typing in a different URL. That's how the Internet--and open societies in general--are supposed to work. What it looks like to me--someone who has been on the Internet since before the turn of the century--is tha…

> It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Imagine I make a website where I censor everything except pro Trump memes. Is that a bastion of free speech, compared to a website where I allow, y'know, actual free speech and discourse? I can't stand when people try to conflate the first amendment with freedom of speech. Nobody is (seriously) arguing that websites shouldn't…

>What we're arguing is that these platforms ought to value free speech as a principle and act impartially. [...] But they should have the integrity not to.

But you're ignoring the fact that the corporations' value system consists of maximizing profit.

Anything that isn't pushing in that direction is both a distraction and a hindrance to the stated goals of the corporation -- making money.

Valuing free speech or having integrity are laudable ideals. I do my best to prioritize both. Sometimes I fail. But I do the best I can.

But my (or your) goals as an individual aren't relevant in this context.

Changing the incentives for these corporations to do whatever it takes to maximize profit would be a good thing.

That will entail the willingness of a majority of us to vote with our feet/wallet, likely aided with smart regulation.

But until we change those incentives/priorities, the status quo is what we'll get.

Post reply on HN