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

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#61

Post by nopzor »

laurent92 wrote: post #20
deeg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would work that well. Phone conversations are private and so there won't be much pressure to crack down on hateful or false conversations. Social media is very public. I'd say it's closer to radio than telephone.

Should radio be state-controlled? For me, democracy has 4 pillars that must be independent, and currently are not is most countries: executive, legislative, judicial and media. The 4th one is controversial but nonetheless necessary for the country to be a democracy. Democracy without equal speech time for all parties isn’t a democracy – it is like Singapore, a single-party democracy. Finally, we must have a populatio…

singapore is not a single party democracy. you could have made that argument 20 years ago, but it just isn’t true today.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#62

Post by Ancapistani »

iaw wrote: post #33
woo01 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The emails have already been confirmed to be real, at least some of them. The technician spoke on record about getting the laptop from the owner who abandoned it, and by law became his. There are gaps in the story that need to be investigated, but who the heck are Facebook and Twitter to make that call minutes/hours after the story broke?? This is not some weird obscure conspiracy story. The other thing here is the d…

DKIM? Link to independent (non-tabloid) confirmation?

It’s been hard to keep up with the (largely crazy, frankly) events and speculation here, but a few things stick out to me that make me lean toward believing the story as told:

* Hunter Biden’s attorney, George Mesires, has allegedly gotten a subpoena issued for the return of Hunter’s laptops. In doing so his ownership is implicitly verified. Caveat: I wasn’t able to find a copy of this subpoena, though I’m fairly sure I read it a day or so ago.

* The Biden campaign has not denied _any_ of this.

* The FBI has not commented. If there were no active investigation they would typically say so. If there were an active investigation, they are bound not to comment on it.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#64

Post by iaw »

Ancapistani wrote: post #62
iaw wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DKIM? Link to independent (non-tabloid) confirmation?

It’s been hard to keep up with the (largely crazy, frankly) events and speculation here, but a few things stick out to me that make me lean toward believing the story as told: * Hunter Biden’s attorney, George Mesires, has allegedly gotten a subpoena issued for the return of Hunter’s laptops. In doing so his ownership is implicitly verified. Caveat: I wasn’t able to find a copy of this subpoena, though I’m fairly sur…

Thank you, this is the most compelling case I've seen here for the emails being real.

I don't know that I reach the same conclusions as you though. The lack of denials is disconcerting and does imply some elements of truth in the story.

For the subpoena for Hunter's laptop I could see a lawyer doing that if there was no laptop to force someone either into contempt of court, perjury, or acknowledging the laptop doesn't exist. It could be a tactic to undermine the story rather than supporting evidence is what I'm saying (but on the surface is looking bad).

As for the FBI [0] I think things are a little more complicated than taking a lack of an answer for confirmation.

[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-probing-whether-purpor...

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#65

Post by Ancapistani »

iaw wrote: post #64
Ancapistani wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been hard to keep up with the (largely crazy, frankly) events and speculation here, but a few things stick out to me that make me lean toward believing the story as told: * Hunter Biden’s attorney, George Mesires, has allegedly gotten a subpoena issued for the return of Hunter’s laptops. In doing so his ownership is implicitly verified. Caveat: I wasn’t able to find a copy of this subpoena, though I’m fairly sur…

Thank you, this is the most compelling case I've seen here for the emails being real. I don't know that I reach the same conclusions as you though. The lack of denials is disconcerting and does imply some elements of truth in the story. For the subpoena for Hunter's laptop I could see a lawyer doing that if there was no laptop to force someone either into contempt of court, perjury, or acknowledging the laptop doesn'…

To be clear, I'm not 100% convinced that any of it is true. I think it is likely that the emails are real and very likely that the photos are.

As for the FBI - it's at best circumstantial evidence. If they had stated there was no open case I would have considered it to be strong evidence that it's all disinformation. The two possible outcomes from that facet are "disprove"/"not disprove".

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#66

Post by iaw »

Ancapistani wrote: post #65
iaw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, this is the most compelling case I've seen here for the emails being real. I don't know that I reach the same conclusions as you though. The lack of denials is disconcerting and does imply some elements of truth in the story. For the subpoena for Hunter's laptop I could see a lawyer doing that if there was no laptop to force someone either into contempt of court, perjury, or acknowledging the laptop doesn'…

To be clear, I'm not 100% convinced that any of it is true. I think it is likely that the emails are real and very likely that the photos are. As for the FBI - it's at best circumstantial evidence. If they had stated there was no open case I would have considered it to be strong evidence that it's all disinformation. The two possible outcomes from that facet are "disprove"/"not disprove".

I've begun to wonder if it isn't somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps the emails, texts, and photos are real but from a Russian hack and are being selectively released in an effort to paint Hunter Biden in the worst possible light hoping it reflects poorly on his father.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#67

Post by Ancapistani »

iaw wrote: post #66
Ancapistani wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I'm not 100% convinced that any of it is true. I think it is likely that the emails are real and very likely that the photos are. As for the FBI - it's at best circumstantial evidence. If they had stated there was no open case I would have considered it to be strong evidence that it's all disinformation. The two possible outcomes from that facet are "disprove"/"not disprove".

I've begun to wonder if it isn't somewhere in the middle. Perhaps the emails, texts, and photos are real but from a Russian hack and are being selectively released in an effort to paint Hunter Biden in the worst possible light hoping it reflects poorly on his father.

That seems plausible to me.

At the end of the day I don't think the source matters in terms of how I see the Bidens, only the authenticity of the information itself. If the later comes out that the stated source was a lie, then that will change how I see everyone involved on that side. If both the information and source are false, then I would strongly support severe criminal charges for those involved.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#68

Post by sleepysysadmin »

kobayashi wrote: post #5

I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...

Your link is not very convincing.

During the primaries this whole Burisma thing came out. Bernie Bros pushed the narrative, Biden would just blow up and not answer the question like he should do reasonably. The democrat base said it's not enough to go Bernie and they elected Biden. What was the story? The possible bias of a company who likes democrats and other left-leaning figures gave his son a job in perhaps hopes of some influence? Not exactly a huge story. Biden had denied any involvement during the primaries.

NYPost investigated and found further information and sat on it until just the right time before the election. Smart play by them to be sure.

Even with what the NYPost reported on. Hunter Biden is a scumbag to be sure and it does confirm Biden met his employer but it doesnt prove any influence was sold. Hunter Biden was probably taking advantage of his rich/famous father. Not unlike Donald Jr.

To assert that this is misinformation is quite unlikely.

Facebook and Twitter didnt block it because it was misinformation, they blocked it because of personal identifying information or 'hacking sources'.

Post reply on HN