Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

Post by bamboozled » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 9:14 AM UTC

deepdriver wrote: post #218

bamboozled wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Post by secondcoming » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 9:15 AM UTC

jeromegv wrote: post #6

mikece wrote: post #3

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 part…

Post by notahacker » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 9:18 AM UTC

ducktales wrote: post #155

cromwellian wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jared Kushner negotiated selling tens of billions of high tech weaponry to the Saudis, and then ended up with a bunch of Saudis renting empty apartments in his failed real estate project, at the same time he got a $2 billion check from the Middle East. Ivanka negotiated trademarks with China at the same time she was literally in China with her father’s government negotiating Chinese trade deals. They made over $100 m…

I'm sorry, where was the Trump clan mentioned in the parent or GP post? Whataboutism does not contribute to the discussion, and it is presumptuous to assume the original poster does not find those things concerning, as well. To me personally, both are very concerning, and it's exhausting to me that the political class gets a pass on this behavior

Post by based69 » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 9:20 AM UTC

epgui wrote: post #113

mgraczyk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post by selfhoster11 » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 9:20 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #271

deepdriver wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.