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

Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#451

Post by lalaland1125 »

mypastself wrote: post #377
meroes wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A regime change that operates by simply telling FB there's increased Russian propaganda? A boogyman that powerful I'm sure he's responsible for everything!

When the FBI gives you specific guidelines on what to be vary of, shortly before a news story that fits all their criteria drops, you listen. I doubt it was a taken as a friendly heads-up by Facebook, given the numerous accusations, threats of additional regulations, and congressional grillings in the years prior. When the then-head of the FBI released a particular public statement in 2016, many believed it swayed th…

> shortly before a news story that fits all their criteria drops

Why do you think it was "shortly"? Zuckerberg gave no details on the timing of the FBI's warning.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#452

Post by cf141q5325 »

kofejnik wrote: post #376
papito wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to hear one example. One . Which "truth" did you find out on 8chan that the government lied about?

That masks help prevent spread of Covid?

Seeing as it has been over two years now, here is Fauci on the topic to refresh peoples memories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2MmX2U2V3c&t=18s

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#453

Post by goodluckchuck »

parkingrift wrote: post #314

So let me get this straight. Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform. Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control. Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform. Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see. Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publis…

Does Facebook claim to be protected by Section 230?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#454

Post by typeofhuman »

myko wrote: post #441
typeofhuman wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but he wasn't politically involved like other politicians children and there wasn't much tangible beyond that He was a board member of a Ukrainian oil company receiving tons of money having 0-energy related business experience. Then there's the firing of the prosecutor looking into the corruption of Burisma at the behest of Joe Biden ("son of bitch, he got fired"). Now we're sending billions of dollars over there w…

> FBI actively peddled misinformation wrongly calling it Russian-propoganda and/or censoring/suppressing it. No, they weren't wrong. This was a Russian propaganda op to amplify a non-story.

What part of the story was inaccurate?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#455

Post by mcphage »

parkingrift wrote: post #314

So let me get this straight. Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform. Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control. Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform. Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see. Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publis…

> Why should Facebook continue to receive Section 230 protections?

Because Section 230 was written specifically to allow companies like Facebook to moderate their content. This is why it exists.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#456

Post by philipov »

zimpenfish wrote: post #424
AzzieElbab wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Government is bound by first amendment, at least in theory

Suppose USGOV takes over Facebook, then is it bound by 1A for all users? Or just those in US jurisdictions? You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.

We could do a Bell Labs and force each nation's Facebook to be spun off into its own entity, with a federated interop protocol to connect them together. I have no delusions that such a thing would ever be allowed to happen, though.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#457

Post by lalaland1125 »

darth_avocado wrote: post #18

That’s a very bad take. What he said was: 1. FBI said there may be Russian propaganda coming, be on the lookout 2. They decided to allow posting of Hunter Biden story, but reduce the distribution while independent fact checkers confirm it 3. Then eventually allow the story to be distributed Calling it “censorship at behest of FBI” is very disingenuous and misrepresents the story. I think what they did was very reason…

I think a lot of people forgot how sketchy the laptop story seemed when it came out.

Even conservative media sources like Tucker Carlson and the WSJ refused to touch it because the idea of Hunter Biden just leaving a water damaged laptop with a blind laptop repair guy (blind so the repair person could never testify to who left the laptop) just seemed so absurd.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#458

Post by CapricornNoble »

hotpotamus wrote: post #332
CapricornNoble wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you or even a family member has a drug problem, financial problems, a sex addiction, etc...all of that stuff is VERY easily exploitable by State-level espionage professionals. Since the potential for damage to the nation is high if certain information were to fall into the wrong hands, the first step in Risk Mitigation is to limit the access of the at-risk persons so they don't have the information in the first pl…

I'm curious - does that also apply to Donald Trump who himself had dealings with those countries as well as several of his children, and removed classified documents to his own house where foreign agents were known to frequent?

Everyone should be held to the same standard. That means me, that means Reality Winner[1], that means Hillary Clinton, that means Hunter Biden, and yes, that means Donald Trump.

But what we are seeing from what SHOULD BE our impartial law enforcement agencies is that small fish get the hammer, and Donald Trump gets his house raided. Why wasn't there a raid on the Clinton residence after the server scandal? Why hasn't Hunter been indicted if the FBI has known for years of how he's been a conduit for foreigners to buy access to his father? [2][3] Why haven't Ivanka and Jared been indicted for their suspicious overseas deals? [4] Why hasn't Obama been indicted for killing an American citizen without due process? [5]

Why are we forced to chose between two geriatrics for President, one with dementia, and the other an ignoramus blowhard? What do we have to fix so I can get a coalition government, with say Allen West (R) for President, Tulsi Gabbard (D) for Vice President, and a cross-party mix to flesh out the Department Heads and other executive staff? I feel like we are just observing a shadow war between two factions of barely-competent kleptocrats, who are so busy destabilizing the system that they aren't paying sufficient attention while China, the greatest adversary we've faced since 1945, rises. Xi Jingping is sharpening his dadao [6] and we're still arguing over who is the bigger threat to democracy, the NY real-estate charlatan/buffoon who enables his businesswoman daughter, and who thinks rules don't apply to him, or the cognitively-impaired lifelong politician who protects his "businessman"/crackhead son, who also thinks rules don't apply to him.

Cui bono? Either way...probably not the American people in the long run.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner [2] https://nypost.com/2022/06/29/legal-experts-blast-lack-of-pr... [3] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3616924-who-is-more-li... [4] https://nationalpost.com/news/world/china-approves-13-new-iv... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... [6] https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/11/26/693/

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#459

Post by ericmay »

myko wrote: post #438
ericmay wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure prosecute her too. She can sit next to Trump in a jail cell. But the more likely answer is that after relentless grilling at the behest of Republican lawmakers under Trump and actual testimony there probably wasn’t anything there worth pursuing from a legal perspective so no charges were filed.

There's no reason to prosecute her, though. She complied with all relevant requests and was following the steps of Colin Powell, her predecessor, with respect to how she set her email server up. The main difference between her and Powell is she attempted to preserve relevant emails for the government, while Powell recommended deleting them all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell...

Oh I agree, I’m just setting aside the typical whataboutism that springs to life when we’re talking about other ongoing criminal investigations.

“But Hunter Biden’s laptop!”

“But Hillary’s emails!”

Etc.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#460

Post by naasking »

dinom wrote: post #405
philipov wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.

Is Facebook the public square all of a sudden? I thought it was a private company.

Privately owned public squares exist.
Post reply on HN