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

551–560 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#551

Post by pstuart »

someguydave wrote: post #408
pstuart wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the only point about the laptop -- to smear Biden.

But it was a true story? You don’t want to hear about true bad things if they are about people you like?

My (current) understanding of the truth:

  * Hunter Biden was (is?) a drug addict
  * Hunter Biden has done stuff to be ashamed of
  * Hunter Biden got a board member seat on Burisma because of who his dad is
  * Content (some percentage) on the laptop in question came from Hunter Biden
I could do this all day long, because I have no partisan loyalty/ideology binding me. I care about corruption regardless of which party is committing it.

Do you want to hear the awful truth about people you like?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#552

Post by mint2 »

fnfjcu7 wrote: post #537
hotpotamus wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What truth got out? This still seems like an enormous effort to prove that Hunter Biden is a dirtbag, which was already proven for years. Like didn't he sleep with his brother's widow and stuff like that? Obviously they want to use the sins of the son to tarnish the father, but if there was actual proof of some sort of wrong-doing, it'd still be the number one story on Fox News every day. So really you just get to co…

When the father starts boasting at conferences on video about using Whitehouse aid money to extort Ukraine into removing the prosecutor going after his son I think maybe the sons business dealings found on said laptop referencing including money for the father multiple times might be worth taking into account? All this was on Fox. A lot. Maybe you weren't watching?

Maybe someone was watching too much fox, that account based on fox leaves out a massive fact and focuses on the coincidence - the prosecutor was universally regarded as corrupt by all top nations and Biden’s son had nothing to do with that.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#553

Post by somenameforme »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #474
somenameforme wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's the trillion dollar line. The reason for its justification is because as an owner of a digital platform, you can't get sued by Joe for defamation because somebody said something defaming about him on your platform. Publishers can, and do, get sued for defamation because they're responsible for what they publish. Now let's imagine a hypothetical extreme where OnlineSite ends up censoring any posts related t…

The question is when is “information provided by another information content provider?” Suppose Facebook (corporate) generates content, sells it to an independent company, then leases it back and publishes it? Suppose Facebook uses millions of user-submitted pictures to train an AI, then publishes the resulting images? Are those “information provided by another information content provider?” Suppose Facebook copies a…

The legalese defines this: "The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service." In all your examples except the 4th Facebook would clearly be the publisher/provider, and responsible. The 4th is where things get tricky largely because of yet another part of the law:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

Wrangling over the term "good faith" is going to be a lot trickier, especially when plausible deniability enters into the picture.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#554

Post by pstuart »

beeboop wrote: post #481
pstuart wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the only point about the laptop -- to smear Biden.

The only point of the Steele dossier paid for by Hillary was to smear Trump. Should that story also have been censored? It was provably full of fake information.

Opposition research is a foundation of all campaigns, so get off your high horse.

The Steele Dossier is the next gen version of RatherGate (discredited reporting on a subject that can still be assumed to be true).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#555

Post by josephcsible »

projektfu wrote: post #351
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…

The law protects small sites, too. It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content. You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize p…

> Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content.

> making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want.

What the law should be changed to say is something like "if you censor any legal content based on its message, you become liable for everything". The point is that since being liable for everything would kill them, they'd stop censoring instead.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#556

Post by pstuart »

rendall wrote: post #354
pstuart wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take in the information as a whole and sift out one's best guess. That's all anyone can do. Cognitive bias is a bitch though.

My answer is a few rules of thumb: - political stance is not my identity - actively seek to falsify that which I know to be true - be skeptical about any statement that fits neatly into my preconceptions - apply the principle of charity, to reply to the strongest, most charitable interpretation of a statement, even of those with whom I disagree - not to rely on any source once it has demonstrated a capacity to lie -…

That sounds lovely but theory and practice vary in their overlap.

One point I'll counter you on is that a significant portion of the population is literally below average intelligence and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many.

I've yet to see any capitulations by the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop but I'm willing to try to zero in on that with you to see if your words match your actions.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#557

Post by josephcsible »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #349
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…

section 230 is a wildly misunderstood law with many misconceptions. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn‘t make a clear distinction between platform and publisher.

We know it does protect publishers today. The point is we want it to be changed to only protect platforms.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#558

Post by elliekelly »

kurupt213 wrote: post #533

I don’t understand why Facebook is getting the negative attention instead of the FBI. This is a classic example of an entity in a position of power abusing said power. How is this different from sexual extortion for a promotion. I don’t care how rich your company is, the FBI comes knocking, the obvious response is to acquiesce to avoid issues with the federal government

Plenty of companies have refused or even actively opposed the FBI and have managed to “avoid issues” with the federal government. There absolutely is a point where a company’s wealth and influence affords then the ability to push back against the government with little fear of the possible repercussions. And whatever that level of wealth and influence is Facebook has absolutely far surpassed it.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#559

Post by hnusersarelame »

refurb wrote: post #32

I’m kind of shocked this isn’t a bigger story. - Right before a presidential election a major story breaks about a Presidential candidate - FBI jumps in to say “it’s Russian disinformation” - Story suppressed across the media including online as “disinformation” - After the election story turns out to be 100% true

No post body was provided.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#560

Post by ericmay »

someguydave wrote: post #526
ericmay wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you describe what mechanism would exist for “independent” oversight of government secrecy? It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. > these "paperwork" claims. In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. It’s very similar to discussions I…

> It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets. >I…

> I'm sorry, how many secret military documents have you personally seen?

Quite a few. I was on active duty in the US Army and deployed to Iraq where we planned and conducted air assault and VIP transport missions. I also had TS-SCI clearance.

> It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets.

Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Hell maybe I can take a UH-60 for a spin. My tax dollars paid for it!

Post reply on HN