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

651–660 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#651

Post by ekianjo »

hoffs wrote: post #369
ekianjo wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us whats truly scary is not just the limited number but the fact that these corps are always aligned in the same political direction.

You know what is also scary, that most of higher education is also aligned in the same political direction. It's almost as if there is some correlation that comes with education

Or you know, brainwashing is prevalent in higher ed in case you have not noticed.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#652

Post by _kbh_ »

peter422 wrote: post #573
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…

> Now we're sending billions of dollars over there with reports saying few of those dollars are going to the front lines. The vast majority of the “money” we are sending is military equipment that the U.S. produces. You think Ukraine is reselling it to somebody else while they are in the middle of a war?

> The vast majority of the “money” we are sending is military equipment that the U.S. produces. You think Ukraine is reselling it to somebody else while they are in the middle of a war?

This story that is now continuously pushed by pro Russians is based off a single story from a single NGO that didn't even relate to the current stage of the war.

This story instead was talking about how weapons where being targeted by Russia before they reached the front lines early on and is not at all relevant anymore.

What people are trying to do is angle this story as the weapons being sold, but it's actually about weapon shipments being targeted by Russia.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#653

Post by dinom »

naasking wrote: post #649
dinom wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, fair enough. Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization? Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.

It's probably more like a utility at this point and perhaps should be regulated as such. Utilities generally don't interject themselves into people's communications, and they can't refuse people service except for carefully regulated reasons. The only publishing-like activity social media sites partake in are the curated news feeds. It's not clear that the service hosting accounts and people's communications as a uti…

Saying that it's a communications utility may be the best argument for regulation. However, I don't think Facebook provides anything essential and so it's much closer to entertainment/media in my mind. I'll continue to listen but they seem to be in the clear for now.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#654

Post by rendall »

myko wrote: post #633
typeofhuman wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of the story was inaccurate?

The part that alleges the laptop and all the information on it are Hunter's. A laptop exists, yes, but it doesn't mean it's Hunter's or has his information. It also doesn't come close to implicating Joe Biden in any way. All it does is show Hunter is a drug user and has a lot of sex. This was known already. Even the guy who _found_ the laptop says it is likely disinformation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2…

> "People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation."

No credible news source any longer disputes that it was indeed Hunter Biden's laptop. Does this change your opinion of anything?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#655

Post by rendall »

pstuart wrote: post #604
rendall wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One point I'll counter you on is that a significant portion of the population is literally below average intelligence Yes, half, but IQ is only one measure of a person. Compassion, wisdom, grit are others. Someone can be low IQ and yet wise, compassionate, etc. > and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many. Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know? > I've yet to see any capitulations by…

> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? Unfortunately, yes. > What would capitulation look like to you? To acknowledge the good/bad of each player based upon a reasonable understanding of their behavior. > (re hate/spite): Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know? * I mean that people will act on emotion rather than rationale in a significant number of cases, and that hat…

a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not.

b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails.

c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed.

d. Yes.

e. Yes.

f. Yes.

Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects.

I am not religious.

I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide?

As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case.

In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed.

Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents."

But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway).

So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous.

So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#656

Post by [deleted] »

pstuart wrote: post #624
rendall wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow. >> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? > Unfortunately, yes. Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all. > That's a silly question. If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal? You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not…

First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points. >> That's a silly question. You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many at…

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#657

Post by rendall »

pstuart wrote: post #624
rendall wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow. >> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? > Unfortunately, yes. Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all. > That's a silly question. If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal? You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not…

First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points. >> That's a silly question. You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many at…

> You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you".

You could have stated all of that without insult.

I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation.

What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#658

Post by myko »

colordrops wrote: post #648
myko wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not what happened. The only true part of the story is that a laptop exists. There is evidence that the hard drives were manipulated on it. There's no evidence Hunter put any of the data on the hard drive there. And beyond all that, nothing there shows Joe Biden did anything wrong. Even the guy who _found_ the laptop doesn't think the information on it is necessarily legitimate: https://www.washingtonpost.…

No, the NYT, FBI and analysts admit that the emails on the laptop were authentic. Please don't spread misinformation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controve... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

Actually, you're the one spreading misinformation. I would ask you to stop.

Please revisit your own sources, they say "some files" were authentic, meaning not all were authenticated. My source is 2 years newer than yours and confirms that the laptop contents were handled and modified by multiple people over the course of several years.

Additionally from your source:

"An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop."

Here is a quote from the source I posted earlier:

“[An expert] also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.”

“Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, ‘Mail,' ‘Salacious Pics Package’ and ‘Big Guy File’ — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”

...

In other words, Mac Isaac [note: the guy who was given the laptop] says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#659

Post by throwoutway »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #278
woojoo666 wrote: post #221

I found interesting how during the podcast, Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. A snippet from the podcast (with minor edits, starting from 7:25 of this video clip [1]): > Joe Rogan: is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story? > [...] > Zuckerberg: yeah yeah I mean it sucks because I mean it turned out after…

> Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, uncorroborated claims were enough. Not even a probable cause was required.

Zuckerberg doesn't even understand the American judicial system

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#660

Post by myko »

colordrops wrote: post #202
epgui wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the interview Zuckerberg has all the facts down until Rogan asks him to what degree they limited the article, for which Zuckerberg developed a sudden case of amnesia, indicating that they probably limited it a lot .

> indicating that they probably limited it a lot.

That's not the case. The FBI spoke to Zuckerberg prior to the phony laptop story dropping! Facebook thought the story looked suspicious (because it is) which is why they chose not to amplify it. Please read the article, specifically this comment is illuminating:

`He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".`

Rogan asking the question at all was silly, and Zuck's answer non-committal, because the FBI didn't even bring this story up.

Keep in mind, even after all of this–knowing that the story is most likely a political hack job–Facebook didn't ban the article, they just did not amplify it's spread for 1 week.

Post reply on HN