Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

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

It's already my opinion that the laptop could have belonged to Hunter at some point (no clear evidence on how it was lost-perhaps stolen). We know it was accessed and modified many times by many people, though. We also know there's no evidence of any malfeasance on Joe Biden's part.

Given that, what opinion have I claimed in here that you think I should change?

Does the following affect your opinion at all? These are some links/quotes that have been posted in other places under this article:

"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." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controve... https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Hunter_Biden_emails#Timeline https://ddosecrets.substack.com/p/release-hunter-biden-email...

The guy who found the laptop says that claims being made do not match what he saw on the laptop, and it is known that the data has changed hands and been modified multiple times post any Hunter connection:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warni...

“[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.

Additionally, I think folks are losing the forest for the trees: the entire point of this smear campaign is to allege Joe Biden improperly leaned on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. That is ridiculous on its face as it is well known that the prosecutor in question was corrupt, and it was US policy–not Biden's, but Obama's–to convince Ukraine to fire him. This was a multinational effort btw, not just the US. Do you feel like Biden was wrong to get the guy fired? Some background information on what happened there: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrat...

This might have actually stung a bit were it not for your pattern of posting in this way. You lot are on your 4th Eternal September since 2009, by my count.

Please don't post like this to HN, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are.

If you want to provide substantive information respectfully, that's fine. Otherwise please don't post.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

p.s. We ban accounts that break the site guidelines repeatedly and/or use HN primarily for political battle, so please don't do either.

What if Barnes and Noble agreed to carry it, but then refused to put it on the shelves, and left your book in the box in the back because they didn't like your political message, and wanted to deny you the ability to make money.

>Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.

That's just a cheap shot and a straw man, and I could say the same to you. You clearly haven't thought through the consequences of allowing the largest private communication network to block political communication of one side of an election. If it had been Facebook deciding to block anti-Trump stories you'd be crying twice is hard.

But ignoring the straw man, it is Facebook's prerogative to not have sexual content, or to say "no political content". And while they can, and did decide to block political content to benefit one side, it is valid to criticize that without suggesting that if they allow the NY Post article they also need to allow child port to be consistent.

It's a rather short post all things considered. I quoted the relevant portions. If you don't feel up to reading them, fine, but please don't pretend you know the facts when you ignore the evidence that has been presented.

> Unless you're claiming that someone secreted authentic emails onto an inauthentic laptop?

No, please read my previous post and if you're interested the links. tl;dr: some emails were authenticated, some were shown to have been tampered with.

> Honestly, this thread is less about the laptop than about government institutions suppressing the story.

This never happened, though. Facebook chose not to amplify the story based on information it had previously received from the FBI. Zuckerberg did not claim the FBI told them not to amplify this story, and the FBI talked to Facebook prior to the story coming out. This is spelled out in the post this topic is under.

> But, advancing claims with which you already agree is easy. If you want to be the Master of the Laptop, falsify each of the claims in this article. [The National Tragedy of Hunter Biden's Laptop - Tablet Magazine](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-nationa...)

You didn't bother reading the relevant materials and ask me to read more. No.