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

691–700 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#691

Post by someguydave »

ericmay wrote: post #561
someguydave wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one man's "whataboutism" is another man's "rule of law". If the issue is that these laws are expansive, vague, and difficult to enforce then they should be eliminated, not selectively enforced.

Sure. Lock them up along with everyone else. I don’t really care. Here’s the growing list: Hillary Clinton Hunter Biden Donald Trump Matt Gaetz Lindsey Graham Kevin McCarthy Lauren Boebart Rudy Giuliani Whatever number of Jan 6th co-conspirators (growing list) Let’s enforce the law right? Or are you going to play games and try to argue only Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden should have the law applied?

Sure, if you can articulate charges and bring evidence then prosecute away.

Note Joe Biden should also be on your list for bribery, as the most concerning crimes Hunter was involved with appeared to be selling access to Joe.

And especially don’t forget Obama for the “paperwork crime” possessing government records.

Probably most current and former government employees should be charged on the same basis too.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#692

Post by BaRRaKID »

unloco wrote: post #592

This headline is clickbait. Zuck said the FBI warned him of potential Russian propaganda during the election. Then, Zuck and his crew slowed down the spread until it was validated. This entire discussion here is based on a false narrative, it goes off into rants of political discourse that were not true in regards to this story. The only reason it was censored is because it fit a profile of what was expected to come.…

This needs to be higher. Zuck clearly said that Facebook got a general warning from the FBI regarding the elections, but didn't recall having a specific warning about the Hunter Biden story. Even with Joe Rogan trying to press on the issue (he has been known to be critical of shadow banning) Zuckeberg justified the decisions fairly well, and Joe seemed to agree with him that it was a hard issue and that Facebook handled it the best way possible, and at least better than Twitter.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#693

Post by pstuart »

someguydave wrote: post #690
pstuart wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I think the politcaly relevant points were: * Hunter Biden appeared to have sold access to Joe Biden to Chinese officials And suppressing that story before the election was a form of “election interference”

But he didn't. The point I'm trying to make is the whole point of the story was to insinuate Joe Biden had an active part in this.

Yes, Hunter, his adult son who he doesn't control, was engaged in a corrupt enterprise. There's zero proof Joe was involved but yet you hold on to the story like it matters.

The story is pure election interference, hoping to be a repeat of Buttery Males.

You all are proof that the only thing that matters is that there's a possibility that "the other guy" is corrupt. Yet mountains of evidence that Trump is corrupt have no impact on you.

Hmmmmmmm, so do you really care about corruption or do you just hate the other team?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#694

Post by naasking »

dinom wrote: post #653
naasking wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> However, I don't think Facebook provides anything essential

I'm speaking to social media in general. Is it not undeniable that if there's a public outcry on social media, that politicians pay attention? Does it not then follow that access to social media is fairly important to having a voice in our politics? Is it not also true that something like 50% of Americans get their news form Facebook? These are only surface level facts, there deeper issues like, for instance, ability to organize political campaigns for a cause without access to social media being severely hampered.

I don't know what your threshold for "essential", but access to these platforms sound pretty important to me, and I expect these trends will only increase.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#695

Post by ericmay »

someguydave wrote: post #691
ericmay wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Lock them up along with everyone else. I don’t really care. Here’s the growing list: Hillary Clinton Hunter Biden Donald Trump Matt Gaetz Lindsey Graham Kevin McCarthy Lauren Boebart Rudy Giuliani Whatever number of Jan 6th co-conspirators (growing list) Let’s enforce the law right? Or are you going to play games and try to argue only Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden should have the law applied?

Sure, if you can articulate charges and bring evidence then prosecute away. Note Joe Biden should also be on your list for bribery, as the most concerning crimes Hunter was involved with appeared to be selling access to Joe. And especially don’t forget Obama for the “paperwork crime” possessing government records. Probably most current and former government employees should be charged on the same basis too.

> Sure, if you can articulate charges and bring evidence then prosecute away.

Agreed. I'm hopeful we can get Trump here (Jan 6th + these documents seems like enough to reasonable assume guilt though that as always needs to be determined via due process), start with the worst offenders. Enough is enough. Then we can build from there.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#696

Post by ericmay »

someguydave wrote: post #689
ericmay wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 vot…

>Quite a few Good, then you know that everything classified is only for protecting important things and not hiding embarrassing things right? >Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Why not? The point of a clearance is to prevent foreign spying, not government oversight. Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law…

It's an oversimplification, and I'm not sure what you are referencing w.r.t "embarrassing things".

> Why not?... Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law?

I think the absurdity of your suggestion speaks for itself.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#697

Post by didibus »

tekknik wrote: post #685
didibus wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also seems reasonable to me to want to do some due diligence before it reaches number 1 and gets pushed to everyone by your own algorithms. Traditional journalism used to require some level of due diligence. They waited to know if it could be real before allowing it to spread. At least as I understood, the algorithm tweak only lasted 1 week and then was reversed once the story sounded more probable.

The different here is FB is not a publisher. If they were, then they’d have many more laws to follow with user generated content. FB is a distributor of user generated content. That’s all. There should be no decision making at all on their part.

That seems like a technicality, like the laws and the categorization of FB by the law doesn't change my argument. No matter what you want to call it, I think a little bit of due diligence seems sensible.

On that tengent, you did get me curious though, why isn't FB considered a publisher by law? And why would publishers be upholhded to more strict rules?

I mean, Facebook hosts the content, delivers it to people, makes money of it, and it even markets the content through recommendations and tool assisted sharing.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#698

Post by someguydave »

ericmay wrote: post #696
someguydave wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Quite a few Good, then you know that everything classified is only for protecting important things and not hiding embarrassing things right? >Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Why not? The point of a clearance is to prevent foreign spying, not government oversight. Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law…

It's an oversimplification, and I'm not sure what you are referencing w.r.t "embarrassing things". > Why not?... Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law? I think the absurdity of your suggestion speaks for itself.

> absurdity

Interesting. What is absurd about the people understanding exactly what the government is doing?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#699

Post by someguydave »

pstuart wrote: post #693
someguydave wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the politcaly relevant points were: * Hunter Biden appeared to have sold access to Joe Biden to Chinese officials And suppressing that story before the election was a form of “election interference”

But he didn't. The point I'm trying to make is the whole point of the story was to insinuate Joe Biden had an active part in this. Yes, Hunter, his adult son who he doesn't control, was engaged in a corrupt enterprise. There's zero proof Joe was involved but yet you hold on to the story like it matters. The story is pure election interference, hoping to be a repeat of Buttery Males. You all are proof that the only th…

https://nypost.com/2022/08/05/joe-biden-met-chinese-energy-e...

Trump’s corruption and Biden’s corruption are both relevant to voters.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#700

Post by everforward »

dinom wrote: post #627
naasking wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good because I'm not a lawyer, but what I said is still true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

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.

If you read the ruling, it's not a crazy stretch.

"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation."

The argument here would be that Facebook is built and operated primarily as a benefit to the public (i.e. they draw income by being a benefit to the public), they are essentially a public function, and are subject to state regulation as such.

Facebook would remain privately-held, and could either remain open to the public and subject to constitutional scrutiny, or they could close off and become some kind of a private club like Clubhouse.

I haven't thought through the ramifications of doing so, but I think it could be legally supported.

Post reply on HN