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

711–720 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#711

Post by rendall »

pstuart wrote: post #673
rendall wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 corrupt…

> what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant? First and foremost is how many outright lies I find in the output of that source (e.g., Tucker Carlson makes claims that are consistently outrageous). Next up would be getting a feel for the bias of the source (blatant vs innate) Then it's compare and contrast across different media feeds.

I'd submit that this is not adequate, because it allows for too much bias towards that which you already believe to be true; and to too-easily reject that which does not already fit in with your preconceptions. Actively falsifying claims you already believe is pretty key. Doing that on your own is essential. It's difficult, especially if you're embedded within a social context that believes "the other side" is stupid at best.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#712

Post by rendall »

pstuart wrote: post #678
rendall wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 corrupt…

> As a partisan Now it's my turn to be offended. I am anti-partisan. In a two-party system I'm forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I have no side, and certainly no love for the DNC. I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side. I don't think that Joe Biden is corrupt in a significant degree (he's deferential to his patrons but that is assumed for virtually all players). He doesn't seem o…

>> As a partisan

> I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.

Awesome. Then we are on the same side, even if we disagree on how best to get there, and on interpretation of the even the same facts.

> That liberal rag Forbes agrees

You should understand that Forbes runs a side-project that works like SubStack. It's hard to see, but note in the url this `/sites/michaelatindera`. Those sites get less fact-checking and oversight than normal because they are more intended as opinion pieces. This sub-site is from someone named Michaela Tindera whose beat seems to have been billionaires in government. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/

I read the article, but it was long and uninteresting, and after paragraphs of not actually saying where the money went, I skimmed it to the end. While it seems to show what you said to be true "that Joe Biden is [not] corrupt in a significant degree", I think this kind of thing is picking at lint. I suspect Joe Biden, like Clinton and unlike Trump, is well aware of the bounds of legal corruption and will always be able to say correctly that he follows the law, even though the law itself allows for legalized corruption such as earning high speaking fees as private citizens. Or high-paying sinecures for family members. As a comparison, the only reason Trump's bullying of Ukraine was illegal while Joe Biden's was legal, was not because one act was inherently ethical and the other is wrong, but because Biden has intimate awareness of these arcane protocols through long experience; Trump does not. To my mind, it doesn't matter if it's legal. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter which party does it. We can quibble about whether Joe Biden "meant" to help out his son, but the fact is, he did. He quashed the investigation and has a plausible, legal reason for doing so.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#713

Post by rendall »

pstuart wrote: post #672
rendall wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 corrupt…

The point of the laptop story was not to root out corruption, it was just to smear Biden. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise. I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. If there was compelling proof…

> I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption.

The evidence may be on that laptop. Which was suppressed as a story. By the request of the FBI. Who has the laptop in their possession.

It is your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of corruption there that makes me believe you have been unduly influenced by partisan news.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#714

Post by rendall »

myko wrote: post #670
rendall wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not reading through all that. If you have a single link that lays out your case put it here. Your claim was A laptop exists, yes, but it doesn't mean it's Hunter's or has his information. NYT discusses authenticated Hunter Biden emails from the laptop. Unless you're claiming that someone secreted authentic emails onto an inauthentic laptop? Honestly, this thread is less about the laptop than about government inst…

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…

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

I asked you to give me read one link to read, which I promised to do.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#715

Post by tekknik »

didibus wrote: post #697
tekknik wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because facebook doesn’t generate the content. You must generate content in order to be a publisher. And once labeled as a publisher, you become liable for your speech. Generally those platforms allowing the posting of user generated content do not want to be liable for the speech, so they try their hardest to not be labeled as a publisher. This article explains in more detail the differences:

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-§-230-and-the-...

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#716

Post by someguydave »

ericmay wrote: post #707
someguydave wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first words of the Constitution are “we the people” which identifies that sovereign power from which the government derives its power and legitimacy. I do not wish to abolish secrets - merely to make it clear that US citizens are the rulers of the country and therefore nothing should be kept from them. I can imagine many ways that could be done without the kinds of dire consequences you extrapolate.

It sounds to me like you’re just speaking in generalities. I can just say “we the people” decided that this information should not be given to citizens except on a need-to-know basis as described by the institutions that we created.

Do you think that “we the people” created and are overseeing those institutions effectively? I do not. One aspect of that lack centers around excess secrecy, the borders of which seem unpatroled.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#717

Post by ericmay »

someguydave wrote: post #716
ericmay wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds to me like you’re just speaking in generalities. I can just say “we the people” decided that this information should not be given to citizens except on a need-to-know basis as described by the institutions that we created.

Do you think that “we the people” created and are overseeing those institutions effectively? I do not. One aspect of that lack centers around excess secrecy, the borders of which seem unpatroled.

Maybe, maybe not? It's just a matter of opinion. For example, I'd say our institutions aren't being overseen effectively when they let criminals who try to overturn lawful election results go unpunished. I would say our institutions are effectively overseen with regards to classified information, partially due to personal experience, partially due to the FBI, DOJ, and National Archives who are investigating a breach of how those classified materials are handled. I'd say our election related institutions are not being overseen effectively. Governors and state legislatures in certain states are ignoring constitutionally mandated maps (like in Ohio) or are finding ways to make voting difficult.

When you go down this path, you're just stating your opinion about how things should be and trying to anchor that to an interpretation you have of what "we the people" means. That's ok, but the problem you run into is that it's wildly open to interpretation. For every "we the people' argument you make, someone can put forth any number of contradictory but equally correct arguments.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#718

Post by someguydave »

ericmay wrote: post #717
someguydave wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that “we the people” created and are overseeing those institutions effectively? I do not. One aspect of that lack centers around excess secrecy, the borders of which seem unpatroled.

Maybe, maybe not? It's just a matter of opinion. For example, I'd say our institutions aren't being overseen effectively when they let criminals who try to overturn lawful election results go unpunished. I would say our institutions are effectively overseen with regards to classified information, partially due to personal experience, partially due to the FBI, DOJ, and National Archives who are investigating a breach…

It is not simply my opinion. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supr...

“Working from underlying ideas about consent, early Americans assumed that a rule could have the obligation of law only if it came from the constitutionally established legislature elected by the people, and that a judicial decision could have legal obligation only if it came from a constitutionally appointed judge exercising independent judgment. The U.S. Constitution therefore places the power to bind Americans in Congress and the courts, not in executive or independent agencies.“

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#719

Post by unity1001 »

eyeball wrote: post #382
unity1001 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

holodomor was an intentionally manufactured to try to genocide political opponents. Something the “commies” are fond of more than most but they get a pass from enthusiasts like you. Gross. https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Was it? Was it because it was intentionally 'manufactured' to genocide 'political opponents' that the Soviet state ordered food rationing EVERYWHERE else in order to be able to help Ukraine. So much that the people in Leningrad and Moscow ate less than people in Ukraine during the period? Which we know beyond any doubt because the records of who was given how many grams of what type of food during the rationing is still in the records.

Holodomor became a thing when the 1930s Rupert Murdoch started doing propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany after signing a deal (for $500,000 dollars). Back then propaganda was not a dirty word, and it was business.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#720

Post by _kbh_ »

unity1001 wrote: post #719
eyeball wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holodomor was an intentionally manufactured to try to genocide political opponents. Something the “commies” are fond of more than most but they get a pass from enthusiasts like you. Gross. https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Was it? Was it because it was intentionally 'manufactured' to genocide 'political opponents' that the Soviet state ordered food rationing EVERYWHERE else in order to be able to help Ukraine. So much that the people in Leningrad and Moscow ate less than people in Ukraine during the period? Which we know beyond any doubt because the records of who was given how many grams of what type of food during the rationing is st…

> Holodomor became a thing when the 1930s Rupert Murdoch started doing propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany after signing a deal (for $500,000 dollars). Back then propaganda was not a dirty word, and it was business.

If you're speaking of Keith Rupert Murdoch the man who was born in 1931 and owns News Corp, I ask how does a person who's not even in their teens start doing propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany?.

Post reply on HN