561–570 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wait though, bc i really dont see it in any of these articles: who has been hacked?
The NY Post claims Hunter Biden's or one of his associates' laptops was hacked.
> The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.
Perhaps you just haven't read the newspaper much. "So-and-so McOfficial confirmed the authenticity of the documents" is standard copy. This is a result for just googling "confirmed the authenticity of the emails": https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-contr...
> The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This post has a very odd tone, as if a private company enforcing their policy to remove unverified & leaked personal correspondence of a private citizen is some unquestionable moral wrongdoing that's apparently going to blow up. Surprised to see this as at the top, on HN. National Review is a conservative wing-nut website trying to turn this non-story into fuel for their censorship culture war.
Did twitter censor all stories regarding the claim that Trump paid $750 in taxes? In case the point I’m making isn’t obvious: the NYT never published their source for that, and still haven’t. If twitter is removing stories for having dubious sources, then that story should not pass muster either. If they’re removing stories for having “hacked” (or in the case of both this story about Hunter Biden, or Trumps taxes: “l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The provenance of the files is not questioned by far-right political operatives like Sean Davis who are pushing this story in the first place, but to anybody with half a brain cell and an ounce of skepticism the whole story stinks. Just listen to this interview with the owner of the repair shop these files purportedly came from, who changes his story about a half-dozen times in the span of sixty minutes: https://www.…
I hear your objection. Here is a fair and balanced coverage of the document's provenance by a 3rd party, uninvolved, newspaper: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8841255/Man-Hunter-...
This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason. There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging…
I agree they blundered here. They don't want to be hijacked by another "leaks" story days before the election but now the suppression of this has become the entire story, and its convinced a lot of people the story is true and dangerous to Biden. Even if the email is true I don't see how its dangerous and if the only media carrying the story are the NY Post and Fox it doesn't hurt Biden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think having more positive stories about a Democratic president makes a publication left-leaning, especially given that Obama is the only president in recent memory not actively involved in some scandalous behavior. This is coming from someone who did not agree with most of Obama's policy decisions but at least could respect his integrity.
Obama had his share of scandals (and I am not saying that to downplay the clusterfuck that is the Trump admin; Obama's pale in comparison, but they are still there), like IRS targeting of right wing orgs, Operation Fast and Furious, drone-ing (of US citizens), all the Snowden revelations, and "Obama's war on whistleblowers" (as The Guardian called it), for example. Or other things like the "De-Ba'athification" policy…
The IRS targeting of right wing orgs was indeed a scandal but it turned out to not be true [0].
Facebook also censors joebiden.info in private messages
Works for me on the desktop version, i.e. it isn't censored, I haven't checked though in their direct Facebook Messenger app. Also, am not from the US, have sent the joebiden.info link for testing to my gf who's also not from the US.
I can't understand why my generation wants to recreate Net Nanny on facebook and twitter. It just adds to the 2020 feeling that everything, all at once, is completely falling apart.
Whatever your perspective, directly verifiable censorship like this is just begging for legal trouble and monopoly investigations. Tactically speaking, I would say this is a massive mistake from Twitter.
This is what I don't get. People are screaming for digital channels to not allow disinformation even though they are just a passive communication channel. Is anyone screaming at printing presses for printing the NY Post? It's a garbage publication and this information is at least suspicious, but why are we holding Twitter to such a high standard of integrity and not actually journalists?
NY Post has always been trash and will always remain trash