Hunter Biden laptop bombshell: Twitter invented reason to censor Post’s reporting

[Athanasius68]

So when an actual government official reopens an investigation involving a candidate one week before an election with the obvious intent to negatively impact their chances it's 'Murican patriotism at work, but when one private social media platform declines to air information about a candidate's son before an election it's an affront to democracy, baseball and Baby Jesus?

In that scenario we ignore that the same official saved Mrs. Clinton candidacy by publically not recommending prosecution.

If you wish to argue that private platforms can suppress whatever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, fair enough.
But then those same social media should not be exempted from liability from what they do permit to appear on their platforms.
Can't have it both ways.

 

[j brown's body]

Taibbi does not like Trump, for sure. But he's serious about the 1st Amendment and strength of the corruption in the D Party.
And you raise a good point about him as Musk's choice.
I've been following Taibbi for a while. Not paying to read him, mind you. I simply won't do that for any web commentary.

Like Musk, he's gone over the edge. They both have an almost child-like view of the power of disinformation and hate speech.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Was Twitter the only private media that had access to this bombshell? The NY Post claims Twitter suppress their bombshell - did the NY Post have no other means to present it than one private social media platform?

Legit asking.

 

[FreeStorm84]

But then those same social media should not be exempted from liability

liability for what?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Specifically WHAT besides pictures of a half naked Hunter Biden are we supposed to be all up in arms about, that he smoked crack?
Well damn, I'll never ever vote for Hunter Biden again!

He also had a child out of wedlock whose stocking wasn't hung on the mantle this year, which is something you could get up in arms about as well.

 

[j brown's body]

Was Twitter the only private media that had access to this bombshell? The NY Post claims Twitter suppress their bombshell - did the NY Post have no other means to present it than one private social media platform?

Legit asking.

In a related story - how quickly we forget.

New York Post Reporter Refused to Put Name on Hunter Biden Article: Report

Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani also reportedly gave the hard drive to the New York Post because “nobody else would take it.”

www.thedailybeast.com

"Two New York Post employees told The New York Times that the primary author of its Wednesday Hunter Biden article, whose veracity three news organizations have been unable to independently verify, refused to appear on the byline. The sources also said Gabrielle Fonrouge, one of the article’s two named authors, did little of its reporting and writing and was unaware of her byline until after its publication. The other named author, Post deputy politics editor Emma-Jo Morris, did not have a byline in the newspaper until Wednesday’s article, according to the Times, and previously had publicly available Instagram photos with former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani told the Times he went to the Post with the hard drive because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

The Post article suggests Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden used his foreign policy power to help his son Hunter in Ukraine financially while the elder Biden was in office. Two GOP Senate committee investigating the matter concluded last month that Biden’s vice presidency was a potential conflict of interest but found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. The Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal were all unable to independently verify the data cited in the Post article."

 

[Lycanthrope]

In that scenario we ignore that the same official saved Mrs. Clinton candidacy by publically not recommending prosecution.

If you wish to argue that private platforms can suppress whatever they wish, for whatever reason they wish, fair enough.
But then those same social media should not be exempted from liability from what they do permit to appear on their platforms.
Can't have it both ways.

Doesn't misdirect from the fact that Trumpies were gleeful when he reopened the investigation one week before the election. But are somehow hair on fire now because a private company didn't promote another privage company's "bombshell."

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Lycanthrope]

In a related story - how quickly we forget.

New York Post Reporter Refused to Put Name on Hunter Biden Article: Report

Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani also reportedly gave the hard drive to the New York Post because “nobody else would take it.”

www.thedailybeast.com

"Two New York Post employees told The New York Times that the primary author of its Wednesday Hunter Biden article, whose veracity three news organizations have been unable to independently verify, refused to appear on the byline. The sources also said Gabrielle Fonrouge, one of the article’s two named authors, did little of its reporting and writing and was unaware of her byline until after its publication. The other named author, Post deputy politics editor Emma-Jo Morris, did not have a byline in the newspaper until Wednesday’s article, according to the Times, and previously had publicly available Instagram photos with former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani told the Times he went to the Post with the hard drive because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

The Post article suggests Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden used his foreign policy power to help his son Hunter in Ukraine financially while the elder Biden was in office. Two GOP Senate committee investigating the matter concluded last month that Biden’s vice presidency was a potential conflict of interest but found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. The Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal were all unable to independently verify the data cited in the Post article."

"BUH BUH BUH DEEP STATE"

 

[Atomic Kid]

1st Amendment doesnt apply to internal Twitter decisions They can suppress free speech because it's their proprietary platform
they can suppress accounts, they can suppress stories under false pretense of "hacked material"

first amendment is a red herring - more pettifogging

Social media platforms have First Amendment rights to exercise editorial judgement in certain contexts. In previous Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment, it has been made clear that when an organization disseminates speech or exercises editorial judgment, it is engaging in speech that the First Amendment protects.

 

[ElChupacabra]

In just one month, when January 3rd comes around, and the new Congress takes their seats, Americans are going to get a huge reality check.

Naturally the MSM spinmeisters will do what they can to suppress it, but the truth will be revealed.

There might be multiple investigations and impeachments.

There will certainly be investigations, but how much fruit they will bare is an unknown and if one were to base the results of previous GOP led investigations over the years, it's questionable whether they lead to an actual impeachments. The risk for the GOP is whether this focus sidelines other legislative efforts they campaigned on, because if investigations fail and they're not able to pass anything to deal with inflation and crime, they're going to look pretty inept going into 2024.

 

[Athanasius68]

liability for what?

liability for slander, defamation should somebody feel that way about whatever had appeared on their platform.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It's amazing...the story they are using to claim collusion between government and Twitter happened during the time when Trump was President and their own reporter claims to have seen no government interference, and yet Republicans will still believe this story shows Biden government collusion with Twitter.

Just absolutely deranged.

Sometimes the bullet from a smoking gun could end up in one's own foot. Thus far it's what I'm seeing as I read through Taibbi's tweets. His 10th and 11th points related to slants in the political ideology of those on the moderation team, which then led to slanted moderation; I'm curious how he vetted that. More importantly though, I'm not sure where this whole idea of Twitter having to be a neutral platform is coming from. Is the same expected of news organizations and their comments section?

 

[ElChupacabra]

I feel for Joe having lost a son and having one that is a bit off the norm. Lets move on from this.

I have no issue with holding him accountable for violations of the law, but investigations into his dealings are a Trojan horse from some in the GOP.

 

[Athanasius68]

Doesn't misdirect from the fact that Trumpies were gleeful when he reopened the investigation one week before the election. But are somehow hair on fire now because a private company didn't promote another privage company's "bombshell."

Can't have it both ways.

Trump folks can be excited about that reopening.
Its got nothing to do with this.

Twitter made a decision to censor a story because the Biden campaign asked them to do so.
There was no basis for claiming that that the information on the laptop was the product of Russian disinformation.
But yes, you are right-- they can freely censor and suppress opposition newsstories they do not like-- for any reason they do not like.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Three separate news agencies were unable to verify the Post's report, one their own writer refused to put his name to. But some here argue that Twitter had an obligation to put it on their platform?

Are the proponents of this the same ones who in another recent thread supported the idea that Nazis, Klansmen, and child pornographers should be allowed to promote their views on Twitter, because freeberty?

 

[Athanasius68]

Like Musk, he's gone over the edge. They both have an almost child-like view of the power of disinformation and hate speech.

For this topic, the disinformation was the claim that the contents on the laptop was the product of some Russian intelligence operation.
And the disinformation campaign was pushed by the Biden campaign and ratified by Twitter.

The laptop was genuine, as are the contents therein.

 

[TXNormalGOP]

it comes from Zuckerman himself, The FBI was telling FB to be wary of a "sanews dump" ( large quantity of data) knowing that was the profile of the laptop digital contents. the FBI already had the laptop and knew it was real

Do you have anything, like an audio, video or a link to any information like a transcript from an interview with Zuck that would back that up? I promise you, I have an open mind, but I have to question people who just make claims with zero proof.

Thank you.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Trump folks can be excited about that reopening.
Its got nothing to do with this.

Twitter made a decision to censor a story because the Biden campaign asked them to do so.
There was no basis for claiming that that the information on the laptop was the product of Russian disinformation.
But yes, you are right-- they can freely censor and suppress opposition newsstories they do not like-- for any reason they do not like.

Twitter declined to lend the story a platform because no one could independently verify the Post's claims.

Or sure, because Biden's campaign, in conjunction with Trump's FBI, asked them to.

 

[Josie]

We already know Hunter's been a bit dodgy and may well be up on tax charges

But there's nothing on his father. That's the narrative the laptoppers are pushing.

Not me.

 

[Ouroboros]

How many Hunter Biden threads have we had lately? I lost count. It has replaced Hillary Clinton threads. Amazing no one wants to talk about policy or the direction of the country or about all the election deniers, etc.
But bring up Hunter Biden, and everyone gets an erection. I don't get it.

That's because there's proof that Hunter was influence peddling, and no proof that Trump's regime orchestrated 1/6. You're welcome.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Who here is upset/surprised that FOX news did all in its power to suppress any negative info about Trump during the campaigns of 2016/2020?

 

[Athanasius68]

Three separate news agencies were unable to verify the Post's report, one their own writer refused to put his name to. But some here argue that Twitter had an obligation to put it on their platform?

Was the unverified Steele dossier ever censored from the pages of Twitter?
I don't think so.

Are the proponents of this the same ones who in another recent thread supported the idea that Nazis, Klansmen, and child pornographers should be allowed to promote their views on Twitter, because freeberty?

If Twitter, or any social media company, wishes to enjoy the protection of sec 230, then yes, they need to allow that which the law allows (child pornography is illegal, as is advocating violence etc and so there is no obligation for any platform to entertain that).

If, however, they wish to be an advocacy site, thats ok too (1st amendment) but then they shouldn't be exempt from liability for what they do choose to permit on their site.

 

[Athanasius68]

Twitter declined to lend the story a platform because no one could independently verify the Post's claims.

Or sure, because Biden's campaign, in conjunction with Trump's FBI, asked them to.

I asked elsewhere, did twitter suppress the steele dossier?
even though never independently verified

 

[Grand Mal]

The FBI, along with the DOJ and a slew of other executive branch agencies and departments are corrupt.

Gee, you told me yesterday that you only think the government was corrupt. Is the FBI part of government now?

 

[Mycroft]

Gee, you told me yesterday that you only think the government was corrupt. Is the FBI part of government now?

Ummm...

Yes. The FBI is part of the US government.