Elon Musk to reveal Twitter details on Hunter Biden Laptop

[seanD]

During the 2020 election the Biden campaign team would not be part of the U.S. government.

But as you can see from the tweet, Taibbi was referring to a "foreign hack." IOW, the context indicates he was talking about a Russian government hack, which was the excuse they used to ban the story.

Are you trying to imply that this was Biden's election team only and that US government (intelligence) had nothing to do with the story being banned?

[rogue06]

But as you can see from the tweet, Taibbi was referring to a "foreign hack." IOW, the context indicates he was talking about a Russian government hack, which was the excuse they used to ban the story.

Are you trying to imply that this was Biden's election team only and that US government (intelligence) had nothing to do with the story being banned?

No.

I'm simply saying that Biden (or his keepers) were working hand in glove with Twitter, but at that point, while the leader of the Party (their presidential nominee), he was not yet part of the government.

[seanD]

No.

I'm simply saying that Biden (or his keepers) were working hand in glove with Twitter, but at that point, while the leader of the Party (their presidential nominee), he was not yet part of the government.

Well, the point of my post was addressing the idea that the Newsmax article was "misleading," which is not the case. The only thing misleading was SL's interpretation of it. As far as which admin was exploiting the boneheaded cyber act that Trump signed, both parities were doing it apparently. It's just that twitter was full of woke leftoids that made it easier for democrats to exploit.

[Mountain Man]

Well, the point of my post was addressing the idea that the Newsmax article was "misleading," which is not the case. The only thing misleading was SL's interpretation of it. As far as which admin was exploiting the boneheaded cyber act that Trump signed, both parities were doing it apparently. It's just that twitter was full of woke leftoids that made it easier for democrats to exploit.

According to internal statistics, over 95% of complaints that were submitted and addressed came from Democrats, not because they had more to complain about but simply because they had that many more channels through which to submit their complaints.

[Starlight]

According to internal statistics, over 95% of complaints that were submitted and addressed came from Democrats, not because they had more to complain about but simply because they had that many more channels through which to submit their complaints.

What is your evidence for this 95% claim? Are you confusing this with the chart about political donations from Twitter employees?

[Mountain Man]

What is your evidence for this 95% claim? Are you confusing this with the chart about political donations from Twitter employees?

Ah, you're correct, I misread that.

[Starlight]

And NBC (or any other MSM outlet) is pure as the driven snow? I don't discount something just because of the source, when I have the ability to track the story down myself.

You're doing that thing again where you blurt something out, then try to reel it back in. It's just plain stupid to discount something simply because "Newsmax reported it".

Assessing reliability of sources (or lack of) is a basic part of critical thinking.

Since I assume you're vastly more likely to believe something the Bible says over something the Quran says, I don't think you're in a position to be criticizing others for not believing all sources equally.

[Starlight]

They lied. Those urls are not in archive.org. I checked. The whole point of them removing the posts would be that they would no longer be on the internet. Apparently they got them before archive.org could grab them. Besides, why would Biden's admin care about someone posting some rando porn on twitter?

I checked one at random. It was indeed in archive.org and it was a link to something it alleged was "Hunter Biden Sex Tapes".

Here is the Twitter release:
Archive1.JPG

Here is what comes back from Archive.org when that first link is entered:
Archive2.JPG

I guess the answer to your question about why the Biden team might care about rando porn on twitter, is because it was porn of Biden's son. It's worth noting that this flagging for moderator attention of individual posts involving porn is quite different to the idea of suppression of the laptop story itself. It seems that within 48 hours of the laptop story going public, the Twitter CEO had overruled other moderators at Twitter (who were concerned the laptop contents had been obtained by hacking) to ensure that Twitter was not suppressing the laptop story.

[Cow Poke]

Assessing reliability of sources (or lack of) is a basic part of critical thinking.

Of course, which wouldn't include automatically dismissing something because it's from a source you don't like.

Since I assume you're vastly more likely to believe something the Bible says over something the Quran says, I don't think you're in a position to be criticizing others for not believing all sources equally.

Woah, there, cowboy... you're kinda off to a wild gallop. Neither of these are news sources that change on a daily basis. I have evaluated both pretty extensively, as well as Mormonism and Catholicism, and opted to accept the Bible as the Word of God.

ETA: Perhaps you could work on "critically thinking" through how different a static source is from a dynamic source, eh?

[Cow Poke]

With all the derails (about which I am not complaining ) I lost track --- has it already been pointed out that the FBI presented the laptop warning as "hacked" rather than voluntarily surrendered by the owner, giving the computer store guy permission to access its contents?

[Starlight]

With all the derails (about which I am not complaining ) I lost track --- has it already been pointed out that the FBI presented the laptop warning as "hacked" rather than voluntarily surrendered by the owner, giving the computer store guy permission to access its contents?

Taibbi commented that he couldn't find any evidence in his research to suggest that warning played a any role. He said a few twitter employees seemed vaguely aware of the warning, but he couldn't find any direct link to the suppression of the laptop story.

AFAICT, the concern that it was 'hacked' materials was more around the fact that there was initially very little public disclosure around how the information had been obtained. Rudi Giuliani had given a hard drive to the NY Post, and nobody else was being allowed to confirm its contents and it wasn't clear what the origin of it was. Within 48 hours a lot of this had been cleared up and Twitter had lifted the interim suppression, but initially the people at Twitter seemed understandably confused about what the situation was.

[seanD]

Taibbi commented that he couldn't find any evidence in his research to suggest that warning played a any role. He said a few twitter employees seemed vaguely aware of the warning, but he couldn't find any direct link to the suppression of the laptop story.

AFAICT, the concern that it was 'hacked' materials was more around the fact that there was initially very little public disclosure around how the information had been obtained. Rudi Giuliani had given a hard drive to the NY Post, and nobody else was being allowed to confirm its contents and it wasn't clear what the origin of it was. Within 48 hours a lot of this had been cleared up and Twitter had lifted the interim suppression, but initially the people at Twitter seemed understandably confused about what the situation was.

We have obvious evidence of government involvement. We're now getting revelations of FBI involvement in suppressing the story via social media (aside from what Zuckerberg openly admitted) and we know for a fact government was involved during the election when house representatives lied to the public about it being Russian misinformation. Matt is a smart guy so there's no reason to assume he was referring to US government involvement, which is a blatantly false statement even to anyone with cursory knowledge about it.

[seanD]

Ah, you're correct, I misread that.

It's definitely proof that there was a very slanted bias towards one party, in spite of the fact both parties were supposedly exploiting the system.

[Starlight]

Matt is a smart guy so there's no reason to assume he was referring to US government involvement, which is a blatantly false statement even to anyone with cursory knowledge about it.

It's amusing how vigorously you've been claiming he didn't mean the US government, when that's obviously what he meant.

BTW, Trump was in office at the time, so to the extent there was US government involvement, it was Trump's government.

[seanD]

It's amusing how vigorously you've been claiming he didn't mean the US government, when that's obviously what he meant.

BTW, Trump was in office at the time, so to the extent there was US government involvement, it was Trump's government.

It is indeed ironic that Trump signing of that asinine cyber act apparently ended up biting him in the behind. Nonetheless, I believe Matt was referring to Russian government involvement, which was the lie government officials were openly claiming at the time. Meaning, that's obviously not the excuse the twitter staff used to block the story, at least indicated in the exchanges (though they did use "hack" as a policy). Otherwise, again, what Matt stated is blatantly false. It's also not clear what one of the twitter staffers meant by "the Biden team" reviewing the links given to them, but that's beside the point.