Hunter Biden's laptop

[DiverseSegregation]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to vita3 again.

 

[Anti Globalist]

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Saw some UK media coverage of this story earlier but on google news front page did not see any headline. Media seems to batting for Biden camp on this.
In quick sampling of media headlines, there appears to be less than 1/10th coverage of this story than there was of recent scandals involving porn star Stormy Daniels for example that was splashed all over print/TV media for days or of Trump-Jeffrey Esptein and Trump-Ghislaine Maxwell photos coverage in MSM.

 

[69360]

I just don't see the whole Biden corruption thing becoming a big story. Average voters don't care. I think he is probably guilty of it though.

 

[DiverseSegregation]

I just don't see the whole Biden corruption thing becoming a big story. Average voters don't care. I think he is probably guilty of it though.

If that is true their bias is overwhelming. They sure did care about Russiagate and a phone call.

 

[Swordsmyth]

 

[Swordsmyth]

 

[jmdrake]

It is a complex issue. Not black and white.

Twitter and Facebook are the largest and most ubiquitous communication platforms out there. Politicians, media, celebrities, all give out their Twitter account names as if they were email addresses or phone numbers.

Right now, Twitter is treated exactly like this forum, which is extremely small, with nothing like a monopoly status. We have a stated political agenda, that being essentially modeled from Ron Paul. Twitter does not have a stated political agenda or affiliation, even though it is blatantly obvious that they are DNC/leftist.

So Twitter is not a traditional, old fashioned internet forum. They are much more similar to the telephone company or the internet email system itself. Yet it is a platform with a political agenda. Where does it fit in?

Some say it a media company that consists entirely of comments section which it moderates (exerts editorial control). But that is not a good analogy either. Nobody reads and approves everything before it is posted. It is only reviewed when a controversy occurs (generally via others reporting posts). And your favorite politician does not say "hey, if you want to contact me, go to the New York Times and sign up for an account with them, then you can contact me".

IMHO, the best analogy is still the utility company model. They are nearly a monopoly (oligopoly), and there are no alternatives with the same reach (ie. public person user base). But utilities can not pick and choose their customers based upon political (or other) affiliations.

Bad analogy. Both the telephone system and internet email are point to point. You don't expect people to get your message other than who you are directing it to. So nobody mad at the telephone company if, for example, a mafia don uses it to order a hit on someone. Nobody is mad at Hotmail or Google for emails sent from one terrorist cell to another. But there was a lot of talk from conservatives about how YouTube, Twitter and other big tech should take action to prevent the Islamic State from using their platforms for recruiting and spreading propaganda. I remember calling into to one conservative talk show host who kept talking about this and saying to him "But might these tech companies turn around and start banning conservatives?" This was before Alex Jones was de-platformed.

A better analogy would be the cable company. Are cable companies required to carry all channels? (Hint....they don't.) What about public access cable? It seems neutral enough. No overt political agenda. Do they have to take all content as long as the technical requirements are met? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

 

[jmdrake]

So the 1stA protects fraud?
Because that is what they are engaged in, they claim to be neutral platforms but act as biased publishers.

If they have violated their own terms of service then they can be sued for breach of contract. That said....I never actually read any of the terms of service for any of these platforms.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Bad analogy. Both the telephone system and internet email are point to point. You don't expect people to get your message other than who you are directing it to. So nobody mad at the telephone company if, for example, a mafia don uses it to order a hit on someone. Nobody is mad at Hotmail or Google for emails sent from one terrorist cell to another. But there was a lot of talk from conservatives about how YouTube, Twitter and other big tech should take action to prevent the Islamic State from using their platforms for recruiting and spreading propaganda. I remember calling into to one conservative talk show host who kept talking about this and saying to him "But might these tech companies turn around and start banning conservatives?" This was before Alex Jones was de-platformed.

A better analogy would be the cable company. Are cable companies required to carry all channels? (Hint....they don't.) What about public access cable? It seems neutral enough. No overt political agenda. Do they have to take all content as long as the technical requirements are met? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

Because reporting and discussing the news is exactly like planning and ordering crimes?

 

[Swordsmyth]

If they have violated their own terms of service then they can be sued for breach of contract. That said....I never actually read any of the terms of service for any of these platforms.

It's not just the ToS, it's how they advertise themselves and the legal privileges they claim.

You can't be a publisher and a platform, yet they pretend to be both and Facebook has even had the gall to officially claim to be one and then the other in different court cases.

 

[XNavyNuke]

Biden Campaign: VP May Have Had ‘Informal’ Meeting With Burisma Exec At Center Of Bombshell NY Post Report

https://editorial.dailywire.com/new...a-exec-at-center-of-bombshell-ny-post-report/

As Politico reports:

Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory.

Whenever a campaign uses a word that is above the 5th grade reading level, you should immediately go look up the legal definition of the word as the groundwork is being laid to weasel out of something. The choice of "cursory" over "desultory" pretty much screams future weaseling.

XNN

 

[XNavyNuke]

ya , thats been out the window a long time . if trump wants to do something truly great he should abolish the fbi

One of the few law enforcement agencies in Mordor that does not have protestors calling for its defunding.

XNN

 

[jmdrake]

Thanks for the response. I sorta agree with him, suing them is not the answer. Boycotting the sh*t out of them is the only solution I see. Trump should have gone to gab long ago and pull his millions of supporters with in. Twitter is no friend to non liberals

Good idea but wrong platform. Gab got kicked off the app stores. Mastedon is better because it's a protocol rather than a platform. That means Apple and Google would have to stop every app submitted that had Mastedon capability rather than targeting one app and blocking it. But yeah, if back in 2018 Trump left Twitter whatever platform he went to as an alternative would be instantly huge. Not just Trump's fans would follow him there, but so would many of his enemies. CNN may hate Trump but they would hate being the last to get his latest tirade because they weren't on the social media platform he was on.

https://mastodon.social/about

 

[jmdrake]

Because reporting and discussing the news is exactly like planning and ordering crimes?

No. But there is crossover. Trump's press secretary just got censored trying to release information that ultimately came from a hacked source. Yes she was quoting the NY Times so it's a stretch, but the original source of the information was a hack. The point is, as soon as you start doing community guidelines you open the door to censorship of some kind or another. And I see you totally ignored what I was saying about the phone company and email. Those are bad analogies because it is not expected for those companies to thwart their platforms from being used as crimes the way it is expected for social media platforms. The phony crime, that even republicans have played along with, is that Russian bots "hacked" the 2016 election by "spreading misinformation." (Those dirty Russians). So we have to "stop" misuse and abuse. When Zuckerberg was pulled before congress to "answer" for not stopping the spread of "misinformation" on his platform, how many people stood up in Congress and said "Hold on a second. This could backfire?"

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Bad analogy. Both the telephone system and internet email are point to point. You don't expect people to get your message other than who you are directing it to. So nobody mad at the telephone company if, for example, a mafia don uses it to order a hit on someone. Nobody is mad at Hotmail or Google for emails sent from one terrorist cell to another. But there was a lot of talk from conservatives about how YouTube, Twitter and other big tech should take action to prevent the Islamic State from using their platforms for recruiting and spreading propaganda. I remember calling into to one conservative talk show host who kept talking about this and saying to him "But might these tech companies turn around and start banning conservatives?" This was before Alex Jones was de-platformed.

A better analogy would be the cable company. Are cable companies required to carry all channels? (Hint....they don't.) What about public access cable? It seems neutral enough. No overt political agenda. Do they have to take all content as long as the technical requirements are met? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

We can find aspects of Facebook and Twitter in several past and current technologies. A bulletin board in a public square is similar, but they both have DM features too. They used to have party lines for telephones, long before any of our time though.

It is a new technology that has not been directly addressed by the law. It is not completely analogous to any one past communication method. It will take more than a tweak to an existing law to address it fairly and within the confines of the 1st Amendment.

 

[kahless]

No. But there is crossover. Trump's press secretary just got censored trying to release information that ultimately came from a hacked source. Yes she was quoting the NY Times so it's a stretch, but the original source of the information was a hack. The point is, as soon as you start doing community guidelines you open the door to censorship of some kind or another. And I see you totally ignored what I was saying about the phone company and email. Those are bad analogies because it is not expected for those companies to thwart their platforms from being used as crimes the way it is expected for social media platforms. The phony crime, that even republicans have played along with, is that Russian bots "hacked" the 2016 election by "spreading misinformation." (Those dirty Russians). So we have to "stop" misuse and abuse. When Zuckerberg was pulled before congress to "answer" for not stopping the spread of "misinformation" on his platform, how many people stood up in Congress and said "Hold on a second. This could backfire?"

A hack is unauthorized access. This is not unauthorized access since he relinquished the data under terms.

This is the equivalent of taking nude photos of yourself and then leaving them at the public park one day. Then complaining that people saw your pics.

 

[jmdrake]

It's not just the ToS, it's how they advertise themselves and the legal privileges they claim.

You can't be a publisher and a platform, yet they pretend to be both and Facebook has even had the gall to officially claim to be one and then the other in different court cases.

Right. The whole "can they or can't they be sued" argument. Only....it's not as strong as you think. I've heard Tucker Carlson make that same argument. Then when he got sued for libel, he got out of the suit suing the "I'm not to be taken seriously as news" argument. Should Facebook as a "publisher" be able to be sued for what someone not employed by them posts? As [MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION] has pointed out, this place doesn't pretend to be neutral. But if someone posted something that turned out to be liable should RPF be open to a lawsuit just because the mods didn't happen to catch it?

 

[jmdrake]

We can find aspects of Facebook and Twitter in several past and current technologies. A bulletin board in a public square is similar, but they both have DM features too. They used to have party lines for telephones, long before any of our time though.

It is a new technology that has not been directly addressed by the law. It is not completely analogous to any one past communication method. It will take more than a tweak to an existing law to address it fairly and within the confines of the 1st Amendment.

True. And come to think of it, Facebook censors DMs. When I found out Dr. Fauci had Jesuit connections I started blasting it out through DMs and after a while Facebook but quit letting me message the link saying I had sent it to too many people in too short a time. But that's not happened to me before or since. Creepy.

 

[olehounddog]

We can find aspects of Facebook and Twitter in several past and current technologies. A bulletin board in a public square is similar, but they both have DM features too. They used to have party lines for telephones, long before any of our time though.

I used to listen in on our party line. Always listening for a click to see if anyone was listening in on you.