But That's None Of My Business

Details? Source?

"Vague accusation"? I thought this was common knowledge. I guess it only underscores how the mainstream media buries facts that go against its narrative. Another reason why leftism is so harmful.

See details below.
https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-blocking-nypost-china-hunter-biden-account-locked-1234808416/

If you really wanted to know, you already would. Your willful ignorance demonstrates your lack of good faith.

You have never been able to back up a statement of yours, name calling is your forte

So who you are an alt for? You talk like you've been all around, but this account is brand new. But if you want an example, chucklef--k, try Twitter silencing the New York Post for publishing a story about Hunter Biden's laptop and the horrors we've discovered there.

Ignorance can be remedied. I just searched for it, but it is a pretty vague accusation. Maybe you could at least help me with a search string?

Chosen ignorance is unlikely to be remedied.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/14/twitter-suspends-new-york-post-account-over-bombshell-hunter-biden-story/

I was aware of the event, the laptop, and the story. I was unaware or had forgotten that people were calling this proof of censorship. Very likely because I had heard of the whole email thing. Everyone knowing about it isn't really one of the hallmarks of censorship.

While the timing is suspicious, the article did contain private information and the fact that they believed it violated Twitters policy is plausible. Could it have also been an attempt to block the story? Yes, but its a pretty weak case.

The suspicious timing works both ways too - a story about Hunter Biden is released less than a month before the election from a hard drive that was passed through Rudy Giuliani. Plus, the two reporters for the post who got the byline were pretty much unknown after the two actual authors refused to put their name on it.

"The article is bylined by two reporters, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge. The Times reported that at least two writers refused to put their bylines on the story, one of whom was mostly responsible for writing it, two Post employees told The Times. The other reporter who refused to appear on the byline of the article was identified as Bruce Golding, who has been at the tabloid since 2007, according to The Times report. Golding cited "concerns over the article's credibility," the two employees told The Times."

Interesting as you are the only one here who has used the word, "censorship". Also interesting that you're here trying to justify the suppression of political news.

Come on, man. Be intellectually honest. Just admit that Big Tech was trying to stifle political news, and then either condemn them for doing it, or say you agree that they did it because you don't believe in the free flow of information if it hurts your side's political message.

Many of the articles I read about it, including statements by Ted Cruz called it censorship.

Ah yes, the intellectual laziness of lumping things together. Big Tech. They aren't a secret society. If they did it, it wasn't a plot. It was probably whoever was managing the response to stuff flagged as fake news making a poor decision.

You couldn't post the URL directly but you could have posted something saying go to the NY Post website and read the article. The website was still up. And again, there were other articles talking about the article being blocked.

Think what you will. I am for the free flow of information...including metadata like "this article is blatantly false".

Per the senate interviews on the subject:
We made a quick interpretation using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread," Dorsey testified. "Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours.

Dorsey went on to say that Twitter told the Post how they could unlock their account by deleting their tweet with the article, and that they would be able to then tweet it again. The Post instead pushed for Twitter to reverse their decision to block them in the first place. Dorsey said at the time they did not have a process for doing this.

“This incident demonstrated that we needed one and so we created one we believe is fair and appropriate,"

It could be malice, or it could be the policy. The anti-hacking policy wasn't made up. So while they may have had a secondary motive, they weren't off base. They have plausible deniability. For once, I agree with Ted Cruz who said the Hunter Biden stuff wasn't going to affect anyone's vote.

I'm sorry that you have decided to pretend or honestly believe that the suppression of political news is justified. Even Dorsey admitted "this action was wrong" (fortunately). The problem was that it happened in the heat of a presidential race when people were in the middle of early voting, which means that Twitters actions very well could have caused people's votes to change.

It sounds like you may have a case of cognitive dissonance; you want to think that you are in favor of free speech (as you have stated here), but at the same time you are defending the suppression of political speech, likely because you didn't like the content of the speech.

Here, you are trying to justify it by saying the "anti-hacking policy wasn't made up". What you didn't mention was that the rule doesn't seem to be equally enforced (notice the story below).

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/06/09/twitter-takes-no-action-against-propublica-story-on-illegal-tax-leaks-despite-censoring-hunter-biden-coverage/

The ProPublica article also didn't contain any actual tax returns. They just discussed what they saw. As odd as it sounds, reporting on illegally obtained records as long as the reporter isn't the one who broke the law is covered under free speech. Crazy right? Twitters policy is about the posting of hacked content, not discussing hacked content.

And I do feel a little insane discussing this distinction.

By now I hope that you can see the larger point here, which is that Twitter suppressed political news in the days before the election. It changed its policy on hacked materials after they admitted to wrongdoing regarding the Hunter Biden scandal.

Oh, and one other thing we need to make clear - there was never any evidence that the Hunter Biden story in the NY Post was the result of any "hack". The laptop was legally obtained, but Twitter suppressed the NY Post anyway.

Of course, all of this merely reinforces the point of the original meme.

How was the laptop legally obtained?

It was legally obtained because it was left at a repair shop and never picked up. It became abandoned property and the shop owner took possession in accordance with store policy. Twitter nevertheless claimed that materials from the laptop were "hacked" material. The man from the repair shop is now suing Twitter for defamation. They key takeaway here is that Twitter suppressed political news in the heat of an election and then used the false excuse that it did so to prevent the spread of hacked material. This kind of shadiness makes the original meme all the more meaningful.

I'll wait for the legally analysis and results of the lawsuits then

"Everyone knowing about it isn't really one of the hallmarks of censorship."

First off, everyone knows about it NOW. How many people were prevented from learning about it BEFORE THE ELECTION when it mattered? Do you see the importance of that?

Second, even if we grant your objection that they failed, that does not prove they were not attempting censorship.

" the article did contain private information and the fact that they believed it violated Twitters policy is plausible."

Did they similarly censor articles about Trump's tax information to protect his privacy? Your excuses are weak.

Not really. I don't think there was anyone going into election day not knowing exactly who they were voting for. But I see your point. Still, my point about others talking about the blocking of the article was pervasive and that wasn't censored.

Tax returns - the issue with the post article was that the post actually posted copies of the content.

That is a good question...however, it looks like the senate committee asked that same question and it was answered.

The NY Times didn't post the contents of the taxes, they simply reported on what they saw. It is a distinction, but it in accordance with their policy. It is also why others could post talking about the contents, just not the actual 'hacked" content. The post article actually had the emails and photos from the laptop in the story. So hacked content vs reporting on content obtained or observed.

Yes, there’s always some excuse why the rules don’t apply to you, isn’t there?

And it wasn’t “hacked.” That is a vicious, slanderous lie.

Hack - to get into someone else's computer system without permission in order to find out information or do something illegal

The definition of hacking doesn't have to be remote. Even if they just bypassed the password, that is still hacking.

It wasn’t hacked. The idiot crackhead LEFT HIS COMPUTER AT THE REPAIR SHOP. They had completely legitimate possession & access.

STOP LYING.

Stop lying
It was a liquid damaged laptop. As it wasn't a software issue I don't know if Hunter gave them the password.

I'm not saying it was hacking, but the definition leaves enough room that the files in the article could have come from a hack. It is understandable why someone looking at the data abd source would think hacked.

“As it wasn't a software issue I don't know if Hunter gave them the password.”

Have you ever taken your computer to a repair shop? It’s a standard question when you drop it off. It’s just part of how these places work. Calling this “hacking” is implying criminal intent. It is dishonest and defamatory, that is, leftist standard practice.

I worked tech support for years. We usually asked for the password, but that doesn't mean it was given. For a pure physical damage issue as this one was, I might not have been able to boot the computer to find out if there was a password. In which case we could remove the password with a boot disk that would modify the registry. Or you could hook it up to another computer to pull the data off of the hard drive fully bypassing the privileges and password in place.

I'm not assuming criminal intent. I'm arguing that Twitter's initial assumption of criminal intent is plausible, especially when paired with the fact that actual files and emails were part of the article. You are the one accusing Twitter of malice with only circumstantial evidence. It is possible that they took pleasure in blocking the article, but that doesn't mean it was the sole reason they did it.

I just posted it. Really surprised if you did not know about this already.

I had just forgotten that anyone called it censorship...you know, the story everyone had heard about and was talked about all over the place. Plus, the meme makes it sound like multiple cases of such censorship, not a single blocked story.

It was multiple cases - both Twitter and Facebook. And if you read the meme, you'll see that it was quite clearly the suppression of political news.

The fact that in your opinion "everyone had heard" about the story is not relevant to the underlying bad deed, because even if true (debatable), you're attempting to excuse such political suppression because their plan may have backfired.

They are private companies. I'm not a fan of any form of censorship or even borderline. Even if I agree in the specific case, I try to ask myself about the precedent it set. I think flagging something is the proper balance between being responsible and not gatekeeping the truth.

You are correct that everyone heard it is just my opinion. But that opinion is based on the fact that other news outlets covered the dispute and refusal to post the story as its own story. They were tweeting and posting to Facebook about that dispute and that pretty much made it impossible to miss. That part is why I don't think it was actually an attempt at censorship. Censoring something and then letting people post criticisms of that decision is pretty much the worst possible way to censor something. Its so bad a strategy, that I don't believe it.

You keep using the word "censorship" while I used the word "suppression". Your argument attempting to defend this suppression of news using an argument that effectively claims a) yes, free expression was stifled by X, but b) people could still hear that expression by going through Y, so c) free expression wasn't totally stifled which means there was no harm done.

Of course, this argument is problematic on a number of levels, just one of which is the fact that a massive number of people get their news from social media companies, which means that when they suppress news, it can have a demonstrable impact on the way people think about issues.

Can have censorship impact - probably didn't.

I don't think it was censorship. Was it suppression? In much the same way that Trump blocking people from testifying against him and the senate voting not to call witnesses during the impeachment? Sorry, the first impeachment.

Or Trump blocking certain news stations from attending press briefings in 2017? (BBC, CNN, The Guardian).

You're doing mental gymnastics to defend this suppression - from ignoring the actual bad behavior (suppression of political news by a social media company is bad in itself, regardless of what you think the outcome was) to engaging in whataboutism (deflecting and changing the conversation to a perceived injustice by the other side).

Please, please, just be intellectually honest. Either say because you highly value free speech, Twitter was wrong to engage in suppression; or, say that because you agree with suppression of political speech that you disagree with, Twitter was fine in doing what it did.

The worst is trying to claim you favor free speech while also defending Twitter's suppression of free speech.

I already said I prefer flagging to blocking. They shouldn't have blocked it.

That said, as you pointed out the nyt was able to report on Trump's taxes. Others have reported similar things. They could have deleted the tweet threw together a version that referenced the content instead of having it directly in the article and posted that. They could have even referenced the original article as others did taking about the blocking.

The fact that they didn't? They likely suspected it would be blocked and that it was better for Trump to let Fox and others report on the suppression that was happening. nobody cared about Hunter, but big tech covering for Joe? That's a story.

So from that perspective, Twitter played into their hands.

I think you're confusing me with someone else, as I didn't bring up the Trump tax story. Look, the bottom line is that what Twitter did was engage in the suppression of political news. Period. This is a huge story that we can't just let slide.

I'm responding to you because you called it a "vague accusation", when in fact the story of the suppression was significant at the time.

Yes, I mixed up who I was talking to. Honestly, the Facebook algorithm thing was more suppression than Twitter. They had a reason and were up front about it.

You also aren't allowed to post information skeptical of the official story about covid. You also can't post simple factual information about the crime rates of various groups. All of this is political censorship and all of it is in favor of leftists.

Stop lying.

Twitters policy on what they consider permissible and not is pretty clear. Most things they will flag but things they determine to be maliciously misleading might be deleted. I'm not a big twitter user, so I don't have personal experience.

But based on the posts and arguments I've seen on Facebook, the idea that discussion and debate about the virus is being blocked is nonsensical.

Crimes rates of various races - again, I've had a number of debates about things like that. Things that are misleading get flagged. But fact checks have a source and show their work.

I'm not lying. I may be wrong, but I'm definitely not lying.

“Crimes rates of various races - again, I've had a number of debates about things like that. Things that are misleading get flagged. But fact checks have a source and show their work.”

Stop lying. I have had comments deleted on this very site for pointing out certain disparities in the interracial murder rates. And these things are easily confirmed from the FBI statistics.

Meanwhile, vile filth can post the most vicious, hateful lies against white people with no consequences whatsoever.

Stop lying.

Is it the facts you post or the other weirds you use along with them that result in deletion? Imgfliip does have roles about civil discourse.

Murder rates are higher in the black community. That's a fact. There are people who soon it to be higher or lower than it is fit political gain.

Stop lying to yourself.

how much time do u have to write all this?

I waste a lot of time. It's something I keep lying to myself about and saying I won't. Yet here we are.