haven't we been hearing about hunter's laptop for over 2 years now? how has this been suppressed?
Buckle up. Republicans will continue to talk about it for years to come. This is what happens when you have no ideas. You double down on bullshit like this to rile up people like the trolls who pop in and out of here.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,501
a conservative's suppression is a liberal's due diligence.
GUILIANI HANDED IT OVER TO THE POST, specifically because he knew they wouldn't try to verify its contents prior to reporting on it, and people voiced their concerns about that. how is it being suppressed?
Read this. From 2020! But it was suppressed and covered up, right?
The complaints from President Donald Trump and his allies have been growing louder as the election approaches: Why isn’t the mainstream media covering the Hunter Biden laptop story?
Trump and his allies say there is evidence of corruption in emails and documents allegedly found on a laptop belonging to Democrat Joe Biden’s son. They say those and other documents show that Hunter Biden used his father’s influence to enrich himself through business deals in Ukraine and China, and that his father not only facilitated that, but may have benefited financially.
But the Wall Street Journal and Fox News — among the only news organizations that have been given access to key documents — found that the emails and other records don’t make that case. Leaving aside the many questions about their provenance, the materials offered no evidence that Joe Biden played any role in his son’s dealings in China, let alone profited from them, both news organizations concluded.
As to Ukraine, a single email published by the New York Post suggests Joe Biden may have had a meeting with a representative of a Ukrainian company that employed his son. Trump and his allies alleged that means Joe Biden has lied when he said he never discussed his son’s business roles. The Biden campaign denies the meeting happened.
The lack of major new revelations is perhaps the biggest reason the story has not gotten traction, but not the only one. Among others: Most mainstream news organizations, including NBC News, have not been granted access to the documents. NBC News asked by email, text, phone call and certified mail, and was ultimately denied.
Another factor tamping down coverage of the story is that there isn’t much new in what the laptop documents appear to reveal. The allegation that Hunter Biden has traded on his family name has been thoroughly explored in previous news stories, including a lengthy New Yorker investigation last year in which Robert Weissman, the president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said, “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Hunter’s foreign employers and partners were seeking to leverage Hunter’s relationship with Joe, either by seeking improper influence or to project access to him.” Reports published while the elder Biden was still vice president raised ethical questions about the Burisma deal.
While the question of whether Joe Biden enabled his son to profit from the vice president’s influence is relevant to the presidential campaign, issues of balance and proportionality also come into play.
Trump, according to the same good government advocates who have criticized Hunter Biden, is ethically challenged when it comes to appearing to use the power of his office to enrich himself and his family. David Farenthold of The Washington Post has used federal and other records to calculate that the federal government has spent at least $2.5 million on food and lodging at Trump properties since Trump took office. Earlier this month, Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska who is up for re-election, told supporters that Trump’s family “has treated the presidency like a business opportunity.”
Yet stories about Trump’s children and their business dealings are not dominating the news cycle in the days before the election, because they have already been covered, just as the Hunter Biden story has been covered. (Trump’s tax information, on the other hand, has been covered extensively by The New York Times, because the secret tax data obtained by the newspaper revealed important new information about his tax payments and his business dealings.)
a conservative's suppression is a liberal's due diligence.
GUILIANI HANDED IT OVER TO THE POST, specifically because he knew they wouldn't try to verify its contents prior to reporting on it, and people voiced their concerns about that. how is it being suppressed?
The NYT reporting that NY Post reporters had reservations regarding the veracity of the contents of Hunter’s laptop = suppression, duh.
a conservative's suppression is a liberal's due diligence.
GUILIANI HANDED IT OVER TO THE POST, specifically because he knew they wouldn't try to verify its contents prior to reporting on it, and people voiced their concerns about that. how is it being suppressed?
Almost every major news outlet pushed that it was Russian disinformation.
You're right, Giuliani handed it over to the Post who was then suppressed online from talking about out freely.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
I don't complain about what Fox, Drudge and Breitbart don't cover. Explain to me the difference.
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
And he was exactly right!
I don't think that means what you think it means...
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
I don't complain about what Fox, Drudge and Breitbart don't cover. Explain to me the difference.
this was going to be my next point. every single american news outlet is "owned" and chooses what to report on. this is no different.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
And he was exactly right!
wait....you think it's a bad thing (apparently ^^^) that news outlets wanted to verify information prior to reporting on it?
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
And he was exactly right!
I don't think that means what you think it means...
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
And he was exactly right!
I don't think that means what you think it means...
The laptop was legit.
So was POOTWH’s stay in a certain hotel in Moscow in 2013.
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
And he was exactly right!
I don't think that means what you think it means...
The laptop was legit.
So was POOTWH’s stay in a certain hotel in Moscow in 2013.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.
So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?
I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
And he was exactly right!
I don't think that means what you think it means...
The laptop was legit.
Do you think it's okay for a story to be published nationally without confirming existence of key materials? I'm guessing you didn't read that story from October 2020 by NBC about the Hunter laptop. They weren't calling it fake or a hoax, but they did want to confirm items related to what was going to be reported and not just snippets.
Edit: For the record, I don't care who is involved or is the subject of the news story, but I do care about whether the information has been vetted and substantiated if it's going to print (post in the digital age). Everybody should want that, but it seems you only want that if it's to your liking or meets your timelines. The cable outlets can still drop their opinion and chyron hits while it's breaking, but most of the initial information from "breaking news" ends up being way off anyway and later corrected by more in-depth analysis after the fact. Ever watched breaking news about school shootings? All over the fucking place.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.
so you are pro-equal dissemination of bullshit. you don't find that dangerous? you do realize that's how trump came to power, don't you?
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.
So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?
I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.
You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.
So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?
I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.
You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.
People just need to be able to think critically, but social media has allowed hordes of mindless zombies to spread any made up crap their crazy uncle spewed. And unfortunately, some of the BS is right from the mouths of talking heads and politicians trying to score points and ratings.
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.
So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?
I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.
You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.
1. Why Google? They are a search engine. 2. Why not traditional media? Why do they get to omit certain stories but 'social media' do not? 3. What about Truth or other conservative websites and social media. Are they subject to it? 4. What about the First Amendment?
So you just make off the cuff statements and they're true unless proven otherwise. Okay. I feel like you're not even trying here.
I posted links to 2 different polls that no one here would accept as legit. That's fair enough.
The truth behind Hunter's laptop was being suppressed until now. America is seeing it and it's up to each person to decide if it matters or not.
Yeah the suppressing of the story on social media, and calling anyone that talked about it a “peddler of misinformation,” is complete bullshit. I have a bigger issue with that than whatever might actually be on the laptop. Too reminiscent of the Covid lab theory that was censored on social media.
People pondering something and people spreading misinformation are very different things. This still seems to be hard for many to grasp. Latching on to someone's stream of conscience as possible evidence/fact on either subject is what was targeted. Conspiracy theories usually have at least one small portion of their origin that are either in the gray or unable to be completely refuted, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to run rampant. I can't believe this needs to be explained.
Many scientists with every bit as much credibility as Fauci theorized that the virus might have come from a lab. “Pondering something” as you say. But if you shared those essays on social media, it was censored as Covid misinformation.
As for the laptop, I don’t know much about the particulars of what’s alleged to be on it so I won’t speculate. But it’s been long reported that there might be something, and that was “Russian disinformation” until the NYT “confirmed” it.
If it was censored, how do you know about it? There are so many sources of information today, you can find what you want and most of it are lies. Again, Fox News says it's the "most watched" yet unless Twitter and Facebook are forced to post things (as a private company), it's censored? Give me a fucking break. Too many snowflakes.
This is ridiculous and you know it. Way more people these days get their news from links on Twitter than watch Fox News (or CNN and MSNBC for that matter). But even if that wasn’t the case, social media companies picking and choosing what can and can’t be shared is bullshit. Especially when you know it’s for partisan reasons. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if if was the other way around and the social media companies were doing the bidding of the conservatives. But I wouldn’t. I’d be just as against the conservatives being the gatekeepers of what is or isn’t “misinformation” as I am that the liberals are.
so you want to control what a private company allows on their platform?
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
I actually used to make that same argument towards conservatives. “Hey, it’s their company, they can do what they want.” But I’ve changed my mind on that because those companies have become so powerful and have such control over how information is disseminated, that there really should be some sort of government regulation. But there won’t be because those companies give so much money to politicians (including republicans) that they’ll just continue to become more and more powerful.
So govt workers decide what is newsworthy. You think think is going to work out for conservatives? Glad you changed your mind and now against freedom of the press and private companies
Nope. I’m saying things published by news sources are newsworthy, and in this hypothetical regulation scenario, these government regulators (made of members from both parties) wouldn’t be deciding what can or can’t be shared, they’d see to it that everything gets shared equally regardless of the political views of the publication.
So before something goes to print, it has to come before a joint gov't committee. What happens when gov't is in recess? What happens when 'breaking news' happens? Since it has to be shared 'equally', does that mean neutrally? Who writes the stories? Does the gov't get to decide what DOESN'T get printed? Can they veto news? Why not?
I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.
You’re not following me. We’re talking about social media. Nothing would change about how news is written. Everything still gets printed. But Facebook, Twitter, and Google wouldn’t be able to just choose what is and isn’t disinformation without being challenged on it. If something is challenged, then this bipartisan coalition of regulators step in and does something. Maybe a vote between them on whether or not it truly is disinformation after extensive fact-checking.
People just need to be able to think critically, but social media has allowed hordes of mindless zombies to spread any made up crap their crazy uncle spewed. And unfortunately, some of the BS is right from the mouths of talking heads and politicians trying to score points and ratings.
Agree with every word of this. It’s almost as if my proposal works on the assumption that the population at large aren’t able to think critically. Like they need a babysitter. Actually, I guess it’s the same thing I’m accusing the tech companies of doing. So I’m basically proposing babysitters for the babysitters lol
Comments
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
for the record, Trump and other R's were allowed WAY more leeway on social media over 4 years all in the name of "public interest" than anything covid related over the last 2. so no, it wasn't partisan reasons. it was the public spoke up that they didn't want that bullshit on those platforms anymore, and the platforms obliged.
none of these companies make decisions like these unless there's enormous public pressure to do so. that's called marketing your product.
www.headstonesband.com
Also, how much longer will you cry about the 2020 election?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
GUILIANI HANDED IT OVER TO THE POST, specifically because he knew they wouldn't try to verify its contents prior to reporting on it, and people voiced their concerns about that. how is it being suppressed?
www.headstonesband.com
The complaints from President Donald Trump and his allies have been growing louder as the election approaches: Why isn’t the mainstream media covering the Hunter Biden laptop story?
Trump and his allies say there is evidence of corruption in emails and documents allegedly found on a laptop belonging to Democrat Joe Biden’s son. They say those and other documents show that Hunter Biden used his father’s influence to enrich himself through business deals in Ukraine and China, and that his father not only facilitated that, but may have benefited financially.
But the Wall Street Journal and Fox News — among the only news organizations that have been given access to key documents — found that the emails and other records don’t make that case. Leaving aside the many questions about their provenance, the materials offered no evidence that Joe Biden played any role in his son’s dealings in China, let alone profited from them, both news organizations concluded.
As to Ukraine, a single email published by the New York Post suggests Joe Biden may have had a meeting with a representative of a Ukrainian company that employed his son. Trump and his allies alleged that means Joe Biden has lied when he said he never discussed his son’s business roles. The Biden campaign denies the meeting happened.
The lack of major new revelations is perhaps the biggest reason the story has not gotten traction, but not the only one. Among others: Most mainstream news organizations, including NBC News, have not been granted access to the documents. NBC News asked by email, text, phone call and certified mail, and was ultimately denied.
Another factor tamping down coverage of the story is that there isn’t much new in what the laptop documents appear to reveal. The allegation that Hunter Biden has traded on his family name has been thoroughly explored in previous news stories, including a lengthy New Yorker investigation last year in which Robert Weissman, the president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said, “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Hunter’s foreign employers and partners were seeking to leverage Hunter’s relationship with Joe, either by seeking improper influence or to project access to him.” Reports published while the elder Biden was still vice president raised ethical questions about the Burisma deal.
While the question of whether Joe Biden enabled his son to profit from the vice president’s influence is relevant to the presidential campaign, issues of balance and proportionality also come into play.
Trump, according to the same good government advocates who have criticized Hunter Biden, is ethically challenged when it comes to appearing to use the power of his office to enrich himself and his family. David Farenthold of The Washington Post has used federal and other records to calculate that the federal government has spent at least $2.5 million on food and lodging at Trump properties since Trump took office. Earlier this month, Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska who is up for re-election, told supporters that Trump’s family “has treated the presidency like a business opportunity.”
Yet stories about Trump’s children and their business dealings are not dominating the news cycle in the days before the election, because they have already been covered, just as the Hunter Biden story has been covered. (Trump’s tax information, on the other hand, has been covered extensively by The New York Times, because the secret tax data obtained by the newspaper revealed important new information about his tax payments and his business dealings.)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-happened-when-nbc-news-tried-report-alleged-n1245533Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
You're right, Giuliani handed it over to the Post who was then suppressed online from talking about out freely.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Giuliani suggested he took the material to the Post because other outlets wanted to verify its authenticity, telling the Times “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.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I feel like you really haven't thought this through, starting with how this violates the First Amendment.
Edit: For the record, I don't care who is involved or is the subject of the news story, but I do care about whether the information has been vetted and substantiated if it's going to print (post in the digital age). Everybody should want that, but it seems you only want that if it's to your liking or meets your timelines. The cable outlets can still drop their opinion and chyron hits while it's breaking, but most of the initial information from "breaking news" ends up being way off anyway and later corrected by more in-depth analysis after the fact. Ever watched breaking news about school shootings? All over the fucking place.
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
2. Why not traditional media? Why do they get to omit certain stories but 'social media' do not?
3. What about Truth or other conservative websites and social media. Are they subject to it?
4. What about the First Amendment?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com