How did they "make" them censor anything? You always have lots of accusations and never any evidence.
What did they censor? Despite all these claims there is nothing I can't find on Facebook.
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
How did they "make" them censor anything? You always have lots of accusations and never any evidence.
What did they censor? Despite all these claims there is nothing I can't find on Facebook.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
I'm not embarrassed because you can't answer the questions. What was censored?
Trump has his own social media platform and can get out any message he chooses.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
hunter biden laptop related news stories.
it was literally called russian propaganda.
it's not.
it's real.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
uckerberg blames FBI for censoring The Post's Hunter Biden scoop
https://nypost.com › 2022 › 08 › 26 › zuckerberg-blames-fbi-for-censoring-the-posts-hunter-biden-scoop
Aug 26, 2022Hunter Biden is seen only wearing underwear in an image from his infamous laptop. During his interview with Rogan, Zuckerberg acknowledged that he regretted suppressing The Post's report,...
Zuckerberg Admits Facebook Suppressed Hunter Biden Laptop Story ahead ...
https://news.yahoo.com › zuckerberg-admits-facebook-suppressed-hunter-121655720.html
Aug 26, 2022August 26, 2022, 5:16 AM · 4 min read. Facebook suppressed stories about Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 election after the FBI told the company they should look out for Russian...
Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story ...
https://www.bbc.com › news › world-us-canada-62688532
Aug 26, 2022Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden's son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings. The New York Post alleged leaked emails from...
Mark Zuckerberg's revelation Facebook suppressed Hunter Biden laptop ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk › news › article-11148529 › Mark-Zuckerbergs-revelation-Facebook-suppressed-Hunter-Biden-laptop-stories-sparks-backlash.html
Aug 26, 2022Mark Zuckerberg admitted Facebook deliberately suppressed stories about Hunter Biden's laptop in 2020 He changed the algorithm so the story would appear much further down people's...
Mark Zuckerberg reveals FBI prompted Facebook to suppress Hunter Biden ...
https://www.lifesitenews.com › news › mark-zuckerberg-reveals-fbi-prompted-facebook-to-suppress-hunter-biden-laptop-story
Aug 26, 2022"They come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something. Then I wanna take that seriously." BREAKING: Mark Zuckerberg tells Joe Rogan that Facebook algorithmically censored the...
Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook suppressed Hunter Biden laptop story per FBI ...
https://www.washingtontimes.com › news › 2022 › aug › 25 › mark-zuckerberg-joe-rogan-facebook-suppressed-hunt
Aug 25, 2022BREAKING: Mark Zuckerberg tells Joe Rogan that Facebook algorithmically censored the Hunter Biden laptop story for 7 days based on a general request from the FBI to restrict election misinformation.
FBI Responds To Zuckerberg's Bombshell Rogan Revelation Bureau Helped ...
https://www.dailywire.com › news › fbi-responds-to-zuckerbergs-bombshell-rogan-revelation-bureau-helped-bury-hunter-biden-laptop-story
Aug 27, 2022The FBI finally weighed in on Mark Zuckerberg's claim that Facebook suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story after being warned about "Russian propaganda" by the bureau ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Zuckerberg, who founded the company which is now known as Meta, told podcast giant Joe Rogan this week that Facebook restricted sharing of the story because the FBI had warned the company just before it broke that a Russian disinformation dump was coming.
FBI responds to Zuckerberg's claim on Joe Rogan that Facebook limited ...
https://www.foxbusiness.com › technology › fbi-responds-zuckerbergs-claim-joe-rogan-facebook-limited-hunter-biden-story-agency-warning
Aug 28, 2022"The FBI shared general warnings about foreign interference — nothing specific about Hunter Biden," the company said. In the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election, both Big Tech and...
Zuckerberg, Hunter Biden, Facebook and FBI—What We Do Know, What We Don't
https://www.newsweek.com › zuckerberg-hunter-biden-facebook-fbiwhat-we-do-know-what-we-dont-1737449
Aug 26, 2022Mark Zuckerberg admits on Joe Rogan's show that Facebook suppressed Hunter Biden emails story just before US elections because FBI had told them to A dangerous trend that could land at...
FBI Colluded With Big Tech To Suppress Hunter Biden Laptop
https://thefederalist.com › 2022 › 08 › 26 › confirmed-fbi-colluded-with-big-tech-to-prevent-voters-from-learning-about-hunter-bidens-laptop
Aug 26, 2022Speaking on Joe Rogan's podcast on Thursday, Zuckerberg said the FBI approached employees at the tech giant to warn that the laptop was a vehicle of Russian interference. "The FBI basically...
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
So there was no insult. That is settled.
It did not take some time. I addressed it after 14 posts after discussions with various posters and with each other. It was two hours between your initial post and my post addressing it after being busy responding to others and being busy in chores and such.
You have already provided evidence yourself. I've copied and pasted relevant texts from your very own sources.
It is an observation. He may be a troll, so that would explain his bizarre posts because, seriously, no sane person would believe the irrational statements they are saying.
Please clarify.
No I did not misunderstand. You claimed (as far as I understood) that Yoel and others resigned because, according to your source, they were active in censoring information they deemed disinformation and they were called on it.
People resign all the time, especially after they get a new boss. That isn't new. No clue how you came to the conclusion they quit because, to rephrase, "they were called on for their censorship of tweets".
No I didn't change my stance. You made the claim that it did have an impact so it's a small possibility that it might have had a minor impact if you are correct. It still doesn't make any difference in the end.
Again, it is an observation. The evidence is the observation. If the expected result was to help Trump and his minions win the election, it didn't make any single dent.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
What do you believe Russia would be willing to give up in a negotiated peace?
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Well that goes without saying.
By any definition Russia is losing this war at the moment, there’s no denying that.
Initial objective of ridding Zelenskyy and installing a puppet government failed badly. They’ve lost control of large swathes of the Donbas. They’ve lost Kherson City.
The Russians have now instilled into the Ukrainians a deep hatred of them for generations to come, similar to how the Poles feel toward Russia , and I suspect Lithuanians, Latvia , Estonia, et al considering they gladly joined NATO to protect themselves from Russian imperialism.
Last edited:
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
What I’m hoping for is that NATO pushes Russia to a negotiated peace.
You rightys have been harping incessantly about a laptop. If you had a scintilla of evidence that wrongdoing happened, it would have blanketed the news. Most right sources like QANON, Breitbart, Parler Onan and others are cesspools of disinformation and lies. Yet they are still free to lie. Your premise is absolutely wrong.
Indeed. I frequently take a look at RT precisely for this reason. I believe in listening to both sides of a story when it comes to the Ukraine war, and Russia is one of the sides. From time to time, I find articles there that aren't related to the Ukraine war but that I still find interesting. The RT article that I referenced in the opening post is an example of this sort. However, in this particular case, the source material would appear to mainly be from an American publication, The Intercept. The Intercept article in question is here:
Truth Cops | The Intercept
I don't know if Homeland Security played a part in it, but the FBI was definitely involved in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, according to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg:
Zuckerberg says Facebook censored The Post’s Hunter Biden stories because FBI warned of Russian misinfo ‘dump’ | New York Post
Zuckerberg may have lacked the guts to tell the FBI to hit the road, but it certainly was available on many other sources including the NY Post which broke the story.
This makes it sound like the FBI was seeking to keep the story quiet, but we got several other stories on the laptop which were supposedly leaked by the FBI since they possessed it.
There's an old saying- freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Good luck getting much attention on a literal soap box. The RT article, and the Intercept article that it is largely based on, point out that the U.S. government is colluding with big tech to censor ideas that the government says is untrue. There are multiple problems with this, not least of which is the fact that the government has been known to lie itself. The Hunter Biden laptop story is a good one in that the government, knowingly or not, labelled truth as untruthful and censored it. It brings up the age old question- who watches the watchers?
I think a line from former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is appropriate here:
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Source:
Is More Speech the Way to Counter Bad Speech? | Nieman Foundation at Harvard
The American Heritage Dictionary defines disinformation as "Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation."
Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/disinformation
Take note of the fact that the AHD focuses on the fact that it is governments and their intelligence agencies who were first known for this type of thing. Now consider the fact that the U.S. government is gaining the power to throttle any ideas that run counter to the narratives that it spins.
True, but censoring the truth from aired is. And I'd argue that this is what's frequently being done by the government.
The DHS is a large organization, but some of its departments' actions have certainly been condemend, and rightly so I believe. Wikipedia gets into some that I think are certainly worthy of condemnation:
**
David Rittgers of the Cato Institute notes:
a long line of fusion center and DHS reports labeling broad swaths of the public as a threat to national security. The North Texas Fusion System labeled Muslim lobbyists as a potential threat; a DHS analyst in Wisconsin thought both pro- and anti-abortion activists were worrisome; a Pennsylvania homeland security contractor watched environmental activists, Tea Party groups, and a Second Amendment rally; the Maryland State Police put anti-death penalty and anti-war activists in a federal terrorism database; a fusion center in Missouri thought that all third-party voters and Ron Paul supporters were a threat ...[65]
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security#Fusion_centers
Perhaps not, but they are certainly threatening it in the U.S.
I'm sure we can agree that an AT article mispelling the word focused doesn't mean the end of the world is nigh.
Agreed. I went back and looked at RT's article and yes, it appears they conflated the Disinformation Governance Board, which was -part- of the DHS, with the DHS itself.
Even if what you say is true, it wouldn't change the fact that some of the documents were leaked.
Perhaps. I'll tell you what I personally believe was the most important thing the RT did for me- it made me aware of the information to begin with. Were you aware of the story before I brought it up in this thread?
From what I've read, CISA is just taking over for where the Disinformation Governance Board left off. Some criticisms of the DGB:
**
The board faced immediate backlash across the political spectrum. “Who among us thinks the government should add to its work list the job of determining what is true and what is disinformation? And who thinks the government is capable of telling the truth?” wrote Politico media critic Jack Shafer. “Our government produces lies and disinformation at industrial scale and always has. It overclassifies vital information to block its own citizens from becoming any the wiser. It pays thousands of press aides to play hide the salami with facts.”
**
Source:
Truth Cops | The Intercept
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
My contempt for social media makes it impossible for me to understand how ANYBODY takes the drivel thereon the slightest bit seriously.
Anybody can write anything on those apps. At least the people on legit media have journalism degrees.
Populism is the whole facocta point of social media and thus the reason that no competent person should believe they means anything.
OK, it's true that deficient people do place stock in those media, but they're deficient people. They're going to react psychotically anyway, regardless of what they read or, more accurately, try to read.
Read the fucking New York Times and watch MSNBC if you need reliable information.
Otherwise, just make shit up for yourself and you'll be as well off as if you read bloggers.
Privately owned internet apps have nothing to do with free speech.
They can offer and deny access to whomever they wish, because it's just access to absurdity anyway.
The First Amendment says you can give your opinion without getting arrested.
It doesn't day you can give it on Twitter or Facebook if you don't own Twitter and Facebook.
And why the fuck would you want to anyway?
Anybody can write anything on those apps. At least the people on legit media have journalism degrees.
Populism is the whole facocta point of social media and thus the reason that no competent person should believe they means anything.
OK, it's true that deficient people do place stock in those media, but they're deficient people. They're going to react psychotically anyway, regardless of what they read or, more accurately, try to read.
Read the fucking New York Times and watch MSNBC if you need reliable information.
Otherwise, just make shit up for yourself and you'll be as well off as if you read bloggers.
Privately owned internet apps have nothing to do with free speech.
They can offer and deny access to whomever they wish, because it's just access to absurdity anyway.
The First Amendment says you can give your opinion without getting arrested.
It doesn't day you can give it on Twitter or Facebook if you don't own Twitter and Facebook.
And why the fuck would you want to anyway?
Alright, let's give it a go. From The Intercept's "True Cops" article, which appears to be RT's primary source of information:
**
The first FBI official, whom The Intercept interviewed in 2020 amid the George Floyd riots, lamented the drift toward warrantless monitoring of Americans saying, “Man, I don’t even know what’s legal anymore.”
In retrospect, the New York Post reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 election provides an elucidating case study of how this works in an increasingly partisan environment.
Much of the public ignored the reporting or assumed it was false, as over 50 former intelligence officials charged that the laptop story was a creation of a “Russian disinformation” campaign. The mainstream media was primed by allegations of election interference in 2016 — and, to be sure, Trump did attempt to use the laptop to disrupt the Biden campaign. Twitter ended up banning links to the New York Post’s report on the contents of the laptop during the crucial weeks leading up to the election. Facebook also throttled users’ ability to view the story.
**
Full article:
Truth Cops | The Intercept
Your flaw is in your second sentence here- it brooks no possibility that others would disagree with your assessment on the questionability of a given source.
I strongly suspect that you have sources that I wouldn't trust as well. If we all insulted each other's sources, instead of why we disagree with them, I doubt much productive discussion would happen.
The BBC in the UK, NPR in the U.S. and the CBC in Canada are all "state controlled" as well. I certainly believe this gives them certain biases, but that doesn't mean they don't have good information as well. You just have to be wary of their potential bias.
None of this gets into any specific allegations, making it impossible to determine whether these claims have any validity.
ordinarily i would agree, but you don't know what deeply committed liars and obfuscators these degenerates are....
I don't believe they're as bad as you think they are.