RIP Twitter

What was the Biden bombshell? Nobody has demonstrated this. Is the "Biden bombshell" the dick picks?


I am assuming:

"On Friday, Taibbi published a shocking collection of internal communications revealing that Democrat insiders communicated with Twitter to suppress The Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 presidential election."
 
What was the Biden bombshell? Nobody has demonstrated this. Is the "Biden bombshell" the dick picks?



As a concerned libertarian citizen, could you forward to Justin?

B. Twitter’s Response to Tweets Disseminating the N.Y. Post Articles On October 14, 2020, the N.Y. Post, a daily tabloid publication, published two articles on its website regarding emails and other personal materials said to have been found on a hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden (together, “the N.Y. Post articles”).24 The N.Y. Post articles republished unredacted copies of emails that clearly included personal email addresses and phone numbers, along with personal photographs of Hunter Biden and his family.25 Twitter had been warned throughout 2020 by federal law enforcement agencies to be on the alert for expected “hack-and-leak operations” undertaken by malign state actors, in which those state actors might hack electronic communications of individuals associated with political campaigns and seek to disseminate the leaked materials over Twitter and other social media platforms.26 Reports from the law enforcement agencies even suggested there were rumors that such a hack-and-leak operation would be related to Hunter Biden.27
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7821/7821_07.pdf

Unlike Zuck/Facebook who states Facebook blacked out the story due to the FBI warning of an impending Russian(-like) data dump, but couldn't remember if they specifically referenced Hunter Biden, Twitter execs clearly remember it being mentioned in this FEC filing.

Unless we assume Facebook wasn't sent the same impending Russian disinfo-like hack/dump warning as Twitter, we can reasonably assume Zuck's memory is conveniently faulty. And that FBI's hack & dump warning - which they knew to not be a hack at all - just happened to give plausible deniability rationale for Twitter to block the story under their hacking policy. Damned serendipitous, don't you think?

Yes! is the answer to Justin's question. Robby & Nick at Reason might be interested, too.
 
FBI Coordination With Big Tech Censorship Ahead of 2020 Election Revealed in Agent Deposition, Missouri AG Says

Officials from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security frequently met with major social media companies ahead of the 2020 election and pointed out users and pieces of content for removal, according to information from a deposition of a senior FBI agent revealed by a state Attorney General.

“We found that the FBI plays a big role in working with social media companies to censor speech—from weekly meetings with social media companies ahead of the 2020 election to asks for account takedowns,” said Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt in a Dec. 2 series of tweets, three days after deposing Special Agent Elvis Chan, who is in charge of cyber affairs at the FBI San Francisco Field Office.

Chan has given major social media companies warnings that have led them to censor information about a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, shortly before the election that put Biden in office, according to a lawsuit against the Biden administration led by Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.

Chan testified that he and officials from the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were meeting social media officials on a quarterly, then monthly, and finally, weekly basis as the election approached, Schmitt said in his tweets.

“Chan stated that the FBI regularly sent social media companies lists of URLs and social media accounts that should be taken down because they were disinformation from ‘malign foreign influence operations,’” Schmitt said, adding that “on many occasions, the platforms took down the accounts flagged by the FBI.”

“Chan personally told the social media companies that there could potentially be a Russian ‘hack and leak’ operation shortly before the election,” Schmitt said.

Chan also referred to the operation as a “hack and dump,” an unnamed source in Schmitt’s office told Fox News.

After flagging some links and accounts “the FBI then inquired whether the platforms have taken down the content,” Schmitt said in the tweets.

There’s also evidence that the companies felt compelled to act on the takedown requests because they were coming from the FBI.

“If the FBI… if they come to us and tell us we need to be on guard about something, then I want to take that seriously,” said Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, formerly known as Facebook, during an August interview with podcast host Joe Rogan.

The FBI told Facebook ahead of the election to be “on high alert” regarding something “similar” to “Russian propaganda” ahead of the 2016 election, Zuckerberg said.

“There’s about to be some kind of dump… that’s similar to that, so just be vigilant,” he recounted the FBI message as saying.
 
Spoken like a well-rounded libertarianl who doesn't need or want someone spooning his their info into him...

How many of the 165 got anything right during the 2016-present Russia collusion saga? How many didn't back three years of governments' unscientific forced vaccine policy of inefficacy and injury, and mask mandates?

Okay...okay...anyone can subjectively make mistakes for six solid years; so why is it we trust fact-checkers now? Who are they and who will they be? Why the unblinking assertion they will be agnostic, fact-driven people/entities we should trust?

Do you not trust your own mind sufficiently to not hand it over to 'experts'?

Huff is the most disappointing libertarian I’ve ever interacted with. And that is saying something.
 
Huff is the most disappointing libertarian I’ve ever interacted with. And that is saying something.

We're being unfair; let's give @n_huffhines another chance to defend speech against govco intrusion:

Josh Hawley Uncovers Docs Indicating Disinformation Board More Advanced than Mayorkas Suggested excerpt...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
“I am sure there are documents pertaining to this board – minutes of meetings, communications about who would serve on the board. Will you release those to this committee?” Hawley asked.

“Senator, there are not yet – this governance…” Mayorkas began before Hawley pressed him.

“Wait a minute. There are no meetings about this board? You’ve not created any records?” he followed up.

“It has not yet begun its work,” Mayorkas said.

“You’ve hired her; you certainly had deliberations about hiring her,” Hawley asserted.

“The board has not yet met,” the DHS secretary insisted.

Hawley continued to press him until Mayorkas submitted that he would turn documents over to the committee. After finally receiving the heavily redacted documents some six months later, Hawley made them available to the public in a press release on Wednesday. Email correspondence between DHS officials shows the Disinformation Governance Board Steering Group “convened” several times dating back to February – two months before Mayorkas’s testimony. In light of the documents, Hawley penned a letter to Mayorkas on Wednesday, calling his testimony “untrue.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like perjury and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. Mayorkas - insurrectionist??
 


Meanwhile, constrast "reputable new sources" @BowlBrother85 (not Breitbart, Just the News, Epoch Times etc.) characterize the laptop - just yesterday - as 'stolen'. New York Times Falsely Claims Hunter Biden Laptop 'Stolen'

Apparently 'reputable' is synonym for 'puppet with Democrat hand up the arse'.

'Stolen' and 'hacked' have become tech/media's equivalent of government bureaucracies' 'classified' and 'redacted'. The latter broadly uses it to hide governing malfeasance from congress and the public, while the former use it ideologically to effect election outcomes. There is no other reason for Twitter, FB and the like to do so; whether something is stolen or hacked does not determine it's truth or the public need to know. It is a false restriction to not serve their customers or the public good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamRebel35
I am assuming:

"On Friday, Taibbi published a shocking collection of internal communications revealing that Democrat insiders communicated with Twitter to suppress The Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 presidential election."

Lots of people have been pitching this like Joe Biden's people suppressed the Hunter Biden story on Twitter, but all Taibbi showed is that Twitter suppressed the story and has had communication with government officials about censorship. Nothing appears to actually tie the DNC or Biden admin to suppression, which is what Amash is asking for.
 

Take it with a grain of salt because:

1- I don’t tweet
2- I don’t know Elon nor do I obsess over his every action

I’m just spitballing here. These polls are less about statistical significance and more about PR. I’d be shocked if Elon Musk has made some claim about statistical significance regarding the Twitter polls. I don’t think he is ignorant in this particular area of science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
Take it with a grain of salt because:

1- I don’t tweet
2- I don’t know Elon nor do I obsess over his every action

I’m just spitballing here. These polls are less about statistical significance and more about PR. I’d be shocked if Elon Musk has made some claim about statistical significance regarding the Twitter polls. I don’t think he is ignorant in this particular area of science.

yeah it's a weird criticism - the polls are Twit fodder for people to react to with more tweets.
 
The point to me is that Elon champions these manipulated polls while either (a) knowing how faulty they are or (b) being too ignorant to know how faulty they are, (if we can take the criticism at face value...I have not seen proof of how manipulated the polls are).
 
Lots of people have been pitching this like Joe Biden's people suppressed the Hunter Biden story on Twitter, but all Taibbi showed is that Twitter suppressed the story and has had communication with government officials about censorship. Nothing appears to actually tie the DNC or Biden admin to suppression, which is what Amash is asking for.

That wasn't was Amash asked, according to your post:
"The thread does not state that Twitter acted on the Biden story at the behest of government. @elonmusk, could you clarify? Is that alleged? "

Are you claiming Amash is too dumb to know Biden's team was not in office, nor was in a position to directly censor since they also were not Twitter execs? Because I don't see people claiming they were. I think everyone understands that Twitter, FB, etc. leadership blacked it out, and now we know at least one letter agency (FBI) was at the heart of the coercion/collusion. We don't know what advocacy was waged by the Biden team prior to election, and who else in government may have ran interference for them.

The Biden admin has shown a remarkable appetite for censorship with tech/media since coming into office; they've talked of it openly. So the possibility that Biden's team may have solicited interference is hardly far-fetched.
 
The point to me is that Elon champions these manipulated polls while either (a) knowing how faulty they are or (b) being too ignorant to know how faulty they are, (if we can take the criticism at face value...I have not seen proof of how manipulated the polls are).

If you are looking at it as anything more than an engagement tool, you’re overthinking it.

Has anyone claimed otherwise? Has anyone tried to draw some significant scientific conclusion from one of these polls?

For this to be an issue marginally worth discussion, you have to believe the premise that Elon Musk relies on polls for company decisions. Then you’d have to assume that he believes they are “scientific”.

Looks more like a “hey, look over here” issue to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider

VN Store



Back
Top