Trump slams Facebook, Twitter for taking down Biden story in NY Post

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?  The New York Post is a mere tabloid (4th largest publication in circulation founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton)?  Is that true?  Are you making that up to suit yourself as well?  You folks never quit, do you?

 

You are funny and sad at the same time. NYP is a daily tabloid newspaper in NYC. Post staffers were worried their papers hadn't done enough to verify the authenticity of the laptop and its content. Their words not mine.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ny-post-reporter-behind-dubious-131745779.html

[Phoenix Rising]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?  The New York Post is a mere tabloid (4th largest publication in circulation founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton)?  Is that true?  Are you making that up to suit yourself as well?  You folks never quit, do you?

 

Quit what? Calling BS when we see it?

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The fake Hunter Biden story is almost comical. So much nonsense. And all of this is.comimg from Raging Rudy. A completely discredited man.

 

It alleges that someone delivered three laptops to a computer repair store in Delaware. The owner of that store thinks the man who delivered the computers was Hunter Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden. But he can’t be sure it was Hunter Biden. Or maybe he can. He’s very confused about how this all went down. Anyway, the owner says he made copies of the hard drives and somehow sent the content, which he deemed suspicious, to some undetermined law enforcement agency and to the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s personal lawyers. It’s all very unclear how and why such a transaction happened – if at all. Was that even legal? If it happened. 

 

Among the pilfered emails (sound familiar?) was at least one that seemed to suggest that the then vice-president could arrange a meeting with a business associate of Hunter’s in Ukraine. You might remember that Hunter’s Ukraine business involvement was the subject of the phone call that Trump made to the president of Ukraine to get him to announce an investigation of the Bidens. This call is what triggered Trump’s impeachment.

 

Vice-President Biden says he has never met with anyone affiliated with Hunter Biden’s business and there is no evidence even in the new New York Post story that he did.

 

So, basically, we are dealing with a third-rate, bungled pile of nonsense here. What’s a social media company to do? Platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have three choices when they flag potentially troublesome content. They can keep their hands off and let their users and algorithms do with the content what they wish to do, risking amplification.

 

This was the standard method of dealing with hate speech, misinformation and propaganda for most of the history of these companies. Second, they can choose to keep the problematic posts up on the service but “dial down” the amplifying power of the algorithms, slowing distribution, giving their staff time to research the posts and consider if further action is needed. This is almost always the wisest move.

 

Third, platforms could choose to block or purge an item completely. Given the scale of Facebook (2.7 billion users), YouTube (2 billion users), and Twitter (330 million users), deleting an item might seem like a major problem for the free flow of information. But it’s not. The original source remains untouched and accessible to most of the world. Nonetheless, by making this harshest of choices the platforms expose themselves to vitriol and risk generating the sort of backlash that can energize paranoid, conspiratorial movements like Q-Anon or Trump supporters.

 

Content moderation, the term of art for such policies and decisions, is a fool’s game. A company can’t win the public relations battle no matter what it does. Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google don’t owe anyone a commitment to publish and promote their expressions. They need not defend free speech.

 

There are frequent calls for these companies to be more transparent and consistent in their moderation policies. But that’s expecting too much. Given the varieties of human expressions and cruelties, it seems impossible to predict all the different problems that might spring up that threaten people’s health, safety or democracy.

 

Either way, content moderation is necessary. Nobody should want massive systems of content distribution to foster Holocuast denial or call for violence against ethnic groups. Some of these questions feel easy (although for some reason, blocking Holocaust denial seemed like a hard choice for Mark Zuckerberg, raising some serious questions about his capacity for basic moral judgment). Most of them are hard.

 

Now, the unhinged Rudy has alleged there were underage images on the laptop. A desperado attempts to please his master. Anything for a vote. 

The fake Hunter Biden story is almost comical. So much nonsense. And all of this is.comimg from Raging Rudy. A completely discredited man.

Discredited only by the MSM.  Not by anyone else.

 

It alleges that someone delivered three laptops to a computer repair store in Delaware. The owner of that store thinks the man who delivered the computers was Hunter Biden, the son of Vice-President Joe Biden. But he can’t be sure it was Hunter Biden. Or maybe he can. He’s very confused about how this all went down. Anyway, the owner says he made copies of the hard drives and somehow sent the content, which he deemed suspicious, to some undetermined law enforcement agency and to the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s personal lawyers. It’s all very unclear how and why such a transaction happened – if at all. Was that even legal? If it happened.

 

Courtesy of The Sun.

 

 

 

Department of Justice receipt for property.

 

 

Among the pilfered emails (sound familiar?) was at least one that seemed to suggest that the then vice-president could arrange a meeting with a business associate of Hunter’s in Ukraine. You might remember that Hunter’s Ukraine business involvement was the subject of the phone call that Trump made to the president of Ukraine to get him to announce an investigation of the Bidens. This call is what triggered Trump’s impeachment.

Fox - Source on alleged Hunter Biden email chain verifies message about Chinese investment firm

 

Vice-President Biden says he has never met with anyone affiliated with Hunter Biden’s business and there is no evidence even in the new New York Post story that he did.

Emails confirm meeting(s).

The Federalist - Secret Service Travel Records Confirm Hunter Biden Trips Detailed In Emails

 

So, basically, we are dealing with a third-rate, bungled pile of nonsense here. What’s a social media company to do? Platforms like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have three choices when they flag potentially troublesome content. They can keep their hands off and let their users and algorithms do with the content what they wish to do, risking amplification.

Zero evidence of your 'nonsense' claim.  Plenty of evidence proving otherwise.  Twitter reason for blocking New York Post story was on the ground that the information came from hacked sources.  That's proven to be false yet to this day Twitter has refused to unlock the New York Post's account even though they've now allowed sharing.  Nothing to see here.

 

This was the standard method of dealing with hate speech, misinformation and propaganda for most of the history of these companies. Second, they can choose to keep the problematic posts up on the service but “dial down” the amplifying power of the algorithms, slowing distribution, giving their staff time to research the posts and consider if further action is needed. This is almost always the wisest move.

 

Third, platforms could choose to block or purge an item completely. Given the scale of Facebook (2.7 billion users), YouTube (2 billion users), and Twitter (330 million users), deleting an item might seem like a major problem for the free flow of information. But it’s not. The original source remains untouched and accessible to most of the world. Nonetheless, by making this harshest of choices the platforms expose themselves to vitriol and risk generating the sort of backlash that can energize paranoid, conspiratorial movements like Q-Anon or Trump supporters.

 

Content moderation, the term of art for such policies and decisions, is a fool’s game. A company can’t win the public relations battle no matter what it does. Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google don’t owe anyone a commitment to publish and promote their expressions. They need not defend free speech.

 

There are frequent calls for these companies to be more transparent and consistent in their moderation policies. But that’s expecting too much. Given the varieties of human expressions and cruelties, it seems impossible to predict all the different problems that might spring up that threaten people’s health, safety or democracy.

 

Either way, content moderation is necessary. Nobody should want massive systems of content distribution to foster Holocuast denial or call for violence against ethnic groups. Some of these questions feel easy (although for some reason, blocking Holocaust denial seemed like a hard choice for Mark Zuckerberg, raising some serious questions about his capacity for basic moral judgment). Most of them are hard.

Twitter and others are free to suppress any content they wish.  They're private companies.  They are not allowed, under Section 230, to become content providers without losing their Section 230 protections against lawsuits.

 

Now, the unhinged Rudy has alleged there were underage images on the laptop. A desperado attempts to please his master. Anything for a vote. 

Your opinion.  Nothing factual in the above statements.

[Tippaporn]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Accusing members of ‘making stuff up’ in your efforts to defend a completely fabricated smear attempt.

 

Either provide factual evidence to your claim and if you can't due to the non-existence of evidence then 'it's making stuff up.'  Help him out, Chomper, if you can.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Either provide factual evidence to your claim and if you can't due to the non-existence of evidence then 'it's making stuff up.'  Help him out, Chomper, if you can.

Evidence of something that is a fabricated smear attempt.

 

The whole thing is it’s own evidence, I can’t help with the inability of Trump supporters to see it for what it is.

[Neeranam]

Surprised at so many in denial, saying this story isn't true. Biden is unfit to be president. He is a racist, and he is too old an suffering from dementia. So funny this is the best his party can come up with. 

 

[candide]

2 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

You have only one response as usual which is an insult against Donald J Trump, but honestly, that defence does not really work very well with regard to explaining away the Hunter Biden laptop and its contents.  I hope he resigns his candidacy soon and spares his Country further pain. It would be the honourable thing to do now.

In case this extravagant laptop story were true, which crime e would have been committed by Joe Biden?

[MaxYakov]

36 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Surprised at so many in denial, saying this story isn't true. Biden is unfit to be president. He is a racist, and he is too old an suffering from dementia. So funny this is the best his party can come up with. 

 

I agree with your points except that It would be "funny" only if the future of the American government as well as that of the American people were not potentially on the line with this election. There's nothing "funny" about the Democratic party and anyone who would vote for their candidates, IMO (and I'm hardly alone with this opinion).

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by MaxYakov

[Tippaporn]

30 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Only a Murdoch owned tabloid media outlet will publish unvetted report without the author name.

Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?  The New York Post is a mere tabloid (4th largest publication in circulation founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton)?  Is that true?  Are you making that up to suit yourself as well?  You folks never quit, do you?

 

You are funny and sad at the same time. NYP is a daily tabloid newspaper in NYC. Post staffers were worried their papers hadn't done enough to verify the authenticity of the laptop and its content. Their words not mine.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ny-post-reporter-behind-dubious-131745779.html

Their words?  Really?  Their words verified by who?  Per the New York Times story their claim is attributed to, wouldn't you know it, two unnamed sources.  Do a search with the search term, Bruce Golding refuses to put name on story.  Tons of entries all quoting the one and only story reporting this, the New York Times.  Not a single entry in which Bruce Golding confirms it himself.  Unless I can verify it myself via other, corroborating sources I'll rake a pass on proclaiming that this is TRUTH.  The New York Times has fallen on hard times concerning their credibility.

 

But, here's the last line to their article:

 

“The senior editors at The Post made the decision to publish the Biden files after several days’ hard work established its merit,” Mr. Allan said in an email.

 

“The story was vetted and The Post stands by its reporting,” a Post spokeswoman said in a statement.

 

So I ask you again, "Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?"

[Neeranam]

More and more evidence is coming out. Disgraceful they are censoring this, basically supporting Biden, not true democracy. If they can only kick out Trump in an illegal way, you should be ashamed. 

 

Smoking crack while filming sex(and sharing)  with an underage girls is a serious offence. 

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

More and more evidence is coming out. Disgraceful they are censoring this, basically supporting Biden, not true democracy. If they can only kick out Trump in an illegal way, you should be ashamed. 

 

Smoking crack while filming sex(and sharing)  with an underage girls is a serious offence. 

How is it censoring if things are coming out.

 

How do you know about the video.

[Eric Loh]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Their words?  Really?  Their words verified by who?  Per the New York Times story their claim is attributed to, wouldn't you know it, two unnamed sources.  Do a search with the search term, Bruce Golding refuses to put name on story.  Tons of entries all quoting the one and only story reporting this, the New York Times.  Not a single entry in which Bruce Golding confirms it himself.  Unless I can verify it myself via other, corroborating sources I'll rake a pass on proclaiming that this is TRUTH.  The New York Times has fallen on hard times concerning their credibility.

 

But, here's the last line to their article:

 

“The senior editors at The Post made the decision to publish the Biden files after several days’ hard work established its merit,” Mr. Allan said in an email.

 

“The story was vetted and The Post stands by its reporting,” a Post spokeswoman said in a statement.

 

So I ask you again, "Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?"

 Where is your evidence that it was vetted?

 

[Sujo]

Just now, Neeranam said:

That's my point duh. They wouldn't hand a computer over to the police unless they had evidence.

No, they hand over someone elses computer to be investigated.

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Evidence of something that is a fabricated smear attempt.

 

The whole thing is it’s own evidence, I can’t help with the inability of Trump supporters to see it for what it is.

You've entirely lost the thread of the discussion, Chomper.  It's about a claim that the original New York Post article wasn't vetted.  What point are you trying to make regarding that claim?  Can you clarify?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How is it censoring if things are coming out.

 

How do you know about the video.

QAnon and it’s surrogates.

 

 

But for the record, I think we all need to agree anybody credibly accused of pedophilia must be thoroughly investigated regardless of who they are.

 

Agreeing on that now will make dealing with what comes out of the Maxwell court records being opened on Thursday morning a little less contentious.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

You've entirely lost the thread of the discussion, Chomper.  It's about a claim that the original New York Post article wasn't vetted.  What point are you trying to make regarding that claim?  Can you clarify?

The subject of the thread is in the opening post, let me know if you are having trouble finding it.

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Their words?  Really?  Their words verified by who?  Per the New York Times story their claim is attributed to, wouldn't you know it, two unnamed sources.  Do a search with the search term, Bruce Golding refuses to put name on story.  Tons of entries all quoting the one and only story reporting this, the New York Times.  Not a single entry in which Bruce Golding confirms it himself.  Unless I can verify it myself via other, corroborating sources I'll rake a pass on proclaiming that this is TRUTH.  The New York Times has fallen on hard times concerning their credibility.

 

But, here's the last line to their article:

 

“The senior editors at The Post made the decision to publish the Biden files after several days’ hard work established its merit,” Mr. Allan said in an email.

 

“The story was vetted and The Post stands by its reporting,” a Post spokeswoman said in a statement.

 

So I ask you again, "Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?"

There are two interesting facts in this story:

- the original computer file has not been given to  the NY Post only pdf files

- the information has been given to a minor player (NY Post).

 

The first fact raises legitimate doubt about about those files.

The second fact is also puzzling. Why did Giuliani give it only to the NY Post, and not to all media. Even in case he wanted only to give it to "friendly" media, why not give it to Fox News which a much larger impact? Could it be that even Fox News would not have accepted it? Actually, the current arrangement is quite good for Fox News: it can go full steam about it without bearing any responsibility, as it's always " according to the N.Y. Post"

 

 

[Sujo]

The fbi will not comment on this at all until after the election. They learnt their lesson by helping trump last time when they shouldnt have.

[Neeranam]

Some here are such sore losers from the last election and totally brainwashed by all the fake news on CNN that they can't see what is real or not, or maybe they refuse to believe it as they would hate to lose another election. These anti-trump supremacists would be shut up for good after a Trump win next month,

[Neeranam]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The fbi will not comment on this at all until after the election. They learnt their lesson by helping trump last time when they shouldnt have.

What did they do?

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, candide said:

There are two interesting facts in this story:

- the original computer file has not been given to  the NY Post only pdf files

- the information has been given to a minor player (NY Post).

 

The first fact raises legitimate doubt about about those files.

The second fact is also puzzling. Why did Giuliani give it only to the NY Post, and not to all media. Even in case he wanted only to give it to "friendly" media, why not give it to Fox News which a much larger impact? Could it be that even Fox News would not have accepted it? Actually, the current arrangement is quite good for Fox News: it can go full steam about it without bearing any responsibility, as it's always " according to the N.Y. Post"

 

 

Even fox news refused to accept the story. Rudy could only find one paper to do it and the reporter refused to put his name on it.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/fox-news-hunter-biden-emails-story-new-york-post-giuliani-b1161800.html

[riclag]

32 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

More and more evidence is coming out. Disgraceful they are censoring this, basically supporting Biden, not true democracy. If they can only kick out Trump in an illegal way, you should be ashamed. 

 

Smoking crack while filming sex(and sharing)  with an underage girls is a serious offence. 

Getting back to the laptop from hell! Its already established that the former intel and sciff are disseminating  conspiracy theories that it's tied to a russian disinfo campaign , the fbi and dni confirmed  and debunked it.

Americans can  see the hypocrisy and the bigger scandal  of what  twitter attempt to  discredit and block the news source originally !

 

Many Americans are wondering if the same standards will apply to the left !

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/21/will-adam-schiff-now-be-banned-from-twitter/

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by riclag

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Their words?  Really?  Their words verified by who?  Per the New York Times story their claim is attributed to, wouldn't you know it, two unnamed sources.  Do a search with the search term, Bruce Golding refuses to put name on story.  Tons of entries all quoting the one and only story reporting this, the New York Times.  Not a single entry in which Bruce Golding confirms it himself.  Unless I can verify it myself via other, corroborating sources I'll rake a pass on proclaiming that this is TRUTH.  The New York Times has fallen on hard times concerning their credibility.

 

But, here's the last line to their article:

 

“The senior editors at The Post made the decision to publish the Biden files after several days’ hard work established its merit,” Mr. Allan said in an email.

 

“The story was vetted and The Post stands by its reporting,” a Post spokeswoman said in a statement.

 

So I ask you again, "Where's your evidence that it wasn't vetted?  Making that up?"

Where is your evidence that it was vetted?

 

Really, Eric, this insistence that it wasn't vetted is becoming ludicrous.  The fact that it's been vetted is coming from the horse's mouth, not some unnamed, unknown source.  What does it take before you actually accept the truth?  Because if the truth itself isn't convincing enough then please tell me what would be convincing to you?

[simple1]

8 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

They would never hand over these vdos to the police if they didn't have backing evidence. Serious claims which would result in long jail time if untrue. 

 trump has accused the Biden family of criminality, without any evidence presented. Every day trump is practising 'abuse of power' without any repercussion whatsoever; IMO there are serious flaws within the US judicial system that enables seriously corrupt activities by a President. One hopes when Biden achieves power he will insist on legislation to stop such activity.

 

So far there has not been forensically proven evidence presented in the public domain to support accusations against the two Biden's, only partisan opinion. If innocent, the Biden campaign could be seriously damaged. The FBI IT forensic team must confirm one way or the other, in the next day or so, the credibility of the data from the laptop/s. If proven to be fraudulent trump should, at the very least, immediately fire Giuliani.

[Rimmer]

Some flames and replies removed

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The subject of the thread is in the opening post, let me know if you are having trouble finding it.

You jumped in on a discussion between me and Eric to add your two cents but your two cents had nothing to do with what Eric and I were discussing.  So you respond to my asking you what point your contribution was attempting to make, please clarify, and you give me this reply?

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Really, Eric, this insistence that it wasn't vetted is becoming ludicrous.  The fact that it's been vetted is coming from the horse's mouth, not some unnamed, unknown source.  What does it take before you actually accept the truth?  Because if the truth itself isn't convincing enough then please tell me what would be convincing to you?

Vetted; does that mean data forensically examined by independent IT specialists? If not the 'vetting' is without worth.

[Neeranam]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 trump has accused the Biden family of criminality, without any evidence presented. Every day trump is practising 'abuse of power' without any repercussion whatsoever; IMO there are serious flaws within the US judicial system that enables seriously corrupt activities by a President. One hopes when Biden achieves power he will insist on legislation to stop such activity.

 

So far there has not been forensically proven evidence presented in the public domain to support accusations against the two Biden's, only partisan opinion. If innocent, the Biden campaign could be seriously damaged. The FBI IT forensic team must confirm one way or the other, in the next day or so, the credibility of the data from the laptop/s. If proven to be fraudulent trump should, at the very least, immediately fire Giuliani.

I agree. However, I doubt there is no evidence. 

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 trump has accused the Biden family of criminality, without any evidence presented. Every day trump is practising 'abuse of power' without any repercussion whatsoever; IMO there are serious flaws within the US judicial system that enables seriously corrupt activities by a President. One hopes when Biden achieves power he will insist on legislation to stop such activity.

 

So far there has not been forensically proven evidence presented in the public domain to support accusations against the two Biden's, only partisan opinion. If innocent, the Biden campaign could be seriously damaged. The FBI IT forensic team must confirm one way or the other, in the next day or so, the credibility of the data from the laptop/s. If proven to be fraudulent trump should, at the very least, immediately fire Giuliani.

I doubt very much the fbi will say one way or the other this close to an election. They learnt their lesson last time.

 

As it stands, its nothing to do with Joe anyway.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Sujo

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, candide said:

There are two interesting facts in this story:

- the original computer file has not been given to  the NY Post only pdf files

- the information has been given to a minor player (NY Post).

 

The first fact raises legitimate doubt about about those files.

The second fact is also puzzling. Why did Giuliani give it only to the NY Post, and not to all media. Even in case he wanted only to give it to "friendly" media, why not give it to Fox News which a much larger impact? Could it be that even Fox News would not have accepted it? Actually, the current arrangement is quite good for Fox News: it can go full steam about it without bearing any responsibility, as it's always " according to the N.Y. Post"

 

 

The FBI supposedly have the original hard drives.  Copies were made and given to Giuliani's lawyer.

 

In any case, so much consideration given to everything other than the content of the emails and verifying those contents.  The emphasis here is no different than what it was when emails were released by Wikileaks in 2016.  The actual content was ignored and all of the unimportant aspects were focused on (in order to take attention away from the content - same today).  Regardless, at least one of the emails was verified by one of the recipients of that email.  Other emails which contain information about Hunter Biden's travels have had at least a number of those travels verified by cross referencing with Secret Service logs of Hunter's trips.

 

My feeling is that the MSM will do everything in their power to cast doubt on the validity of these laptop hard drive copies until election day.  I don't think they'll be able to hold out.  In my opinion I think these drives will be conclusively validated before then.