Facebook and Twitter reducing distribution of New York Post Hunter Biden story [merged threads]

[Dashinka 23,251]

Gotta love these non-edited platforms.

 

Facebook and Twitter reducing distribution of New York Post Hunter Biden story

 

New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari criticized the move in a Wednesday tweet, saying, "This is a Big Tech information coup. This is digital civil war. I, an editor at The New York Post, one of the nation’s largest papers by circulation, can’t post one of our own stories that details corruption by a major-party presidential candidate, Biden."

When asked about the Biden piece in comparison to stories that were allowed to be retweeted and shared regarding the now-debunked Steele Dossier, the big tech giant did not respond.

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley -- a staunch critic of big tech -- on Wednesday sent a letter to Facebook inquiring about the company's decision.

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/facebook-reducing-distribution-of-hunter-biden-story-in-new-york-post

 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/
 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

All the usual arguments aside, at this point there shouldn't be any more "principled" people using Facebook let alone complaining after this long of bias. There are better platforms out there if they must have one. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

I know enough not to visit Facebook or Twitter when I have a reliable source of disinformation in this forum 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

Must not be True. Cant find anything on CNN

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Quote

Bombshell Email Shows Joe Biden Allegedly Met With Top Executive At Ukrainian Gas Company Burisma: Report

 

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-email-shows-joe-biden-allegedly-met-with-top-executive-at-ukrainian-gas-company-burisma-report

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

Twitter Says It Blocked NY Post Hunter Biden Article Because It Contains Hacked Data

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pky7nb/twitter-blocks-hunter-biden-new-york-post

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

50 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

Twitter Says It Blocked NY Post Hunter Biden Article Because It Contains Hacked Data

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pky7nb/twitter-blocks-hunter-biden-new-york-post

You know better than that

They had no problem with Trumps leaked or hacked income tax data or all the fake russian BS

Edited October 15, 2020 by Nature Boy 2.0

[Boiler 43,446]

Twitter CEO admits handling of blocked Post article was ‘unacceptable’

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/twitter-ceo-says-handling-of-blocked-post-article-was-unacceptable/

 

Will be fascinating to see if any drivebys cover this.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Here's to hoping this gets somewhere:

 

Quote

 

Justice Thomas Wants SCOTUS to Revisit Statute Granting Social Media Platforms Protection from Users' Content

BY JASON LEMON ON 10/13/20 AT 3:01 PM EDT

 

Quote

 

Thomas, a staunch conservative, referred to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which says "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Social media companies—like Facebook and Twitter—rely on this statute to remain protected from lawsuits resulting from offensive or inappropriate content that may be published by users.

"Paring back the sweeping immunity courts have read into §230 would not necessarily render defendants liable for online misconduct. It simply would give plaintiffs a chance to raise their claims in the first place. Plaintiffs still must prove the merits of their cases, and some claims will undoubtedly fail. Moreover, States and the Federal Government are free to update their liability laws to make them more appropriate for an Internet-driven society," Thomas wrote.

 

 

Quote

Social media platforms have essentially argued, when faced with legal challenges over content published on their sites, that they operate like distributors of information, not as publishers. They have argued that it's not their fault if a user acts in bad faith to share offensive, false or inappropriate content. These platforms do also enforce community guidelines and have teams focused on removing posts that violate those standards.

https://www.newsweek.com/justice-thomas-wants-scotus-revisit-statute-granting-social-media-platforms-protection-users-1538790

 

Quote

See Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U. S. 481, 487 (2005) (interpreting a law by looking to the “backdrop against which Congress” acted). Traditionally, laws governing illegal content distinguished between publishers or speakers (like newspapers) and distributors (like newsstands and libraries). Publishers or speakers were subjected to a higher standard because they exercised editorial control. They could be strictly liable for transmitting illegal content. But distributors were different. They acted as a mere conduit without exercising editorial control, and they often transmitted far more content than they could be expected to review. Distributors were thus liable only when they knew (or constructively knew) that content was illegal.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf

 

Ideally Trump files an emergency lawsuit before election day to hit the social media companies and it's then heard by a newly seated Barrett. 

 

In any sensible reading of section 230, undoing the broadening of their ability to behave as a publisher without being treated as one is elementary.

 

You also have Facebook admitting to being a publisher, and the targeted malicious way competing social media sites engage in publishing activities when they single out and modify so many of Trump's posts (just as one example) to reduce his audience. Unequivocally a publisher.

 

Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech platforms have immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to to host) user-generated content. Unlike publishers, which are liable if their writers defame someone, a tech platform is not held liable for content created by its users.

Yet Facebook appears to be jettisoning this categorization in its court filings, saying it has a First Amendment right as a publisher not to carry Loomer’s content.

Via Facebook’s legal filings (p2):

Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message.

This contradicts public statements made in a Senate hearing last year by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who insisted that Facebook is a platform and not a publisher

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/18/facebook-admits-its-a-publisher-in-court-filings/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

36 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You know better than that

They had no problem with Trumps leaked or hacked income tax data or all the fake russian BS

 

   Just letting you all know their reasoning. The NY post isn't exactly neutral either. 

 

    I may not drive straight down the middle of the road, but I do like to get all three sides of the story if I can.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Has anyone offered proof that the laptop in question was ever in the possession of Hunter Biden or any of his associates/ family? The entire story seems dodgy.

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Here's to hoping this gets somewhere:

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/justice-thomas-wants-scotus-revisit-statute-granting-social-media-platforms-protection-users-1538790

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf

 

Ideally Trump files an emergency lawsuit before election day to hit the social media companies and it's then heard by a newly seated Barrett. 

 

In any sensible reading of section 230, undoing the broadening of their ability to behave as a publisher without being treated as one is elementary.

 

You also have Facebook admitting to being a publisher, and the targeted malicious way competing social media sites engage in publishing activities when they single out and modify so many of Trump's posts (just as one example) to reduce his audience. Unequivocally a publisher.

 

Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech platforms have immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to to host) user-generated content. Unlike publishers, which are liable if their writers defame someone, a tech platform is not held liable for content created by its users.

Yet Facebook appears to be jettisoning this categorization in its court filings, saying it has a First Amendment right as a publisher not to carry Loomer’s content.

Via Facebook’s legal filings (p2):

Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message.

This contradicts public statements made in a Senate hearing last year by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who insisted that Facebook is a platform and not a publisher

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/18/facebook-admits-its-a-publisher-in-court-filings/

Yawn

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Has anyone offered proof that the laptop in question was ever in the possession of Hunter Biden or any of his associates/ family? The entire story seems dodgy.

Yawn

Does it?  Does $50,000 a month for not really doing anything seem dodgy, or are you fine with that?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

5 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Does it?  Does $50,000 a month for not really doing anything seem dodgy, or are you fine with that?

Squirrel!

The question was the laptop/device that was left with the computer technician. Where did it come from? Who owned it? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Squirrel!

The question was the laptop/device that was left with the computer technician. Where did it come from? Who owned it? 

I am sure the technicians recovering the laptop will know.

 

So, back to the $50,000 monthly salary.... legit, or not?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

19 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I am sure the technicians recovering the laptop will know.

So no , we have no idea who owned, accessed, used, dropped off, owned, or had in their possession the original laptop and we don't know much about who or how the drive was copied and how it compares to what the FBI.

 

Quote

So, back to the $50,000 monthly salary.... legit, or not?

I have no idea. I have always maintained K street types are paid too much. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by CanAm1980