5 ms·

For a counterpoint on why this story is likely BS: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/5-points-on-why-the-new-biden-emails-distortion-is-so-bogus https://

For a counterpoint on why this story is likely BS: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/5-points-on-why-the-new-biden-emails-distortion-is-so-bogus https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/5-points-on-why-the...

partiallypro 6y ago
It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.) But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary actions. The coming US election is no small deal, and we have seen in past elections how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy (including but not limited to influencing elections). You really can’t blame Twitter and Facebook here for taking the more radical step against an obvious smear campaign that blatantly fails the smell test. I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, at which point the social media companies can offer an apology and release the links to this article.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    We absolutely can blame them. Twitter and Facebook have repeatedly taken the position that there's no need to reform section 230 or otherwise strongly regulate their moderation, because they're very dedicated to the idea of free discourse and would never abuse their power. If they now feel that free discourse is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed, they should let the country know that so that we can make regulatory decisions accordingly.
  - disown 6y ago
    > how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy That's the propaganda some have been pushing. What was it? Russia spent $50K on facebook ads and won trump the election? > I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, Like CNN or the nytimes or the washingtonpost which peddled trump-russia conspiracy for 4 years? Lets be real here, you support this censorship because of your political bias. If facebook was censoring the other side, you'd be railing against facebook. "he/him" lmao.
  - aksss 6y ago
    You would expect Twitter and Facebook to articulate standards in advance and adhere to them consistently, but in this case we have individuals who have literally been on the payroll of one political side making exceptional judgements on behalf of the platforms that nakedly favor one side over another, consistently.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked. Facebook will do whatever provides the greatest return for their shareholders - they have no duty to Constitutional values. That is the only thing that will drive their decision making, so obviously they decided the long term risks of letting Trump abuse their platform with propaganda outweighs the short-term blow back from conservatives, who appear likely to be out of power in 4 months anyways. If the public wants a role in how Facebook should handle this type of thing, then Congress needs to stop play-acting and starting writing legislation.
- dx87 6y ago
  Also the point about the backstory not making sense. It basically says "The Biden Campaign checked Biden's schedule, and said that Biden didn't attend an illegal meeting at that time". The rush to cover and dismiss the story makes it seem more likely that it's true (I have no idea either way), than if people could just write it off as another crackpot story from the NY Post.
  - herbstein 6y ago
    A rush could just as likely be a realization that a story like this, whether true or not, can sow massive doubt. Just look at what happened with Comey and Clinton in 2016. Rushing to get ahead of a story doesn't only happen when the story is true, but when you expect a sizable subset of the population to believe the story is true.
- rectang 6y ago
  > Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong The people who wrote the NY Post piece had plenty of time to prepare. Now the story is rocketing around at the speed of the internet; but it takes time to refute authoritatively. Twitter, Facebook, HN, and similar channels will have spread the story regardless of its truth or untruth. They are vulnerable to propaganda, similar to how open relays are to spreading spam.
  - partiallypro 6y ago
    So by your logic we should just delay any posting of news so that it can be vetted by other outlets, which defeats the entire purpose of getting scoops. Plenty of false stories have been spread by big outlets, including CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, etc...no one has said we should censor those stories. Who gets to draw the line and when? So far -every- proposal I've seen targets one group and isn't broadly applied.
    - rectang 6y ago
      > So by your logic Wrong. I pointed out a problem, but I did not suggest a remedy. It's a hard problem. There's a saying, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." It goes back centuries: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
smokebutnofire 6y ago
A few things take make these emails a bit more credible: 1. "And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." - Joe Biden on a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the firm that paid Hunter Biden. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4&t=78s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4&t=78s) 2. The photos of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe that were included. (Scroll down: https://www.the-sun.com/news/1629764/joe-biden-hunter-emails-ukraine-smoking-gun-video/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/1629764/joe-biden-hunter-emails...)
- rat87 6y ago
  Biden simply gave them the message from the Obama administration and the EU They wanted the prosecutor fired because he was ridiculously corrupt and protecting/ not prosecuting corrupt companies including Burisima (I repeat he dropped the investigation into Burisima). All of this is old news and was reported on during the impeachment trial
  - smokebutnofire 6y ago
    Biden asked for a prosecutor to be fired because he wasn't investigating the company his crackhead son received large payouts from enough huh? That's George Washington chopping down the cherry tree level of honesty and equally rooted in reality.
    - rat87 6y ago
TigeriusKirk 6y ago
Which of these points do you find persuasive?
- donmcronald 6y ago
  Email headers would trivially prove if that was actually an email sent via gmail. The rest of the email account would do a lot to back up the claim it was actually his laptop.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Perhaps you just haven't read the newspaper much. "So-and-so McOfficial confirmed the authenticity of the documents" is standard copy. This is a result for just googling "confirmed the authenticity of the emails": https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-control-over-cdc-reports/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-contr...
      - svrb 6y ago
        So something like > The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails
      - aksss 6y ago
        Yet the pattern of the last four years for bombshell stories has been more to the tune of “unnamed intelligence official”, “high-level anonymous source”. That’s anything but verification.
    - 6y ago
jcadam 6y ago
I don't think facebook and twitter would have acted this quickly and this brazenly if it were 100% BS. This reaction just reeks of "Oh @#$!! Kill it!"
fullshark 6y ago
Sounds like an open debate on the story on an app that imagines itself as a modern day town square would have been useful.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Sorry, but TPM is extremely partisan and must be recused as a source in this discussion.
- rectang 6y ago
  I agree that TPM is partisan. So is National Review. That's why I proposed TPM as a "counterpoint".

partiallypro 6y ago

It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.) But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked.

runarberg 6y ago
Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary actions. The coming US election is no small deal, and we have seen in past elections how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy (including but not limited to influencing elections). You really can’t blame Twitter and Facebook here for taking the more radical step against an obvious smear campaign that blatantly fails the smell test. I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, at which point the social media companies can offer an apology and release the links to this article.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  We absolutely can blame them. Twitter and Facebook have repeatedly taken the position that there's no need to reform section 230 or otherwise strongly regulate their moderation, because they're very dedicated to the idea of free discourse and would never abuse their power. If they now feel that free discourse is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed, they should let the country know that so that we can make regulatory decisions accordingly.
- disown 6y ago
  > how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy That's the propaganda some have been pushing. What was it? Russia spent $50K on facebook ads and won trump the election? > I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, Like CNN or the nytimes or the washingtonpost which peddled trump-russia conspiracy for 4 years? Lets be real here, you support this censorship because of your political bias. If facebook was censoring the other side, you'd be railing against facebook. "he/him" lmao.
- aksss 6y ago
  You would expect Twitter and Facebook to articulate standards in advance and adhere to them consistently, but in this case we have individuals who have literally been on the payroll of one political side making exceptional judgements on behalf of the platforms that nakedly favor one side over another, consistently.
arrosenberg 6y ago
> But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked. Facebook will do whatever provides the greatest return for their shareholders - they have no duty to Constitutional values. That is the only thing that will drive their decision making, so obviously they decided the long term risks of letting Trump abuse their platform with propaganda outweighs the short-term blow back from conservatives, who appear likely to be out of power in 4 months anyways. If the public wants a role in how Facebook should handle this type of thing, then Congress needs to stop play-acting and starting writing legislation.
dx87 6y ago
Also the point about the backstory not making sense. It basically says "The Biden Campaign checked Biden's schedule, and said that Biden didn't attend an illegal meeting at that time". The rush to cover and dismiss the story makes it seem more likely that it's true (I have no idea either way), than if people could just write it off as another crackpot story from the NY Post.
- herbstein 6y ago
  A rush could just as likely be a realization that a story like this, whether true or not, can sow massive doubt. Just look at what happened with Comey and Clinton in 2016. Rushing to get ahead of a story doesn't only happen when the story is true, but when you expect a sizable subset of the population to believe the story is true.
rectang 6y ago
> Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong The people who wrote the NY Post piece had plenty of time to prepare. Now the story is rocketing around at the speed of the internet; but it takes time to refute authoritatively. Twitter, Facebook, HN, and similar channels will have spread the story regardless of its truth or untruth. They are vulnerable to propaganda, similar to how open relays are to spreading spam.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  So by your logic we should just delay any posting of news so that it can be vetted by other outlets, which defeats the entire purpose of getting scoops. Plenty of false stories have been spread by big outlets, including CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, etc...no one has said we should censor those stories. Who gets to draw the line and when? So far -every- proposal I've seen targets one group and isn't broadly applied.
  - rectang 6y ago
    > So by your logic Wrong. I pointed out a problem, but I did not suggest a remedy. It's a hard problem. There's a saying, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." It goes back centuries: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

smokebutnofire 6y ago

A few things take make these emails a bit more credible: 1. "And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." - Joe Biden on a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the firm that paid Hunter Biden. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4&t=78s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4&t=78s) 2. The photos of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe that were included. (Scroll down: https://www.the-sun.com/news/1629764/joe-biden-hunter-emails-ukraine-smoking-gun-video/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/1629764/joe-biden-hunter-emails...)

rat87 6y ago
Biden simply gave them the message from the Obama administration and the EU They wanted the prosecutor fired because he was ridiculously corrupt and protecting/ not prosecuting corrupt companies including Burisima (I repeat he dropped the investigation into Burisima). All of this is old news and was reported on during the impeachment trial
- smokebutnofire 6y ago
  Biden asked for a prosecutor to be fired because he wasn't investigating the company his crackhead son received large payouts from enough huh? That's George Washington chopping down the cherry tree level of honesty and equally rooted in reality.
  - rat87 6y ago

TigeriusKirk 6y ago

Which of these points do you find persuasive?

donmcronald 6y ago
Email headers would trivially prove if that was actually an email sent via gmail. The rest of the email account would do a lot to back up the claim it was actually his laptop.
- rhino369 6y ago
  Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Perhaps you just haven't read the newspaper much. "So-and-so McOfficial confirmed the authenticity of the documents" is standard copy. This is a result for just googling "confirmed the authenticity of the emails": https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-control-over-cdc-reports/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-contr...
    - svrb 6y ago
      So something like > The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails
    - aksss 6y ago
      Yet the pattern of the last four years for bombshell stories has been more to the tune of “unnamed intelligence official”, “high-level anonymous source”. That’s anything but verification.
  - 6y ago

jcadam 6y ago

I don't think facebook and twitter would have acted this quickly and this brazenly if it were 100% BS. This reaction just reeks of "Oh @#$!! Kill it!"

fullshark 6y ago

Sounds like an open debate on the story on an app that imagines itself as a modern day town square would have been useful.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

Sorry, but TPM is extremely partisan and must be recused as a source in this discussion.

rectang 6y ago
I agree that TPM is partisan. So is National Review. That's why I proposed TPM as a "counterpoint".