4 ms·

1. Who cares where it came from? What matters is whether it is true or not. 2. This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest this and I followed this story

1. Who cares where it came from? What matters is whether it is true or not. 2. This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest this and I followed this story form the start. Can you cite your sources for where this topic was consideres "the issue"? And besides, if some of it is misinformation, why is the obviously not misinformation stuff still censored? All the pro-censorship people I read wrote the whole thing off as Russian disinformation. It was clearly to influence the election because so many prioritized "Trump Losing" above the truth. Something I can't get on board with. I thought Trump was terrible, but censorship like that was obviously gross. It was some ends justify the means type stuff, and it really showed the CIA/Media links, which is what Greenwald specialises in. The issue was always about censorship and bias in the media. That's what Greenwald talks about a lot. It's trivially verifiable to confirm Greenwald's suggestions of DNC bias in these institutions. Seems as though you have something against this concept or against Greenwald? This seems common lately, is it because he attacks DNC institutions? For me, I just value truth above politics. I value Greenwald's reporting because I trust him.

tdfx 5y ago
I thought it was astounding that the media wrote this off so quickly and thoroughly. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. As soon as it might be "Russian disinformation", everyone except the craziest far right people immediately stopped wondering about the meaning of "10 points for the big guy". It was right on the cusp of providing some conclusive evidence that Hunter Biden's international antics were part of a family scheme of corruption as opposed to just fishing his last name around for perks. But because the story was essentially buried, it seems we'll never know.
- refurb 5y ago
  Indeed. It was pretty breathtaking to see it happen so completely and quickly (it had to, the election was fast approaching). Normally they’d wait for the story to die on its own after a few news cycles. And your comment about “crazy far right people” is correct and why we shouldn’t censor. The same websites that everyone rails against as “kooky and conspiratorial” (many are!) were the only ones actually reporting on this. All of the stakeholders involved - CIA, mass media, political parties - have a vested interested in labeling websites as “disinformation” and pushing them out of the mainstream conversation.
  - tdfx 5y ago
    Yes, it's now the second very visible example of the censorship model failing to correctly inform people (many examples, but 2 really recent major ones). The lab leak theory being the other egregious example.
- SiVal 5y ago
  It wasn't "written off", it was hushed up. It wasn't "as soon as it might be Russian disinformation", it was as soon as it was obvious how damaging it could be to the political objectives of those who pretend "report the news" if people were aware of this news. If it's not obvious on its own (de)merits, imagine if it had been information that potentially damaging to Trump. Would it have been "written off" at the first suggestion that it might be disinformation or shouted from the rooftops 24/7 every day until the election? That's the difference between reporting it or not based on "disinformation" or not vs. reporting it or not based on whether it would help or hurt the candidate you are campaigning for.
todd8 5y ago
NPR’s treatment of the Hunter Biden Laptop story that appeared in the NY Post was typical—they just hushed it up. Here is a statement regarding this decision to avoid the story from their own newsletter[1]: “We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel told me. “And quite frankly, that's where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.” [1] http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=22d4bf85a85c320fdbaf58ecc1ada89b69c273b668447c793870a4e78166bda1fdad86a87553c1aea814d8820cde92276959de8ba03daa8ee1175aa615825563a607dc9fb9496fd7b441d8f8f939ec63 http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=22d4bf85a85c320fdbaf58ecc1ada89b6...

tdfx 5y ago

I thought it was astounding that the media wrote this off so quickly and thoroughly. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. As soon as it might be "Russian disinformation", everyone except the craziest far right people immediately stopped wondering about the meaning of "10 points for the big guy". It was right on the cusp of providing some conclusive evidence that Hunter Biden's international antics were part of a family scheme of corruption as opposed to just fishing his last name around for perks. But because the story was essentially buried, it seems we'll never know.

refurb 5y ago
Indeed. It was pretty breathtaking to see it happen so completely and quickly (it had to, the election was fast approaching). Normally they’d wait for the story to die on its own after a few news cycles. And your comment about “crazy far right people” is correct and why we shouldn’t censor. The same websites that everyone rails against as “kooky and conspiratorial” (many are!) were the only ones actually reporting on this. All of the stakeholders involved - CIA, mass media, political parties - have a vested interested in labeling websites as “disinformation” and pushing them out of the mainstream conversation.
- tdfx 5y ago
  Yes, it's now the second very visible example of the censorship model failing to correctly inform people (many examples, but 2 really recent major ones). The lab leak theory being the other egregious example.
SiVal 5y ago
It wasn't "written off", it was hushed up. It wasn't "as soon as it might be Russian disinformation", it was as soon as it was obvious how damaging it could be to the political objectives of those who pretend "report the news" if people were aware of this news. If it's not obvious on its own (de)merits, imagine if it had been information that potentially damaging to Trump. Would it have been "written off" at the first suggestion that it might be disinformation or shouted from the rooftops 24/7 every day until the election? That's the difference between reporting it or not based on "disinformation" or not vs. reporting it or not based on whether it would help or hurt the candidate you are campaigning for.

todd8 5y ago

NPR’s treatment of the Hunter Biden Laptop story that appeared in the NY Post was typical—they just hushed it up. Here is a statement regarding this decision to avoid the story from their own newsletter[1]: “We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel told me. “And quite frankly, that's where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.” [1] http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=22d4bf85a85c320fdbaf58ecc1ada89b69c273b668447c793870a4e78166bda1fdad86a87553c1aea814d8820cde92276959de8ba03daa8ee1175aa615825563a607dc9fb9496fd7b441d8f8f939ec63 http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=22d4bf85a85c320fdbaf58ecc1ada89b6...