4 ms·

First off, yes they are. Second, the CCP use "disinformation" as a reason for censoring too. Americans aren't orchestrating this, Democrats are. The Taliban c

First off, yes they are. Second, the CCP use "disinformation" as a reason for censoring too. Americans aren't orchestrating this, Democrats are. The Taliban comparison was in relation to the FB Myanmar issue the "whistleblower" brought up. Just as the TikTok comparison was in relation to the girl's study. The point is, the Dems are laser focused on Facebook because they want to silence conservatives, not because of some virtue to help people.

unethical_ban 5y ago
I completely disagree with your assessment. No one is trying to silence people for saying "poor people are worth less than me, taxes are inherently evil, non-whites are probably illegals, and abortion is murder". I'm using the most offensive stereotypes to make the point that no one is even trying to ban those ideas. The concern is the spread of lies known to be generated by bad actors, and how to handle it. Does "more truth" win against "lies"? Or should we try to limit facebook groups and twitter feeds that say Biden lost the election against all facts and evidence, when we see millions of people believe it just because it feels right to them? It's not an easy problem, and doesn't seem to have any easy solution.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  They are banning dissenting information that looks bad for them. Similar to how CCP bans political dissent, Dems ban any stories on Hunter Biden for example. The Dems also ban things that look bad on China, like the lab leak, I suppose because they share some of the same goals. Also the election is perfectly reasonable to question. It's fine to question why the bell weathers and many other record indicators were broken during the 2020 election. It's fine to want to audit and make sure something is secure, especially after we spent $20 million and 5 years investigating the 2016 election for "Russian interference".
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    A simple search for "hunter biden laptop" on Facebook immediately kicks up three news articles, dozens of site posts, and (in the bubble I can see from my own friends list) several dozen posts on the topic from the point of view that the laptop was real. If this is Democratic censorship in action, it's incredibly bad at its goals.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      It was censored on all tech platforms at once when the story broke so the information wouldn't hit mainstream weeks ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Yes eventually they had to allow it because it was blatant censorship, but the damage is done.
      - jwond 5y ago
        You are correct, so I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Facebook explicitly suppressed the story. > While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform. -- Andy Stone, Facebook Policy Communications Director https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000 https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000 Coincidentally enough, if you check Andy Stone's LinkedIn you will see that before he started working at Facebook he worked for various organizations associated with the Democratic party.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    No one has called for bans of discussions of the lab leak theory (or no one mainstream). It was simply obvious that early harping about it from Tucker Carlson was a useless distraction in the early time of the pandemic, when the rest of the world was focusing on how to respond to the pandemic instead of beating the shit out of Asians and calling Coronavirus "Wuhan flu" to enrage the libs. No one has "banned" discussion of Hunter Biden. (I just saw your reply to someone else saying it was censored from facebook; I would be interested in seeing any evidence of that). Downvoting isn't censorship. Lack of prioritizing coverage by a newspaper could be a concern, but that isn't censorship (and boy, do I have some news for you if you don't know how Fox does its reporting). Republicans have barely lifted a finger when in power to secure voting systems, or take any interest in voting security. You keep on acting like Republicans care about election security (or election fairness at all) but they don't. They care about disenfranchisement. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020, as stated by Secretaries of State from multiple states Republican-led and Democrat-led. As shown by reviews in multiple states that were done for partisan reasons (we lost and we don't like Democrats winning). Voting records might have been broken because political polarization is at a high note and we had a hugely polarizing president in office. The investigation into Russian interference was related to disinformation campaigns and collusion with members of the Trump campaign, NOT voter or election fraud. It found evidence of that, but the Republican-led house did nothing with the information. https://wannabewonk.com/summary-of-hypocrisies/ https://wannabewonk.com/summary-of-hypocrisies/ edit2: Ah, yes, you're talking about the discredited hitpieces that were released in the weeks before the election. Yes, it seems those were throttled, openly and transparently, due to them being discredited hitpieces.
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      > discredited hitpieces the Hunter story was anything but discredited. It was just suppressed for no reason other than helping the dems. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/double-trouble-for-biden-494411 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou... > There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020 There was also no evidence of Russia collusion either, but that didn't stop a very long investigation from the FBI that was being advertised on all news channels.

unethical_ban 5y ago

I completely disagree with your assessment. No one is trying to silence people for saying "poor people are worth less than me, taxes are inherently evil, non-whites are probably illegals, and abortion is murder". I'm using the most offensive stereotypes to make the point that no one is even trying to ban those ideas. The concern is the spread of lies known to be generated by bad actors, and how to handle it. Does "more truth" win against "lies"? Or should we try to limit facebook groups and twitter feeds that say Biden lost the election against all facts and evidence, when we see millions of people believe it just because it feels right to them? It's not an easy problem, and doesn't seem to have any easy solution.

hunterb123 5y ago
They are banning dissenting information that looks bad for them. Similar to how CCP bans political dissent, Dems ban any stories on Hunter Biden for example. The Dems also ban things that look bad on China, like the lab leak, I suppose because they share some of the same goals. Also the election is perfectly reasonable to question. It's fine to question why the bell weathers and many other record indicators were broken during the 2020 election. It's fine to want to audit and make sure something is secure, especially after we spent $20 million and 5 years investigating the 2016 election for "Russian interference".
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  A simple search for "hunter biden laptop" on Facebook immediately kicks up three news articles, dozens of site posts, and (in the bubble I can see from my own friends list) several dozen posts on the topic from the point of view that the laptop was real. If this is Democratic censorship in action, it's incredibly bad at its goals.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    It was censored on all tech platforms at once when the story broke so the information wouldn't hit mainstream weeks ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Yes eventually they had to allow it because it was blatant censorship, but the damage is done.
    - jwond 5y ago
      You are correct, so I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Facebook explicitly suppressed the story. > While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform. -- Andy Stone, Facebook Policy Communications Director https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000 https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000 Coincidentally enough, if you check Andy Stone's LinkedIn you will see that before he started working at Facebook he worked for various organizations associated with the Democratic party.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  No one has called for bans of discussions of the lab leak theory (or no one mainstream). It was simply obvious that early harping about it from Tucker Carlson was a useless distraction in the early time of the pandemic, when the rest of the world was focusing on how to respond to the pandemic instead of beating the shit out of Asians and calling Coronavirus "Wuhan flu" to enrage the libs. No one has "banned" discussion of Hunter Biden. (I just saw your reply to someone else saying it was censored from facebook; I would be interested in seeing any evidence of that). Downvoting isn't censorship. Lack of prioritizing coverage by a newspaper could be a concern, but that isn't censorship (and boy, do I have some news for you if you don't know how Fox does its reporting). Republicans have barely lifted a finger when in power to secure voting systems, or take any interest in voting security. You keep on acting like Republicans care about election security (or election fairness at all) but they don't. They care about disenfranchisement. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020, as stated by Secretaries of State from multiple states Republican-led and Democrat-led. As shown by reviews in multiple states that were done for partisan reasons (we lost and we don't like Democrats winning). Voting records might have been broken because political polarization is at a high note and we had a hugely polarizing president in office. The investigation into Russian interference was related to disinformation campaigns and collusion with members of the Trump campaign, NOT voter or election fraud. It found evidence of that, but the Republican-led house did nothing with the information. https://wannabewonk.com/summary-of-hypocrisies/ https://wannabewonk.com/summary-of-hypocrisies/ edit2: Ah, yes, you're talking about the discredited hitpieces that were released in the weeks before the election. Yes, it seems those were throttled, openly and transparently, due to them being discredited hitpieces.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    > discredited hitpieces the Hunter story was anything but discredited. It was just suppressed for no reason other than helping the dems. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/double-trouble-for-biden-494411 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou... > There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020 There was also no evidence of Russia collusion either, but that didn't stop a very long investigation from the FBI that was being advertised on all news channels.