6 ms·

Funny story, Biden was not "in the government" at that time. You're thinking of Trump. That's who was president in 2020. Does it still rub you the wrong way

by zzzeek 4y ago

Funny story, Biden was not "in the government" at that time. You're thinking of Trump. That's who was president in 2020. Does it still rub you the wrong way that Trump was "the government" telling Twitter to remove speech?

rhaksw 4y ago
I like all of these comments because they each contain a grain of truth. Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government. "Handle" is an okay word to describe the scenario via an internet comment, yet also not a literal quote. I wish we could get back to trusted parties coming to reasonable conclusions while citing sources. It seems we're stuck in a cycle of gaming SEO and piecemeal info via social media. I guess us "citizen journalists" are learning just how challenging it can be to relate a story accurately and with minimal bias.
- halpmeh 4y ago
  It's actually quite easy to analyze a story with minimal bias. People simply aren't interested in doing it, however.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    Resisting temptation to insert bias is rare/hard when you can acquire 1,000 more clicks/followers for tweaking the story or headline just a bit. People have bills to pay and not every story sells. Journalism isn't just about knowing how to write and investigate, you also need to know how to get your stuff out there, otherwise you're dead in the water.
- jshen 4y ago
  “Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government.” What in the world are you saying here? What exactly is a “figure of influence in government“, and how does that matter?
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    Is Trump still influential on government policy etc.? If you don't think so, that's fine, but that's the point I'm making.
    - jshen 4y ago
      How is “influence” relevant here? Also, does that make Tucker Carlson or Peter Thiel “influential on government”. Can these people now not ask a social media company to remove non consensual nude photos of their family members because they are “influential on government“? Setup, WTF are you saying?
      - rhaksw 4y ago
        First of all, what I think is a subjective measure. It's my opinion, and you don't need to agree with it. So if you're saying "WTF are you saying" as if you cannot imagine someone would believe Biden's influence has bearing here, then we don't see eye to eye. Second, Tucker and Thiel are influential but I probably wouldn't say government, I'd say they're influential media figures. Third, yes I imagine Tucker and Thiel do have a greater ability to influence in some areas than your average Joe. Finally, if your next response contains another WTF-type comment, you'll have the last word.
        IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
        WTF you’re just tone -policing after losing the argument now.
        rhaksw 4y ago
        Saying WTF is fine. My point was if there's still incredulity about where I was coming from after two clarifying comments in an already long chain then I have nothing more to say. Same goes for you.
        jshen 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yucky 4y ago
Biden was Vice President at the time of the emails in question, which is what the Hunter Biden story was always about. That the story was suppressed by Twitter while Trump was in office isn't relevant. The suppression of the story is what matters, since if those emails were reported as accurate it would have wide ranging impact on the election. In fact if the story had been allowed to come out in a timely matter, the Democrats likely would have put forth a better candidate in the primary.
- xcrunner529 4y ago
  Lol that’s not true at all. There’s no retroactive interpretation of the first amendment. Twitter was not asked by the current government to do anything. They’re a private company and are allowed their free speech. If you’re not just some Russian droid living in a shit hole maybe go back to school. This is embarrassing for you.
  - yucky 4y ago
    You must be replying to the wrong comment. Nothing you have said is related to my post.
    - s3p 4y ago
      Allow me. The tweets violated Twitter's hacked items policy and they removed them. The internal staff had a debate as to whether it fell under the policy and they came to the agreement that it did. They later agreed to update the policy and not remove tweets that referenced it. I don't understand what is so problematic here.
      - yucky 4y ago
        That policy was never used to remove content published by NY Times, WaPo etc. that had originated from hacks or stolen material. In fact, this was the only time they used this policy in that manner to restrict content published by legitimate investigative journalists. That's the entire crux of their argument, selective enforcement when it fit their political desires. Also, the emails weren't hacked. The laptop was abandoned at a repair shop and they tried to turn it over to the FBI twice but the FBI declined. That's when they turned it over to Giuliani who sent them to the NY Post.

by zzzeek 4y ago

rhaksw 4y ago

I like all of these comments because they each contain a grain of truth. Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government. "Handle" is an okay word to describe the scenario via an internet comment, yet also not a literal quote. I wish we could get back to trusted parties coming to reasonable conclusions while citing sources. It seems we're stuck in a cycle of gaming SEO and piecemeal info via social media. I guess us "citizen journalists" are learning just how challenging it can be to relate a story accurately and with minimal bias.

halpmeh 4y ago
It's actually quite easy to analyze a story with minimal bias. People simply aren't interested in doing it, however.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  Resisting temptation to insert bias is rare/hard when you can acquire 1,000 more clicks/followers for tweaking the story or headline just a bit. People have bills to pay and not every story sells. Journalism isn't just about knowing how to write and investigate, you also need to know how to get your stuff out there, otherwise you're dead in the water.
jshen 4y ago
“Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government.” What in the world are you saying here? What exactly is a “figure of influence in government“, and how does that matter?
- rhaksw 4y ago
  Is Trump still influential on government policy etc.? If you don't think so, that's fine, but that's the point I'm making.
  - jshen 4y ago
    How is “influence” relevant here? Also, does that make Tucker Carlson or Peter Thiel “influential on government”. Can these people now not ask a social media company to remove non consensual nude photos of their family members because they are “influential on government“? Setup, WTF are you saying?
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      First of all, what I think is a subjective measure. It's my opinion, and you don't need to agree with it. So if you're saying "WTF are you saying" as if you cannot imagine someone would believe Biden's influence has bearing here, then we don't see eye to eye. Second, Tucker and Thiel are influential but I probably wouldn't say government, I'd say they're influential media figures. Third, yes I imagine Tucker and Thiel do have a greater ability to influence in some areas than your average Joe. Finally, if your next response contains another WTF-type comment, you'll have the last word.
      - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
        WTF you’re just tone -policing after losing the argument now.
        rhaksw 4y ago
        Saying WTF is fine. My point was if there's still incredulity about where I was coming from after two clarifying comments in an already long chain then I have nothing more to say. Same goes for you.
        jshen 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yucky 4y ago

Biden was Vice President at the time of the emails in question, which is what the Hunter Biden story was always about. That the story was suppressed by Twitter while Trump was in office isn't relevant. The suppression of the story is what matters, since if those emails were reported as accurate it would have wide ranging impact on the election. In fact if the story had been allowed to come out in a timely matter, the Democrats likely would have put forth a better candidate in the primary.

xcrunner529 4y ago
Lol that’s not true at all. There’s no retroactive interpretation of the first amendment. Twitter was not asked by the current government to do anything. They’re a private company and are allowed their free speech. If you’re not just some Russian droid living in a shit hole maybe go back to school. This is embarrassing for you.
- yucky 4y ago
  You must be replying to the wrong comment. Nothing you have said is related to my post.
  - s3p 4y ago
    Allow me. The tweets violated Twitter's hacked items policy and they removed them. The internal staff had a debate as to whether it fell under the policy and they came to the agreement that it did. They later agreed to update the policy and not remove tweets that referenced it. I don't understand what is so problematic here.
    - yucky 4y ago
      That policy was never used to remove content published by NY Times, WaPo etc. that had originated from hacks or stolen material. In fact, this was the only time they used this policy in that manner to restrict content published by legitimate investigative journalists. That's the entire crux of their argument, selective enforcement when it fit their political desires. Also, the emails weren't hacked. The laptop was abandoned at a repair shop and they tried to turn it over to the FBI twice but the FBI declined. That's when they turned it over to Giuliani who sent them to the NY Post.