7 ms·

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 co

by 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
      You haven’t clarified anything. Biden was not in government, and you haven’t explained how that’s not the end of the argument here.
      - rhaksw 4y ago
        The notion that campaign messaging can indicate what the candidate might do while in office should not be surprising. Calls for censorship coming from individuals or groups who later assume positions within government are worth reviewing because it may inform how they operate while in office. Calls that come after taking office may be punishable. Therefore, any influence exerted during campaigns of private citizens, while unpunishable, is still interesting to follow. An incumbent up for re-election is not free to exert such influence, though I imagine it still happens on their behalf, and I'd say those unpunishable actions are worth following too. All private messages aren't interesting, but these ones are because they called for censorship. Also, censorship just means suppression of content. It doesn't have to be done by a government.
        jshen 4y ago
        What messages “called for censorship“ and what did they ask to censor? I haven’t seen any such messages outside of asking to remove non consensual sexual images of a family member that was against twitters TOS and probably illegal. Let’s stop being vague, what messages are you talking about?
        rhaksw 4y ago
        Everyone knows the Hunter Biden story [1] was censored. Ro Khanna (D-CA 17th) thought Twitter should've allowed it [2]. Here is a US representative, a Democrat no less, arguing that the story should be allowed to remain on the basis that even if it was hacked material, journalists are not responsible for the illegal actions of a source, and because the story is of national interest. On the other hand, the "DNC" [3] and "Biden team" [4] were apparently asking Twitter to clean up certain content in relation to that story. Regardless of what that removed content was, the suppression of the story has itself been national news for awhile and it's worth clearing the air with facts to understand what occurred. One of them was a blurred image of Hunter Biden [5]. So again, it's interesting because these are calls for censorship, and campaign messaging can indicate what the candidate might do while in office. None of this, by the way, should be construed to be limited to the Biden campaign or Democrats. Groups have been censoring each other for eons. Communists censored everyone but their own messaging, McCarthy censored them, Anthony Comstock did it, religions and dictators do it, and on and on. [1] https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden... [2] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 [3] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828601268469760 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828601268469760 [4] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 [5] https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1598837329250045953 https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1598837329250045953
- jshen 4y ago
  I still have no idea what your point is. Biden was not in government when this happened, and that’s the critical fact.

by jshen 4y ago

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
    You haven’t clarified anything. Biden was not in government, and you haven’t explained how that’s not the end of the argument here.
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      The notion that campaign messaging can indicate what the candidate might do while in office should not be surprising. Calls for censorship coming from individuals or groups who later assume positions within government are worth reviewing because it may inform how they operate while in office. Calls that come after taking office may be punishable. Therefore, any influence exerted during campaigns of private citizens, while unpunishable, is still interesting to follow. An incumbent up for re-election is not free to exert such influence, though I imagine it still happens on their behalf, and I'd say those unpunishable actions are worth following too. All private messages aren't interesting, but these ones are because they called for censorship. Also, censorship just means suppression of content. It doesn't have to be done by a government.
      - jshen 4y ago
        What messages “called for censorship“ and what did they ask to censor? I haven’t seen any such messages outside of asking to remove non consensual sexual images of a family member that was against twitters TOS and probably illegal. Let’s stop being vague, what messages are you talking about?
        rhaksw 4y ago
        Everyone knows the Hunter Biden story [1] was censored. Ro Khanna (D-CA 17th) thought Twitter should've allowed it [2]. Here is a US representative, a Democrat no less, arguing that the story should be allowed to remain on the basis that even if it was hacked material, journalists are not responsible for the illegal actions of a source, and because the story is of national interest. On the other hand, the "DNC" [3] and "Biden team" [4] were apparently asking Twitter to clean up certain content in relation to that story. Regardless of what that removed content was, the suppression of the story has itself been national news for awhile and it's worth clearing the air with facts to understand what occurred. One of them was a blurred image of Hunter Biden [5]. So again, it's interesting because these are calls for censorship, and campaign messaging can indicate what the candidate might do while in office. None of this, by the way, should be construed to be limited to the Biden campaign or Democrats. Groups have been censoring each other for eons. Communists censored everyone but their own messaging, McCarthy censored them, Anthony Comstock did it, religions and dictators do it, and on and on. [1] https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden... [2] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598838041371516929 [3] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828601268469760 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828601268469760 [4] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 [5] https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1598837329250045953 https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1598837329250045953
jshen 4y ago
I still have no idea what your point is. Biden was not in government when this happened, and that’s the critical fact.