4 ms·

So I dug into the first "twitter file." LOL, is this supposed to be a scandal? Hunter Biden had some nudes on his laptop, Republicans procured the laptop and po

So I dug into the first "twitter file." LOL, is this supposed to be a scandal? Hunter Biden had some nudes on his laptop, Republicans procured the laptop and posted them on twitter, Biden's team asked for them to be taken down, and they were, because twitter takes down nonconsensual pornography, as they should. This happened by a back channel for prominent figures that republicans also have access to. The twitter files don't even contest any of this, they just obscure it, because that's all they have to do in the age of ADHD. So Part 1 was a big fat lie. I have enough shits left to give to dig into one other part. Choose.

jokethrowaway 4y ago
In case you missed that happening live, an article from the NYP telling the story of Hunter Biden's laptop (not necessarily the leaked photos) was heavily censored across all Big Tech just before the election. None of the left-wing people I interact daily with knew about that. Initially mainstream media claimed it was fake, then they retracted their statements a year later when nobody cared anymore. Same as the COVID lab "conspiracy theory" or Fauci's funding GoF research. It all gets censored and dismissed until laterz.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  [flagged]
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  You get to whine about conspiracy N+1 when you finish defending conspiracy N. > None of the left-wing people I interact daily with knew about [conspiracy N]. It seems their information filters were successfully rejecting bullshit -- which makes their filters better than your filters. The "Biden's Laptop" story was bullshit when NYP posted it and it's still bullshit when you linked it. Furthermore, you know it's bullshit, which is why you tried to change the topic like a coward. Fine. Be my guest. Run away! If you want to defend your position, I'll be waiting.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  We are being asked to believe that on the cusp of the election Hunter Biden dropped off one to three laptops depending on source in a state he didn't live in rife with unencrypted evidence of crime and corruption to a Trumpers computer repair shop and never bothered to look into them again until the owner decided to do a possibly illegal trawl through his customers property and just happened to turn over this evidence not to the police but to a republican operative in the days before we vote. Now even though the prior is astounding enough we are supposed to take it on the word of a known prolific liar who recently lost his license to practice law because of lies about the very same topic and ignore the ordinary practice of treating chain of custody as gospel. but wait I hear you saying didn't experts authenticate the laptop? No, no they didn't they authenticated a few emails divorced of context. In other news half of the starlets out there had their nudes stolen from their iclouds a few years back. If you provided a true stolen picture of their boobs then concocted an elaborate fiction around it the very real boob pic wouldn't prove the elaborate fiction, wouldn't prove the authenticity of a machine you planted the pic on and wouldn't prove any narrative you wove around it. In fact the selective spare morsels of data are as damning as the miserable liar who pissed all over any sane chain of custody discussion by grasping any such machine in his oily hands. If they had him dead to rights they would have leaked the entire email box or better yet a hard drive image for nerds to go through with a fine toothed comb. They didn't because they didn't trust themselves to produce a convincing enough fake that could take any in depth analysis. This is also why you don't see any impending prosecution. This didn't deserve a fair hearing in the news in the days before voting it was an attempt to corrupt the fair election that was about to take place. See Obamas birth certificate and the swift boat nonsense. One conspiracy theory at a time please.
  - bandofthehawk 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      You know that the "censored documents" were actually just nudes proving that Hunter Biden has a big dick and hot girlfriends, right? I've seen them. Explain how they are scandalous.
nullc 4y ago
There were no nudes in the NY post article. The story was not suppressed on the basis of nonconsensual pornography. The suppressed article primarily concerned emails where Hunter appeared to be brokering meetings with his father in exchange for consideration. Initial reports claimed the material was fake, but it's since been acknowledged as authentic. (You might have been aware of the authenticity earlier except that posts describing how to use DKIM headers to cryptographically validate the messages were also widely suppressed or buried -- including on HN for that matter! [1]) As smoking guns go I wouldn't consider it very impressive-- if anything it really just looks like Hunter was scamming people using his father's name-- but that is no excuse to misrepresent the situation. But it wouldn't be the first time by far that the coverup was a bigger impropriety than the thing being covered up. Do you expect a useful discussion to result from a message that gets every factual point wrong or are we just being trolled? (maybe someone using a large language model to argue? -- the truthy but wrong responses fit the pattern) [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Authenticating%20a%20message%20to%20Hunter%20Biden%20using%20DKIM&type=story&dateRange=all&sort=byDate&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Authenticating%20a%20message%2...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  I started at post 1 and summarized through post 8, the one that convinced me this was a hatchet job. You skipped to ~post 17 and talked about the contents of 17-36. We were talking about two different parts of Twitter Files Part 1. In posts 1-8, Matt Taibbi takes the boring-ass story of Twitter removing nonconsensual pornography and through egregious lies of omission and language loaded harder than a battleship cannon he suggests to the uninformed reader that this was something entirely different. Post 8 itself is a request from the Biden team to take down nonconsensual pornography. Twitter honors the request. Yawn. But wait -- Matt realizes he can omit the "noncon porn" context and re-frame the email (post 7) as evidence of outsiders constantly manipulating speech. It seems that Matt was successful, because you were not able to connect my account of the underlying events to the Matt Taibbi propagandized version of the same events. Why did I stop there? I was watching the Twitter Files tweets live and Post 8 was the final nail in the coffin. The previous nails were the loaded speech, which is seldom indicative of high quality journalism, but Post 8 turned that suspicion into a conviction: this was a hatchet job, not honest journalism. Debunking GOP hatchet jobs is a hobby, not an occupation, so at that point I stopped, went to bed, and skimmed the rest the next day. The summary I committed to memory was "mild incompetence and extensive good faith framed as hard censorship, again." I didn't deep dive 17-36, but I did skim them again before posting and again just now. I'll stand behind that summary if you want to tangle. > Do you expect a useful discussion You had your rant, now I get mine. I grew up being damn near a free-speech absolutist. I have carried an enormous amount of water for you guys on this topic recently, but it seems like every fucking time your team calls wolf I look into it and find crocodile tears and a wet fart. Is this really the best you can do?

jokethrowaway 4y ago

In case you missed that happening live, an article from the NYP telling the story of Hunter Biden's laptop (not necessarily the leaked photos) was heavily censored across all Big Tech just before the election. None of the left-wing people I interact daily with knew about that. Initially mainstream media claimed it was fake, then they retracted their statements a year later when nobody cared anymore. Same as the COVID lab "conspiracy theory" or Fauci's funding GoF research. It all gets censored and dismissed until laterz.

jjoonathan 4y ago
[flagged]
jjoonathan 4y ago
You get to whine about conspiracy N+1 when you finish defending conspiracy N. > None of the left-wing people I interact daily with knew about [conspiracy N]. It seems their information filters were successfully rejecting bullshit -- which makes their filters better than your filters. The "Biden's Laptop" story was bullshit when NYP posted it and it's still bullshit when you linked it. Furthermore, you know it's bullshit, which is why you tried to change the topic like a coward. Fine. Be my guest. Run away! If you want to defend your position, I'll be waiting.
michaelmrose 4y ago
We are being asked to believe that on the cusp of the election Hunter Biden dropped off one to three laptops depending on source in a state he didn't live in rife with unencrypted evidence of crime and corruption to a Trumpers computer repair shop and never bothered to look into them again until the owner decided to do a possibly illegal trawl through his customers property and just happened to turn over this evidence not to the police but to a republican operative in the days before we vote. Now even though the prior is astounding enough we are supposed to take it on the word of a known prolific liar who recently lost his license to practice law because of lies about the very same topic and ignore the ordinary practice of treating chain of custody as gospel. but wait I hear you saying didn't experts authenticate the laptop? No, no they didn't they authenticated a few emails divorced of context. In other news half of the starlets out there had their nudes stolen from their iclouds a few years back. If you provided a true stolen picture of their boobs then concocted an elaborate fiction around it the very real boob pic wouldn't prove the elaborate fiction, wouldn't prove the authenticity of a machine you planted the pic on and wouldn't prove any narrative you wove around it. In fact the selective spare morsels of data are as damning as the miserable liar who pissed all over any sane chain of custody discussion by grasping any such machine in his oily hands. If they had him dead to rights they would have leaked the entire email box or better yet a hard drive image for nerds to go through with a fine toothed comb. They didn't because they didn't trust themselves to produce a convincing enough fake that could take any in depth analysis. This is also why you don't see any impending prosecution. This didn't deserve a fair hearing in the news in the days before voting it was an attempt to corrupt the fair election that was about to take place. See Obamas birth certificate and the swift boat nonsense. One conspiracy theory at a time please.
- bandofthehawk 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    You know that the "censored documents" were actually just nudes proving that Hunter Biden has a big dick and hot girlfriends, right? I've seen them. Explain how they are scandalous.

nullc 4y ago

There were no nudes in the NY post article. The story was not suppressed on the basis of nonconsensual pornography. The suppressed article primarily concerned emails where Hunter appeared to be brokering meetings with his father in exchange for consideration. Initial reports claimed the material was fake, but it's since been acknowledged as authentic. (You might have been aware of the authenticity earlier except that posts describing how to use DKIM headers to cryptographically validate the messages were also widely suppressed or buried -- including on HN for that matter! [1]) As smoking guns go I wouldn't consider it very impressive-- if anything it really just looks like Hunter was scamming people using his father's name-- but that is no excuse to misrepresent the situation. But it wouldn't be the first time by far that the coverup was a bigger impropriety than the thing being covered up. Do you expect a useful discussion to result from a message that gets every factual point wrong or are we just being trolled? (maybe someone using a large language model to argue? -- the truthy but wrong responses fit the pattern) [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Authenticating%20a%20message%20to%20Hunter%20Biden%20using%20DKIM&type=story&dateRange=all&sort=byDate&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Authenticating%20a%20message%2...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jjoonathan 4y ago
I started at post 1 and summarized through post 8, the one that convinced me this was a hatchet job. You skipped to ~post 17 and talked about the contents of 17-36. We were talking about two different parts of Twitter Files Part 1. In posts 1-8, Matt Taibbi takes the boring-ass story of Twitter removing nonconsensual pornography and through egregious lies of omission and language loaded harder than a battleship cannon he suggests to the uninformed reader that this was something entirely different. Post 8 itself is a request from the Biden team to take down nonconsensual pornography. Twitter honors the request. Yawn. But wait -- Matt realizes he can omit the "noncon porn" context and re-frame the email (post 7) as evidence of outsiders constantly manipulating speech. It seems that Matt was successful, because you were not able to connect my account of the underlying events to the Matt Taibbi propagandized version of the same events. Why did I stop there? I was watching the Twitter Files tweets live and Post 8 was the final nail in the coffin. The previous nails were the loaded speech, which is seldom indicative of high quality journalism, but Post 8 turned that suspicion into a conviction: this was a hatchet job, not honest journalism. Debunking GOP hatchet jobs is a hobby, not an occupation, so at that point I stopped, went to bed, and skimmed the rest the next day. The summary I committed to memory was "mild incompetence and extensive good faith framed as hard censorship, again." I didn't deep dive 17-36, but I did skim them again before posting and again just now. I'll stand behind that summary if you want to tangle. > Do you expect a useful discussion You had your rant, now I get mine. I grew up being damn near a free-speech absolutist. I have carried an enormous amount of water for you guys on this topic recently, but it seems like every fucking time your team calls wolf I look into it and find crocodile tears and a wet fart. Is this really the best you can do?