4 ms·

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

by 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?
- nullc 4y ago
  > You skipped to ~post 17 and talked about the contents of 17-36. No clue what you're talking about. My response was directed to the misrepresentation of the NY Post hunter biden drama contained in your post. I have no clue who Matt Taibbi is. > 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 You guys? Your team? I think you must have confused me for another poster.

by nullc 4y ago

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?

nullc 4y ago
> You skipped to ~post 17 and talked about the contents of 17-36. No clue what you're talking about. My response was directed to the misrepresentation of the NY Post hunter biden drama contained in your post. I have no clue who Matt Taibbi is. > 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 You guys? Your team? I think you must have confused me for another poster.