Elon Musk announces Twitter suppressed Hunter Biden Laptop Story

[Xzi]

If you believe so, go for Don. Don't use it as an excuse to prevent the discourse. 2 pedophiles doesn't make it right.

Sure, I'd say investigate them both, but Trump is already at the center of too many investigations, and if MAGAts could've found anybody to investigate Hunter, they would've already. There's just not enough credible evidence to go on, despite all the random CP being distributed in conservative circles around the internet.

 

[omgcat]

Based on those same principles, the privacy of celebrities is not protected to the same extent as the privacy of other citizens.

this doesn't apply to information gained illegally and explicit photos. so Hunter Biden is still protected by the same laws we are regarding "revenge porn" as well as hacked data.

 

[Xzi]

The opposite is true - they can and should engage in public discourse, but by the virtue of their position in society they must not attempt to control it.

Sure, I'd agree with that. I'm just not seeing where the "attempt to control it" came in to play here. They made a request and it was honored. The government didn't threaten, harass, or blackmail anybody, otherwise it absolutely would've become a first amendment issue.

*Snip!*

 

[Foxi4]

this doesn't apply to information gained illegally and explicit photos. so Hunter Biden is still protected by the same laws we are regarding "revenge porn" as well as hacked data.

This does not hold true in regards to the press, as affirmed in NYT Co. v. U.S. - the SCOTUS held that the New York Times and The Washington Post were permitted to publish and disseminate the Pentagon Papers in spite of the fact that they were classified and likely obtained illegally. The government’s prior restraint is subordinate to the freedom of the press as guaranteed by the 1st unless the government can demonstrate “grave and irreparable” danger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

The information published by The Post should not have been blocked or prevented from being shared and discussed. That’s all there is to it.

The same principle allowed us to read Edward Snowden’s leaks regarding the N.S.A. - while Snowden himself faces legal repercussions of his actions, The Washington Post which disseminated the information provided by Snowden does not.

EDIT: Let me be *very* specific. Hunter Biden, the private citizen, can request removal of any material concerning himself. The state should not come in on his behalf via their special portal, or leverage its authority in any way, or “make suggestions”, to protect the “big guy’s” son. Twitter should not treat the case differently than any other based on the fact that he’s Biden’s son and the story could negatively impact a political campaign, whether they’re compelled to do so or not. Very simple stuff, in my opinion.

My objection goes well beyond the specific laptop story, as I’ve stated a number of times now. It has to do with the government-social media pipeline, that’s my issue.

Sure, I'd agree with that. I'm just not seeing where the "attempt to control it" came in to play here. They made a request and it was honored. The government didn't threaten, harass, or blackmail anybody, otherwise it absolutely would've become a first amendment issue.

The act of knocking on the door is, in and out of itself, threatening and has a chilling effect. Who knows how much weed they can smell on Twitter?

 

[Xzi]

The people who are skeptical about the laptop's contents are the smart ones, as the right-wing conspiracy crowd has a terrible track record when it comes to this type of stuff. If any of the CP you've seen could be definitively linked to Hunter Biden via metadata/geodata, he would've already been arrested.

 

[tabzer]

The people who are skeptical about the laptop's contents are the smart ones, as the right-wing conspiracy crowd has a terrible track record when it comes to this type of stuff. If any of the CP you've seen could be definitively linked to Hunter Biden via metadata/geodata, he would've already been arrested.

I think that's optimistic and untrue. They were nude is all I can say.

 

[Valwinz]

in Twitter, related news not only did apple say they won't be removing the app but that advertisers that stop advertising are back advertising

 

[Foxi4]

The people who are skeptical about the laptop's contents are the smart ones, as the right-wing conspiracy crowd has a terrible track record when it comes to this type of stuff. If any of the CP you've seen could be definitively linked to Hunter Biden via metadata/geodata, he would've already been arrested.

I don’t think allegations of pedophilia are the relevant news blurb here, suppression of information is, as per the thread’s title.

 

[tabzer]

I don’t think allegations of pedophilia are the relevant news blurb here, suppression of information is, as per the thread’s title.

People who say it's no big deal do not know what's on it. You are right about the suppression of it being the main point.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t think allegations of pedophilia are the relevant news blurb here, suppression of information is, as per the thread’s title.

I'd contend it's not really news that Twitter didn't want to play host to what amounts to mostly sexually explicit materials. Right-wing social media has also been circlejerking over this same stuff for two years now, so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically. As I said page one, this was more a plea for attention from Elon than anything else. Gotta pretend like it justifies pissing away $44 billion.

 

[tabzer]

I'd contend it's not really news that Twitter didn't want to play host to what amounts to mostly sexually explicit materials. Right-wing social media has also been circlejerking over this same stuff for two years now, so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically. As I said page one, this was more a plea for attention from Elon than anything else. Gotta pretend like it justifies pissing away $44 billion.

The takeaway here is that twitter suppressed a legitimate news article at the behest of a political party; not that the content of the laptop wasn't appalling to you.

 

[Foxi4]

I'd contend it's not really news that Twitter didn't want to play host to what amounts to mostly sexually explicit materials. Right-wing social media has also been circlejerking over this same stuff for two years now, so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically. As I said page one, this was more a plea for attention from Elon than anything else. Gotta pretend like it justifies pissing away $44 billion.

I will say that hosting the pictures would raise an eyebrow if uncensored - that’s no different than just hosting CP on purpose. The problem here is that the “Biden Team” or the “Trump Team”, or any other “Team” pursuing public office, or worse yet, actively in office, should not suppress information, with the subtext being that there may be consequences if that pursuit is successful. It seems to me like an offer one “can’t refuse”, it’s not how a politician should act, it’s how the mob acts. Paying lip service to candidates is no different than paying lip service to the government itself, Twitter should remain impartial and respect freedom of the press. What’s fit for print should be fit to share online.

 

[tabzer]

so the information remained available that entire time, just not on Twitter specifically

*twitter censoring for the government*

My mistake.

 

[Xzi]

The takeaway here is that twitter suppressed a legitimate news article at the behest of a political party; not that the content of the laptop wasn't appalling to you.

The takeaway here is that anybody can request removal of certain content, and it's in Twitter's best interest to comply much of the time. Is your request going to carry as much weight as a celebrity's or the government's? No, but that's life.

Paying lip service to candidates is no different than paying lip service to the government itself, Twitter should remain impartial and respect freedom of the press.

Don't worry, I have no desire to see Eric Trump's dick pics, so I'd certainly hope and expect that content moderation would be handled the same way for the opposing party as well.

 

[Foxi4]

Don't worry, I have no desire to see Eric Trump's dick pics, so I'd certainly hope and expect that content moderation would be handled the same way for the opposing party as well.

This reminds me of a satirical take about The National Nudes Database, a place where everyone uploads their nudes ahead of time so that, should they leak online, they’re not a big deal. Pretty funny stuff.

 

[omgcat]

This does not hold true in regards to the press, as affirmed in NYT Co. v. U.S. - the SCOTUS held that the New York Times and The Washington Post were permitted to publish and disseminate the Pentagon Papers in spite of the fact that they were classified and likely obtained illegally. The government’s prior restraint is subordinate to the freedom of the press as guaranteed by the 1st unless the government can demonstrate “grave and irreparable” danger.

sure, news papers can do it, but twitter isn't a news paper, it's social media. social media is not the press, individuals are not the press.

 

[Foxi4]

sure, news papers can do it, but twitter isn't a news paper, it's social media. social media is not the press, individuals are not the press.

The idea that Twitter should suppress a news story and suspend the account associated with the newspaper in question because a political candidate from a major party files a complaint on behalf of their relative who’s completely unrelated to the campaign does not sit well with me. The “Biden Team” threw their weight around to suppress the press, and Twitter went along with it. Whether it was under duress or they clapped along is immaterial to me, it should’ve never happened, and The Post is owed a formal apology for being treated unfairly. You are right, there isn’t a legal precedent about this as of yet - my point is that there should be, and hopefully there will be.

I drew the comparison of allowing a paper to print a story, but approaching news agents to stop it from being sold to the public earlier in this thread. This is the exact same thing, just on the Internet. It’s an extra degree of separation that I do not find to be exonerating.

I would have the same objection if any other candidate or party did this, the same criticism applies. Social media should not block news articles from being disseminated, not unless there’s a court injunction or warrant that justifies such action.

 

[tabzer]

The takeaway here is that anybody can request removal of certain content, and it's in Twitter's best interest to comply much of the time. Is your request going to carry as much weight as a celebrity's or the government's? No, but that's life.

You think I'm envious? I don't know if you are arguing why it's okay for the government to interfere with the dissemination of legitimate news or if you are arguing the case for apathy.

 

[Osakasan]

Coming back to this thread i have two main takeaways:

1) Alt-righters don't understand the concept of content moderation and why it's important. Content supression my ass, this is why Musky Balls feels so empowered with his new toy

2) For the right wingers it's always CP, wich given their tendency to projection raises some legitimate concerns. Good thing is, they can never prove what they accuse others of, but they're always caught doing it. Oh, to be a fly on the walls of the filthy basement they live in!

 

[CommanderCool]

Coming back to this thread i have two main takeaways:

1) Alt-righters don't understand the concept of content moderation and why it's important. Content supression my ass, this is why Musky Balls feels so empowered with his new toy

2) For the right wingers it's always CP, wich given their tendency to projection raises some legitimate concerns. Good thing is, they can never prove what they accuse others of, but they're always caught doing it. Oh, to be a fly on the walls of the filthy basement they live in!

this always happens. treating them with less than respect is pretty great. the mods sent me a dm being like "ooh you shouldn't do that" but why should i when they want everyone who isn't as white as they are dead?