International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Bill Barr and his October Surprise (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346780)

shuttlt 17th October 2020 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13260982)
The companies involved have no skin in the game at the moment. They open their mouths and they open themselves from attack from one or both sides.

Not worth it.

How admirably neutral of them. I'm sure, just like everybody else they have minimal interest in who wins the election. It's a pity that the Democrats don't have more influence in DC.

The Greater Fool 17th October 2020 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260986)
How admirably neutral of them. It's a pity that the Democrats don't have more influence in DC.

Amazingly, GOP aren't jumping in to "prove" diddly either.

Seems everyone rational is staying away from this **** show.

Tero 17th October 2020 03:01 PM

Story not picking up with major news. By election time, Giuliani scheme may be all exposed.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna...mpression=true

shuttlt 17th October 2020 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13260987)
Amazingly, GOP aren't jumping in to "prove" diddly either.

Seems everyone rational is staying away from this **** show.

If they provided information clearing Biden, the company would be refuting evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. If the company provided evidence implicating Biden, the company would be providing evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. The situations are not symmetrical.

Both sides are presumably thinking strategically here, so just because today they haven't provided proof one way or the other doesn't mean that they won't tomorrow.

wareyin 17th October 2020 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260973)
You are on my ignore list, but none the less.... these emails have been sent from a law firm and an investment fund. If you don't think they have the capacity to confirm/deny to a legally defensible standard that these emails were sent by them, then I don't know what to tell you. These are companies who Biden worked for/with and who are being accused of wrong doing here. That is ignoring what ever logs Apple and Google will have.

If they want to refute that they sent these emails, they easily can.

You are no longer claiming that it's easy to disprove these screenshots then? Now your claim is that a law firm denying something will be considered proof? I would ask you to consider whether law firms routinely deny things in court that are subsequently found to have happened.

The Greater Fool 17th October 2020 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261006)
If they provided information clearing Biden, the company would be refuting evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. If the company provided evidence implicating Biden, the company would be providing evidence that the company had been involved in corruption. The situations are not symmetrical.

Both sides are presumably thinking strategically here, so just because today they haven't provided proof one way or the other doesn't mean that they won't tomorrow.

Again, why should any company address such complete ********? You're asking them to play your fools game.

This fool is out of it. Keep trying to find others.

I Am The Scum 17th October 2020 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260940)
Again, you are misstating this. It's more like you are claiming that Walgreens sent me an email saying they sold me Heroin.

First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received.

Maybe they will produce proof like this.

Pretending that what is easy for a campaign spending hundreds of millions of dollars and with institutional support should necessarily be easy for me is feeble.

You're still not disproving that I sent you the e-mail.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 03:36 PM

One other interesting thing here. These emails don't look to come from a single hacked email account. There is no single email account on all the emails so far released. Either somebody has hacked multiple email systems, or it looks like we are talking about something like somebody getting access to Hunter's laptop.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum (Post 13261013)
You're still not disproving that I sent you the e-mail.

No, again... I am not Joe Biden. What is easy for him, is not necessarily easy for me.

jerrywayne 17th October 2020 03:41 PM

"People in personal trouble, as Hunter Biden was in 2014, often ignore good advice, and that seems to be the case here. The consultant, elaborating on a fragmentary account I reported in March, told me that he was approached in the spring of 2014 by one of Biden’s friends, who was worried about his plans to join Burisma.

The consultant said he met Biden and the friend for drinks at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Georgetown. Biden described the discussions between Burisma and his company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, which he had founded five years before with Christopher Heinz and Archer, both friends from Yale.

Biden asked the consultant about some of the Ukrainians involved with Burisma, whom Archer had encountered in Kyiv. Burisma was pursuing new gas leases in Ukraine that it claimed might attract international investment, the consultant remembers, and wanted prominent people on its board.

The consultant made some inquiries about several senior Burisma executives and then met with Biden a week later. The consultant told Biden the planned Burisma gas licenses involved small assets that weren’t likely to attract foreign investors, and cautioned the vice president’s son against working for the company.

“They’re using you for your name. They will exploit your name to your detriment and your father’s,” the consultant remembers warning Biden."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f08_story.html

shuttlt 17th October 2020 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13261010)
Again, why should any company address such complete ********? You're asking them to play your fools game.

This fool is out of it. Keep trying to find others.

Now we are getting back to the strategic thing. Maybe it is better to not answer accusations of criminality that could easily be refuted than to refute them. It is possible that they take that view. If the emails are fake, and Biden wanted to prove it, I have a hard time believing that these companies wouldn't cooperate.

wareyin 17th October 2020 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261018)
No, again... I am not Joe Biden. What is easy for him, is not necessarily easy for me.

If you can't imagine a way it can be done, claiming it is easy to do seems like a BS way to lend unearned legitimacy to an illegitimate claim.

wareyin 17th October 2020 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261023)
Now we are getting back to the strategic thing. Maybe it is better to not answer accusations of criminality that could easily be refuted than to refute them. It is possible that they take that view. If the emails are fake, and Biden wanted to prove it, I have a hard time believing that these companies wouldn't cooperate.

As shutIt says I'm on ignore, I'll just keep shouting into the void. If these screenshots are easily refuted in your opinion, you should be able to explain how they could be refuted. So far we have "deny it", "have a law firm deny it", and "so what if I can't, it should be easy for Biden." None of those hold water.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261026)
If you can't imagine a way it can be done, claiming it is easy to do seems like a BS way to lend unearned legitimacy to an illegitimate claim.

I already explained how it could be done. You have a lot of companies involved here any one of whom could say whether the emails were genuine. Now Fox seems to be claiming to have sources that confirm the Chinese emails.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting watching this play out.

The Greater Fool 17th October 2020 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261040)
I already explained how it could be done. You have a lot of companies involved here any one of whom could say whether the emails were genuine. Now Fox seems to be claiming to have sources that confirm the Chinese emails.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting watching this play out.

It has already played out. True believers are just behind the curve.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13261043)
It has already played out. True believers are just behind the curve.

OK, well lacking your Nostradamus like powers of precognisance, I'm going to have to wait to see it play out.

Elagabalus 17th October 2020 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrywayne (Post 13261022)
"People in personal trouble, as Hunter Biden was in 2014, often ignore good advice, and that seems to be the case here. The consultant, elaborating on a fragmentary account I reported in March, told me that he was approached in the spring of 2014 by one of Biden’s friends, who was worried about his plans to join Burisma.

The consultant said he met Biden and the friend for drinks at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Georgetown. Biden described the discussions between Burisma and his company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, which he had founded five years before with Christopher Heinz and Archer, both friends from Yale.

Biden asked the consultant about some of the Ukrainians involved with Burisma, whom Archer had encountered in Kyiv. Burisma was pursuing new gas leases in Ukraine that it claimed might attract international investment, the consultant remembers, and wanted prominent people on its board.

The consultant made some inquiries about several senior Burisma executives and then met with Biden a week later. The consultant told Biden the planned Burisma gas licenses involved small assets that weren’t likely to attract foreign investors, and cautioned the vice president’s son against working for the company.

“They’re using you for your name. They will exploit your name to your detriment and your father’s,” the consultant remembers warning Biden."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f08_story.html


From your article.

Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop: An explainer

johnny karate 17th October 2020 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261046)
OK, well lacking your Nostradamus like powers of precognisance, I'm going to have to wait to see it play out.

Keep us posted. Also let us know if that flat earth thing ever panned out.

wareyin 17th October 2020 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261040)
I already explained how it could be done. You have a lot of companies involved here any one of whom could say whether the emails were genuine. Now Fox seems to be claiming to have sources that confirm the Chinese emails.

The next couple of weeks will be interesting watching this play out.

Your explanation was that Biden should deny it, or that some law firm should deny it. You continue to ignore that neither of those things disproves anything. Here, this should help explain why: Let's imagine that Biden did come out and say that the screen shotted email that was supposedly sent to Hunter Biden wasn't sent. Would you then accept that this was false?


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you wouldn't. You haven't yet accepted anything that exonerates Biden, even if it was in the sources you claimed to get your information from. This says you likely wouldn't accept Biden, or any law firm, or Apple, or any of the relevant intelligence agencies telling you that this is Russian disinformation. So why should Biden give this nonsense the light of day?

shuttlt 17th October 2020 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261083)
Your explanation was that Biden should deny it, or that some law firm should deny it. You continue to ignore that neither of those things disproves anything. Here, this should help explain why: Let's imagine that Biden did come out and say that the screen shotted email that was supposedly sent to Hunter Biden wasn't sent. Would you then accept that this was false?


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you wouldn't. You haven't yet accepted anything that exonerates Biden, even if it was in the sources you claimed to get your information from. This says you likely wouldn't accept Biden, or any law firm, or Apple, or any of the relevant intelligence agencies telling you that this is Russian disinformation. So why should Biden give this nonsense the light of day?

Of course I'd accept evidence from the email service provider. If we don't accept things like that then we are effectively choosing what to believe on the basis of which side it benefits. That wouldn't make it utterly beyond challenge, but it would be a high bar for Giuliani to get over and my assumption would certainly be that the emails were false. These emails could turn out to be genuine, or not.

Beelzebuddy 17th October 2020 05:20 PM

So, the "reporter" who wrote the story involving Bannon and Guiliani? Hannity's old producer.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/92450...ducer-giuliani

This is reaching Mad Magazine levels of journalistic integrity.

wareyin 17th October 2020 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261102)
Of course I'd accept evidence from the email service provider. If we don't accept things like that then we are effectively choosing what to believe on the basis of which side it benefits. That wouldn't make it utterly beyond challenge, but it would be a high bar for Giuliani to get over and my assumption would certainly be that the emails were false. These emails could turn out to be genuine, or not.

How will the email service provider confirm or deny anything? Do we have the hard drive to examine? The email metadata? Anything other than a screenshot?

And I'll repeat, you didn't accept Wikipedia, any of the various linked articles, or any of the various experts quoted within who told you that Biden, along with almost the rest of the world, pressed for Shokin to be fired because Shokin was not investigating Burisma. Rather, you repeatedly claimed the opposite. What should make me believe you would accept a different source correcting a different false claim about Biden?

shuttlt 17th October 2020 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261121)
How will the email service provider confirm or deny anything? Do we have the hard drive to examine? The email metadata? Anything other than a screenshot?

It's their email system that the email would have passed through. They know who the email was from, who the email was to, what the subject was and when it was sent. What more information would they need?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261121)
And I'll repeat, you didn't accept Wikipedia, any of the various linked articles, or any of the various experts quoted within who told you that Biden, along with almost the rest of the world, pressed for Shokin to be fired because Shokin was not investigating Burisma. Rather, you repeatedly claimed the opposite.

Wikipedia doesn't and can't know why Biden pushed for Shokin to be fired. That would be an opinion claim rather than a fact claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261121)
What should make me believe you would accept a different source correcting a different false claim about Biden?

I don't think I am disagreeing with any of the facts in the Wikipedia articles. If Apple said that their logs showed that the email had never arrived on their infrastructure, then that would be a fact claim and, as with the wikipedia article, my default position would be to accept it.

wareyin 17th October 2020 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261129)
It's their email system that the email would have passed through. They know who the email was from, who the email was to, what the subject was and when it was sent. What more information would they need?

Oh, the actual emails have been released? So far as I knew the NY Post/Giuliani had only released one screenshot and several claims but zero actual emails. You know, the info we'd need to verify, the metadata that people keep telling you hasn't been released?


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261129)
IWikipedia doesn't and can't know why Biden pushed for Shokin to be fired. That would be an opinion claim rather than a fact claim.

Wikipedia directly says the international community pushed for Shokin to be fired for refusing to investigate companies including Burisma. You claim he was fired while/for investigating Burisma. You disagree with the plainly stated facts, as laid out on Wikipedia and sourced in their sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261129)
II don't think I am disagreeing with any of the facts in the Wikipedia articles. If Apple said that their logs showed that the email had never arrived on their infrastructure, then that would be a fact claim and, as with the wikipedia article, my default position would be to accept it.

See above, you have repeatedly made the claim that Shokin was investigating Burisma, which is in disagreement with what Wikipedia, as well as the international community on record at the time claimed.

Further, what actual emails including the metadata have been released for Apple to investigate?

So far, without Giuliani or the NY Post releasing more than a screenshot and some unverifiable claims, there is nothing to investigate.

Skeptic Ginger 17th October 2020 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13260940)
Again, you are misstating this. It's more like you are claiming that Walgreens sent me an email saying they sold me Heroin.

First of all I could safely deny it based on having searched my email and also not being involved in anything relating to Heroin. Then, were there money on the line I could get independent verification that there was no such email evident in my inbox. Since I am nobody of any significance, that is all I could do. Were I Biden though, I could get Walgreen to confirm that they hadn't sent the email. They would almost certainly have their email logged in an auditable way so we could get proof one way or the other. Were I Biden I would also be able to get Apple to confirm if the email had been received.

Maybe they will produce proof like this.

Pretending that what is easy for a campaign spending hundreds of millions of dollars and with institutional support should necessarily be easy for me is feeble.

Why the **** should he? God could come down from on high and pronounce the emails fake and it wouldn't change one ******* thing. This has nothing to do with the actual facts and everything to do with simply spreading lies because some people, like yourself apparently, suck those lies right up.

This is also why I'm not sure why anyone is engaging in this argument with you.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261140)
Oh, the actual emails have been released? So far as I knew the NY Post/Giuliani had only released one screenshot and several claims but zero actual emails. You know, the info we'd need to verify, the metadata that people keep telling you hasn't been released?

If you think it's only one email that has been provided, then you haven't been following the story. When I've been involved in data retrieval from email systems for court cases as so forth you typically get the email addresses of the people of interest, keywords or a subject and a date range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261140)
Wikipedia directly says the international community pushed for Shokin to be fired for refusing to investigate companies including Burisma.

Yes, and I have neither looked into, nor disputed this. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that people in the EU and US government made statements about thinking this prosecutor was corrupt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261140)
You claim he was fired while/for investigating Burisma. You disagree with the plainly stated facts, as laid out on Wikipedia and sourced in their sources.

No. Wikipedia doesn't and can't know what Biden's motivations or the motivations of the Ukrainian government were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261140)
above, you have repeatedly made the claim that Shokin was investigating Burisma, which is in disagreement with what Wikipedia, as well as the international community on record at the time claimed.

Wikipedia says the investigation was stalled. I have no opinion about that. Supposedly he was fired for not pushing forward with investigating/prosecuting Burisma and hence Biden got him fired. He was then replaced by a prosecutor who cleared Burisma of wrongdoing.... only for some time later evidence to come to light that caused the oligarch behind Burisma to flee the country. Those facts don't seem to be in dispute, so I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261140)
Further, what actual emails including the metadata have been released for Apple to investigate?

I don't think you need metadata to investigate this on the server side. It would be nice, but I don't understand why it would be needed. None of the email retrievals I've been involved with relating to legal cases have required metadata beyond what we have here to locate the emails of interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13261140)
So far, without Giuliani or the NY Post releasing more than a screenshot and some unverifiable claims, there is nothing to investigate.

The claims aren't unverifiable. Supposedly Fox has sources confirming one of the emails. Any of the companies involved, and certainly the law firm and the investment fund could locate the emails, if they exist, based on the information provided. Of course, if they do exist and they match the emails Giuliani has shown, then that would implicate them in corruption.

shuttlt 17th October 2020 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13261145)
Why the **** should he?

I didn't say he should. I'm saying it should be easy for him to do if he wants to. As I've said repeatedly, presumably his campaign don't feel it is in his strategic interest to do so. Perhaps as has been suggested on the thread it is because they believe that saying nothing is the best way to kill the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13261145)
God could come down from on high and pronounce the emails fake and it wouldn't change one ******* thing. This has nothing to do with the actual facts and everything to do with simply spreading lies because some people, like yourself apparently, suck those lies right up.

I disagree with this. Letting Trump gather as much focus on the story as possible only for it to be proved fraudulent would be a terrific way to deflate him going into the election. Having everybody ignore the story feeds into the narrative that the media and the Democrats coordinate with one another, though maybe that is a preferable narrative to feed than the alternatives.

The Greater Fool 17th October 2020 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13261145)
This is also why I'm not sure why anyone is engaging in this argument with you.

Isn't it obvious? Someone is wrong on the internet!

shuttlt 17th October 2020 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13261145)
This is also why I'm not sure why anyone is engaging in this argument with you.

If people stop attacking me by misstating my position, then all we are talking about is whether based on a list of senders and recipients, subject and a timestamp it is easy or impossible to search for traces of an email on an email server. That that is easy seems like a fairly non-contentious point, so perhaps there is indeed nothing to discuss?

shuttlt 17th October 2020 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 13261166)
Isn't it obvious? Someone is wrong on the internet!

:D

Skeptic Ginger 17th October 2020 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261163)
I didn't say he should. I'm saying it should be easy for him to do if he wants to. [snip]

Did you miss this part of my post?

This is also why I'm not sure why anyone is engaging in this argument with you.

wareyin 17th October 2020 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261152)
If you think it's only one email that has been provided, then you haven't been following the story. When I've been involved in data retrieval from email systems for court cases as so forth you typically get the email addresses of the people of interest, keywords or a subject and a date range.

Please provide a link to the actual emails that have been released, then. Not sources claiming what is in the emails, but the emails themselves.


Just kidding. We both know you can't because they haven't been released.


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261152)
Yes, and I have neither looked into, nor disputed this. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that people in the EU and US government made statements about thinking this prosecutor was corrupt.


No. Wikipedia doesn't and can't know what Biden's motivations or the motivations of the Ukrainian government were.

Is this obtuseness intentional?


Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261152)
Wikipedia says the investigation was stalled. I have no opinion about that. Supposedly he was fired for not pushing forward with investigating/prosecuting Burisma and hence Biden got him fired. He was then replaced by a prosecutor who cleared Burisma of wrongdoing.... only for some time later evidence to come to light that caused the oligarch behind Burisma to flee the country. Those facts don't seem to be in dispute, so I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

We are agreed that Shokin was not investigating Burisma then? Good, I'm glad you finally accepted that. Unfortunately, if you accept that then you're left with nothing nefarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13261152)
I don't think you need metadata to investigate this on the server side. It would be nice, but I don't understand why it would be needed. None of the email retrievals I've been involved with relating to legal cases have required metadata beyond what we have here to locate the emails of interest.


The claims aren't unverifiable. Supposedly Fox has sources confirming one of the emails. Any of the companies involved, and certainly the law firm and the investment fund could locate the emails, if they exist, based on the information provided. Of course, if they do exist and they match the emails Giuliani has shown, then that would implicate them in corruption.

Of course they're unverifiable. The Post/Giuliani haven't released them. There is nothing to verify without the actual emails. And even if one or more emails are eventually released and verified, that says nothing about the veracity of any claims about any other unreleased emails. Perhaps you have other posters on ignore, but the whole 'mix up real emails with doctored emails and outright false emails' disinformation campaign has been explained already. For Pete's sake, Trump's own people have been telling him that Giuliani is compromised and likely passing on Russian disinformation.

Giordano 17th October 2020 10:17 PM

An interesting article about how unconvinced even the accusers are and that even Giuliani gives it a 50/50 chance of it being a Russian disinformation campaign:

https://www.businessinsider.com/spie...igence-2020-10

llwyd 17th October 2020 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13261145)
This is also why I'm not sure why anyone is engaging in this argument with you.

Yeah, just to talk about this Russian fabricated bogus trash is a kind of a half-victory. Anyway, the major thing is that mainstream media is so far staying away or openly sceptical. Couldn't they have found some else than that corrupt madman Guliani to peddle this excrement?

Skeptic Ginger 17th October 2020 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llwyd (Post 13261270)
Yeah, just to talk about this Russian fabricated bogus trash is a kind of a half-victory. Anyway, the major thing is that mainstream media is so far staying away or openly sceptical. Couldn't they have found some else than that corrupt madman Guliani to peddle this excrement?

As you can see from how QAnon, Obama's birth certificate, all of Trump's constant lies, and this 'excrement' as you aptly call it: we Trump and his cult are in a post-truth world. They can put the most ridiculous crap out there and milk it. Twitter just announced they will no longer block this email fabrication. They claim it was because the NYPost article "could no longer be considered private." But the NYT's take is they are caving to political pressure.

NYT: In Reversal, Twitter Is No Longer Blocking New York Post Article
Quote:

The rapid-fire changes have made Twitter and Facebook the butt of jokes and invigorated efforts to regulate them. On Friday, Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said he wanted to subpoena Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, to testify over the “censorship” of the New York Post article since the social network had also reduced the visibility of the piece. Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, said that Twitter was “against us.” And President Trump shared a satirical article on Twitter that mocked the company’s policies....

A Twitter spokesman confirmed that the company would now allow the link to the New York Post article to be shared because the information had spread across the internet and could no longer be considered private. He declined further comment.
What a mess.

Tero 18th October 2020 05:29 AM

Why would Zuckerberg not be allowed to censor FB? Foxnews censors comments to their stories.

Tero 18th October 2020 05:40 AM

Speaking of Fox, they are happy to spin as much from this as possible. It will soon turn to Russia as the only topic you can keep spinning as news:
Quote:

Trump in recent days has drawn attention to the new revelations from the Post, something that drew criticism from Schiff.

“The origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin and the president is only too happy to have Kremlin help in trying to amplify it,” he said Friday on CNN.

The Associated Press reported that the FBI is investigating whether the emails are tied to a foreign influence operation, although the exact scope of what was being investigated was not clear.

Schiff was one of the key figures in both the investigation into allegations about Russian interference in 2016 and the 2019 impeachment hearings, and has a history of making dramatic claims about President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board in May accused Schiff of spreading "falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence."

On Friday, Schiff said that Russia has an "obvious interest" in denigrating Biden and wants Trump to win.

"I think we know who the driving force behind this smear has been all along, it's been the president and the Kremlin," he said, calling him "the gift that doesn't stop giving" for Moscow.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ada...-email-kremlin

Squeegee Beckenheim 18th October 2020 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13261279)

Worth pointing out that Trump shared the satirical article apparently believing it to be real.

slyjoe 18th October 2020 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tero (Post 13261377)
Why would Zuckerberg not be allowed to censor FB? Foxnews censors comments to their stories.

I think it has to do with Rule 203, as to whether you qualify as a 3rd party or a producer of content.

The Great Zaganza 18th October 2020 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13261453)
I think it has to do with Rule 203, as to whether you qualify as a 3rd party or a producer of content.

I believe that the FB Terms&Conditions allow Zuckerberg to do whatever the hell he wants.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.