Democrats and journalists (but I repeat myself) hardest hit.
Turns Out the Hunter Biden Laptop Story Was True
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
I’m sure the nyt will be banned from social media until after the midterms
Yeah, congrats on knowing what we all knew two years ago.
Right? And it only took them 2 years of denying the fvck out of it to get to this point. Well done MSM.
Last edited:
Shocker our resident libertarian is cracking jokes while the free press was banned from social media
So after 2 years of the entire planet knowing this is true, complete with a forensic audit verifying it was actually Hunter's laptop, the NYT comes out of nowhere and gives us the "fact check" everyone needed to believe it.
Hmm, what motive could the alphabet agencies have to run this story now in their most prominent media mouthpiece?
Despite giving away billions of stolen taxpayer dollars to be laundered in Ukraine and returned the the American oligarchy, Biden really isn't playing ball with the war the deep staters really want. Hmmm.
Hmm, what motive could the alphabet agencies have to run this story now in their most prominent media mouthpiece?
Despite giving away billions of stolen taxpayer dollars to be laundered in Ukraine and returned the the American oligarchy, Biden really isn't playing ball with the war the deep staters really want. Hmmm.
Social media is not the government, there is no "free press" argument to be made. Libertarians would say businesses have rights to run their business as they see fit...so your comment makes you look like a bigger moron than the usual on this board, congrats.
Of course it was true. The media hid it for the Dems.
It would have helped influence the election and they knew it.
The Press is bad, very bad.
It would have helped influence the election and they knew it.
The Press is bad, very bad.
We need new legislation for them. Need to have a national conversation about what to do with the modern day town square.
The founding fathers knew centralized control of speech was a bad idea. They just didn’t know it would be big tech and not he government with that control.
I don’t know what to do exactly, but status quo is very dangerous IMO. Second and third order effects of a centralized body censoring (what they deem) “misinformation” is alarming to me.
I disagree. I view the internet itself as the "modern day town square." And all outlets have access to that town square. It is the obligation of the citizen to judge how a particular company uses that town square, and act accordingly; democracy ain't for the lazy.
The government forcing on a publisher or platform what to say or allow is actual prior restraint of speech.
If anything, technology and multiple choices of outlets have made media and getting information far more open than the Founding Fathers could have ever imagined.
Well we could bust up monopolies. That would help some with the problem of some corporations being way too powerful.
Some good points but these media platforms aren't democracies or even based on democratic principles. They are basically governed by the whim of their respective management teams, thereby allowing, or disallowing, voices to be heard by millions, based on what they deem acceptable.
Twitter banning the NY Post for falsifiable reasons should be liable for lawsuits because of the public way it effects the NY Post's ability to do its job.
Are they publishers or platforms then?
You’re a statist, the diametrical opposite of a libertarian. Supporting drug use and gay marriage doesn’t make you a libertarian.
This is the answer, mainly for Facebook and Google. I don't see Twitter as any sort of virtual monopoly, I see it more as a niche (a very large niche) platform that doesn't have its claws in every damn thing, it's much like Reddit.
As media itself has always been. What media outlet publishes every single bit of news? Or prints every single letter to the editor? Would you support the government forcing media to do these things? I hope not.
Hogwash. The NY Post is still available, in whole, in print and online. Should the government force a news stand to carry their print edition? Of course not.
Social media is a platform. But the notions of prior restraint should apply to both platforms and publishers, as well as individual citizens.
Social media is not the functional equivalent of anything we’ve seen in history and trying to shoehorn it into an existing category has caused us no end of trouble.
But the idea of politicians actually sitting down like adults and hammering out a way to deal with it seems like a fantasy.
But the idea of politicians actually sitting down like adults and hammering out a way to deal with it seems like a fantasy.
I think that is one of the main reasons he hated Trump. Why? Because Trump was an outsider and disrupted the party. How could an outsider beat these magnificent elder statesmen. Meanwhile Biden and his family funneling money on our dime throughout the world.
Statism is defined as the belief government is legitimate to some sort of degree. The degree, that is where the argument is. Unless you are a nut and a true anti-statist...which is anarchy. Are you arguing government authority of any degree is illegitimate?
You Randian nuts on the L side like to think you are anti-statists. In reality, most use it as a justification for egoism (it is no surprise that Ayn Rand was, as @wvkeeper(HN) said, a wicked woman). I've said it here many times: one of the core foundations of libertarianism should be that if you fvck others, know there will be laws. You want fewer laws? Stop fvcking others for your own gain. No one thought to make laws against dumping chemicals in the river until motherfvckers began actually dumping chemicals in the river.
I am very Hobbesian in my view of the state of man. I've seen nothing in my life to prove otherwise. Thus, the state is necessary.
Well, if all things were equal, then I would agree with you Raoul. However, the reason we regulate Utility companies is because it is hard to gain entrance into the fray. Small rural electric companies cannot deliver what AEP or Duke can deliver with ease on any given day. The same applies to media platforms. Recently Parler tried and failed.
(From a google search) After reports that Parler was used to coordinate the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol, several companies denied it their services. Apple and Google removed Parler's mobile app from their app stores, and Parler went offline on January 10, 2021, when Amazon Web Services canceled its hosting services.
So the idea that it is easy to compete doesn't hold water IMO. The real question is this, is FaceBook a publisher or a platform? Either way, being kept off of FB or Twitter is detrimental to any national organization these days. The only liberal I am aware of of any stature that has been unfairly treated is Robert Kennedy jr. You have to admit when Putin has a platform and the Taliban as well but Trump doesn't that is problematic. I agree that people can think for themselves and we really don't need some soy boy deciding what we can read and what we shouldn't be able to read. Hard to do that when you aren't allowed to enter the "town square."
Decent points. But let me ask you this: why should Apple and Google host an app that failed to adhere to their TOS? I would not expect them to do that for me if I were a developer, would you?
edit: I forgot to say, Parler found a way to get back online and has an app. There is always a way. Maybe not the easiest way, but a way.
As Hokies noted, the issue is virtual monopoly. Break 'em up.
And I will not sit here and tell you liberals would not have a shit fit if their favorites got dumped. Of course they would! But they too would be wrong.
FWIW, Trump should not have been banned on Twitter and FB until he left office. I believe it is important social media documents the bullshit from governments and officials spew on it (thus, yes Putin and the Taliban should be allowed). Once he became a private citizen, well fvck him if he can't follow the rules.
Trump is a wicked person and has authoritarian tendencies. These are things you apparently like. If I had an issue with outsiders, why would I have voted for Perot? He turned out to be loopy, but he wasn't wicked. Why would I continue to vote for third party candidates that are the definition of outsiders?
Didn't vote for him. But you voted for the wicked guy with authoritarian tendencies. This is the difference in you and I.
Last edited:
So let’s talk about Parler. But not why anyone wanted it taken down, how it was taken down.
Effectively there were two ways. One, nobody would host them on their servers. Two, the major storefronts for mobile devices wouldn’t carry it.
So, should there be legislation that states that server warehouses should be forced to provide service indiscriminately? Similar to how a power company can’t say they don’t want to do business with a particular person/business?
And the second problem was the app stores stopped carrying them. I own my phone. Should Apple still get to tell me what apps I can and can’t load? This is less of a problem as you can still access the site on a mobile device if it can find hosting, but there is a growing problem of us never really owning anything, just paying for a license to use it. It’s prevalent in video games now, and as streaming gets more popular it’s showing up there too.
Effectively there were two ways. One, nobody would host them on their servers. Two, the major storefronts for mobile devices wouldn’t carry it.
So, should there be legislation that states that server warehouses should be forced to provide service indiscriminately? Similar to how a power company can’t say they don’t want to do business with a particular person/business?
And the second problem was the app stores stopped carrying them. I own my phone. Should Apple still get to tell me what apps I can and can’t load? This is less of a problem as you can still access the site on a mobile device if it can find hosting, but there is a growing problem of us never really owning anything, just paying for a license to use it. It’s prevalent in video games now, and as streaming gets more popular it’s showing up there too.
Or maybe most famously, Adobe products.
We haven’t managed to reconcile our traditional concept of ownership and property rights with the digital age yet. And it’s only getting worse.
Oh it’ll be fine - I’m sure the olds in government will have a good grasp on these concepts. Warren really understood crypto and blockchains really well the other day.
You pay your quarter (in social media's case, the quarter is you give them your soul for advertising) and they give you a newspaper, or whatever you want to call the page for each outlet.
Honest question - Did anyone really believe the laptop wasn’t his? If you did, you were ignoring quite a bit of evidence that any reasonable person paying a modicum of attention could see. It wasn’t like his name & character hadn’t been in the news.
Hunter couldn’t even competently explain his appointments or value on a Ukrainian board. Again, if you don’t see an issue, you’re blatantly choosing not to. Think his “art work” wasn’t a scam? If the NYTimes admission is a shock to anyone, they’re likely the same people who refuse to admit there’s anything wrong with Joe. It’s blatantly obvious unless you’re unreasonable.
Hunter couldn’t even competently explain his appointments or value on a Ukrainian board. Again, if you don’t see an issue, you’re blatantly choosing not to. Think his “art work” wasn’t a scam? If the NYTimes admission is a shock to anyone, they’re likely the same people who refuse to admit there’s anything wrong with Joe. It’s blatantly obvious unless you’re unreasonable.
If you're going to mention not paying attention, then what do you have to say about those that voted for orange Jesus the first time, the second time, and those that would again. Let's hear it....
So..., why can the internet overlords decide who their businesses will provide services to but this business can't??? (Even after it went to the Supreme Court once...)
www.nbcnews.com
P.S. it's easier to find a different baker than it is finding a different social media platform...
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner in court again for denying LGBTQ customer
Christian business owner Jack Phillips is being sued by a transgender woman who tried to order a trans-themed birthday cake from his Colorado bakery.
www.nbcnews.com
P.S. it's easier to find a different baker than it is finding a different social media platform...
Couldn’t tell you the last time I saw a post by greed so if he doesn’t register, that’s on me for ignoring him. To be fair, though, I did specify the person would have to be reasonable.
Yeah, some of the conservative idiots would like for a lot of us to forget the mistake they made.
You're an idiot for many reasons, not the least of which is considering yourself as reasonable. trumptard.
Trust me, I can't see any of that little dipshit's posts either.
But, I still call him out like the moron he is and he's powerless to do anything about it, because I won't see his useless response 🤣
