FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Chicks]

Top US conservatives pushing Russia’s spin on Ukraine war, experts say
Some of the Kremlin’s most blatant falsehoods aimed at undercutting US aid are promoted by major figures on the right
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-ukraine-war

Whell's World.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Top US conservatives pushing Russia’s spin on Ukraine war, experts say
Some of the Kremlin’s most blatant falsehoods aimed at undercutting US aid are promoted by major figures on the right
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-ukraine-war

Whell's World.

More whining about audit.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

More whining about audit.

As our resident Putin apologist, you know full well that wingnuts' opposition to support for Ukraine has exactly nothing to do with an audit.

[finnbow]

Yesterday, Qevin McCarthy tweeted:

Through coercion, coordination, and influence, the federal government has used Twitter and other big tech as its stick to silence speech it doesn’t like.

We will bring accountability. And Americans’ free speech will be protected.

He seems to have forgotten about this:

[donquixote99]

McCarthy, quoted above: "Through coercion, coordination, and influence, the federal government has used Twitter and other big tech as its stick to silence speech it doesn’t like."

He should stop at coercion, that's very bad, and the other stuff ain't nothing. Unless he can't really show coercion.

And the 'speech' he refers to is lies, defamation, and hate speech. Does he like that stuff?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

McCarthy, quoted above: "Through coercion, coordination, and influence, the federal government has used Twitter and other big tech as its stick to silence speech it doesn’t like."

He should stop at coercion, that's very bad, and the other stuff ain't nothing. Unless he can't really show coercion.

And the 'speech' he refers to is lies, defamation, and hate speech. Does he like that stuff?

And there has been exactly zero evidence of any such coercion.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

McCarthy, quoted above: "Through coercion, coordination, and influence, the federal government has used Twitter and other big tech as its stick to silence speech it doesn’t like."

He should stop at coercion, that's very bad, and the other stuff ain't nothing. Unless he can't really show coercion.

And the 'speech' he refers to is lies, defamation, and hate speech. Does he like that stuff?

Yes, until these hate mongers themselves are directly attacked which is what I m hoping will happen.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

McCarthy, quoted above: "Through coercion, coordination, and influence, the federal government has used Twitter and other big tech as its stick to silence speech it doesn’t like."

He should stop at coercion, that's very bad, and the other stuff ain't nothing. Unless he can't really show coercion.

And the 'speech' he refers to is lies, defamation, and hate speech. Does he like that stuff?

Originally Posted by finnbow

And there has been exactly zero evidence of any such coercion.

When you're riling up the rabid masses you don't need evidence or facts or even proof.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If you truly think Musk is being transparent right now, you really need another source of news. The big reveal about Twitter moderation is that people who did not know about something until now assume not knowing about it meant that it was a huge secret.

The Twitter Files is a lesson in how you can report on the deliberately-curated internal goings-on of any decent sized organization, and if you make it seem like you are breaking news, you can make even the most mundane shit seem scandalous to a receptive, conspiracy-prone audience.

This will fade like the fart in the wind that it is. It is nothing other than the latest conservative contrived scandal du jour concocted to try to create some sort of moral equivalency to their own depraved behavior. I am not even a wee bit surprised that you have been taken in by it.

Uh, OK. That's one perspective, and I'm sure it's also your preferred spin. There are a few things wrong with that perspective, however.

1) A little under half (48%) of U.S. adults say they get news from social media “often” or “sometimes,” a 5 percentage point decline compared with 2020, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted July 26-Aug. 8, 2021. That number is only going to increase over time.

2) In that same survey: In a separate question asking users of 10 social media sites whether they regularly get news there, about a third of U.S. adults (31%) say they get news regularly on Facebook, while about one-in-five Americans (22%) say they regularly get news on YouTube. Twitter and Instagram are regular news sources for 13% and 11% of Americans, respectively.

3) We know - this was known before the recent Twitter document dump - that the FBI met with Mark Zuckerberg ad specifically told them that there would be a "Russian hack and leak" operation that might include information about Hunter Biden. In August of 2022, Zuckerberg stated that Facebook limited the circulation of the NY Post story about Biden on their platform as a result of the FBI warning.

4) We now know that similar warnings were received by, and more extreme action was taken by, Twitter to limit the circulation of the story.

5) The FBI has had the Hunter Biden laptop since 2019.

At the very least, this looks and smells bad.
1) The FBI has now had some involvement in the last two elections. That stinks.
2). It's reasonable to assume that the FBI was aware of the contents of the Biden laptop before the warnings about "Russian hacking" were given provided to social media outlets.
3) If nearly half of Americans get their news from social media, then nearly half of Americans had access to news limited by the FBI. It is NOT the FBI's role to engage in "censorship by proxy".
4) Taken to the extreme, the FBI knew that others had copies of the laptop contents and that it was possible that this content would become public. Some might look at this as a "preemptive strike" to "discredit" the info before it was made public.

Again, if you're not concerned about the FBI taking action that limits the circulation of news stories, that's up to you. I strongly suspect that you'd be howling if it was determined that the FBI had been involved in limiting the circulation of any potentially negative story about Trump.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh, OK. That's one perspective, and I'm sure it's also your preferred spin. There are a few things wrong with that perspective, however.

1) A little under half (48%) of U.S. adults say they get news from social media “often” or “sometimes,” a 5 percentage point decline compared with 2020, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted July 26-Aug. 8, 2021. That number is only going to increase over time.

2) In that same survey: In a separate question asking users of 10 social media sites whether they regularly get news there, about a third of U.S. adults (31%) say they get news regularly on Facebook, while about one-in-five Americans (22%) say they regularly get news on YouTube. Twitter and Instagram are regular news sources for 13% and 11% of Americans, respectively.

3) We know - this was known before the recent Twitter document dump - that the FBI met with Mark Zuckerberg ad specifically told them that there would be a "Russian hack and leak" operation that might include information about Hunter Biden. In August of 2022, Zuckerberg stated that Facebook limited the circulation of the NY Post story about Biden on their platform as a result of the FBI warning.

4) We now know that similar warnings were received by, and more extreme action was taken by, Twitter to limit the circulation of the story.

5) The FBI has had the Hunter Biden laptop since 2019.

At the very least, this looks and smells bad.
1) The FBI has now had some involvement in the last two elections. That stinks.
2). It's reasonable to assume that the FBI was aware of the contents of the Biden laptop before the warnings about "Russian hacking" were given provided to social media outlets.
3) If nearly half of Americans get their news from social media, then nearly half of Americans had access to news limited by the FBI. It is NOT the FBI's role to engage in "censorship by proxy".
4) Taken to the extreme, the FBI knew that others had copies of the laptop contents and that it was possible that this content would become public. Some might look at this as a "preemptive strike" to "discredit" the info before it was made public.

Again, if you're not concerned about the FBI taking action that limits the circulation of news stories, that's up to you. I strongly suspect that you'd be howling if it was determined that the FBI had been involved in limiting the circulation of any potentially negative story about Trump.

It was the Trump administration FBI who warned social media companies about potential Russian, Chinese and Iranian influence operations and Zuckerberg chose to heed those warnings (as did Fox News and the WSJ). Indeed, the NYPost couldn't get its regular "journalists" to write the article, so they went to Emma-Jo Morris, a former producer on Hannity who currently works with Breitbart (neither of which have even a shred of journalistic integrity).

The Trump campaign received similar warnings and they did not object, knowing full well that such operations did indeed occur in 2016 (and resulted in multiple indictments/arrests) and that Rudy got Trump impeached for trying to concoct similar false stories in 2019 (and for which Rudy was under federal investigation under the FISA Act).

Your reaction to this is a perfect example of "people who did not know about something until now assume not knowing about it meant that it was a huge secret."

What are your feelings about "catch and kill" operations performed by the National Enquirer on Trump's behalf (and with his knowledge) that actually broke election and bank fraud laws or of Fox News barely mentioning candidate Trump's myriad legal troubles over the past several weeks? These are verifiable true stories about Trump criminality, unlike the Hunter Biden laptop story (its chain of custody, provenance and a majority of its contents could not be verified). The WashPost wrote several articles immediately after the NYPost story was released showing how shaky and (mostly) unverifiable it was (and still is - only 22,000 of 286,000 files could be verified).