kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:10 am
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:48 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:22 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:10 pm
kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:56 am
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:46 pm
Actually the government effort to connect with social media companies was open and aboveboard, and most of what the Intercept published was available by searching websites.
The government was not trying to [censor or] "control" social media companies - it was trying to get those companies (who had to agree to cooperate) to better keep junk information off those sites.
But the stupid reporter from the Intercept tried to make this one look like a nefarious effort, when in fact it was not.
This didn't age well.
It wasnt censorship. It was "handled."
care to explain?
Which government made a decision to try to "[censor or] "control" social media companies"???
The Trump government???
Sure. As the Twitter files pretty plainly shows, Trump did it AND Biden's campaign was censoring politically troublesome Hunter news via Twitter employee back doors. Most certainly political censorship, rather than protecting the nation from Russian election misinformation.
Did you read the article immediately above?
If anything is "pretty plainly" shown, it's that the federal government had nothing to do with this particular decision among Twitter executives. Their warning was months earlier and nothing to do with this info. (Unless, there's something I haven't seen, that's the only reasonable conclusion).
The Biden folks did reach out about the nude photos, which is in policy...anyone can and should reach out to request such not be published and none of that was as a government.
so, a total nothing.
I think this is just more right wing clap trap.
Why give it oxygen, Kram?
You want to say the Twitter execs overreacted to the possibility that these were hacked materials ala the wiki dump by the Russians? fine.
Maybe so, maybe not.
But definitely not the government controlling a social media site.
You have no problem with knowing Trump govt admin officials asking for items to be suppressed? We don’t know what those things were. That’s the next shoe to drop.
And we know that Biden people didn’t reach out about naked photos and him doing drugs and sex.
They reached out about the Post story and went through extreme measures to have a newspaper story suppressed and deny sharing it publicly OR privately.
First, I'd have no issue with the Biden folks telling the Twitter folks they didn't want them to run the story, whether because they thought it was BS sleazy, much less hacked, or because they didn't want nude pictures and such published. They ain't the government. They absolutely have a right to challenge the story, which was sleazy BS on its face, then , AND now.
Weren't you in journalism? where's the evidence that the Biden people..."went through extreme measures to have a newspaper story suppressed and deny sharing it publicly OR privately."????
Would you actually publish that statement as a fact, supported by known evidence???
No, I definitely don't have a problem with "government" officials, in any administration, warning/asking social media sites to be careful about not promoting hacked materials...we really do face all sorts of hacking threats and publishing those materials is extremely problematic...there's zero evidence (at least as what I've seen) that any Trump officials asked for the Hunter story or any hacked materials from it not to be published, in specific. Now, it would indeed be a different matter if government officials demanded/threatened a publisher for a story that was factually based and defensible...as the Nixon people did with the WAPO...not appropriate. But there's a very real tension between government interests in protecting classified material from leaks...but threatening publishers, not ok...but asking for discretion on what to publish, based on actual damage to the nation is both understandable and appropriate. But asking hackers to do so for political benefit...as Trump did publicly of the Russians...yes, sleazy as all get out...
You're glossing over the point.
Sleazy or embarrassing, whistleblower or political hit job. That doesn't make it false. This was not a story that was GOING to be published. It already was.
Taibbi reported the Biden admin used its connections to get the story banned from being shared on the self proclaimed "town square" app, Twitter. Even privately - which are the extreme measure I'm referring.
Again, this is how current president worked to suppress public information before he was even elected. What's his staff "with connections" been up to since?
More of the same.
Look at anything regarding COVID. Limiting information and quelling discussion is this president's MO. Under the guise of "discretion."
Bullsh1t. It's brand/message control.
mmm, again, would you have published the story?
Was it provably true?
Or was it on its face immensely questionable, stinking of a political hit job plant?
Start there.
Then decide whether you, as a different publisher, would then let your megaphone on steroids spread the story to millions of people without comment on it being, to your journalistic standards, most likely a BS political hit job, if at all?
Would you let your personal political preferences define what you publish and what not?
Had the story been about emails found on a laptop 'discovered' by a known, lying POS Democrat ally of a candidate, about the son and girlfriend of the sitting POTUS doing wild amounts of coke before their convention speeches the August prior, and speculation that the sitting POTUS knew all about it....would you publish that story in the days prior to voting?
It's not as if millions of people weren't saying, 'look at those two, they're obviously high, coked up' without the story...but would you publish a story coming from the lying POS Dem ally???
(Didn't millions of people already know that Hunter had had all sorts of addiction problems and been involved in sleazy dealings in Ukraine, China, etc?)
I would not publish either 'laptop story' under those circumstances.
and if I was running a private company, social media platform, I'd put the kibosh on that story getting spread by my private platform. Find another way to tell your friends, knuckleheads, not on my platform.
BTW, I'd certainly also put the kibosh on having medical misinformation spread...put aside the ethical or journalistic standards, and potential legal liability, I'd be self-interested to have my platform be attractive to advertisers...so, I can pay my employees, build my platform, and disseminate accurate information...with a return to my shareholders...
Do I know what is medical misinformation myself? Or do I get the CDC's input? Other such expert input?
And oh yeah, I'd really prefer to not tick off the government of any country in which I've decided to operate...so, I will at least look at their input as to what is ok and what is not, what is "pollution" and what is not...I might decide not to operate in a country that has too heavy a hand at such, a hand that violates my own understanding of truth, but I'm gonna be conscious of it for sure.