Elon Musk (yet another authoritarian)

[a fan]

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.

No comment about details like it was irresponsible for the Post to run that story in the first place?

And no, the contents of the copies of the laptop have NEVER BEEN CONFIRMED as 100% accurate. Sorry. Another detail left out. If we're gonna complain about this, the details matter. Not one law was broken in those files....so, it was about muddying the waters, not about hiding some important truth.

Musk is outing editorial decisions at twitter. Know what I got from what I've read?

A. it's an impossible job...and now it's hilariously Musk's job
B. there's NO WAY I would have run that Post piece before the election. Zero chance. Too dirty. Too "ew", with Giuliani's icky finger prints all over it.


And again: you're telling me that in your career, there wasn't back and forth between your editors and politicians and other powerful people on what stories to run or details in them......all day, every day? If you got a strong denial from a powerful figure that something didn't happen? Would your editors pull the piece until confirmation of the details were found? You bet your sweet *ss. Now is that corruption? Or checking facts before publishing?

Picture what those twitter editorial conversations would have looked like at your old place of business....and what those back and forth phone calls and emails would have looked like had they been made public. It would have looked WORSE than what we're seeing with twitter, don't you think?

[Farfromgeneva]

Here's what I think happened.

The Russians, Trump, or someone out to damage Joe Biden hacked Hunter's laptop and uploaded the contents. They then found a laptop they thought they could pass off as Hunter's and downloaded the contents onto it. The cherry on top (they thought) was to slap a Beau Biden sticker on it.

They then salted the new "Hunter" laptop with all sorts of stuff, salacious and otherwise. At this point the laptop had some genuine content from Hunter's hacked computer plus a lot of other phony stuff mixed in so it was hard to tell what was real and what was fake.

Then they took the laptop to either an accomplice or a stooge at the Delaware "computer repair shop." And as any legit computer repair guy would do, the accomplice turned the laptop over to Rudy. At this point, anyone seriously reading this story would sign off and go get a sandwich from the fridge.

If this was really Hunter's laptop, why has no one ever said his fingerprints or DNA were found on it? Why would Hunter, who lived in California on the date the laptop was allegedly dropped off at the "repair shop," go to a shop in Delaware as opposed to one near where he lived? A pretty big oopsie on the part of the conspirators.

And, lastly, and most significantly (and most laughably), why would a real computer repair guy turn the laptop over to Rudy Colludy?

Oh, and about the alleged "suppression" of the story, you could go to the news stand and buy a copy of the NY Post. Or you could read it on the Post's website by doing a ten second search on the computer in your pocket or at your desk. So, yeah, the story was "censored" all right.

If you even got to that point. I was already knees deep in a Homer Simpson/Al Bundy masterpieces by then.

[Farfromgeneva]

you left out the computer store owner is legally blind

Oh, yeah. I did. Good catch. Haha.

People bemoan the fall of journalism on one hand...and then totally ignore that there's NO WAY a respectable outfit would have run that Post story in the first place.

Can't have it both ways.

The Post is well respected in NYC corporate bathrooms where the alternative is playing “guess the wingtip” of your stall mate as alternative.

[MDlaxfan76]

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...

[kramerica.inc]

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.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.

You wanted his campaign to be tanked based on speculation.

[njbill]

I think there is a big difference between suppressing the Hunter story and Covid information.

Fundamentally, of course, the Hunter story was not rendered completely unavailable. It was available to anybody who wanted to read it. It was all over the Internet and Fox News so anybody who wanted to read the story could access it in mere seconds. But, yeah, let people read it if they want to on Twitter.

Covid involved the most serious health emergency the world had seen in maybe 100 years. I think it was entirely appropriate to suppress misinformation because it could directly affect the health and even life of people who read it. Were there perhaps mistakes made in this regard? Sure. Maybe some overkill? Possibly. It was, after all, a “novel“ virus. I think the people who suppressed Covid information were well intentioned, that is, they did so for health and safety reasons, not political ones.

Others may disagree.

[PizzaSnake]

I'm surprised he isn't experimenting on humans...yet. Wait until people go to Mars. What do you suppose will go on there?

"Those complaints include claims that pressure from Musk—who is the company’s CEO—to speed up the development of Neuralink’s technology has led to substandard experiments. Reuters reported that these failed experiments needed to be repeated, leading to more and more test animals being killed.

Current and former employees told the news agency that Musk was pushing hard for faster progress at Neuralink, telling employees in a February email: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”

That internal memo reportedly came 10 minutes after another message from Musk that included a news article about Swiss scientists whose electrical implant helped a paralyzed man to walk."

HIs ego couldn't tolerate not being the "first". He is a danger to society that needs to be removed. If any of his supporters think that he regards them as more than "props" they are delusional.

https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/elon-mus ... 0-animals/

But hey, he's a visionary. Free-dumb!!!

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

[a fan]

Look at anything regarding COVID. Limiting information and quelling discussion is this president's MO. Under the guise of "discretion."

What kind of revisionist history is this?

The "quelling of discussion" where doctors pushed an effective vaccine over (insert unproven cure of the month) for Covid happened under Trump. Rational folks understand why doctors did that.....to keep people from dying.


Next Pandemic? You'll be able to get all the disinformation you are asking for, Kram.

The poor will choke on this disinformation, and die unnecessarily by the hundreds of thousands.

The rich will get the best possible information, care, and isolation.

That's what you want? Great news, because that's what you'll get.


....this is your idea of a good outcome? Boy, are we not on the same page, my man.....

[kramerica.inc]

Sure. As the Twitter files pretty plainly show, 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.

You wanted his campaign to be tanked based on speculation.

It wasn't speculation. Hunter’s controversial business dealings in Ukraine and China were all confirmed. As were the legitimacy of the 20K+ emails, videos, texts and data on the hard drive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... na-laptop/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-bid ... -analysis/

[a fan]

It wasn't speculation. Hunter’s controversial business dealings in Ukraine and China were all confirmed. As were the legitimacy of the 20K+ emails, videos, texts and data on the hard drive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... na-laptop/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-bid ... -analysis/

Check the dates of the "confirmations". So yep, the story could have been cleared to run......in 2022.

Kram-----you're REALLY going to pretend a former journalist doesn't get this? Come on, man.

They gave the alleged files----in pieces, to the NYPost three weeks before the election, kram.

Stop pretending you don't know this.

Your former employer would NEVER have run this story before the election. The Posts own writers wouldn't sign off on the piece, FFS.

Why are you acting like you don't understand this?

[njbill]

The CBS article does not negate anything I said in my concededly speculative account of what I think happened. Everything I said could still be true even if the CBS report is entirely accurate.

Most interesting to me, the analysis does not say Hunter’s fingerprints or DNA were on the laptop. Pretty darn huge omission in my book.

The thrust of the CBS story is that their expert found the laptop had not been tampered with after it had been dropped off at the repair shop. Well, duh.

I don’t think the assertion that all of the contents have been authenticated is accurate. My understanding is that some, e.g., emails have been authenticated, but many have not been proved to be authentic or fabricated. They simply can’t tell one way or the other.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Sure. As the Twitter files pretty plainly show, 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.

You wanted his campaign to be tanked based on speculation.

It wasn't speculation. Hunter’s controversial business dealings in Ukraine and China were all confirmed. As were the legitimacy of the 20K+ emails, videos, texts and data on the hard drive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... na-laptop/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-bid ... -analysis/

You wanted Joe’s campaign to be tanked. That’s all you have to say. It would be more honest.

[jhu72]

I'm surprised he isn't experimenting on humans...yet. Wait until people go to Mars. What do you suppose will go on there?

"Those complaints include claims that pressure from Musk—who is the company’s CEO—to speed up the development of Neuralink’s technology has led to substandard experiments. Reuters reported that these failed experiments needed to be repeated, leading to more and more test animals being killed.

Current and former employees told the news agency that Musk was pushing hard for faster progress at Neuralink, telling employees in a February email: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”

That internal memo reportedly came 10 minutes after another message from Musk that included a news article about Swiss scientists whose electrical implant helped a paralyzed man to walk."

HIs ego couldn't tolerate not being the "first". He is a danger to society that needs to be removed. If any of his supporters think that he regards them as more than "props" they are delusional.

https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/elon-mus ... 0-animals/

But hey, he's a visionary. Free-dumb!!!

+1

... as I have watched this guy over the past year to 18 months it seems more and more like he has a deep seeded psychological problem, not unlike Trump's. He is certainly not what his press sells him as. As the curtain is rolled back he will become more unstable.

[youthathletics]

I'm surprised he isn't experimenting on humans...yet. Wait until people go to Mars. What do you suppose will go on there?

"Those complaints include claims that pressure from Musk—who is the company’s CEO—to speed up the development of Neuralink’s technology has led to substandard experiments. Reuters reported that these failed experiments needed to be repeated, leading to more and more test animals being killed.

Current and former employees told the news agency that Musk was pushing hard for faster progress at Neuralink, telling employees in a February email: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”

That internal memo reportedly came 10 minutes after another message from Musk that included a news article about Swiss scientists whose electrical implant helped a paralyzed man to walk."

HIs ego couldn't tolerate not being the "first". He is a danger to society that needs to be removed. If any of his supporters think that he regards them as more than "props" they are delusional.

https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/elon-mus ... 0-animals/

But hey, he's a visionary. Free-dumb!!!

+1

... as I have watched this guy over the past year to 18 months it seems more and more like he has a deep seeded psychological problem, not unlike Trump's. He is certainly not what his press sells him as. As the curtain is rolled back he will become more unstable.

Sounds more like jealousy and judgery.

The likes of Picasso, DaVinci, Napoleon Bonaparte, Marie Curie, Lee Byung-Chull...all significant contributors to changing history and are claimed to suffer from mental illness.

[Kismet]

I'm surprised he isn't experimenting on humans...yet. Wait until people go to Mars. What do you suppose will go on there?

"Those complaints include claims that pressure from Musk—who is the company’s CEO—to speed up the development of Neuralink’s technology has led to substandard experiments. Reuters reported that these failed experiments needed to be repeated, leading to more and more test animals being killed.

Current and former employees told the news agency that Musk was pushing hard for faster progress at Neuralink, telling employees in a February email: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”

That internal memo reportedly came 10 minutes after another message from Musk that included a news article about Swiss scientists whose electrical implant helped a paralyzed man to walk."

HIs ego couldn't tolerate not being the "first". He is a danger to society that needs to be removed. If any of his supporters think that he regards them as more than "props" they are delusional.

https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/elon-mus ... 0-animals/

But hey, he's a visionary. Free-dumb!!!

+1

... as I have watched this guy over the past year to 18 months it seems more and more like he has a deep seeded psychological problem, not unlike Trump's. He is certainly not what his press sells him as. As the curtain is rolled back he will become more unstable.

Sounds more like jealousy and judgery.

The likes of Picasso, DaVinci, Napoleon Bonaparte, Marie Curie, Lee Byung-Chull...all significant contributors to changing history and are claimed to suffer from mental illness.

Then again there's Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh who often did weird things - like railing against immigrants and immigration (especiallly anti-semitic hate and vitriol) and accepting honors from Hitler and Goering in 1930s. Ford even bought a newspaper so promote his views

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dearborn_Independent

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperi ... llen-hero/

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm surprised he isn't experimenting on humans...yet. Wait until people go to Mars. What do you suppose will go on there?

"Those complaints include claims that pressure from Musk—who is the company’s CEO—to speed up the development of Neuralink’s technology has led to substandard experiments. Reuters reported that these failed experiments needed to be repeated, leading to more and more test animals being killed.

Current and former employees told the news agency that Musk was pushing hard for faster progress at Neuralink, telling employees in a February email: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”

That internal memo reportedly came 10 minutes after another message from Musk that included a news article about Swiss scientists whose electrical implant helped a paralyzed man to walk."

HIs ego couldn't tolerate not being the "first". He is a danger to society that needs to be removed. If any of his supporters think that he regards them as more than "props" they are delusional.

https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/elon-mus ... 0-animals/

But hey, he's a visionary. Free-dumb!!!

+1

... as I have watched this guy over the past year to 18 months it seems more and more like he has a deep seeded psychological problem, not unlike Trump's. He is certainly not what his press sells him as. As the curtain is rolled back he will become more unstable.

Sounds more like jealousy and judgery.

The likes of Picasso, DaVinci, Napoleon Bonaparte, Marie Curie, Lee Byung-Chull...all significant contributors to changing history and are claimed to suffer from mental illness.

Thanks DR.

[jhu72]

I'm surprised he isn't experimenting on humans...yet. Wait until people go to Mars. What do you suppose will go on there?

"Those complaints include claims that pressure from Musk—who is the company’s CEO—to speed up the development of Neuralink’s technology has led to substandard experiments. Reuters reported that these failed experiments needed to be repeated, leading to more and more test animals being killed.

Current and former employees told the news agency that Musk was pushing hard for faster progress at Neuralink, telling employees in a February email: “In general, we are simply not moving fast enough. It is driving me nuts!”

That internal memo reportedly came 10 minutes after another message from Musk that included a news article about Swiss scientists whose electrical implant helped a paralyzed man to walk."

HIs ego couldn't tolerate not being the "first". He is a danger to society that needs to be removed. If any of his supporters think that he regards them as more than "props" they are delusional.

https://fortune.com/2022/12/06/elon-mus ... 0-animals/

But hey, he's a visionary. Free-dumb!!!

+1

... as I have watched this guy over the past year to 18 months it seems more and more like he has a deep seeded psychological problem, not unlike Trump's. He is certainly not what his press sells him as. As the curtain is rolled back he will become more unstable.His

Sounds more like jealousy and judgery.

The likes of Picasso, DaVinci, Napoleon Bonaparte, Marie Curie, Lee Byung-Chull...all significant contributors to changing history and are claimed to suffer from mental illness.

... jealous of what? His fame, his money? You do not know me at all. Neither fame nor money were ever goals of mine. I have in my life nonetheless achieved a little of each without really trying. My motivators are very far from what society would consider usual.

I will stand by my observations and analysis, thank you.

[kramerica.inc]

It wasn't speculation. Hunter’s controversial business dealings in Ukraine and China were all confirmed. As were the legitimacy of the 20K+ emails, videos, texts and data on the hard drive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... na-laptop/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-bid ... -analysis/

Check the dates of the "confirmations". So yep, the story could have been cleared to run......in 2022.

Kram-----you're REALLY going to pretend a former journalist doesn't get this? Come on, man.

They gave the alleged files----in pieces, to the NYPost three weeks before the election, kram.

Stop pretending you don't know this.

Your former employer would NEVER have run this story before the election. The Posts own writers wouldn't sign off on the piece, FFS.

Why are you acting like you don't understand this?

I do understand it. Quite well.

The NY Post did break/run it. They took the risk. So it was already a report and out in the ether for public consumption.

Fair game.

It was also proven to be correct. Many times over.

Question the 'truthiness' of outlets like The NY Post all you want. But lots of these entertainment/news outlets are breaking legit news lately. NY Post, TMZ, etc. Tasteless? Yes. But truthful? Also yes. And they provide an opening for traditional "real" news outlets that are often mired in things like standards, unspoken gentlemen's agreements, and "class" to be able to question/dig/ investigate those in charge.