Hunter Biden Expose is "Fake News"

Tom 1 said:

‘I want to see these beautiful young ladies dancing when they are four years older too’. Are you being serious? In your mind this sentence means Biden is essentially a pedophile? What is wrong with you?

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

So you want people to control what you see before you ever have a chance to fact check on your own? I have no doubt that many will not fact check. But now you are just telling them to not fact check anything sent to you by the big tech gatekeepers. Don't you think that could go poorly? Some stories they let through turn out to be wrong as well. And some things they limit could be correct, but time sensitive.

There is always a need for the recipient to approach things with a skeptical eye, and to verify facts. I want to have all the info the fact checkers have, not be beholden to their view as it is the only one getting through.

Click to expand...

lasthero said:

n
Those words make Joe a pedophile, but Trump clearly and unambiguously talking about touching women in their private parts without their consent? Aw, that's just locker room talk.

Click to expand...

SimplyMe said:

Let me disagree with one of your premises: the story wasn't "blocked." Yes, Social Media sites decided they didn't want to "advertise" the story -- but that only stopped the people who want to be "spoon fed" the news.

I learned about the story. Then again, I tend not to get my news from social media. I'm guessing you would have come across it, as well.

You can argue about the "elites" controlling the media -- that has been a valid concern, particularly as more and more of our "media" has started to be controlled by fewer people. At the same time, the rise of the Internet, particularly many of the various news sites and blogs have made getting out news in non-traditional ways more common. A small part of that is social media.

I think the issue is, what responsibility do "Media" (in general, to include social media) have to ensure every story someone wants published to be heard? For example, YouTube has determined they will not promote people who claim we live on a Flat Earth -- is that wrong, with science clearly stating we live on a spherical Earth, or do you think they are justified in not allowing things that is considered to be false?

Another example, Fox News has been known not to report on stories that are negative toward Republicans (or MSNBC stories that are negative to Democrats). Is that their right, to not report, or do you feel they should be required to publish all stories. What about a story that is from an "unidentified source," do they have a requirement to report that the story is out there, or can they (particularly if they believe it is false) just ignore it until more facts are available?

I think there are three issues here: First, what is moral -- and an argument can be made they should report all "reasonable" (where there is a reasonable chance it might be true) stories; giving both the pro (it is true) and con (it is false) information so that readers can make their own decision. At the same time, it can also be argued it is moral to refuse to print stories they believe are false.

Second, there is the question of what is legal. Are sites (both news and social media) legally required to create or allow stories reported by every other news outlet, regardless of if they believe the story is true or not. I think we both know the answer here is no.

Last, there is where morality and law meet -- what should the legal obligations be? That is I think where you get different opinions and there is no easy answer. Yes, it is good to spread news as widely as possible. At the same time, it is good to restrict the spread of false information (though it can be argued if it should just not be posted or "fact checks" attached). But also, there is the idea that the owner of a site should determine how they want to handle it for their site -- and does your right to "post" outweigh their right to control what is posted on their site?

Click to expand...

LostMarbels said:

Good ol Joe has forcibly digitally penetrated women without their consent. Multiple allegations concerning minors. Inappropriate touching. Sniffing hair.... He single-handedly killed the 'me too' movement. He is why you no longer hear the movement mentioned.

Click to expand...

SimplyMe said:

Let me disagree with one of your premises: the story wasn't "blocked." Yes, Social Media sites decided they didn't want to "advertise" the story -- but that only stopped the people who want to be "spoon fed" the news.

I learned about the story. Then again, I tend not to get my news from social media. I'm guessing you would have come across it, as well.

You can argue about the "elites" controlling the media -- that has been a valid concern, particularly as more and more of our "media" has started to be controlled by fewer people. At the same time, the rise of the Internet, particularly many of the various news sites and blogs have made getting out news in non-traditional ways more common. A small part of that is social media.

I think the issue is, what responsibility do "Media" (in general, to include social media) have to ensure every story someone wants published to be heard? For example, YouTube has determined they will not promote people who claim we live on a Flat Earth -- is that wrong, with science clearly stating we live on a spherical Earth, or do you think they are justified in not allowing things that is considered to be false?

Another example, Fox News has been known not to report on stories that are negative toward Republicans (or MSNBC stories that are negative to Democrats). Is that their right, to not report, or do you feel they should be required to publish all stories. What about a story that is from an "unidentified source," do they have a requirement to report that the story is out there, or can they (particularly if they believe it is false) just ignore it until more facts are available?

I think there are three issues here: First, what is moral -- and an argument can be made they should report all "reasonable" (where there is a reasonable chance it might be true) stories; giving both the pro (it is true) and con (it is false) information so that readers can make their own decision. At the same time, it can also be argued it is moral to refuse to print stories they believe are false.

Second, there is the question of what is legal. Are sites (both news and social media) legally required to create or allow stories reported by every other news outlet, regardless of if they believe the story is true or not. I think we both know the answer here is no.

Last, there is where morality and law meet -- what should the legal obligations be? That is I think where you get different opinions and there is no easy answer. Yes, it is good to spread news as widely as possible. At the same time, it is good to restrict the spread of false information (though it can be argued if it should just not be posted or "fact checks" attached). But also, there is the idea that the owner of a site should determine how they want to handle it for their site -- and does your right to "post" outweigh their right to control what is posted on their site?

Click to expand...

LostMarbels said:

Good ol Joe has forcibly digitally penetrated women without their consent. Multiple allegations concerning minors. Inappropriate touching. Sniffing hair.... He single-handedly killed the 'me too' movement. He is why you no longer hear the movement mentioned.

Click to expand...

In the 2004 interview with Stern, Trump tells the host that "My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka," to which Stern interjects, “by the way, your daughter.” Trump finishes Stern’s sentence by repeating “she’s beautiful.”

“Can I say this? A piece of ***,” Stern says in the clip. “Yeah,” Trump replies.

In another clip uncovered by CNN, this one from 2006, Stern asks Trump, “did your daughter get breast implants?” The real estate mogul replied that “no, she didn’t. I mean, I would know if she did. The answer is no. Why, did she look a little more stacked?”

“She looks more voluptuous than ever,” Stern said.

“No, she didn’t get them,” Trump said. “She’s actually always been very voluptuous.”

Click to expand...

Kentonio said:

Not sure this is a wise road to travel down considering you're supporting a candidate who has repeatedly been accused of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Click to expand...

SimplyMe said:

Let me disagree with one of your premises: the story wasn't "blocked." Yes, Social Media sites decided they didn't want to "advertise" the story -- but that only stopped the people who want to be "spoon fed" the news.

I learned about the story. Then again, I tend not to get my news from social media. I'm guessing you would have come across it, as well.

Click to expand...

You can argue about the "elites" controlling the media -- that has been a valid concern, particularly as more and more of our "media" has started to be controlled by fewer people. At the same time, the rise of the Internet, particularly many of the various news sites and blogs have made getting out news in non-traditional ways more common. A small part of that is social media.

Click to expand...

I think the issue is, what responsibility do "Media" (in general, to include social media) have to ensure every story someone wants published to be heard? For example, YouTube has determined they will not promote people who claim we live on a Flat Earth -- is that wrong, with science clearly stating we live on a spherical Earth, or do you think they are justified in not allowing things that is considered to be false?

Another example, Fox News has been known not to report on stories that are negative toward Republicans (or MSNBC stories that are negative to Democrats). Is that their right, to not report, or do you feel they should be required to publish all stories. What about a story that is from an "unidentified source," do they have a requirement to report that the story is out there, or can they (particularly if they believe it is false) just ignore it until more facts are available?

Click to expand...

I think there are three issues here: First, what is moral -- and an argument can be made they should report all "reasonable" (where there is a reasonable chance it might be true) stories; giving both the pro (it is true) and con (it is false) information so that readers can make their own decision. At the same time, it can also be argued it is moral to refuse to print stories they believe are false.

Click to expand...

Second, there is the question of what is legal. Are sites (both news and social media) legally required to create or allow stories reported by every other news outlet, regardless of if they believe the story is true or not. I think we both know the answer here is no.

Click to expand...

Last, there is where morality and law meet -- what should the legal obligations be? That is I think where you get different opinions and there is no easy answer. Yes, it is good to spread news as widely as possible. At the same time, it is good to restrict the spread of false information (though it can be argued if it should just not be posted or "fact checks" attached). But also, there is the idea that the owner of a site should determine how they want to handle it for their site -- and does your right to "post" outweigh their right to control what is posted on their site?

Click to expand...

LostMarbels said:

'Normal' people do not act like that. That is predatory.

Click to expand...

Kentonio said:

Yes I absolutely want someone to control what I see before I get to see it when it's coming from a major organization. That's exactly how the news media has traditionally worked, and its why the major news organizations have strong reputations for accuracy. They have never just put out any rumors or stories that land on their desks, there has always been a fact and source checking process to try and ensure that what is then delivered to the public is accurate, and on the occasions where they have been wrong they correct that publicly. Without the fact checking that would mean that half of every newspaper would be a long list of corrections of all the mistakes previously made.

Click to expand...

What you're basically asking for is a free for all where anyone can say anything and have it spread globally without any requirement for it to actually be true. We've already seen where that leads us.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

Yes, I came across it. And no, it was not blocked from people who want to go to the NY post or may use an aggregator that still included it.

But the difference in this case is that Facebook for instance, which drives a lot of news views from the "spoon feeding" crowd as you mention, is claiming not to be a publisher, but is operating under section 230 liability protections as a platform. So "advertising" as you call it, hosting other views, is what they are designed for, and why they receive such protections. I am not a big fan of changing section 230 protections because they have allowed for more voices without the platforms being sued out of existence. But the more they are perceived as limiting viewpoints, the more that becomes likely.

Courts have broadly interpreted their ability to edit content, ban users, etc. However, if they keep pushing lines that appear to penalize narratives in perceived political ways (not just the right, but at times the anti-war left, etc. as well), they are likely to see some of these protections reduced, or see some other action taken. If the NY Post puts out a poor article, it is their reputation that will be impacted. If Facebook decides it won't allow the article, it is Facebook's reputation that is called into question because they no longer appear to be acting as a platform, but as a publisher with editorial discretion. On the user level it hurts their reputation because you have an article you want to share, and they will not let you do it. It is perceived to be unfair, because they have allowed other stories that seem poorly sourced.



Agreed, I would say social media is increasingly part of that because platforms by design can take lesser voices to more people. This has been a good development.



You have just cited two very different entities. Fox news does exercise editorial discretion and decides not to report on things. And for this reason they do not enjoy section 230 protections. They publish their own material, and are responsible for it, and can be pursued for defamation, etc.

Youtube hosts material from many, many users, as a platform, and is not responsible for the content because of liability protection provided under section 230.



I don't think a news organization has an imperative to cover every story, because there may not even be enough resources to do so. However, when there is a trend that they choose not to cover what will upset one side or the other of a political divide, that hurts their reputation. Some may want that type of news where everything agrees with them. But others want more fair coverage. But beyond just the market forces, there is recourse to the courts if they are truly defaming, etc.

Platforms, on the other hand, are hosting other people's ideas. They don't need to be deciding what one they think is true.



Under current law we agree that the answer is no. Section 230 grants some good faith moderating. The courts interpretation of that has been quite broad, perhaps broader than the statute, allowing them to essentially ban, remove, etc. at will. But the social media platforms are running the risk that lawmakers may revisit the situation if they are perceived as moderating for viewpoints rather than harmful content.



Again, you need to distinguish between publishers and platforms. Someone can control everything they want on their site. But the question is whether they will enjoy special liability protections carved out for those hosting other people's viewpoints.

Click to expand...

lasthero said:

Normal people don’t talk about how much they enjoy touching women on their genitalia, nor do they like to talk with other men about how hot their daughters are and how they would date them if they weren’t related.

View attachment 286727

Click to expand...

LostMarbels said:

I am at the point I no longer care about the Trumpaboutism... I am sick of even children being assaulted overlooked just to remove this President from office. Why do you think I need to justify why others are willing to put a sexually predatory, and racist individual caught up in all kinds of illegalities into office?

The stance you are presenting has absolutely zero credence or clout to my line of thinking. Joe Biden is the physical embodiment of everything you claim Trump to be. People supporting Biden despite his actions, actual actions.... not words, have lost all credence to their claims. Biden actually hung out with and was friendly to KKK members. Fondles kids. Has made numerous, completely racist remarks. Has passed racist legislation. Is on video admitting to quid pro quo.

He doesn't even know he isn't running for the senate.

Are democrats going to denounce any of this? Of course not. It's their guy. It is perfectly appropriate if he touches little girls boobs while they desperately pull away. Or tells blacks they aren't black if they don't vote for him. What a joke... all these selective outrage tantrums....

It's a joke. I do not want to hear a single thing from Biden supporters attesting to some moral high ground. They are literally supporting a racist child molester. And that is backed by camera footage and audio tape. Not conjecture. Not suspicion. I have no idea how he is not in jail for what I already posted. That is slam dunk prosecutorial footage.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

Agreed. News outlets should fact check and exercise editorial discretion. But Facebook and such are not news outlets. They are platforms that host other people's content and therefore are shielded from liability.

If someone posts something from what I perceive to be an outlet with either a strong bias, or historically poor factual reporting, I will read it with even greater scrutiny. Or in some cases, not read it at all. I don't expect Facebook to remove anything that doesn't meet my standard.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

Yes, it is called a platform, where people get to speak, rather than elites controlling the flow of information. And where it leads to is more opportunity to see different viewpoints. I don't have to believe all of those viewpoints.

Click to expand...

Kentonio said:

So no, we can't just leave people to decide what is true or not. They're very bad at it, and its ripping the social and political fabric of the western world apart in the process.

Click to expand...

Kentonio said:

Except that Twitter and Facebook have revealed a glaring hole in our protections against misinformation. Previously to reach a mass market audience, especially a global one, you basically needed the reach of a media organization. To get that you had to be subject to their fact checking procedures and various legal and libel protections in different countries. Now literally any person on this planet can write a post or make up a lie, and if disseminated effectively that can travel the globe in hours reaching potentially millions of people.

Click to expand...

There's nothing theoretical about this, its exactly what has been happening for years now. Look at the damage it has wrought. Did you know that in a poll a few days ago a QUARTER of Americans said they believed at least some of Q-Anon was accurate? Q-Anon. One of the most insanely ridiculously nonsensical piles of garbage ever to spread, and a quarter of Americans believe it.

Click to expand...

So no, we can't just leave people to decide what is true or not. They're very bad at it, and its ripping the social and political fabric of the western world apart in the process.

Click to expand...

rambot said:

I find that the people who say "folks can just decide whether something is true" tend to be the same people who think "the markets can solve everything". And generally speaking, they invest FAR too much misplaced hope into both of those ideas.

Click to expand...