IjeBos:


Media covered up the fact Hilary used a private server? Lol... Holy Revisionist History.

In fact after the elections, Media figures discussed it. And it was a general consensus that they went WAY overboard on it in comparison to Trump scandals.
Studies agree: Media gorged on Hillary Clinton email coverage
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_0fA16ZuNDkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/25/studies-agree-media-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

this is the exact point I was trying to make to coolusername and benalvino3, it is not enough to shout conspiracy and make allegations, one must establish causality between two events and satisfy logic to an unbiased mind but no, all they want to do is vomit partisan emotionally tinged sentiments that leave them speechless whenever anyone asks them the right questions

basilico:


You r well infomed. Hillary was Secretary of State.She was using a private server in her basement to transact national biz. How wz discovered?
Some close confidant emails leaked to wikileaks from bluementhal where he had been in comms with her using her private email address.
that was during Bengazi debacle. OI course most idiots here never heard that. Media covered it up
I will go on later

the question here is, where is the criminal culpability in all these? If you can provide that answer next question will be, going by your answer who is can be factually adjudged as guilty of exactly or almost exactly the same criminal offence?

benalvino3:


Zuckerberg said himself that they Censored the story but your head is buried in the sand.

the CEO has admitted to censorship and he also admitted the FBI contacted them.

The facts are glaring even if you refused to accept it.

zuckerberg and Facebook are private entities, when next seun and nairaland deletes posts that violate their rules are you going to scream censorship or will we have to dig your own head out of the figurative sand hoping that you're not too blinded by partisanship to see it for what it is?

The CEO admitted that FBI contacted them with a non specific advisory, or did the CEO say the FBI contacted them about hunter biden and the contents of his laptop in specifics? Aren't you supposed to be smarter than the person you're picking up a baton from by virtue of the insights you gleamed while on the outside of the exchange?
OK, let me extend the question to you, what came first, the FBI advisory or the NY post story?
Secondly, is censorship more reactionary or proactionary when dealing with news items?

CoolUsername:


Tends to happen when you are taking to multiple people at a time.

Facebook censored the New York Post by surpressing the distribution of a story that was damaging to Biden, Trump's political opponent. The conspiracy was that this was done in line with the direction of the FBI who told them about potential fake news from foreign actors—which was a lie.

So now it was Facebook that censored it?
At least we are getting somewhere, which brings me to a new question, you claimed the FBI advisory was a lie, according to whom? And what evidence do you have to back that claim?
Also are you now conclusively saying the "censorship" wasn't by a government agency but instead by a private company?
Additionally, is it within the ambit of FBI as an agency to give advisory of issues of political importance or suspicions pertaining to foreign partisans in America? And were they specific about the NY post article when giving the advisory? If yes, pray tell which came first, the FBI advisory or the NY post story?
If you have answered these questions, can you factually prove conspiracy between the FBI and Facebook or not? If yes, conspiracy against who or whom?

The FBI that has repeatedly shown bias against Trump. They had to remove two agents from a Trump investigation because text messages detailing how much they hated him were leaked. The same FBI illegally spied on Trump's 2016 campaign. The same FBI manufactured incriminating evidence against Trump. The same FBI failed to tell Facebook to be on the look out for fake news when it was damaging to Trump.

provide evidence to these claims of yours if you may, as I recall trump's campaign was secretly under investigation but never announced publicly before the election so as not to influence the election but an investigation into Hillary Clinton was announced publicly by the FBI just days before the election damaging her candidacy, if I were to go by that from a partisan perspective I can claim that constitutes as circumstantial evidence that the FBI was pro trump all along, but since this is not an argument I am making I am expecting your evidence to be more factual and less circumstantial than mine.

I hand the floor back to you

benalvino3:


Because he has proved it already and you cannot seem to get it or realised he has done just that... i concluded that you have no clue what censorship means.

censorship or suppression of a news item in Facebook but not on fox news flies in the face of what actual censorship is and makes a mockery of your own definition of censorship, next time before you ascribe words and definitions to events think it through before concluding your definition applies to the event and no, censorship has not been proven except to unthinking Republican bots, thinking Republicans know it doesn't apply to this scenario. Not everything is to be viewed through partisan tinted lenses

benalvino3:


how has he not proved Censorship?
they conspired with the FBI to censor a legitimate story... isn't that enough? at the same time, they let all lies and unverified stories about trump fly.

prove the conspiracy then, last I checked a government agency giving an advisory within the ambits of the laws that set them up is them acting in a professional capacity, a private company formulating policy on the basis of that advisory is them acting within the law in their and their service customers best interests and who the hell are you to say otherwise? Other conservative outlets that ran amok with the story were neither investigated nor prosecuted by any government agency or what else according to your definition of censorship is suppression of the news supposed to be? Or are you going to posit here that in censorship suppression of items, news or offensive material is partial, optional or selective?

benalvino3:


censorship

I didn't ask for a definition of censorship, I asked for a proof of censorship! if you must take the baton from coolusername then you must stay on the right track

CoolUsername:


Read real slow this time around.

Twitter told The New York Post to delete the post with the article or face a ban. The New York Post refused, so the post deleted and they received a ban. Y'know the article that actually completely factual.

understand more slowly this time around, the accusations of censorship and conspiracy you posited that I engaged you over were between the FBI a government agency as you already agreed and Facebook a private company, you introducing twitter and newyork post into the mix was you skipping lanes, I refused to be distracted and ignored it while telling you to focus first on the argument at hand with legal judiciousness, introducing a tangent argument with dissimilar composition is scatterbrained thinking and behaviour, so, I will engage you on twitter and newyork post as soon as you can prove the censorship and conspiracy in the FBI Facebook issue, was my breakdown slow enough for you?

IjeBos:


I was just marveling at the price tag. It looks like it it's going to be an amazing plane. The first test flight supposed to be next year. Wonder if the flight will be classified as well.

it is an amazing plane if it is as advertised and it provides more tactical options for the US military, the price tag is meant to discourage foreign competition and fatten the cash bloated defense industry as usual

CoolUsername:


>argues with person online
>asks person to prove censorship
>person proves censorship
>"why are changing your argument? answer my completely unrelated question?"

Sorry, I missed that part , take a screenshot of you proving censorship and post
Also, my unrelated question pertains to your second accusation which is conspiracy so sorry not sorry to contradict you, it is very, totally related

IjeBos:


~$700 million per plane.

I never said it was wise or just , just excellent from a technical and tactical POV of course, but it isn't my country so I can afford to ignore the cons in favour of the pros

IjeBos:


Even deeper than that. There has never been a Democratic FBI Director. Even Democrats have appointed Republican FBI Directors. Simply because the FBI(culture/agents) is so conservative.

how people claim to be republicans and never acknowledge this bemuses me, I was refraining from stating this because in an overtly partisan mind it alludes to bias but the reverse is the truth, professionalism and duty is given premium above all else

adamusuleiman11:
The U.S. has presented its newest bomber.

The B-21 Raider will be a dual-capable, penetrating-strike stealth bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions.

now this is excellence, they should also upgrade their military warthogs and Apaches

IjeBos:


He can't. He has become emotionally and personally invested in his argument. Admitting he is wrong may destroy his psyche. So it is easier to pretend that facts that don't align with his perspective don't exist or when confronted with truths he can't ignore (Trump not being President), he makes up wilder conspiracies to rationalize the disconnection.

There has been a lot of discussion in the US about it esp. concerning those who went down the "Q" rabbit hole.

at some point or another I expect that everyone in this thread despite their political leanings will accept that not everything is about partisan politics, I'm just surprised that there are still some people who can never see beyond partisan politics

Donjazet2:


I have never read any of the Maga links posted here but I don't know what made me click this one. Boy oh Boy, are you guys not Soo bat shit Cray Cray?

My eyes was filled with tears from the laughter of reading the most crazy shit my eyes have ever seen.

You Maga people need help. I don't want to believe that people who appear normal physically have these things in their heads and truly believe them.

If you believe even a quarter of the drivel on this sir, you need mental amd psychological evaluation. No wonder basilica sounds so idiotic. So these are things you guys read? Chai!!

pls summarise for us, I have a default setting of not seeing or reading posts from certain monikers who are of the hinges, but I don't mind the comic relief they provide every now and then

CoolUsername:


Twitter told The New York Post to delete the post with the article or face a ban. The New York Post refused, so the post deleted and they received a ban. Y'know the article that actually completely factual.

That is the textbook definition of factual.

stick to one argument at a time and see it to conclusion, stop skipping from argument to argument, gather your thought process and pretend you're in a court of law, now to our current engagement, I painted a scenario, did it qualify as conspiracy or not from your POV?

Obrigardo:


He can't prove it. Heck, even elno wusk doesn't understand the First Amendment.
If money can't make elno smart, what do we expect from that dude? They have no standing.

I was hoping by now he would have understood his errors in judgement like elon and appreciate that not every story is a gotcha moment

CoolUsername:


Facebook and the FBI conspired to censor the New York Post article about Hunter Biden's laptop. Which was a true story.

Facebook and the FBI did not censor the NYT story that Trump had ignored briefings about Russia putting bounties on the heads of US soldiers. Which turned out to be unverified.

so it is also conspiracy now ehn? you've not proven censorship and you are adding conspiracy, riddle me this, when the US embassy under the aegis of the secretary of state I think gave advisory against travelling to abuja and peradventure foreign airlines immediately cancelled flights to Nigeria, will that qualify as a conspiracy between the embassy and the airlines against Nigeria?

CoolUsername:


Would've been nice if they had done the same about the Russia bounty story.

you alleged coercion which is what censorship implies, you're yet to prove it

southsouthking:
Point to note

1) Even the most sophisticated air defence systems will struggle to detect the B-21 in the sky*

2) Built with an "open system architecture," which allows for the incorporation of "new weapons that haven't even been invented yet".

Silence is golden.
Fear people when quiet o, no be all those initial gra grab when Putin and Kim Jun dey do.

FTC dear God, i hope today I'll be good?

this has tipped the nuclear arms delivery race in the favour of the US, if radar and electronic detection systems struggle against this plane then the enemy will have to rely on visual sightings, I'm sure giving enough time a reliable tracking system will be developed but for now the US has the upper hand in planes and the russkies the upper hand in subs

Mintum:

What is wrong with what happened in 2016? Was the WikiLeaks a lie? You don't suppress truth just because the candidate you support will be affected by it. You are suggesting that Social media companies should suppress any story that will affect your preferred candidate even if the story is true? That is the kind of thing you expect to see in third world shit holes.

it might not have been an outright lie but the illegality of it or actionable criminal negligence painted in the public imagination never panned out, but the consequences of it can not be denied, if the media must publish a story, their sources must be watertight and reliable and the subject of the story should have the time and opportunity to give their own response too especially if an election is involved

CoolUsername:


Does that change the fact that a government agency tried to censor the press?

giving an advisory and private coys making policies on the basis of that advisory is not censorship! Feel free to prove me wrong

CoolUsername:


Secondary school-tier humour

have a laugh then, the advice still stands

benalvino3:


It is fair, it is news, and people should know what and who they are voting for. the media uses social media to spread the news and people use it to pass information or communicate. the SM does not or should not be censoring accurate news. they allow every bad lie to stay up on social media about trump even the Russia Collusion lies.

trump calling dead Vets losers and many other lies were allowed to circulate... but when a real scandal is up it is killed.

you don't find this disturbing?

no it wasn't fair, especially the timing of it which was deliberate, I am not against the never ending news cycle and big reveals by the media per se, what I am against is it's weaponisation in an election campaign, what happened in 2016 happened in such a way as to prevent the Clinton campaign enough time to be able to give an appropriate wide reaching defence/rebuttal to the allegations in the court where it mattered most, the court of public opinion and as such many democrat voters were disillusioned with their candidate and didn't vote hence trumps victory, they tried to do the same with the timing of hunter biden's laptop nothing burger reveal in 2020 and are mad not because they weren't able to project it and feast on it to their Republican base, no they are angry it was shut down by media outlets democrat leaning voters use more and that is the main gripe here, for some time now, Republican victory at the polls is more dependent on democrat leaning voters being suppressed or not showing up than on Republican voters showing up and that is why modern Republicans campaign less on policy and more on personality

CoolUsername:


FBI told Facebook to delete the posts of the Hunter Biden story that was reported by the New York Post. A government agency colluded with a private company to censor the press.

Let's start with that.

a government agency under whose presidency? Please just stop already! You obviously haven't thought this through

CoolUsername:


Full video is embedded in the article

www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/



The Hunter Biden laptop story. Did you read what I posted?



I think it would have hurt Biden and therefore helped Trump. I think so because that's what analysis suggests happened in the 2016. Again, did you read what I posted?

www.ed.ac.uk/informatics/news-events/stories/2017/wikileaks-trump-edge-in-campaign-race-twitter

at this rate stop "thinking " already , like elon you're obviously terrible at it

CoolUsername:


During the 2016 election race, WikiLeaks published some dirt on Hillary Clinton shortly before election day and caused a huge scandal without giving enough time for the Clinton campaign to get things under control. As you know, Trump won that election. Stats later showed that a significant number of voters decided to vote for Trump over Clinton because of the leaks.

Shortly after the election, a leaked video showed Google execs in meeting talking about what they can do to prevent something like Trump winning from every happening again. Furthermore, a lot of social companies changed their policies on what was deemed to be 'misinformation' and 'hacked materials'.

Fast forward to 2020, the Trump v Biden election race. The New York Post published an article detailing some of the activities of Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden. This included things like drugs abuse, prostitution, and some potential evidence of corruption by Joe Biden.

This is where things got weird, Twitter asked the New York Post to delete the post, then banned them after they refused. Twitter banned Trump's campaign account for posting a video taking about it. Twitter deleted all posts and DMs mentioning the article. There are more details of Twitter's activities in my previous comments. Former Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey even came out later (after the election, of course) to apologize for the censorship.

Facebook also deleted posts and DMs about the news. Mark Zuckerberg would later cone out to say that he did that on instruction of the FBI to be on the look out for disinformation from foreign actors. Mind you, this news was broken by the New York Post and was actually true.

I guess they successfully prevented it from happening again.

like I surmised earlier......... Conjectures

And even at that, is it your position that what happened to the Clinton campaign in 2016 was fair so much so that SM coys should have allowed a repeat?

CoolUsername:


So you new that social media companies were conspiring to influence the elections, huh?

Now the conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, the new response is to say that all of it was already known.

prove the conspiracy please, and no conjectures if you may! Prove that the goal was to influence the elections, the breakdown from the tweets by my own understanding showed that the goal was to not influence the elections

adamusuleiman11:


LONG POST ALERT.
Summary of Musk Twitter Release:

For days, Twitter owner Elon Musk had teased a massive bombshell disclosure based on internal company documents that he claimed would reveal "what really happened" inside Twitter when it decided to temporarily suppress a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden and his laptop.

But on Friday, instead of releasing a trove of documents to the public, Musk's big reveal pointed to a series of tweets by the journalist Matt Taibbi, who had been provided with emails that largely corroborated what was already known about the incident.

Attracting thousands of retweets, Taibbi's winding tweet thread reaffirmed how, in the initial hours after the Post story went live, TWITTER EMPLOYEES GRAPPLED WITH FEARS that it could have been the result of a RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATION.

It showed employees on Twitter's legal, policy and communications teams debating -- and at times disagreeing -- over whether to restrict the article under the company's hacked materials policy, weeks before the 2020 election, where Joe Biden, Hunter Biden's father, ran against then-President Donald Trump.

While some questioned the basis for the decision and warned that Twitter would be inviting allegations of anti-conservative bias, others within the company, including senior officials, said the circumstances surrounding the Post story were unclear and recommended caution, according to screenshots of internal communications shared by Taibbi.

(Then-CEO Jack Dorsey -- whom Taibbi said was not involved in the decision -- has told US lawmakers that in hindsight, suppressing the story was a MISTAKE.)

The emails Taibbi obtained are CONSISTENT with what former Twitter site integrity head Yoel Roth told journalist Kara Swisher in an onstage interview EARLIER THIS WEEK. During that interview, Roth said he felt at the time that the Post reporting bore the hallmarks of a Russian hack-and-leak operation, an assessment that was shared at the time by dozens of former US intelligence officials.

Taibbi said the material he reviewed referenced general FBI warnings about potential attempted Russian interference in the elections, which also dovetails with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's public account of Facebook's handling of the New York Post story and affirms how Twitter was on high alert for possible foreign meddling.

In the wake of the article's suppression, Taibbi said one Democratic congressman, California Rep. Ro Khanna, wrote to Twitter's chief legal officer suggesting it was a bad look and a departure from First Amendment ideals to suppress a news report containing details that affect a presidential candidate. Khanna noted in the email he was saying this even though he was a "total Biden partisan."

The tweet thread also highlighted how officials from both political parties routinely wrote to Twitter asking for specific tweets to be removed. Taibbi included a screenshot of an email from the "Biden team" asking to delete tweets. A review of those tweets on an archive site showed some purported photos of Hunter Biden, including nudity, that may have violated Twitter policy.

Taibbi said the contact from political parties happened more frequently from Democrats, but provided no internal documents to back up his assertion. He also did not say that Democrats requested that Twitter suppress the Post story, and his account did not suggest that the US government had ever pressured Twitter to suppress the story.

much ado about nothing

PDPGuy:
How exactly does Newsom plan to raise such an amount? Lol

that is a very very good question, and as much as I'm all for it this is one of those scenarios where my realism has to curtail my idealism

PrettyBolu:
I can only watch football if Arsenal or Brazil is playing. I grew up in a house where everyone was an Arsenal fan. This season is the only season in so many years that we found joy from Arsenal. Abeg they should not wound Gabriel for us oo. We will not drop from number 1.

being an arsenal fan till now is all about loyalty, a very valuable but uncommon trait these days, may the loyalty of your family earn them royalty and God bless