₦airaland Forum

Obrigardo:
Naaa, i didn't assert anything you are dreaming about. Fail.

So what did you mean when you said Trump was President during that time?

IjeBos:
But again, you are inferring words that noone in that video said. Read how you initially characterized the video to now what you are saying about it.

Google's Mission - "Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." If a candidate who relied on misinformation esp. emanating from Google' site wins. Yeah, they need to be reevaluating how they are organizing that information. And "its tactics", I assume were referring to how search results came up. It's been a big bone of contention since the 2000 election that some companies purposefully drive misinformation because it gets clicks.

The company that controls 90% of our search information calls a political party winning, a hiccup to progress and vows to never stop fighting for said progress. Also says they would restrategize to address what led people to make this decision.

Nothing to see here, perfectly fine.

Obrigardo:
From the bottomest part of my honest mind, You are a dumb stock.

I see you're finally running low on brain cells. Sad!

Obrigardo:
I'm losing brain cells exchanging texts with you. Just listen to yourself.

Your brain is rotten with conspiracy theories. So Biden as a private citizen, directed Republican FBI Director Wray to strongarm Twitter.

You are not smart. I'm ashamed.

FBI colluded with Facebook not Twitter, genius.

Obrigardo:
Guy, listen to yourself again. You sound ridiculous.

That was your assertion

BraniacX:
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

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.

saxywale2:
What I am saying is that the report was not from some goofy looking laptop repair shop owner.

US Intel vs laptop repair man, and given when the news broke. Around 3 weeks to election.

Why should the time of election bother a fxcking social media company?

Obrigardo:
You are twisting yourself in circles and you think you are smart. What an idiot you are. Who was President when the FBI, as you concocted, told twitter to knock off a story (as you alledge). Isn't the government (at the time) you should be holding accountable?

You are so dumb sha..

Trump told the FBI to tell Twitter top knock off a story that hurts Joe Biden and helps Trump during an election?

Is that seriously what you're going with?

IjeBos:
Again, point to the timestamp where Google says they had a "desire to do everything within their power to control the narrative". It does not exist. You are putting your "feelings" on peoples actual words.

At about the 49th minute someone mentions what he thinks led to election results and how he thinks that means Google needs to change its tactics. Why does Google need to change its tactics because of an election? At about the 56th minute mark they refer to Trump's victory as a hiccup in the path of progress but one of the execs basically says they can't just see it that way but have to continue fighting.
Coming from the company that controls information, this is very concerning.

IjeBos:
Google does not have a monopoly on search engines. Definition of monopoly (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly). Here is msn's search engine. (https://www.bing.com/). Hence, not a monopoly.

You damn well know what I mean, Google controls over 90% of search engine traffic.

https://www.similarweb.com/engines/

IjeBos:
My words were he "suggested". And you are deliberately trying to minimize the power of his words. By talking about it during a press conference, for some that suggestion had the power of the President and US Government.

So because you used the word "suggested" you can say he said things he didn't? There was no mention of 'bleach' in anything he said. He literally told people to consult doctors but apparently that suggestion didn't have the power of the President and US Government, huh.

[quote author=IjeBos post=118879607]And here let's look at real world data.
Accidental Poisonings Increased After President Trump's Disinfectant Comments
https://time.com/5835244/accidental-poisonings-trump/

And Lysol had to release a statement
"Under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route)."

Was the increase in accidental poisonings due to what he said or due to the media lying to everyone that Trump told them to drink bleach.

I wonder why Twitter and Facebook didn't consider that dangerous misinformation, hmm.

saxywale2:
.A year later bah

You sef said Intel

Thanks for proving my point.

That's their official position on the matter. Or are you saying that US Intel briefed the NYT before briefing Trump?

saxywale2:
The Trump adminstration did not deny the intelligence. What they said was Trump wasn't breifed on the intelligence report about the bounty program.

In a statement late Saturday Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said he had “confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any intelligence” related to a Russian bounty, and that all news reports “about an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”

According to NBC news:

The Biden administration made clear Thursday that the CIA has only "low to moderate confidence" in its intel on alleged Russian bounties for U.S. troops.

saxywale2:
So it is the government that should stiffle freedom of press right? For your information, I don't support both
I.e. private citizen or The US gov under Trump.

So we're in agreement.

saxywale2:
There were lots of calls to poison centers and not just ONE woman.

Cleaning agent companies were releasing warnings to advise people against ingesting bleach too.

Him clarifying his statement was damage control.

You still haven't shown where he told people drink bleach.

How is him clarifying his statement after a follow up from a reporter damage control? It was during the same briefing. There was literally no damage to control.

Basic research.

saxywale2:
It came from US intelligence. Never in dispute from when the news broke out.

It came from an anonymous source.
US intelligence's official position is that the rumors were unverified.

saxywale2:
It came from US intelligence. Never in dispute from when the news broke out.

The laptop story - From a repair shop via Giuliani.

The time difference too is substantial. Months to elections vs about 3 weeks to election.

You're really bending over backwards to justify unelected officials stifling freedom of press.

Why should the time of the news matter to a fxcking social network?

saxywale2:
Did Trump Suggest Injecting Disinfectant Could Be COVID-19 Treatment? Correct attribution.

Some MAGAt interpreted it at just that and started injesting the substance.

There was a woman who claimed that her husband had done that but it was later found that she poisoned him.

These were Trump's statements:

"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"

He continued.

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."

Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.

"It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."


Basic research

saxywale2:
It could be source and timing.

Source of NYP's Hunters laptop story was Trump's Attorney. Source of NYT's Bounty was US intelligence.

Russian Bounty news was published in June 2020. Hunter's story was published in October 2020, less than a month before election.

Source of the NYT was anonymous. The NYT reported that US intelligence came to that conclusion without naming anyone. However, it was never concluded.

At least we know the laptop story came from Bannon and Giuliani and the Post did some basic due diligence and got a statement from the owner of the shop where the laptop was abandoned.

IjeBos:
That is a 1 hour video. Point to the specific part you are talking about. And as you do, explain to me how you believe that is any worse than anchors (Hannity and Ingraham) at a news network controlled by Rupert Murdoch who owns other news networks around the world, basically would call Trump and discuss what they would say on their shows?

The article has a list of timestamps were Google staff showed their bias and desire to do everything within their power to control the narrative.

Check wikipedia, Fox News, Sky News AU, Breitbart, etc are all explicitly described as right wing or conservative news outlets. In comparison, MSNBC is not.
Furthermore, they do not have a monopoly on the news, you can simply watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS news, etc. which most people do. It's not quite the same story with Google's search engine, Twitter, or Meta.

IjeBos:
Help me understand what specific part of that you thought would have swung the election? I think you have a very short memory or don't live in the US so can't understand the conditions during that election. The US was basically at a crossroads. Thousands were dying daily from Covid, Trump had just caught covid and lied about it, he was acting erratic like suggesting people drink bleach to kill covid. People were tired. Tired of all the drama, the endless drama and chaos. People wanted a change, that is why so many people came out to vote. Biden is a known commodity, he has been in office for about 40 years. Was the Vice-President to Obama. Even Republicans will admit it's hard to hate him. So, your argument is that a report about Biden's son's sex life or some purported shady business with his father would make people not vote for Biden? And those same people would vote for Trump who was impeached for basically coercion against Ukraine and who was on camera saying he would grab woman by the PUS*Y. Please make that make sense to me.

I stopped reading at the point where you said that Trump told people to drink bleach. It simply means you are either unwilling or incapable of doing even most basic amount of research before parroting left-wing talking points.

saxywale2:
Mark said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it "fit that pattern".

Pattern of Russian miss-information.

But the story of Russia putting bounties on US soldiers didn't?

Baddestguyp:
...

A little spoilery for anime-onlies

Obrigardo:
You are missing the point entirely, like a man drunk on his piss, falling head down into the gutter. And also you don't seem to recognize what the bone of contention is here.

It's not about censorship, it's about violation of the first amendment. But the stupid thing here is none of you arguing about this issue really know what the First Amendment means. Can you Google it up please? Lol

You don't really have any argument. You are just been baited by the raging maga lunatics.

Do you also think the FBI telling Facebook to remove the Hunter Biden story is a First Amendment issue or are you a shameless hypocrite?

IjeBos:
Where is this leaked video?

Full video is embedded in the article

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

IjeBos:
What information that was deleted

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

IjeBos:
do you think would have helped Trump and why? Not sure I follow here.

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

saxywale2:
Twitter policies at that time prohibited “directly distribut(ing) content obtained through hacking that contains private information”. Twitter’s policy against posting hacked material was established in 2018, 2 years before the leak. Many posters account were locked as a result. Alot of SM companies weren't also sure if it was also Russian disinformation given the time the leaks were released. They erred on the side of caution. Plus she was given an opportunity to delete to restore access to her account but refused.

This is also information NOT NEW to us.

They had no evidence that it was hacked material. Yet the biggest social media companies all decided to commit err in the same direction that happened to favour the political party where majority of their donations go to.

saxywale2:
It's unbelievable that some People are angry because twitter posts with dick pics were deleted, and the accounts posting such were banned accordingly. e.g. Jared87983561

Did New York Post publish dick pics? What about Kayleigh McEnany?

Obrigardo:
Yeah, right, tell me another thing.

All this fake rage you maga cultists are on is just pure trash. Need an example?
Just check out this ignorant tweet below (the fool rushed to delete it after he learned who was president when this happened), doesn't it make you laugh?

I'm against censorship from both parties and it's absolute nonsense that the Trump White House was also engaging in it.

I know you're also angry about censorship from both sides and are not a shameless hypocrite, right?

IjeBos:
How were the social media companies conspiring to influence the elections? Which ones? I'm new to all this.

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.

Obrigardo:
Thank God you ain't smart, coz if you were, you would know I just destroyed your conspiracies.

Not really 'conspiracy theories' when they have been proven to be true. Even your fellow leftists admit that much.

Obrigardo:
You feel pained and disappointed.
I understand how you feel though.
Seems you would have cherished hanging a Hunter Biden dick portrait on your wall.

Don't think I'm not seeing your poor attempt to dodge the fact that you've been caught in a lie.


But wait, did you just say that you understand the feeling of wanting Hunter Biden's dick portrait on your wall?

That's sus.

Just stumbled on the Tengoku Daimakyou (Heavenly Delusion) trailer. I didn't even know it was getting an adaptation.

It's a pretty sick manga tbh, it can get pretty horrific at times. I should probably do a keeper review since it's been a while since I've done one but it's 6 in the morning and I haven't slept a wink, so just enjoy the trailer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62_aXZGkG3E

saxywale2:
My Bottom line is that nothing was exposed in those tweets that wasn't known before.

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.

saxywale2:
It's not news that twitter was left leaning. Now it's right leaning. Who knows if it would be centre leaning next year.
Even CNN started moving away from the left, and who knows if they are going to move fully to the right by next year.

The milkiest of milquetoast platitudes when Twitter just got caught with their trousers down.

There's a difference between Twitter just being left-leaning and Twitter literally soaring suppressing negative news presidential candidate, banning news outlets, and banning the fxcking press secretary of sitting President.

Now you're calling Twitter right-leaning for reinstating banned accounts who just so happened to be disproportionately right-leaning because the ban hammer was used disproportionately on right-leaning Sony's in the first place.

saxywale2:
I don't have time for back and forth on this topic. It was revealed that the Trump campaign, and the Biden campaign requested certain users and tweet be removed or banned. Both sides!

Even Zuckerberg admitted censoring 'Hunter Biden Laptop' story for weeks. Gladly, the Breitbart and other right wing media ran the story every day. Nothing else to see.

They were available to both sides but it was based on contacts and one side had waaay more favour.

Wanna take a guess as to which?