Three days left! Support our fundraiser by January 5th and 
Big Tech’s Promise Never To Block Access To Politically Embarrassing Content Apparently Only Applies To Democrats
from the hypocrites?-in-big-tech?-how-could-it-be? dept
It probably will not shock you to find out that big tech’s promises to never again suppress embarrassing leaked content about a political figure came with a catch. Apparently, it only applies when that political figure is a Democrat. If it’s a Republican, then of course the content will be suppressed, and the GOP officials who demanded that big tech never ever again suppress such content will look the other way.
A week and a half ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing about the threat of foreign intelligence efforts to interfere with US elections. Senator Tom Cotton, who believes in using the US military to suppress American protests, used the opportunity to berate Meta and Google for supposedly (but not really) “suppressing” the Hunter Biden laptop story:
In that session — which I feel the need to remind you was just held on September 18th — both Nick Clegg from Meta and Kent Walker from Google were made to promise that they would never, ever engage in anything like the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story (Walker noted that Google had taken no effort to do so when that happened in the first place).
Clegg explicitly said that a similar demotion “would not take place today.”
Take a wild guess where this is going?
Exactly one week and one day after that hearing, Ken Klippenstein released the Trump campaign’s internal vetting dossier on JD Vance. It’s pretty widely accepted that the document was obtained via hacking by Iranian agents and had been shopped around to US news sites for months. Klippenstein, who will do pretty much anything for attention, finally bit.
In response, Elon immediately banned Ken’s ExTwitter account and blocked any and all links to not just the document, but to Ken’s Substack. He went way further than anyone ever did regarding the original Hunter Biden laptop story and the content revealed from that laptop. We noted the irony of how the scenario is nearly identical to the Hunter Biden laptop story, but everyone wants to flip sides in their opinion of it.
Elon being a complete fucking hypocrite is hardly new. It’s almost to be expected. That combined with his public endorsement (and massive funding) of the Trump/Vance campaign means it’s noteworthy, but not surprising, that he’d do much more to seek to suppress the Vance dossier than old Twitter ever did about the Hunter laptop story.
So, what about Meta and Google? After all, literally a week earlier, top execs from each company said in a Senate hearing under oath that they would never seek to suppress similar content this year.
And yet…
That’s the link to the dossier on Threads with a message saying “This link can’t be opened from Threads. It might contain harmful content or be designed to steal personal information.”
Ah. And remember, while Twitter did restrict links to the NY Post article for about 24 hours, Meta never restricted the links. It only set it so that the Facebook algorithm wouldn’t promote the story until they checked and made sure it was legit. But here, they’re blocking all links to the Vance dossier on all their properties. When asked, a Meta spokesperson told the Verge:
“Our policies do not allow content from hacked sources or content leaked as part of a foreign government operation to influence US elections. We will be blocking such materials from being shared on our apps under our Community Standards.”
Yeah, but again, literally a week ago, Nick Clegg said under oath that they wouldn’t do this. The “hacked sources” policy was the excuse Twitter had used to block the NY Post story.
Does anyone realize how ridiculous all of this looks?
And remember how Zuckerberg was just saying he regrets “censoring” political content? Just last week, there was a big NY Times piece arguing, ridiculously, that Zuck was done with politics. Apparently it’s only Democrat-politics that he’s done with.
As for Google, well, Walker told Senator Cotton that the Biden laptop story didn’t meet their standards to have it blocked or removed. But apparently the Vance dossier does. NY Times reporter Aric Toler found that you can’t store the document in your Google Drive, saying it violates their policies against “personal and confidential information”:
As we’ve said over and over again, neither of these things should have been blocked. The NY Post story shouldn’t have been blocked, and the Vance dossier shouldn’t have been blocked. Yes, there are reasons to be concerned about foreign interference in elections, but if something is newsworthy, it’s newsworthy. It’s not for these companies to determine what’s newsworthy at all.
While it was understandable why in the fog of the release about the Hunter Biden story both Twitter and Meta said “let’s pump the brakes and see…” given how much attention has been paid to all that, including literally one week before this, it certainly raises a ton of questions to then immediately move to blocking the Vance dossier.
Of course, the hypocrisy will stand, because the GOP, which has spent years pointing to the Hunter Biden laptop story as their shining proof of “big tech bias” (even though it was nothing of the sort), will immediately, and without any hint of shame or acknowledgment, insist that of course the Vance dossier must be blocked and it’s ludicrous to think otherwise.
And thus, we see the real takeaway from all that working of the refs over the years: embarrassing stuff about Republicans must be suppressed, because it’s doxxing or hacking or foreign interference. However, embarrassing stuff about Democrats must be shared, because any attempt to block it is election interference.
Got it?
Filed Under: content moderation, hunter biden laptop, hypocrisy, jd vance, jd vance dossier, ken klippenstein, nick clegg, tom cotton
Companies: google, meta, twitter, x
Comments on “Big Tech’s Promise Never To Block Access To Politically Embarrassing Content Apparently Only Applies To Democrats”
It’s pretty clear already that the big social media platforms are actively promoting all sorts of extremist content from bigotry to outright nazism. And limiting reach to anything remotely less right than the far right.
It’s past time these platforms are heavily regulated. Algorithms are developed by the platforms and they know how to steer those, unlike content users post.
Re:
Problem with that is that once you open that box you also open the door for the government stepping in and cracking down on content you do agree with, should the opposing party ever be in charge.
If you would trust Biden/Harris with that power, would you trust convicted felon Trump?
If you would trust convicted felon Trump with that power, would you trust Biden/Harris?
When it comes to granting the government more power always ask yourself first, ‘Would I be okay if my worst enemy had the ability to wield this, and was the one deciding who and what it applied to?’
If the answer to that is ‘no’ then as tempting as it might be to give yourself/your side the power you probably shouldn’t create it at all.
Re: Re:
I do agree with you. But we clearly have a problem and we need to discuss a solution. Either you ban algorithms on social content or you need to regulate it. The alternative of countering with more speech as Mike defends (and I also agree with him) is being denied by conscious decisions taken by the platforms.
If you can’t trust anyone to properly deal with these imbalances then ban the use of algorithms altogether (for example). Like Bluesky, algorithmless.
The alternative seems to be to let the world veer into nazism/fascism. We shouldn’t do something for the sake of doing something. But inaction is not possible as well.
Re: Re: Re:
How could the U.S. government possibly regulate algorithms without running afoul of the First Amendment?
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, the GOP seems willing to run afoul of the First Amendment in the name of “Free Speech”. The question is “will you have a First Amendment to care about if action isn’t taken?”.
As I said, an option would be to ban algorithmic suggestion of content. Not sure if it doesn’t run afoul of any other legal framework but it keeps speech intact.
Re: Re: Re:3
And “Big Tech” (among others) would argue that such bans run afoul of the First Amendment because algorithmic suggestions are, in and of themselves, a form of speech or expression. Assuming they were to win such an argument in court: What would be the plan to handle algorithms if bans were thrown out the window and the First Amendment was still in play?
Re: Re: Re:4
You can test the platforms for the presence of algorithmically suggested content (in case a ban and the 1st can coexist).
If not I don’t have an answer. But the end of the 1st is guaranteed if things keep going in the direction they are going. You just need an other Trump and a few more conservative/corrupt judges in the SCOTUS to uphold absurdities.
Re: Re: Re:5
Let’s say your outcome happens and extremist content on interactive web services is still a problem. How do you think that problem should be tackled when algorithms will have already been banned and the First Amendment would still prohibit banning any extremist content that doesn’t break the law?
Also: Feel free to stop with the First Amendment doomerism any time now. It’s not making your argument any better.
Re: Re: Re:6
Nah. They’re right. Continuing on the “Just Counter Speech With More Speech” train isn’t cutting it. At a certain point the government has to step in and make sure that people spreading fascism and hate face actual consequences. Not just the people that act on that hate to commit violence, but the ones that knowingly and gleefully spread it around.
In a sane country, as soon as Vance & Trump started spreading hatemongering rumors about Haitian immigrants, they should’ve been disqualified and made to face charges. They should’ve been made to face charges for millions of things before that, of course, but the shit they’re allowed to say is fucking mind-boggling. But alas, we don’t live in a sane country, so we just have to deal with the fact that the President & Vice President agitating for pogroms is protected speech.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
ok Singapore troll
Re: Re: Re:7
The U.S. has the First Amendment, which protects hateful speech from legal consequences regardless of how you feel about that speech (or that protection). If your solution is either “nuke the First Amendment” or “make violence legal when it’s used to stop hate speech”, you’re not presenting a solution that most people will accept.
And before you ask: I don’t have a solution, either—but you don’t see me pretending otherwise. Hate speech isn’t a problem you can solve by making it illegal. The hate will still be there; that it can’t be spoken, or spoken in direct terms, won’t get rid of the hate. Unless you’re willing to take a page from Equilibrium and outlaw the expression of emotion (regardless of the penalty for showing emotion), you’re not going to solve the problem of “the irrational hatred of people that is based only on who those people are”.
Re: Re: Re:8
Depriving hate speech of equal protection in public discourse diminishes its ability to be used as a tool to accrue power, and diminishes its ability to inflict harm upon people. It’s not about eliminating hate from the minds of already-hateful people; it’s about ensuring that hateful people can’t use it to create power imbalances where they accrue power that makes the marginalized with less power less able to advocate for themselves or less able to live their lives without fear. And the legal/criminal consequences for hate speech set out a clear-cut example that shows to other people who do not have hate or biases ingrained in them through bad influences (their peers, their parents, unfortunate negative situations with people of a certain group), that hatred is not welcome in this society.
Re: Re: Re:9
How, then, do you deprive that speech of equal legal protection—which you clearly want to do—without also banning, say, To Kill a Mockingbird or Django Unchained?
Re: Re: Re:10
The same way that works like To Kill A Mockingbird and Django Unchained are already accessible and legal in countries with actual hate speech laws on the books. This isn’t rocket science.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Shut up, crypto-fascist dork.
Re: Re: Re:11
And yet, here in the U.S., the argument could be made that if “hate speech” can be banned under the First Amendment, any cultural work that features hate speech would also have to be banned because it contains the same exact speech that a hate speech ban targets. You can’t argue that the law should both ban the N-word from being spoken and allow any cultural work with the N-word to remain available. The position is irrational on its face.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
You mean the word Nigger?
Re: Re: Re:12
Then it’s a good thing that I never argued that. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Other democratic countries with hate speech laws aren’t running around banning every work that has slurs or racism in it. You can get To Kill A Mockingbird in Germany. There is a German dub of Django Unchained. It’s not about any and every utterance of certain words or slurs. It’s about the context of those words at the time and place of them being used, and when and how they might be used to oppress people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
ok rando ac
Re: Re: Re:13
And you can find any number of people who think the usage of the N-word in any context contributes to oppression and hatred. If one wants to ban racial slurs as part of banning hate speech, making an exception for “artistic merit” undercuts their “stopping hate speech” motivation. Moreover, it would invite racists to start using slurs in their creative works to make use of that exception. I mean, if the state can’t ban a work of fiction because it has the N-word in it, who’s to say that a work of fiction with a racist-ass hero who somehow saves the world by saying the N-word doesn’t deserve an “artistic merit” exception?
Banning hate speech will either drive such speech further underground or make people say it louder out of defiance. The best approach (in the U.S.) isn’t to legally ban hate speech, but to deplatform it as much as possible so it becomes socially unappealing to be around people who espouse it. That approach doesn’t require a new law—it only requires having the fucking balls to say “we don’t do that here” to Nazis, bigots, and alt-right assholes.
Re: Re: Re:14
Again, other countries have shown they can do a good job at differentiating racist screeds from art. If they can recognize that To Kill A Mockingbird isn’t hate speech and Django Unchained isn’t hate speech, they can look at racists trying to skirt past hate speech laws and stop them. And we can learn from them. Your what-if scenario that ignores the reality of other countries is… interesting, to say the least.
Where it can’t hurt anybody and where it can’t be used as a recruitment tool? That’s great, actually.
Then you just punish the people spewing the hate speech out of defiance.
When the nazis and the bigots control the biggest platforms that need to be doing the most deplatforming of the worst actors that have the largest negative effects, and in fact those platforms bend over backwards to give them more reach and support, how is that deplatforming supposed to work?!?!?
Re: Re: Re:15
“Again, other countries have shown they can do a good job at differentiating racist screeds from art. If they can recognize that To Kill A Mockingbird isn’t hate speech and Django Unchained isn’t hate speech, they can look at racists trying to skirt past hate speech laws and stop them. And we can learn from them. Your what-if scenario that ignores the reality of other countries is… interesting, to say the least.”
that is a lie
Re: Re: Re:15
And when they find new ways of spewing hate speech that don’t use racial slurs, what then—do we punish them for using regular everyday words with racist intent, and do we punish people who use those same words without racist intent because those words were used by racists and with racist intent?
The whole problem with censoring hate speech is that on a long enough timeline, the censorship begins to look like Newspeak: a constant whittling down of words into a small range of “acceptable” terms meant to prevent both critical thinking and the expression of complex ideas. Consider, for example, how numerous social media services “shadowban” or deëmphasize content that talks about death or suicide—and how that “censorship” made “unalive” a popular euphemism for both death and suicide.
Also consider dogwhistle terms under such bans. Do we ban the usage of the number 1488 in any context because it could be construed as a reference to racist ideologies? My initials without my middle name are “SS”; would I have to legally change my name just because I share my initials with an infamous Nazi group? You can’t ban “hate speech” without accounting for these sorts of things, and in accounting for them, you risk taking that censorship way too far to avoid even the most unintentional references to hate speech/hate groups.
The law in the United States protects hate speech precisely because it is impossible to define “hate speech” without also attacking speech that isn’t hateful. You don’t have to like that fact. But until you can define “hate speech” in a way that bans only that speech and leaves all other legal speech wholly intact, you have to at least respect that fact.
Re: Re: Re:16
I don’t know what else to say to you on this subject except to go look at various countries in Europe and how they’ve managed to not slide into Orwellian dystopias despite having hate speech laws on the books for years and years and years.
Re: Re: Re:17
they jail people mentioning it so no
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:17
Shut up, nigger-loving authoritarian dweeb.
Re: Re: Re:17
You know that Germany has Nazis and AfD, similar to other European countries.
Your theory is crap on just this fact.
But on principle, another practical problem is always the same: Who judges the context, and who is in power to abuse the laws, who gets to define hate speech?
Re: Re: Re:18
Power differentials also come into play. The reason “cracker” and other “anti-white” insults don’t really land with the same weight as racial slurs aimed at people of color is simple: White people have enjoyed the privilege of being the majority ethnic group for the entirety of U.S. history. That privilege, and the power that comes with it, make meaningless any racially motivated insults aimed in their direction. So what would happen if the power to ban “hate speech” was given to people who genuinely believe “cracker” as an ethnic slur is equally as powerful as the N-word? I’d wager that they’d try to ban that kind of shit—and go even further, if they felt they could get away with it.
Re: Re: Re:17
They have been dystopic in that very sense since they started banning that stuff. And it clearly does not work. At all.
Re: Re: Re:16
And when people find new ways of spewing hate speech that don’t use racial slurs, it will still be hate speech and punishable as such. You know, I used to think you were smart. Thanks for correcting me on that.
Re: Re: Re:17
“And when people find new ways of spewing hate speech that don’t use racial slurs, it will still be hate speech and punishable as such. You know, I used to think you were smart. Thanks for correcting me on that.”
different countries don’t have 1st amendment dumbass ac
Re: Re: Re:17
Thank you for proving my point: When bigots use everyday language instead of racial slurs to spew hate speech, that language will come under attack until it’s whittled down into “acceptable” language that can’t be used to spew hate. If you want a world where Newspeak is a reality, you go right ahead with your plan.
Re: Re: Re:18
I repeat: I used to think you were smart, thank you for correcting me on that. The thing you are clearly not educated enough to get: When hate speech is regulated, it’s not the words themselves that are punished, but the intent of the speaker, meaning that context is always taken into account. An example is a person I know who has Tourette’s and coprolalia (a rare manifestion) who shouted, “P! P! P***!” as an Asian man approached. My friend was very apologetic, but the guy still elected to press charges, which the police refused to go ahead with after hearing the Touretter’s explanation.
Re: Re: Re:18
Second attempt:
I repeat: I used to think you were smart, thank you for correcting me on that. The thing you are clearly not educated enough to get: When hate speech is regulated, it’s not the words themselves that are punished, but the intent of the speaker, meaning that context is always taken into account. An example is a person I know who has Tourette’s and coprolalia (a rare manifestion) who shouted, “P***! P***! P***!” as an Asian man approached. My friend was very apologetic, but the guy still elected to press charges, which the police refused to go ahead with after hearing the Touretter’s explanation.
Re: Re: Re:19
You didn’t actually refute what Stephen said, you just called him stupid and then used an anecdote to support your argument.
And the above is why you don’t get what Stephen is saying, because how do you with certainty say that someone who is using nice everyday words is actually saying something hateful? Unless the meaning and context is crystal clear we may punish people for innocent speech which is why courts often err on the side of caution. The last part is important, because it’s not that hard to frame things innocently enough or use obfuscation to get away with it.
Hate speech is like porn, I know what it is when I see it – but what I consider porn/hate speech may no be same as your definition when it isn’t really obvious and a court may have an entirely different set of rules to determine the classification.
Look at the stats found in the Hate Speech Case Database which tracks cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights and you’ll understand what I mean.
Re: Re: Re:20
That’s not what I read. AC called Stephen uneducated, which carries no implication that a person is unable to be educated except in the mind of ta troll that wishes to use such otherwording in place of a genuine argument. Get the picture?
Re: Re: Re:21
Perhaps you should read a bit more then:
Get the picture?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
nigger nigger nigger
Re: Re: Re:13
Other democratic countries don’t have the 1st amendment.
Re: Re: Re:12
Even ignoring the fact that other countries already do this (or that a new law would be able to set a new standard), U.S. law is already able to distinguish things like intent/context already. We already do this with things like say, defamation, (which requires actual malice, for instance), or obscenity, or incitement, or fair use (when it comes to copyright), or true threats, etc. We literally have things like mens rea requirements for some crimes.
There are arguments for/against hate speech laws, but the idea that the law can’t distinguish them isn’t one of them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
who let this person speak
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
NIGGER
Re: Re: Re:13
Law distinguishes nothing, particular people at particular times do.
This all is just the real version of the authoritarian left that rwnj fantasize about.
Re: Re: Re:12
And your position is ignorant on its face. It’s ignoring the fact that in countries with laws regulating hate speech, works containing uncensored slurs are freely available because the political leaders of those countries apparently have an understanding of context that is significantly better than yours.
Re: Re: Re:13
different countries don’t have 1st amendment dumbie ac research better next time
Re: Re: Re:14
No one said they had the first amendment, maybe you should grow the fuck up already.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Don’t worry, Stephen has already proved he’s perfectly willing to draw false equivalences, as can be seen by his equating making hate speech illegal with making committing violence against people who use hate speech legal.
Re: Re: Re:12
“Don’t worry, Stephen has already proved he’s perfectly willing to draw false equivalences, as can be seen by his equating making hate speech illegal with making committing violence against people who use hate speech legal.”
dumb ass ac
Re: Re: Re:12
And yet, there’s at least one person in these comments who wants that exact outcome to happen. It sure as shit isn’t me, though. Someone has spent months trying (and failing) to convince me to accept political violence for causes I believe in as a morally virtuous act. You could maybe start with that person and see what they have to say.
Re: Re: Re:9
This operates on the same principal of every prior moral panic. Video games and “backward masking” never manipulated people’s minds, and neither does hate speech and fascism. People are already like that, one way or another.
Re: Re: Re:8
TIL: Making hate speech illegal is the same as making violence against people who engage in hate speech legal.
Re: Re: Re:9
“TIL: Making hate speech illegal is the same as making violence against people who engage in hate speech legal.”
twisting words are you dumb ac
Re: Re: Re:10
Hypocritical are you dumb ac
Re: Re: Re:6
It seems from personal experiences within Bluesky and following/reading articles people studying the far-right that once they lose their amplification from either the algorithms and/or promoting with money they tend to remain within their own bubble. But considering it doesn’t work then it goes beyond my capability to think of some possibility without studying more about the fascist movement in the US.
I do believe that the 1st enables consequences for harmful speech. You can debate who says what harmful speech is considering past racist laws and the likes but it’s still an option. I believe it’s quite consolidated that some speech is harmful because we have already been there. Eugenics for example. Nazism.
They are not ideas that have any good in them that were distorted by authoritarian regimes (ie: Communism). They are inherently bad, their core revolve around some humans being worse than others and deserving to be enslaved/killed. There are consequences when you let such speech run free so focus on said consequences.
Afghanistan was a very progressive, free country like 60, 80 years ago. Now it’s a repressive theocracy. You are steadily losing rights taken for granted for many decades, sometimes more than a century in the hands of the current SCOTUS. So, yeah.
I’ll ask you: what can be done to stop a disinformation machine that has the money and power if Trump enters? The projections are a legislative with a majority of Rs, a SCOTUS with a majority of Rs and the executive with a majority of Rs. What do you honestly think is going to survive this scenario? I’m honestly terrified with this because the US still has a ton of world projection and a ton of military power. And Russia is enough of a lunatic with tons of power and a repressive/conservative regime.
Re: Re: Re:7
“Afghanistan was a very progressive, free country like 60, 80 years ago. Now it’s a repressive theocracy. You are steadily losing rights taken for granted for many decades, sometimes more than a century in the hands of the current SCOTUS. So, yeah.
I’ll ask you: what can be done to stop a disinformation machine that has the money and power if Trump enters? The projections are a legislative with a majority of Rs, a SCOTUS with a majority of Rs and the executive with a majority of Rs. What do you honestly think is going to survive this scenario? I’m honestly terrified with this because the US still has a ton of world projection and a ton of military power. And Russia is enough of a lunatic with tons of power and a repressive/conservative regime.”
ninja please shut up with your doom posting
Re: Re: Re:8
Too real for you?
Re: Re: Re:9
no it’s not real it’s doom posting
Re: Re: Re:8
Well if you want to quote the entire posts just to add your idiotic “stop it” at the end, you aren’t helping.
Re: Re: Re:7
I have no idea. But I’m not going to worry myself into suicidal levels of depression over it. We can’t know for sure what’s going to happen in the future, and that means we can’t control the future any more than we can control the past. For all you know, you could die of a brain anuerysm within ten seconds of reading this comment. How could possibly know that you won’t—or prevent it if you knew you would?
When I tell you to stop the doomerism, it’s partly because I’m tired of hearing people all but begging for the worst to happen so they’ll be justified in their worries. But it’s mostly because I know what it’s like to feel defeated all the time and think only bad things will ever happen to you and the rest of the world. That shit doesn’t do anything for one’s mental state other than drag it down into an abyss of despair that is far easier to enter than it is to leave.
Doomerism is defeatism, and defeatism is self-propagating. Anyone can say “we’re doomed” and give up. Optimism requires actual work, and it’s why doomerism is compelling to the weak-willed and the lazy: Giving up and doing nothing ensures a specific outcome.
I don’t have any answers for defeating hate speech—or the hate that creates and drives such speech. Hate is irrational, and it’s hard to reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. Alls I can do is stand up against hate speech when I see it and vote for leaders who best align with my values and morals. What happens after that is something I can’t control. I have to be okay with that notion; it’s the only way I can keep going without giving up on everything.
I refuse to give in to doomerist thinking. What the fuck are you going to do?
Re: Re: Re:8
Yeah, I agree. Doomerism sucks. I hate it when people say shit like “We’re still fucked no matter what. Only we can save ourselves.”
Re: Re: Re:9
yea like i don’t hate ninja but i think he needs to not view here for a few days
and then there’s a random ac that wants to ban hate speech by committing violence
Re: Re: Re:9
Everything ends. You will die; I will die; everyone you know and love will die. Except for suicide, no one can control when, where, or how they die. We’re all fucked in the end. But that isn’t doomerism—that is an acknowledgement of fact.
I plan to vote for Kamala Harris, but I could die before I cast my vote. My vote could help her win my state, but that doesn’t mean she’ll win the election as a whole. The future is not set; all we have is the moment in front of us. If you plan to use that moment to whine about how you can’t control the future and give up on trying to do anything because “what’s the point”, you’re a doomer who would rather do nothing and have the worst possible outcome happen than do something and decrease the risk of that outcome.
When I say “only we can save ourselves”, that is about depending on institutions like the government to bail people out of trouble. Look at the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene: Dozens dead, towns destroyed, entire lives changed in an instant. The government can do plenty to help save people and get them back on their feet, but it’s not going to hold their hands for the rest of their lives. Those people can help each other by rebuilding the community shattered by that disaster—metaphorically, if not literally. They can’t depend on government aid forever; at some point, they will have to save themselves from the despair and the pain. Finding the strength to do exactly that, even in the face of despair, is true optimism…or, for lack of a better word, hope.
If you want to gaze into the abyss of despair, stay still and do nothing. If you want to build some actual fucking hope, go do something. Which one do you think is a better use of your one wild and precious life?
Re: Re: Re:10
There are different kinds of trouble. Such as racists with gigantic platforms stoking hatred and agitating for racist pogroms against someone’s immigrant community. I think that the government should definitely bail people out of that by holding the people who spread the racism and hatred accountable at a legal and criminal level.
Not all communities facing hardship can get enough people on their side to offer a leg up or help in troubled times. At times it feels like people just want marginalized groups to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I talked about this in another comment on here where I quoted a tweet I saw a few years back. “It’s easy to overlook the extent to which harassment that’s deemed protected speech creates a cost to speaking for people who lack the ability or inclination to engage in bruising discourse just to live their lives. I think there is a real blind spot here.”
Are people who are tired of fighting for their right to exist every day and just wish that the government could take over and fight for their rights and freedoms weak or doomerist, in your eyes? Is it valid, to you, that the only way that a lotta people who are victims of targeted harassment merely because of who they are, can only get justice through expensive-as-all-getout lawsuits?
I have been doing something. I advocate for stronger laws against harassment and actual laws against hate speech here in the U.S., both here and elsewhere. I look at other countries who’ve been able to stave off the worst fascist garbage for longer than we have, and am hopeful that one day we in the U.S. will wake up to the idea that’s been tried and has succeeded.
Re: Re: Re:11
“I have been doing something. I advocate for stronger laws against harassment and actual laws against hate speech here in the U.S., both here and elsewhere. I look at other countries who’ve been able to stave off the worst fascist garbage for longer than we have, and am hopeful that one day we in the U.S. will wake up to the idea that’s been tried and has succeeded.”
lied again last time those speech laws ended up getting people falsely thrown in jail for mentioning it so go back and actually do your research before trying to argue
Re: Re: Re:12
No, you’re the one that’s lying or you would have posted links to back your assertions.
Re: Re: Re:13
“No, you’re the one that’s lying or you would have posted links to back your assertions.”
you didn’t answer the question correctly baby ass ac
Re: Re: Re:11
Until you can personally pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that says “the First Amendment doesn’t apply to hate speech”, I wish you luck in trying to make your longshot dream a reality, because you’re gonna need it.
I think they’re tired of fighting—nothing more or less. And yes, it sucks when the government won’t stand up for the rights of the marginalized. But giving up and doing nothing will only ever make the government stop caring even faster. I’m sure plenty of gay people never thought they’d have the right to marry each other—until they did. And that happened because they kept fighting for that right through protests, political action, building a community willing to fight for that right, and convincing non-gay communities to fight alongside gay people.
All action is an attempt to exchange a less satisfactory state of affairs for a more satisfactory one. Gay people didn’t sit around and wait for the government to change its mind and go “whoops, I guess the gays really do deserve to get married”. They identified a need—the right to marriage and access to the privileges that a legally recognized marriage guarantees—then worked their asses off for years to make it happen. That’s a great example of “only we can save ourselves”.
I don’t think it’s fair. But if you’re going to demand that I approve of either the unconstitutional banning of speech or actual physical violence as a solution to that problem, I promise you’ll be disappointed in my answer.
No one raindrop believes it’s responsible for the flood. If a thousand people descend upon my Masto account and flood my mentions with anti-queer slurs, who should I sue for that “harassment”—the first person to post that shit, all of the people who posted that shit, the Masto instances that allowed such “harassment” to happen, or some other entity? Who should I have arrested if most-to-all of those people acted wholly independently of one another in flooding my mentions?
I’m sure it could succeed. But it would require a drastic change in our laws to succeed, since the First Amendment legally protects hate speech. You’re gonna need a constitutional amendment to do that, and I don’t think you can make that happen no matter how hard you try. Hell, even the current conservative-heavy SCOTUS would likely hesitate to change the First Amendment in that way. So until and unless you can get enough states to agree to an anti–hate speech amendment to the Constitution, you’re not getting what you want, and you’ll need to deal with that reality sooner rather than later.
Re: Re: Re:12
Hell, i’m still waiting for that AC to identify which countries have staved off the fascist garbage. But they have to exist on Earth, in the real universe. So i’ll probably be waiting a long time.
Re: Re: Re:13
AC, meet Germany.
Re: Re: Re:14
AC, meet AfD.
Re: Re: Re:9
Why connect those two wholly separate ideas?
Re: Re: Re:7
There is no fascist movement. Fascists are the movers, not participants. Fascists can not apply for power under the name “Fascist”, because Fascism is not a Political Party. It is simply a business plan to steal a nation’s wealth for themselves, legally.
In Germany when they took over, they hid behind the name of the National Socialist Party (Na Zi), by infiltrating and replacing its members with paid minions.
In the USA, the millionaire businessmen are also not participants. They are the definers and designers of the modernized fascist business plan. This time they have technology at their disposal.
They have taken over the Republican Party, because it was an easy thing to do. Most Republicans are in fact fascists at heart – simply, those with much who want more.
The Fascist take-over of the National Socialist Party forever ruined that name; linking it with the Nazis who infiltrated it. The Republican Party will be forever now linked to the fascists who stole its name. This might be a wake-up to real conservatists, were they to become aware. Don’t hold your breathe. The Fascists offer wads of under-the-table money for services rendered.
The Christians are only involved because their bible has been shown to be a fraud created 800 after the death of the Christ figure by the wealthiest family in Rome at the time – the Flavians – and their leaders are fighting for survival by hoping to start a new war that will let them bury the evidence and the whistle blower intellectuals who have unearthed the scam. Religion = Their Gospels are our Blasphemies. Last Religion standing is the true word of god! Of all the wars fought by men on earth, 99 percent were over religion.
The haters of foreigners are simply doing what they’ve always done – mindlessly blaming others for their own situations – but now with fascist controlled government approval.
You are at war. The enemy is not only inside the gates, it owns those gates and the roads that they lead to.
Fascist are not political. They are strictly businessmen and businesswoman who are so fully addicted to wealth, they are willing to destroy whole nations and millions of people, just to increase their bank account totals. They do this now as they have always done, by infiltrating and utilizing a political organization to hide their true intentions and identities. They now own the Republican Party and a great many Democrats. All it takes is money and that is the one thing they have in abundance and the one thing that everybody wants.
Fascism always succeeds. Prove me wrong.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
flagging this as it is doom posting
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Re-education and death camps incoming, Jan.2025!!! 😀
Re: Re: Re:9
so hermen you like acting like your 6 years old?
Re: Re: Re:9
if he wins you will be the first one in them
Re: Re: Re:8
1945
Re: Re: Re:8
No, it doesn’t. Fascism always comes to a point when it starts eating itself and then fails spectacularly due to internal or external pressure. If fascism always succeeded a majority of the world countries would be dictatorships were all the “undesirables” are either slaves or dead.
You are wrong.
Re: Re: Re:9 Fascism always succeeds
My apologies. I was not clear.
Fascism always succeeds in draining the wealth of the nation it is exploiting.
People want to be rich and simply cannot bring themselves to limit their own chances at getting rich, and do not want to interfere with the privileges wealth brings, just in case… so they ignore what is so blatantly obvious, until it is far too late.
The fascists simply never get stopped and continue to increase the strangle hold with bolder and nastier new laws, until they have transferred the economy to their off-shore vaults. Then they move on like any good parasite, leaving behind the husk that once was a nation.
Fascism does not have an end-game. It’s only purpose is the accumulation of wealth, in the shortest time, by any means possible. Beyond that, there’s really no other consideration, aside from the simple desire to continue the accumulation of wealth, somewhere else.
You are absolutely correct however, in that the end result is spectacular failure – for the nation. But the Fascists are super rich. They just take jets to their summer homes and look for another nation to exploit once the current host dies.
And naturally, they will eventually take all from everyone and then turn on each other as the only remaining sources of more wealth available.
Then, after a period of dark time, we have a renaissance, with their children at the helm.
Rinse and repeat.
Re: Re: Re:10
doom posting again?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
“Fascism always succeeds” lies again
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
shut up dumb rick
Re: Re: Re:10
can you say anything optimistic instead of always saying “fascism will always succeed” can you shut up with that?
Re: Re: Re:11
Can’t you go touch grass instead of spamming BestNetTech?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
when rick can stop making ninja feel worse sure
Re: Re: Re:13
Did…did you just low-key admit to being a spammer?
Re: Re: Re:14
yes i admit it that i spam
Re: Re: Re:15
but he’s not talking anymore now
Re: Re: Re:15
Hey, Mike, they admitted they’re a spammer. Can you train the filters to stop their posts now? 🤔
Re: Re: Re:16
and it’s not like you even try to speak to rick
Re: Re: Re:12
Well. It does appear that I have touched a nerve among the capital deceivers. Good to know.
Hopefully, those with functional brains, simply agree. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:11
i like the way twice you (plural?) have cut the quote short to have a reason to yell at someone.
Quote the whole fucking sentence and respond to it, or otherwise bring something to the conversation other than some variation on [shut up / fascist / doomer].
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
rick is “fascism always succeeds” the only thing you can say sad
Re: Re: Re:10
Fascism isn’t about money, it’s about power to force human beings and society into a mold the fascists think is the only correct one. Money is just a bonus for being at the top of the hierarchy which is a reoccurring theme when it comes to those who “govern”.
If it was all about money they wouldn’t slaughter people, they would exploit them mercilessly.
Re: Re: Re:11
Silly human.
Money; in this world, is Power.
Re: Re: Re:12
Accumulation of money is secondary to fascists, why else do you think fascists always bankrupt the countries they run doing stupid and awful things that never pay for themselves?
It seems you are enamored by your own idea that the accumulation of money is the same as fascism which isn’t remotely true.
Fascism: a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition
Can the quest for money lead to fascism, yes, but equating the two is particularly stupid.
Re: Re: Re:13 money vs power
I gonna assume for the nonce that you’re not just shitting on the floor and calling it confetti, and I’ll try once more.
Money is power. You can’t have the second without the first.
Fascists are always the wealthiest people in the nation being exploited. This is why they are never caught and convicted. They are what everyone else wants to be.
You cannot take over a nation’s government without a shitload of the stuff to pay all your UC operatives to do the dirty work behind the scenes. Taking over the government is simply the easiest means of creating the new laws and re-interpreting old laws, to make the exploitation legal and criminalize opposition.
They also need to take over all news broadcasting so that the “truth” can be blurred into unrecognizability and prevent the population from getting any real news. They have to control the narrative.
Then they place their minions in positions of power, like police union chiefs that allow cops to be criminals. Every political official has a price.
You cannot bribe, coerce, or kill those who oppose or compete against you without enough cash to pay the thugs and assassins for hire.
Fascists do not participate in the overthrow. They use money to pay off others to do that so they can keep their own hands clean and escape prosecution by any laws they have yet to make their own. One of the main reasons they screw over the economy first, is to create poverty and the desperation it brings to the soon-to-be paid minions. Keeps the employment costs low.
Fascism is not a political concept. It is simply a business plan, utilizing the law to make the wealthy richer, fast.
Once they have drained the economy, they move on to a fresh host and set up the same situation there.
Political power is the means of exploitation, but its all paid for with cash and there is never too much cash.
If you truly cannot see this, I suggest you apply at the Trump campaign headquarters for a job. They are looking for folks like you.
Re: Re: Re:14
If you actually read some history you would know that every fascist regime is based on ideology, not extracting money. That many fascists in power accumulate money is a secondary effect, just like how any kind of people in power also do it.
And fascists don’t need money to make things happen, they always have a cadre of believers that do their bidding.
If you truly cannot see this, I suggest you read some history books and don’t come back until you learned something that has substituted belief with facts. If you are smart enough you may learn what the real definition of fascist is.
Re: Re: Re:15 Yawn....
Populist – they need to fool the fools.
This is simply a list of the means by which the fascists’ hirelings foment chaos – through racial, religious and gender politics and dictatorial suppression.
It is not an ideal or philosophy. It’s an attack plan.
It’s always the same plan, because humans will always have these prejudices as long as religion and ignorance rule the day, and many people are easily stoked into anger by those who know how to pull those particular strings. Angry people stop thinking.
Religion is most often used because religious adherents – of any stripe – have already programmed their brains to ignore facts and reality in order to maintain their faith in the beliefs they were given by their Cult’s leaders. Fascists political minions like Trump, simply claim religious belief in order to have these people obey their commands. Works every time.
These are simply the means by which the fascists steal the economy and wealth of their own nation. It’s how millionaires become billionaires over night, and they hope this time, how billionaires become trillionaires.
Since you obviously cannot unlearn the myths you wish to keep sacred, and I tire of repeating myself, methinks we are done here. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:16
It’s funny you put up a definition that refutes your own argument so of course you are done here.
Re: Re: Re:17
What argument might that be?
The poster’s claim was simply:
“It is written, therefor it is true.”
There is no arguing with one who holds “all the truth”, because he cannot learn anything new.
Anything I might have said would be wasted breath.
Much like I’m doing right now with you no doubt. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:16 addendum
I wrote above:
“Fascists political minions like Trump, simply claim religious belief in order to have these people obey their commands. Works every time.”
News today:
When Donald Trump took the stage at the Turning Point USA’s Believers’ Summit in July, he kicked off a three-day event in Florida centered on urging the 3,300 Christians in attendance “to rise in unity and embrace biblical truth [and] the biblical principle of readiness and obedience.”
Works every time. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:8
Correction: 80 years after the…
Re: Re: Re:6
I mean, it fundamentally matters, though. If the main argument is predicated on “this has downsides, but it constrains the other side”, if it doesn’t actually constrain them, that argument gets a lot weaker.
Re: Re: Re:5
As I’ve said before:
* Choosing relevant content is an algorithm
* Choosing time-related content is an algorithm
* Choosing “replied to previous content” is an algorithm
* Choosing random content is an algorithm
* Making no choice (Displaying no content) … is an algorithm. (Though not necessarily conducive to a Social Media Platform.)
The difference, if you need to make distinctions, is in the complexity of the algorithm.
You cannot win.
You cannot break even.
You cannot quit the game.
Re: Re: Re:6
you might not wanna argue with ninja since they in 1 half do a argument the other half doom posting
Re: Re: Re:7
No, ninja is a reasonable person with whom to have a conversation. i currently disagree with part of their suggestions, but they’re cool.
Other people also realize they can have a conversation with them. But other people just like spamming one-line posts to yell at people.
Re: Re: Re:3
We won’t if the proposed action is taken, either. Plus then there will be a wide-open door for the fascists to manipulate stuff.
Re: Re: Re:
“All that’s necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”
Probably a paraphrasing from a longer quote by Edmund Burke. Actual source of the quote is lost to antiquity and unverifiable.
Re: Re: Re:
You appear to be using the ignorant right-wing boogeyman definition of the word algorithm instead of the actual technical definition, and for that reason I can’t really take anything you say on the topic seriously.
Re: Re:
Then again, they might crack down even if you don’t open that box, as we saw with the Media Matters case recently. Or this issue itself, really.
I mean, I wouldn’t trust Trump with our existing limits on content (true threats etc) either, if we’re being honest. Never mind things like running the military, either. If we only keep things we trust Trump with, we’re not going to have many laws left.
When the opposing party doesn’t follow the rules to begin with, at some point you’re kind of screwed no matter what. It’s always worth asking how powers can be abused, but at the same time it may not save you, regardless.
Re: Re: Re: Never load your enemy's gun for them
I mean, I wouldn’t trust Trump with our existing limits on content (true threats etc) either, if we’re being honest. Never mind things like running the military, either. If we only keep things we trust Trump with, we’re not going to have many laws left.
It’s not a matter of keeping only that which you would trust convicted felon Trump with, it’s a matter of people trying to give him and people like him even more power.
As for the rest of your comment about how they’re doing terrible things even with the limits we already have I’ll just repeat what I said the last time it came up: Think about what they are doing now, with those limits and checks in place and where courts can and do shut them down(albeit not as often as they should). Now picture removing those limits and checks that the courts can apply and ask yourself: Do I think they will do these things less often, with less enthusiasm, and cause less damage now that those limits and checks are gone?
Re: Re: Re:2
You mean “(albeit the fact that SCOTUS will let him do whatever thanks to his new immunity)”.
Do you think that Trump will respect the current limits of his legal power as they stand if he’s elected again? We have all seen Project 2025. We can’t More Speech or Checks-And-Balances our way out of that.
We can’t keep depending on voting and protesting and More Speech-ing our way out of this shit. The Republicans have shown their true stripes and the idea that they will respect the rule of law has been thrown out the window ever since Jan 6th 2021.
We need laws in this country that place actual, real costs on being a hateful piece of shit. And no, “Skits making fun of you on SNL” and “People dunking on you nonstop on social media” are not “real costs”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
apparently acs can’t read
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
shut up violence advocator
Re: Re: Re:3
Do you think that Trump will respect the current limits of his legal power as they stand if he’s elected again? We have all seen Project 2025. We can’t More Speech or Checks-And-Balances our way out of that.
Oh I’ve no doubt that if insanity(or more likely blatant and wide-spread voting fraud) rules the day and convicted felon Trump takes office he will do everything he can to tear the country to shreds while the USSC nods approvingly in the background, but should that day come why would I want people to make it easier for him to do so by allowing ‘these people are threats to society so they no longer have rights’ to become the rule?
Alternatively assume that sanity prevails and/or a lack of sufficient vote rigging takes place and Harris gets elected, it’s not like republicans are going to magically stop trying to silence and/or eliminate the Others they use as their boogieman, and in that case and the precedent has been set that if the government decides that a person/group is spreading ‘extremist’ or ‘dangerous’ speech the government can order then silenced or otherwise punished… how well do you imagine that’s going to go over for LGBTQ+ or other minorities in states like florida?
We need laws in this country that place actual, real costs on being a hateful piece of shit. And no, “Skits making fun of you on SNL” and “People dunking on you nonstop on social media” are not “real costs”.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see assholes like that face penalties for being toxic scum, but if you want me onboard for something like that you’ll need to come up with a first-amendment compliant law that does that and that cannot be trivially used against you and/or those you care about, keeping in mind that republicans are currently pushing the idea of trans people(for a start) being direct threats to society and that they should be treated as such.
Re: Re: Re:2
If the argument breaks down for uncontroversial existing powers that we still give out, why would we expect it to work for more power?
The kneejerk reaction is to say that would cause more damage, of course. But if that’s the case, why isn’t that also true of existing exceptions? Either those exceptions also cause more damage and shouldn’t exist, or we’re missing something when evaluating the potential damage and it’s not a trustworthy estimate. And if it’s not a trustworthy estimate, things kind of go out the window.
Re: Re: Re:3
If the argument breaks down for uncontroversial existing powers that we still give out, why would we expect it to work for more power?
Which existing uncontroversial powers demonstrate a fatal flaw in the argument that you shouldn’t create a power that you wouldn’t trust in the hands of your worst enemy?
The kneejerk reaction is to say that would cause more damage, of course. But if that’s the case, why isn’t that also true of existing exceptions?
That’s like asking why if punching pencil-sized holes in a dam isn’t causing the town downstream to be flooded by would busting huge holes in the thing be any different. Minor exceptions can still be exploited, sure, but barring a truly epic failure in writing them up it’s going to be a lot harder and result in less damage then carving out much larger exceptions or worse flat out removing limits or checks currently in place.
Re: Re: Re:4
Off the top of my head, defamation, (which requires actual malice, for instance), obscenity, incitement, or fair use (when it comes to copyright), or true threats, etc. are all exceptions to free speech that I would not trust someone like Trump with. And that’s not getting into nonspeech examples (like, a military). Some of these aren’t even hypothetical- Trump has already tried to abuse something like defamation.
I wouldn’t trust any of those things to someone like Trump, and yet, they still exist. They’re just as open to potential abuse as other speech restrictions if they’re weaponized in bad faith, especially ones like defamation that involve malice/intent standards.
I’m not sure I’d call most of those things minor, which is why I struggle with it. Something like defamation is massively abuseable if it’s done in bad faith. It’s a hole in the dam you can drive a bus through.
Re: Re: Re:5
And the way you reduce the chance for abuse should an exception or power be absolutely necessary is to make the exceptions as narrow and precise as possible, and include harsh penalties for abusing them(which I suspect is why the current exceptions/powers are abused so frequently, the absence of penalties being handed out), however when a law’s working-as-designed baseline is the government being able to designate that currently legal and first amendment protected speech is neither then ‘abuse’ goes from bug to feature, and I need only look at the people, groups and ideas that are currently being dehumanized and demonized by republicans to know exactly who would be the first in the crosshairs should that power be created and precedent set.
I wouldn’t trust the democrats with that power, I sure as hell wouldn’t trust the republicans with it, so why would I ever support it’s creation when it’s guaranteed that one of them will be in the position to use it and there’s a non-zero chance it’ll be the one I really don’t trust with it?
Re: Re: Re:6
People also seem to fail to realize that getting their enemy government to pass a reasonable and narrowly-crafted law not open to abuse has a chance in the realm of negative numbers. To have it created and employed sometime prior to November, which seems the concern of some, is beyond laughable.
Re:
Amen. I remember a mini-thread someone made on twitter a few years back.
A functional pluralistic society needs concrete ways to hold people to account when they do and say things that cause harm to other people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Shut up, weak, pathetic, can’t-stand-up-for-himself loser.
Hunter Biden's genitals? Newsworthy! The GOP badmouthing Vance? Private information!
There republicans go again, exposing what they actually mean when they say they support ‘free speech’.
‘You’re allowed to say anything you like, so long as it’s something I agree with.’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: We used to call that bribery
10% for the Big Guy!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Not Misinformation
And Twitter 1.0 was wrong about the NY Post story. Not only was the story true, but the information was not hacked. Hunter Biden voluntarily abandoned the laptop containing the information at a computer repair shop. The hardware and its contents were lawfully transferred via the service agreement when the laptop was abandoned.
If someone is claiming that the JD Vance dossier is untrue, perhaps containing fabricated information as a propaganda tool, or else if someone were to claim that the information was not conducted through an Iranian hacking operation, then the situation might be different. But as things stand, noone has made those claims.
Re:
Does Obama still have control of the weather?
Asking for a friend.
Re:
Why are you so obsessed with Hunter Bidens dick pics?
Re:
Same is true of the Vance dossier. It’s true and it wasn’t hacked. Roger Stone stupidly left his computer open for Iranian agents to get the info, just like Hunter Biden stupidly left his laptop.
Re:
Point of order:
Someone claiming to be Hunter Biden left the laptop at the shop. The person receiving the laptop could not confirm the identity. Hunter Biden has never explicitly stated that he left the laptop there, and there is plenty of evidence that he was losing hardware left and right for a while there. Mislaying it, having it stolen, etc.
Plenty of evidence that the laptop is his. Not nearly so much that he abandoned it, either intentionally, accidentally or at all.
Apropos of nothing, more than a few copies of the laptop data were made and distributed. (NY Post, Rudy Giuliani, FBI, and then… lots of places: cybersecurity analysts, other media outlets, …)
Re:
Thank you for this insightful comment.
Sadly predictable
The current political incentives make this inevitable imo.
The Republicans, especially House committees, will dogpile onto any occurrence which benefits the Democrats. They drag executives in to testify and spray unhinged talking points on right-wing news shows.
The Democrats will make a few comments about hypocrisy and be done with it.
If Dems were a dog, you could feed it from your palm.
If Repubs were a dog, you wouldn’t allow your hand anywhere near it’s mouth for fear of being bitten.
Re:
Personally I’d love them to do this if I were one of the executives in question. Let them drag me in and give me a national platform to respond to their question with a video clip of themselves demanding exactly the opposite the last time they dragged me in. Give me the chance to ask them directly “OK, so which will it be? This week you demand to know why I suppressed embarrassing political content. Last week you demanded to know why I did suppress embarrassing political content. It can’t be both, so which will it be?”.
Re: Re:
I agree wholeheartedly that that’s what they should do in situations like this however the fact that no tech CEO has the spine to actually stand up to political grilling is exactly why politicians feel so secure smacking them around and making them political punching-bags.
Re: Re: Re:
Not just tech CEO’s, hardly anyone seems to want to forcefully push back on nonsense from (mainly) Republican reps in congressional hearings. Looking at you MGT, Hawley, Jordan, etc. Most witnesses’ responses seem so polite and and deferential, even when you’ve had the most ignorant and false nonsense thrown at them. Are their some strict decorum rules that I’m not aware of? These clowns always act like they know they’re not going to get any real pushback.
Re: Re: Re:2
Petrochemical CEOs, on the other hand…
Re:
I think you’re overcomplicating it.
They’re helping Republicans win because they want Republicans to win.
And thus, we see the real takeaway
No, suppressing embarrassing Repukelican info is not the real takeaway. Am I the only one to be struck dumb by Google’s admission of reading everything ever posted to an individual’s Google Drive account?
Did those words “internal checks” somehow bypass everyone else’s critical-thinking monitor (aka their Bullshit Detector)? Google just admitted that not only can they see what you’re storing in their cloud, but will react to that content when they deem it necessary…. per their policies, of course.
How in Hell would they not know otherwise that J_D_V.pdf wasn’t maybe a spreadsheet for a budget proposal at Jack’s Diamonds, version 5 (in Roman numerals)??? I’m not starting a conspiracy theory here, Google’s choice of wording is pretty plain, at least in my book it is.
Just as bad, if not worse, is that they have the horsepower (read: silicon) to actually monitor everyone’s uploads. They aren’t just sampling at random here, they’re using a filter to look at everything coming in, and riffling through it all in order to “ensure adherence to our current policies”. As noted by Aric Toler;
which demonstrates just how wide and deep they can and will go, when they desire to do so.
Consider my mind boggled for the rest of the day.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
They probably just perform a checksum to realize that it’s a match. Perhaps they do actually monitor everyone’s uploads, but this is likely far more trivial to simply match the same pdf that has been copied around.
Re:
Agreed!
Re:
How do you not already know this.
I have the document and it’s pretty boring except reading it makes me wonder why they ever brought him on the ticket in the first place given Vance’s many many statements against Trump. It shows Vance has no qualms about changing his direction 180 degrees to gain power. The only concern is in a few places it gives his home address, but that would be easy to redact.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
That’s because you’re a midwit who doesn’t understand politics, let alone Republican politics.
Re: 'Spineless worm' and 'no consistency' are both upsides to modern republicans
Given how badly J.D. ‘Couch-fucker’ Vance seems to be doing with potential voters I certainly won’t argue that he was a good pick for anyone but the democrats, however if ‘spoke against Trump in the past’ and ‘willing to do a full 180 as soon as the previous position becomes detrimental to hold’ were dealbreakers for the republican party there would be a lot less republican politicians out there.
Instead of quoting Frank Wilhoit, I’m gonna go with a quote that is often attributed to Peruvian President Óscar Benavides:
“Big Tech” sure as hell seems to show favor towards conservatives more often than they show malice. This situation serves as yet another example of that favor.
Imagine a politically sensitive document so “damaging” to the point the web giants have declared it to be “unobtianium” and have bestowed it the CSAM treatment where any copy of the file is run against a system like PhotoDNA of all fucking programs and destroys the uploader and/or reader’s life in the process.
Would this surprise anybody that this JD Vance document is a test run for that type of system?
Except it is for these companies, and others, and you and I, to determine what is newsworthy. Even people in government can state an opinion.
It is for these companies, and others, but not the government, to place restrictions on content they host, what content gets promoted or blocked, who stays on the platform, and who gets kicked off.
But it is good to call out their inconstency and hypocrisy in implementing those restrictions!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Is the Democratic Party Operative displeased at getting a taste of his own medicine? 🤣
Re:
mike is nor republican nor democrat and has critized both sides get it right
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
He’s a shameless partisan who lustily supports Democrats and despises the GOP (and normal Americans generally).
Re: Re: Re:
and that’s a lie
Re: Re: Re:
hey Hermen still mad that you can’t get your transphobic ways
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Why do you seek to undermine the sex-based rights of women and girls, faggot?
Re: Re: Re:3
ha knew it was you
Re: Re: Re:3
so hermen we know you don’t really care about women or girls otherwise you wouldn’t be hating right now
Re: Re: Re:3
imagine falling for the same trap 3 times that’s sad
Re: Re: Re:3
Busted like the little bitch you are bro.
Re: Re: Re:3
Let’s exchange a few words for another take that was common not so long ago:
Why do you seek to undermine the supreme right of white people and their children, nigger?
The words are different but the meaning is exactly the same.
Re: Re: Re:3
You go and get your mummy to give you a warm glass of milk and some biscuits then put you to bed with your Trump plush doll, with the attached to Donalds anus, Vance mini-plush toy, for a nice long snooze.
Re: Re: Re:4
When Trump wins in November, your kind will be deported starting in late-January ’25.
Re: Re: Re:5
Cool story bro…
Now do please let the other homeless use the library computer to jerk off to porn.
Re: Re: Re:5
starting with you hermen
Re: Re: Re:5 5
So The Orange Monstrosity is going have me arrested in the country where I live then transported to the US then be deported back to where I come from in the first place?
Re: Re: Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re:
That’s a both sides fallacy. /jk
Have they ever claimed they don’t read your Google documents?
Golden opportunity
Time for Bluesky to pick the Democratic side.
You’re just grumpy at waking up because your bottle ran out of warm Creamy Trump Sperm with Added Vance Venom. There, there little prince precious, just cry to your mummy for a fresh bottle and you then can go back to your fantasy dreams.
Re:
Damn, forgot to click reply for
Anonymous Coward says: September 30, 2024 at 5:39 pm
Will he be childish enough to have a go at my mistake? Hm, let’s see…most likely, yes.
And the President for Global Affairs at Meta is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the UK.
Re:
Those things are entirely unrelated. Further, in Europe, the word “Liberal” as applied to politics means the opposite from how it’s used in the States.
Re: Re:
So the fact a former leader of a political party is a president of Meta, which is under fire from the Republiscams for “suppressing” the Hunter Biden laptop story is unrelated to the article about just that? Who knew?
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, should we also explain how time works? You know, the whole thing about past, present and future and how events and actions are placed on a timeline?
Why so surprised?
The USA is a far right wing, fascist, white supremacist totalitarian censorious country. What did you expect?
Re:
no not 100% true
Re: Re:
Pretty close tho’. Especially if you’ve seen it from outside.