Why do you consistently speak on things you don’t know anything about like you know what you are talking about? Do you realize that when you do this around people that know you are talking out your @$$, it makes you seem less credible on every other claim you make?
3 Likes
Except so many on the right aren’t actually interested in debate, but in shouting down their opponents.
And what makes you think they do review it? If the other side doesn’t like something they can bring it before the judge before the jury hears it, but that’s about admissibility, not correctness.
That’s a precious claim, given how right now the right is cheering the new openness to allow all viewpoints to be expressed, which is a change from the left literally shouting down and cutting off anyone who dare question their preferred positions.
4 Likes
Because they do. They are called evidentiary hearings.
This is an example of an evidentiary hearing. It is done before a trial. Why would you say that evidence isn’t reviewed before a trial, then argue with me by providing an example of evidence being reviewed before a trial?
3 Likes
You are mistaken. At the current moment the right is more interested in free speech in the public square between adults than the left (generally speaking). However, the right doesn’t consider schools to be the public square and kids to be adults. The right doesn’t want free speech for teachers (and librarians) aimed at kids because of the impressionability of young people and the power dynamic between students and teachers (among other things).
Generally speaking, the left is all about banning certain speech in the public square. This is because they have less than 50% of the control over that speech and they know that people are being influenced away from the leftist positions when they hear all sides. But the left wants speech to be left alone when it comes to teachers and librarians because the majority of teachers and librarians are leftists, and the minority don’t make enough of a fuss to scare the majority.
1 Like
Your Homeland would be Insecure if people had unapproved opinions on things like election security, covid, or how much We Love Ukraine. Unaccountable government agencies censoring and regulating social media -
According to a draft copy of DHS’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, DHS’s capstone report outlining the department’s strategy and priorities in the coming years, the department plans to target “inaccurate information” on a wide range of topics, including “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”
Jen Easterly, Biden’s appointed director of CISA, swiftly made it clear that she would continue to shift resources in the agency to combat the spread of dangerous forms of information on social media
You’d think that’d be illegal, and arguably it would be under prior laws. But when asked, the censors said “it’s fine; also you’re a domestic terrorist for having that opinion”.
The Privacy Act of 1974, enacted following the Watergate scandal, restricts government data collection of Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, a safeguard that civil liberty groups have argued limits the ability of DHS and the FBI to engage in surveillance of American political speech expressed on social media. The statute, however, maintains exemptions for information collected for the purposes of a criminal or law enforcement investigation.
3 Likes
Twitter - a journalist recounts their personal history of Twitter censorship in favor of the government and powerful, long before this was widely appreciated with hopes for a more open and free platform under Musk.
One definition of “paranoia” is suspecting the truth too early, before your therapist reads it in The Times. I spent years in this uncomfortable state, imagining what I couldn’t prove and occasionally doubting my own doubts.
1 Like
Edit.
Meanwhile, here in the USA, The regime is not pleased with Rumble
Election misinformation is thriving on Rumble…according to research published Thursday.
How is this headline not misinformation? The “research”, per the article itself, determined that videos were from “unreliable sources”. It makes no comment on the actual content of these videos, which would be necessary to declare them to be misinformation.
The entire premise of this story can be summed up as “If someone has said something we dont like in the past, everything they say going forward must be declared unconditionally false.”
2 Likes
That is a common practice by the left and indeed has been used several times on this thread.
1 Like
It’s not “we don’t like”, it’s “that is clearly false and deceptive”. There has been a major disinformation campaign from the right and with Russian and Chinese assistance (although for the most part it doesn’t look like knowing cooperation.) They’re trying to make us destroy ourselves.
Nice deflection, still trying to gloss over the whole “we dont care if it’s true or not” part. Just ignore the fact that the part you keep skipping over is the only part that actually matters as far as determining what is ‘misinformation’.
At least you side is consistent with where you hang your blinders.
1 Like
I’m old enough to remember when 51 deep state leftists tried to make that claim about something specific…
and then…
And don’t forget that the deep state pressured social media into suppressing the story.
When has that ever happened with a story that would make a republican look bad?
2 Likes
But you are forgetting that he continues to insist that the Hunter stuff is all disinformation, despite every note and message and video being real indisputably real (as in, no one has called out a single piece of it as being not legit). So I’m pretty certain he will perceive your post as agreeing with him and validating his own claim.
The blinders are on your side–all you care is if the story supports your side, not whether it’s true. Observe an example:
The chain of custody of the data is broken. Thus whatever is on it is of no value as evidence–there’s no way to determine if something was planted. This is why it has never been taken seriously by the authorities. However, the right wing keeps bringing it up as supposed “evidence”.
And it has all the hallmarks of being planted, anyway. The story of how he came to have it doesn’t add up.
The media hasn’t suppressed it, they’ve realized it’s a nothing and ignored it.
Huh? Various things have been presented as evidence that it’s a real copy of his laptop. That’s basically uncontested. The question is whether everything on that image was on the laptop or if things were added after the image was made. Disk images not only do not have any anti-tamper features but they’re actually designed to be modified. I’m doing that as I write–this is a virtual machine, the underlying “disk” is actually an image stored on a drive. This image has never had a physical reality but taking a real drive and turning it into an image and continuing to work with it is supported.
This isn’t a criminal hearing, you don’t need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt to publish it. You only need half of the House to impeach Biden on corruption and influence peddling charges and they could vote that way on partisan lines with no proof whatsoever (just like they did for Trump previously).
And in any event, many of the emails were verified forensically, either by contacting the email provider or confirming with the email recipient that they had indeed received his email. Even the WashPo admits this
Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post.
I’m sure the vast Russian conspiracy also planted the emails on Google’s server history, and planted them on the recipients computers and convinced Bobulinski to turn spy and report a bunch of shady business activities for entities that the Russians set up in China and put both their names on… 10% for the Big Guy.
3 Likes
You must be very confused - until now, you’ve adamantly dismissed stories based on their source regardless of truth, while I’ve focused on what stories are true regardless of the source.
Then why the coordinated effort to suppress the laptop story as it not existing and being completely fabricated by the Trump-loving Russians? Since the day the story broke, there’s yet to be a single attempt to label it as disinformation because there’s no way to be sure nothing was planted on it - it was labeled as disinformation because it was an entirely made-up story.
Not on the months leading up to the election. It was an unequivocal “it’s fake!”, with a very conspicuous lack of ever asking Biden (or anyone with potential first-hand knowledge) if there was a laptop, if it was Hunters, and if the info pulled from it was real.
You’re doing what you always do, walking back history after you’ve gotten what was needed out of the baseless claims, in an attempt to falsely rationalize the disinformation propaganda.
So what do those forensically verified emails say? Do they prove something illegal or unethical? I skimmed the article, all I saw was that they were able to verify some of the data and that most of it is just routine business communications. WHERE’S THE BEEF?
2 Likes
2 Likes