Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

It's not the Senate's duty to do something about editorial bias at facebook, should it exist.

This is false.

It's actually far more strict. It's not that it's not their job, it's that they're prohibited from doing so. It's the First Amendment.

[Endus]

I don't really know what role Grassley and the Senate have in it. It's not the Senate's duty to do something about editorial bias at facebook, should it exist.

It is their ethical duty to check whether stories they endorse or pass on are actually based in fact, rather than partisan disinfo propaganda.

Condemning them for gross incompetence in light of that basic expectation is entirely the correct response.

[tehdang]

Man, if there were ever any doubts about whether you're posting in good faith or not, those are settled now.

Facebook says its misinformation, Edge repeats its misinformation. It's the easiest believe-authority narrative ever made.

I mean it's fairly safe to assume it was a conservative outlet spreading misinformation. Unfortunately it seems he's deleted it as I can't find it on his official Senate page nor find mention of it elsewhere. That or he just made it up, which seems likely as well.

There's no point in posting news stories if you're just going to assume one side is right and the other is wrong. I couldn't find the story he posted. I'm unwilling to condemn it as misinformation sight unseen, trust Facebook.

Yes, because decades of the anti-Hillary cottage industry have been fantastically profitable and successful at maligning her.

But like, she's not fuckin running right now so all the conservatives talking about how the Clinton campaign is finally toast are, frankly, fuckin hilarious.

It doesn't take some anti-Hillary cottage industry to see a lawyer that the Clinton campaign paid tell the FBI he wasn't doing his activities on behalf of a client. It's a news story, bro. Don't pretend Clinton has to have power now for this to be interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

This is false.

It's actually far more strict. It's not that it's not their job, it's that they're prohibited from doing so. It's the First Amendment.

So the communications decency act, and its section 230, didn't mean a thing? I'm saying he has no legitimate purpose here. You're pretending Congress hasn't entangled itself in platforms vs publishers.

[Elegiac]

I couldn't find the story he posted. I'm unwilling to condemn it as misinformation sight unseen, trust Facebook.

Why are you trusting Grassley that this incident actually occurred, then?

[Paranoid Android]

I don't really know what role Grassley and the Senate have in it. It's not the Senate's duty to do something about editorial bias at facebook, should it exist.

But if he's sharing a report on Durham's allegations, of course he can personally get ticked off at calling stuff false information. Durham has a public filing with the court that came out recently. He has an actual prosecution of a lawyer for the Clinton campaign. All that is newsworthy and there's tons of fair articles that summarize those news and conjecture or write opinions about what's to come. The same goes for any prosecutor that indicts Trump on charges, or Trump's lawyers, or former officials in his administration. It'll tick people off. But Senator, you don't have any specific reason to gripe on the floor of the Senate because you don't like how private companies conduct their editorial screening. He doesn't have any legislation in committee wanting transparency (as opposed to, say, Rubio). He's frankly too old and out of touch to even ask relevant questions of Zuckerberg if they haul him up for questions.

ROFL! Here we go. It's a nothing burger as far as what the right is making it out to be.

Also, you are doing exactly what Grassely did by saying 'take this story as real' when it's bs.

Get out of the bubble every once in a while. You will find tons of refreshing things in this world.

[Edge-]

Facebook says its misinformation, Edge repeats its misinformation. It's the easiest believe-authority narrative ever made.

Absent the post on Grassley's page, which it's not there, we just have his word on the matter, and I don't put much stock in that.

Miss me with the "authoritarian" buzzword.

There's no point in posting news stories if you're just going to assume one side is right and the other is wrong.

No dude, I'm not just going to ignore all context and recent history with Republicans repeatedly sharing misinformation and creating their own misinformation like claiming the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 was "legitimate political speech"

If you want to buy these transparent lies, that's on you for wanting to be lied to because you prefer the lie to the truth.

It doesn't take some anti-Hillary cottage industry to see a lawyer that the Clinton campaign paid tell the FBI he wasn't doing his activities on behalf of a client. It's a news story, bro.

Cool, tie that back to the Clinton campaign directing him to do that specifically.

I'll wait!

[postman1782]

Facebook says its misinformation, Edge repeats its misinformation. It's the easiest believe-authority narrative ever made.

There's no point in posting news stories if you're just going to assume one side is right and the other is wrong. I couldn't find the story he posted. I'm unwilling to condemn it as misinformation sight unseen, trust Facebook.

It doesn't take some anti-Hillary cottage industry to see a lawyer that the Clinton campaign paid tell the FBI he wasn't doing his activities on behalf of a client. It's a news story, bro. Don't pretend Clinton has to have power now for this to be interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

So the communications decency act, and its section 230, didn't mean a thing? I'm saying he has no legitimate purpose here. You're pretending Congress hasn't entangled itself in platforms vs publishers.

It's misinformation because Grassley mentioned Clinton being held accountable for something that Durham didn't even mention her name for. Fox News installed her name in the bullshit narrative, because they knew gullible people like you would fucking believe them.

[Paranoid Android]

It is their ethical duty to check whether stories they endorse or pass on are actually based in fact, rather than partisan disinfo propaganda.

Condemning them for gross incompetence in light of that basic expectation is entirely the correct response.

I'm just adding my two cents but as I stated either Grassely is too deep in the rabbit hole or knows the misinformation and smoke screen.

While I'm not old, I have undoubtedly seen a change in past 10 to 15 years in right wing giving their own news. Fox is almost 30 I believe but I'll give them benefit of the doubt for first 10ish.

This discussion goes far into media and it's change. On the surface I was trying to post more about Grassely's state of mind.

[Edge-]

It's misinformation because Grassley mentioned Clinton being held accountable for something that Durham didn't even mention her name for. Fox News installed her name in the bullshit narrative, because they knew gullible people like you would fucking believe them.

Protip: If they're complaining about "spying/hacking computers", they didn't read the actual announcement from the Durham investigation but instead probably listened to Jesse Watters on Fox News - https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...gnition-claim/

[postman1782]

Protip: If they're complaining about "spying/hacking computers", they didn't read the actual announcement from the Durham investigation but instead probably listened to Jesse Watters on Fox News - https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...gnition-claim/

Oh, yes, I know, every time someone mentions it when I am scrolling through tiktok, they always mention her spying, but when I say that the report never even mentions her name, they keep citing Fox News. And then I show them the clip of Ratcliffe saying that it was legal what they were doing, and they ignore me.

[Paranoid Android]

But if he's sharing a report on Durham's allegations, of course he can personally get ticked off at calling stuff false information. Durham has a public filing with the court that came out recently. He has an actual prosecution of a lawyer for the Clinton campaign. All that is newsworthy and there's tons of fair articles that summarize those news and conjecture or write opinions about what's to come. The same goes for any prosecutor that indicts Trump on charges, or Trump's lawyers, or former officials in his administration. It'll tick people off. But Senator, you don't have any specific reason to gripe on the floor of the Senate because you don't like how private companies conduct their editorial screening. He doesn't have any legislation in committee wanting transparency (as opposed to, say, Rubio). He's frankly too old and out of touch to even ask relevant questions of Zuckerberg if they haul him up for questions.

Oh look'

Durham: "If 3rd parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Govt’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Govt’s inclusion of this information.

https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/s...dM1NU_PoA&s=19

The special counsel implicitly acknowledged that White House internet data he discussed, which conservative outlets have portrayed as proof of spying on the Trump White House, came from the Obama era.

https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/s...MjUrfXs9w&s=19

The oh btw of this was during Obama the FBI monitoredpings from Trump Tower AND the White House. Just ping,not emails.

Anyways somebody in here might want to wipe the egg off.

[Breccia]

So the communications decency act, and its section 230, didn't mean a thing?

Not in this context, no. Section 230 protects Facebook. Honestly I'm surprised you brought it up, it seems completely irrelevant with regard to Sen. Grassley's issue. Nothing in Section 230 has anything to say about the Senate, or any federal body for that matter, regulating the content on Facebook. Well, barring Facebook engaging in sex trafficking, at least.

Were you thinking of something else? Bringing up Section 230 seems off-topic and pointless in this context.

[Milchshake]

Not in this context, no. Section 230 protects Facebook. Honestly I'm surprised you brought it up, it seems completely irrelevant with regard to Sen. Grassley's issue. Nothing in Section 230 has anything to say about the Senate, or any federal body for that matter, regulating the content on Facebook. Well, barring Facebook engaging in sex trafficking, at least.

Were you thinking of something else? Bringing up Section 230 seems off-topic and pointless in this context.

When someone tells you they voted for Trump, without actually saying they "voted for Trump".

[postman1782]

Protip: If they're complaining about "spying/hacking computers", they didn't read the actual announcement from the Durham investigation but instead probably listened to Jesse Watters on Fox News - https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...gnition-claim/

The only problem with linking politifact though, is they just handwave it, and try to link you Gateway Pundit.

[tehdang]

Absent the post on Grassley's page, which it's not there, we just have his word on the matter, and I don't put much stock in that.

Miss me with the "authoritarian" buzzword.

Usually I wouldn’t use lack of evidence as proof enough to assume Facebook acted appropriately.

No dude, I'm not just going to ignore all context and recent history with Republicans repeatedly sharing misinformation and creating their own misinformation like claiming the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 was "legitimate political speech"

If you want to buy these transparent lies, that's on you for wanting to be lied to because you prefer the lie to the truth.

This is a lot of fluff to say you don’t need to know what’s true about the news story to assume something is true about Grassley because some vague idea of Republicans. I know what you think about Republican leadership and Jan 6th, and that doesn’t help on a story about Grassley and Facebook.

Cool, tie that back to the Clinton campaign directing him to do that specifically.

I'll wait!

Naturally, protected by attorney-client privilege. Let’s not pretend if Trump lawyers were indicted for federal crimes, you would clear their association with the client. A Clinton lawyer is alleged to have lied to the FBI in representing information about her presidential campaign rival. Whatever words you’re putting in my mouth about Clinton being directly involved, instead of her campaign funding this activity, is all imagined by you.

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL! Here we go. It's a nothing burger as far as what the right is making it out to be.

Also, you are doing exactly what Grassely did by saying 'take this story as real' when it's bs.

Get out of the bubble every once in a while. You will find tons of refreshing things in this world.

That’s your opinion as to what will result from this, and not particularly useful in terms of legitimate news stories that can be written about facts of a public trial.

Since you say it’s bs, do you dispute that the Clinton campaign paid Sussman during the period he’s alleged to have made false statements to the FBI? Do you dispute that he represented conclusions from Trump’s DNS data to the FBI, that he had access to through a tech executive, according to Durham’s allegations? Because when you say “it’s bs,” I want to know what you mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Not in this context, no. Section 230 protects Facebook. Honestly I'm surprised you brought it up, it seems completely irrelevant with regard to Sen. Grassley's issue. Nothing in Section 230 has anything to say about the Senate, or any federal body for that matter, regulating the content on Facebook. Well, barring Facebook engaging in sex trafficking, at least.

Were you thinking of something else? Bringing up Section 230 seems off-topic and pointless in this context.

I was surprised you brought up the First Amendment in the context of Grassley’s speech, given Congress has legislated on internet speech issues in the past. Why’d you bring up about the “they’re prohibited from doing so” and “It’s the first amendment” when you appear to know that Congress has passed legislation and Grassley literally voted on it?

[Edge-]

Usually I wouldn’t use lack of evidence as proof enough to assume Facebook acted appropriately.

I'm not assuming FB acted appropriately, but rather I don't believe Grassley's claim. Because he hasn't provided any evidence for it given that we can't even see the post he claimed was "corrected" by FB.

This is a lot of fluff to say you don’t need to know what’s true about the news story to assume something is true about Grassley because some vague idea of Republicans.

No, I have very clear opinions on the Republican party and their members that is entirely a reflection of the parties own actions and words.

I know what you think about Republican leadership and Jan 6th, and that doesn’t help on a story about Grassley and Facebook.

You finding context horribly inconvenient for your arguments, we know.

Naturally, protected by attorney-client privilege.

Privilege does not apply to communications about the commission of a crime. If there's a crime alleged, then those communications could be lawfully subpoena'd to go after the Clinton campaign.

Which you'd know if you've been following the developments on the ongoing Trump lawsuits and investigations.

Let’s not pretend if Trump lawyers were indicted for federal crimes, you would clear their association with the client.

I mean, I'd express my lack of surprise at this development, but absent evidence tying their actions back to Trump, now. Though we know Trump rarely actually gives orders, he just asks someone to rid him of that meddlesome priest and hopes one of his aides takes it upon themselves to do it. It's a great mob-tactic to avoid legal problems when you're asking for people to commit crimes.

So I'd be skeptical that Trump would even be caught giving such an order. It wouldn't be in writing since we know he didn't like written orders/notes, and any testimony wouldn't be enough to directly connect him.

I'm glad that the space I live inside your head, rent-free, is growing though. I need that square footage.

[Breccia]

Usually I wouldn’t use lack of evidence as proof enough to assume Facebook acted appropriately.

*ahem*

Why does Facebook and one of its third-party fact-checkers, partners they are, get to make the decision that this news article is considered false information? That decision should be made by the American people who should be able to view that content and decide that fact for themselves. It shouldn't be decided by our Big Tech overlords who seem to only find fault with content that is conservative or goes against the liberal narrative.

-- Grassley, on this issue

Grassley said the post was flagged. He removed it. Then he said that truth should be decided by popularity. I think you know which side to believe.

By the way, I don't see why it's so hard to find the article in question. I found it and it took 30 seconds.

[Muzjhath]

I'm not assuming FB acted appropriately, but rather I don't believe Grassley's claim. Because he hasn't provided any evidence for it given that we can't even see the post he claimed was "corrected" by FB.

More so when historically Facebook has not been keen to act towards rightwing false information.

[Edge-]

More so when historically Facebook has not been keen to act towards rightwing false information.

And we have fairly extensive documentation that not only do their algorithms promote far-right content more frequently, but that FB is aware of these issues and has made an intentional decision to do nothing about it out of concern that it would further enrage conservatives and risk unnecessarily punishing regulations and laws should Republicans take back the House and Senate.

[Paranoid Android]

That’s your opinion as to what will result from this, and not particularly useful in terms of legitimate news stories that can be written about facts of a public trial.

It's not my opinion you ignorant twit! I know you read my last post which is FACTS not opinion. Please stop being ignorant.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53602295

Since you say it’s bs, do you dispute that the Clinton campaign paid Sussman during the period he’s alleged to have made false statements to the FBI? Do you dispute that he represented conclusions from Trump’s DNS data to the FBI, that he had access to through a tech executive, according to Durham’s allegations? Because when you say “it’s bs,” I want to know what you mean.

Trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This has nothing to do with what Fox is talking about. Again stop being ignorant.

I'll post in my own words then link you numerous articles to back up my statements. Cause YOU KNOW, I read up on this unlike some in the propaganda bubble.

Your shit post above first doesn't link Clinton to anything. That is Sussman alone. Here is where you are Super Ignorant. I posted this before. First and most important this was DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and was not emails, basically monitoring pings. Do you know what pings are?!? Even my barely computer literate brain knows this much. There was pings that went to Trump Tower and the White House, which were monitored to see were the original IP address in Russia. So with your ignorant take, Obama was in with Trump or Russia since they (Obama White House) was being pinged like Trump Tower.

So in short: THIS ALL HAPPENED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!

In a filing late last night accusing Durham of repeatedly including gratuitous & misleading info in filings to stoke Trumpy conspiracy theories, Sussmann's lawyers also say the White House-Russian smartphone data came from the Obama -- not Trump -- era

https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/s...nXuAdqB3_mG8TQ

Oh, so apart from the DNS thing, Fox News overlooked the fact that the Clinton campaign couldn't have spied on Trump's White House because Trump wasn't president in 2016, when the Clinton campaign was a campaign?

Durham debunks Fox spin: "If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the govt's motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the govt's inclusion of this info"