Facebook and Twitter suppression of Biden corruption explained

Facebook censor was Biden Ukraine advisor

With the MSM, the Swamp and Big Tech working against him, President Trump is doing amazingly well.

15 thoughts on “Facebook and Twitter suppression of Biden corruption explained

  1. “amazingly well.”

    If what we see is Trump doing “amazingly well” one dreads to think what falling flat on his face would look like.

    So, actually, what are you saying . . . That Facebook and others should be open conduits for Putin’s lying smears of Trump’s opponents?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Facebook’s partnership with the Atlantic Council should be concerning.

    The think tank controls the content allowed to appear on Facebook, but its reputation is far from pure. Some have accused it of being a front for globalist financial interests.

    It is hard to say which is worse, having Russia post on Facebook, or having the Atlantic Council as Facebook’s gatekeeper.

    Like

      1. RE: “If you think their policies are bad in some way then take your business elsewhere.”

        I do. I bring my business here.

        But your comment is more glib than rational. Facebook is a multinational enterprise with the power to affect political outcomes. I have a stake in its operations whether I use the platform or not.

        Like

        1. Sure, we all have a stake in it, but we don’t have to support it if we do not like it.

          So, with my stake in it, I am pleased when it is not accommodating the Qanon crowd, lying liars and foreigners spreading division.

          As for the Atlantic Council being “concerning,” it may be “concerning” to you based on what “some people say” but other than that, what are you talking about? If its reputation is far from pure in the circles where you hang out, then I suspect that it is a good choice for screening out “alternative facts.”

          Liked by 1 person

      2. “There is an easy solution. Facebook is a private, for-profit media company. If you think their policies are bad in some way then take your business elsewhere.”

        Well, DUH! It really ISN’T rocket science is it?

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Oh no.

        Designated as ‘platform providers’ Facebook and Twitter get special protections from liability for libel.

        But if they selectively filter input to bias the platform. they become content providers and are thus liable for libel. the law needs to be changed to reflect that if they refuse to provide an unbiased platform.

        Like

        1. Bias? Stopping Russian lies is “bias?”

          So, now you are saying that Facebook must be open conduits for Putin’s lying smears of Trump’s opponents? Because they have protection from libel for what people post? Have I got that right?

          If that is what you are saying, you are wrong. A “platform provider” does not have to give up standard setting to retain the protection from liability that is essential if they are to operate.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If they were excluding child porn, ok, or even if they were excluding ALL foreign political content, then still OK, but when they exclude content based on point of view, then they should accept responsibility for libel, as filtering random content to only allow certain views to get through is content providing.

            Like

          2. Are you even paying attention?

            The actions taken with respect to the New York Post story had nothing to do with anyone’s point of view. Facebook is overflowing with points of view favorable to Trump. The action’s were taken because of a policy of excluding material that is or appears to be the fruit of illegal activities such as hacking or theft. They have also instituted a policy of fact checking. These policies were put in place because of earlier disinformation campaigns from Russia designed to put a thumb on the scale of our politics. These are STANDARDS which they can enforce without giving up their protections as a “platform provider.” That you apparently believe that enforcing standards of truth and provenance are a form of “bias” says it all.

            This is a frequent phenomenon. Whiney whiners on the right whine about imaginary slights and pretty soon all of you are feeling slighted. Too bad that to sell your message you people rely on “alternative facts” which NOBODY has any kind of legal obligation to disseminate.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. When the person doing the “fact checking” was complicit in Biden’s actions in Ukraine, that ain’t fact checking, its Newspeak.

            The means by which the laptop was obtained were entirely legal, and that has been known from the beginning. Protecting the Bidens from hunters stupidity(or drug induced impairment, is not any kind of standard, it is taking sides to protect their guy form the truth.

            Like

          4. Who was “complicit” with what? You mean the fellow was doing his job while Joe Biden was doing his? Is that what “complicit” now means.

            Stealing someone else’s laptop is NOT legal. It is theft. If that actually happened.

            It has been said that the laptop was turned over to the FBI? Why? Is there a case against Hunter Biden being pursued? Is there a case against Joe Biden being pursued? If yes or yes, why is that? Have they been to court to get a subpoena to go over Hunter Biden’s personal communications? Which court? And when?

            We do know that the FBI is working on cases related to Russian disinformation and their useful idiot Rudy Giuliani. If the FBI is examining the laptop – they have not admitted having it the last time I checked – then that case of Giuliani/Russian disinformation is the only legitimate and legal reason that they would have for examining it. I take that examination as further reason to believe the Russians are involved. Either that or the FBI is now doing Opposition Research for Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “… special protections from liability for libel.”

          If this were removed as Trump and is fans seem to want as a threat, then there would be even less phony Russo-Trumpian crap since FB could be sued for posting their insults and lies.

          “Little Adam Schi++” would open Twitter to legal action by “Big Adam”.

          Be careful what you wish for.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. I wonder of it means anything to the local Trumpers that even reporters at the NY Post had issues with the story. As in factual issues.

    But hey, as long as Mr. trump keeps ignoring his inaction on COVID suppression, he can throw whatever crap Rudy hands him out there and hopes it will sway people, a la Comey’s re-opening of Hillary’s emails two weeks before Election Day. It’s not working because most intelligent people pay attention to ALL of the facts regarding this little charade.

    C’mon Bill Barr. When you gonna investigate it? Oh, wait. Even Trump’s consigliere said “No thanks”.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s