https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...
"The claims in that news publication were totally fake and deserve to be censored -- here, check out this Twitter user who has the real truth!"
In other words, when debunking an article as true/false, I think extra rigor needs to be put into the debunking -- you can't debunk an unreliable source with yet another unreliable source... (unless this guy is like a NYT editor and I just don't realize it)
There are oodles of trust involved when you trust a tabloid.
If these claims are true, surely some journalist would have noticed the same things? Maybe they have and I completely missed the story?
Edit: after reading the post article, there are quite a number of things that aren't so easily explained away by the oddities pointed out in that Twitter thread.
If our self-proclaimed trustworthy legal and journalism institutions were less theatrics-based, the actual truth of these allegations could be uncovered without too much effort. But perhaps there's no budget remaining (in any governmental agency, or any journalism outlet) after the multi-year investigation into the alleged Trump/Russia collusion. Whatever the reason, I suspect that for some unknown reason, this issue will be added to the ever growing pile of "things that we know(!) are fake news, even though we don't actually know because we did not investigate them".
EDIT: Interesting (but not surprising) that this article is [flagged], further demonstrating the wide variety of ways in which the distribution of certain categories of ideas can be controlled, even without a central coordination authority. Ideas do very much seem to behave like living organisms, with human minds as their unwitting hosts.
“People don't have ideas. Ideas have people.”
― Carl Jung
Mind Control: How Parasites Manipulate Cognitive Functions in Their Insect Hosts
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0057...
Neuro-parasitology is an emerging branch of science that deals with parasites that can control the nervous system of the host. It offers the possibility of discovering how one species (the parasite) modifies a particular neural network, and thus particular behaviors, of another species (the host). Such parasite–host interactions, developed over millions of years of evolution, provide unique tools by which one can determine how neuromodulation up-or-down regulates specific behaviors. In some of the most fascinating manipulations, the parasite taps into the host brain neuronal circuities to manipulate hosts cognitive functions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/10/30/a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
EDIT:
The Twitter thread:
"So just so I follow this story: Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles, decides to fly 3000 miles across country, to drop off 3 MacBook Pros at a repair shop run by a blind guy who charges the insanely low price of $85 (because there aren't repair shops in LA). He drops them off, signs a contract for repair and then disappears."
Sounds fishy. Let's check Google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden
Born Robert Hunter Biden
February 4, 1970 (age 50)
Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.
"Curiously" not mentioned in the Twitter thread (even though it was extremely specific about pointing out the distance between the shop and Hunter's hometown): Wilmington, Delaware
It really depends on the news publication's reputation. The New York Post (the original source) is a tabloid and (for instance) Wikipedia does not consider it reliable, so there's not a lot of reason to trust it too highly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...:
> There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication.
Also I think anyone can credibly point out inconsistencies and highlight the implausibility of certain statements, like the twitter thread does, because those can be easily evaluated. It'd be much harder to take grant the same credibility to a random person's statement that some specific other thing happened.
Personally, I think that Facebook and Twitter are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If they do interfere and censor perceived misinformation, they run the very real, maybe inevitable chance of censoring information that is, in fact, true, or maybe just as bad, censoring misinformation with bias. On the other hand, if they do not interfere, they will surely be blamed for not doing anything to curb the misinformation spread on their platforms.
I think it’s all a symptom of the fact that social media websites like Facebook and Twitter that are effectively unmoderated trash fires should probably just not exist. Exactly why they should not exist is up for grabs but my personal pick is the seemingly reduced-to-zero liability they seem to have on many horrible things going on on their platform that wouldn’t be looked over on a small forum even if the owner tried to claim it was “unmoderated.”
Could you link to it?
Have you seen some of the emails yourself?
The emails I've seen look authentic & reveal major corruption.
e.g. https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden...
On the contrary, twitter & FB would never suppress such a story about trump.
During the primaries this whole Burisma thing came out. Bernie Bros pushed the narrative, Biden would just blow up and not answer the question like he should do reasonably. The democrat base said it's not enough to go Bernie and they elected Biden. What was the story? The possible bias of a company who likes democrats and other left-leaning figures gave his son a job in perhaps hopes of some influence? Not exactly a huge story. Biden had denied any involvement during the primaries.
NYPost investigated and found further information and sat on it until just the right time before the election. Smart play by them to be sure.
Even with what the NYPost reported on. Hunter Biden is a scumbag to be sure and it does confirm Biden met his employer but it doesnt prove any influence was sold. Hunter Biden was probably taking advantage of his rich/famous father. Not unlike Donald Jr.
To assert that this is misinformation is quite unlikely.
Facebook and Twitter didnt block it because it was misinformation, they blocked it because of personal identifying information or 'hacking sources'.
I mean, liars are gonna lie about more than one thing.
There are gaps in the story that need to be investigated, but who the heck are Facebook and Twitter to make that call minutes/hours after the story broke?? This is not some weird obscure conspiracy story.
The other thing here is the double standard. So many hacked information has been freely circulating, from wikileaks to Trump's tax records. Why now, why so suddenly? Really hard to deny political bias.
I'm pro free speech, I think everyone should err on letting information flow. But whatever you do, if you use a double standard you'll have no reasonable argument to save you.
Link to independent (non-tabloid) confirmation?
More importantly - the Biden campaign HAS NOT said the emails are fake.
Where's the verification?
> One of the people on an explosive email thread allegedly involving Hunter Biden has corroborated the veracity of the messages, which appear to outline a payout for former Vice President Joe Biden as part of a deal with a Chinese energy firm.
There are plenty of photographs of Hunter Biden from the drive, which were obviously not in wide circulation, of him doing drugs and apparently other illegal activity. This would seem to be evidence supporting the idea that the drive did belong to him. So now we have to believe that false information has been mixed with true information.
But on the other hand, we do actually know that Hunter Biden was receiving 50k/month from Burisma, and he had no qualifications and a very questionable past. Nobody disputes this. Nobody needs this harddrive story to know there was corruption going on, based on this information alone. Ukranian energy companies are not searching the streets for random American crackheads to hire for exorbitant sums. He was hired because of his connections. The only question is the exact nature of how it went down, and if it matters to you.
The only information it adds is that Joe Biden allegedly makes Hunter Biden give him half his income and some alleged details of some meeting - not anything particularly salacious. It definitely appears political for Facebook and Twitter to shut down this story - there are a lot of weaker stories that get a pass every day.
* Hunter Biden’s attorney, George Mesires, has allegedly gotten a subpoena issued for the return of Hunter’s laptops. In doing so his ownership is implicitly verified. Caveat: I wasn’t able to find a copy of this subpoena, though I’m fairly sure I read it a day or so ago.
* The Biden campaign has not denied _any_ of this.
* The FBI has not commented. If there were no active investigation they would typically say so. If there were an active investigation, they are bound not to comment on it.
I don't know that I reach the same conclusions as you though. The lack of denials is disconcerting and does imply some elements of truth in the story.
For the subpoena for Hunter's laptop I could see a lawyer doing that if there was no laptop to force someone either into contempt of court, perjury, or acknowledging the laptop doesn't exist. It could be a tactic to undermine the story rather than supporting evidence is what I'm saying (but on the surface is looking bad).
As for the FBI [0] I think things are a little more complicated than taking a lack of an answer for confirmation.
[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-probing-whether-purpor...
As for the FBI - it's at best circumstantial evidence. If they had stated there was no open case I would have considered it to be strong evidence that it's all disinformation. The two possible outcomes from that facet are "disprove"/"not disprove".
Perhaps the emails, texts, and photos are real but from a Russian hack and are being selectively released in an effort to paint Hunter Biden in the worst possible light hoping it reflects poorly on his father.
At the end of the day I don't think the source matters in terms of how I see the Bidens, only the authenticity of the information itself. If the later comes out that the stated source was a lie, then that will change how I see everyone involved on that side. If both the information and source are false, then I would strongly support severe criminal charges for those involved.