Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
You Haven’t Heard More About Hunter Biden’s Emails Because Twitter And Facebook Didn’t Want You To
Abram BrownForbes Staff
Business
WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 12: World Food Program USA[+]
GETTY
Read all about Hunter Biden’s emails yet? About the election-rocking scandal that definitively pins Joe Biden to corruption in Ukraine? Seen the photo of an unshaven Hunter Biden, half-ashed cigarette daggling from his lips, just one piece of damning evidence taken from a laptop once belonging to the vice president’s son that two top Trump advisors turned over to a pair of crusading New York Post journalists?
Some of you are following along. For others, it kinda rings a bell, but for still many, many more, the story doesn’t sound familiar at all, and probably seems more like a plot found at the bottom of Tom Clancy’s wastepaper basket.
These circumstances are created in no small part by a set of extraordinary actions taken yesterday by Facebook FB and Twitter TWTR to prevent the Post’s investigation from being widely shared. Twitter blocked users from sharing the URL to the Post’s story and locked some users out of accounts for doing that, including high-profile ones belonging to the Post itself and White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany. On Facebook’s end, company spokesman Andy Stone said the social network was “reducing its distribution on our platform” without further clarifying precisely what Facebook did.
“The decisions by Facebook and Twitter to limit the distribution of the New York Post story…are unprecedented for these companies,” says Marcus Messner, director at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Richard T. Robertson School of Media and Culture. “The companies took the responsibility to hit the breaks.”
It absolutely worked, quite a wonder in this age of viral information and all that was said, written and reported on about another set of emails during the 2016 presidential election.
Rampant online conversations drive newsroom decisions. And in the absence of one about the Hunter Biden emails, the Post story has not gotten prominent widespread pick-up by other media outlets. It has received little play on the websites of The New York Times NYT, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS VIAC, NBC—all the big-time publishers who’d normally race to confirm or follow a competitor’s scoopy investigation. (The Washington Post and the Times did spill some ink on the subject but did some with a tone of straightforward skepticism, using words like “alleged,” “claim” and “dubious” to describe the New York Post’s reporting.) Four years ago, by contrast, those outlets were stricken by bothsidesism, a chronic condition among journalists whose symptoms include bending over backward to appear unbiased and equally critical of everyone, and they rapaciously covered every last drop of news around Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Here’s a way to think about this in visual terms:
The Times from October 2016 devotes some of the paper’s most important real estate to piece about the FBI beginning an inquiry into Clinton’s emails. The Times from October 2020? No mention at all of any emails.
Patrick Warren, the lead researcher at Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, hasn’t had time to crunch the numbers and develop a statistical model showing the impact of Facebook’s and Twitter’s decisions on the story’s spread across those platforms. But he feels pretty confident in concluding that the networks were successful in “slowing it down a bit,” he says. Without any action by Facebook and Twitter, the story would probably have spread far more widely—going viral before any other outlets could provide context and fact checking around the story’s implications, many of which remain in doubt. Instead, the story only managed a slow burn, and other outlets had plenty of time to dump cold water on it. “If anyone bumps into that story now, it’s not the only thing out there” about Hunter Biden, says Warren.
Twitter says it made its decision because the Post story’s contained screenshots of personal information and hacked material, two things that violate its rules. Facebook hasn’t said what rules it felt the story violated.
Abram BrownForbes Staff
Business
WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 12: World Food Program USA[+]
GETTY
Read all about Hunter Biden’s emails yet? About the election-rocking scandal that definitively pins Joe Biden to corruption in Ukraine? Seen the photo of an unshaven Hunter Biden, half-ashed cigarette daggling from his lips, just one piece of damning evidence taken from a laptop once belonging to the vice president’s son that two top Trump advisors turned over to a pair of crusading New York Post journalists?
Some of you are following along. For others, it kinda rings a bell, but for still many, many more, the story doesn’t sound familiar at all, and probably seems more like a plot found at the bottom of Tom Clancy’s wastepaper basket.
These circumstances are created in no small part by a set of extraordinary actions taken yesterday by Facebook FB and Twitter TWTR to prevent the Post’s investigation from being widely shared. Twitter blocked users from sharing the URL to the Post’s story and locked some users out of accounts for doing that, including high-profile ones belonging to the Post itself and White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany. On Facebook’s end, company spokesman Andy Stone said the social network was “reducing its distribution on our platform” without further clarifying precisely what Facebook did.
“The decisions by Facebook and Twitter to limit the distribution of the New York Post story…are unprecedented for these companies,” says Marcus Messner, director at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Richard T. Robertson School of Media and Culture. “The companies took the responsibility to hit the breaks.”
It absolutely worked, quite a wonder in this age of viral information and all that was said, written and reported on about another set of emails during the 2016 presidential election.
Rampant online conversations drive newsroom decisions. And in the absence of one about the Hunter Biden emails, the Post story has not gotten prominent widespread pick-up by other media outlets. It has received little play on the websites of The New York Times NYT, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS VIAC, NBC—all the big-time publishers who’d normally race to confirm or follow a competitor’s scoopy investigation. (The Washington Post and the Times did spill some ink on the subject but did some with a tone of straightforward skepticism, using words like “alleged,” “claim” and “dubious” to describe the New York Post’s reporting.) Four years ago, by contrast, those outlets were stricken by bothsidesism, a chronic condition among journalists whose symptoms include bending over backward to appear unbiased and equally critical of everyone, and they rapaciously covered every last drop of news around Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Here’s a way to think about this in visual terms:
The Times from October 2016 devotes some of the paper’s most important real estate to piece about the FBI beginning an inquiry into Clinton’s emails. The Times from October 2020? No mention at all of any emails.
Patrick Warren, the lead researcher at Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, hasn’t had time to crunch the numbers and develop a statistical model showing the impact of Facebook’s and Twitter’s decisions on the story’s spread across those platforms. But he feels pretty confident in concluding that the networks were successful in “slowing it down a bit,” he says. Without any action by Facebook and Twitter, the story would probably have spread far more widely—going viral before any other outlets could provide context and fact checking around the story’s implications, many of which remain in doubt. Instead, the story only managed a slow burn, and other outlets had plenty of time to dump cold water on it. “If anyone bumps into that story now, it’s not the only thing out there” about Hunter Biden, says Warren.
Twitter says it made its decision because the Post story’s contained screenshots of personal information and hacked material, two things that violate its rules. Facebook hasn’t said what rules it felt the story violated.
He was, but there wasn't four years of a disastrous presidency by Trump before the last election.
You at least have the landslide bit right, you're spot on about that.
Trump will win
Motherfucker
I'm not ruling anything out. I think Biden will probably win but it'll be tight and there's going to be all sorts of trouble with the votes. It's going to make the issue with Bush and the hanging chads look like the time Terry Wogan read out the wrong name on a song for Europe.
Who said it's been a disaster?
The markets are up, jobs are up
Have you seen them?
Great deals made with everyone.
Rebaits hook.
The markets are up because everyone took their money out (sending the markets down) and then reinvested the lot and more in the tech companies and on-line sellers (Amazon/Supermarkets etc.) that would thrive because Trump couldn't handle Covid. Markets up !
Jobs are still only 50% back from pre-covid.
Does China allow whooshes?
Allow them? They copy them and sell them for less.
That's what the financial fake news thinks or wants you to think. How far markets move up or down = volatility. How many people are buying and selling = liquidity. The two things counteract each other. When you have a crash, it means people run away reducing liquidity, and the remaining people all want to do the same thing increasing volatility. That's how it happens. What is driving the market now is the central bank. They are printing money to supply liquidity, so that takes out one part of the equation. However, you still have people in the options market that are frantically buying insurance to hedge their stock portfolios before the doom, ordinarily that will increase the implied volatility. You can check the price of that insurance and do some math to calculate the volatility they are expecting to come. Guess what, the central bank is also printing money to sell lots of that insurance and keep the price artificially low, which now takes out the other part of the equation. They are not allowing the market to do anything but remain on a stable upward path diverging more and more from the actual economy. Nobody knows if this can go on indefinitely, but yeah it can't. The end is nigh.
Err no they don't. That is WAY off base.
In the 14 states that could be considered 'swing' Trump is only ahead in ONE. In fact those states that are virtually decided (a lead of 7% or more) has Biden with 243 seats (requiring 27 more to win) and Trump with 117.
Of the swing states Biden has a lead of 5% or more in 7 of them, accounting for 66 more seats. He really only needs to hold those states where he has a 7% lead or more and win 2 or 3 of the remaining 11 'swing states', where he already has a lead of 5-6%, to be sure of those 270 seats ... or a lot more. Trump has a massive task to overcome those leads and the majority of polls have him slipping further back. The bookies odds confirming this probability.
Suggest taking a look at the well respected neutral sites that aggregate polls (below BBC) :
BBC (scroll down for the Swing States - Trump now leading in one) : https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53657174
538. : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
Realclearpolitics : https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
Electoral Vote : https://www.electoral-vote.com/
Frontloadinghq : https://www.frontloadinghq.com/
Redfield & Wilton Strategies : https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-us-swing-states-voting-intention-4-7-october/
(a UK firm with a high trustworthy rating). As of today :
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest presidential voting intention poll in the swing states finds Joe Biden continuing to lead Donald Trump in all six swing states by 5-10%. The Democratic candidate has increased his lead by 3% in Arizona and North Carolina, and by 5% in Wisconsin, while retaining the same lead in Florida and Pennsylvania as two weeks ago.
BTW the best way to check if the poll you are looking at is trustworthy or has a strong bias :
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Last edited:
Of course one of the main issues with polling is being able to poll a fair representative cross-section - which is where the polls went wrong in 2016.
However emphasis has been made by the main pollsters on improvements made to ensure the voters contacted are now representative statistically for that state (non-white, hispanic, students, white-collar, blue-collar and especially rural (who were greatly ignored by the polls in 2016 but in fact represented an overwhelming voting base for Trump).
Also specifically not the general public (adults) per se but only those registered and intending to actually vote. It remains to be seen if the changes have improved accuracy however it would be surprising if all of those polls got it wrong.
However emphasis has been made by the main pollsters on improvements made to ensure the voters contacted are now representative statistically for that state (non-white, hispanic, students, white-collar, blue-collar and especially rural (who were greatly ignored by the polls in 2016 but in fact represented an overwhelming voting base for Trump).
Also specifically not the general public (adults) per se but only those registered and intending to actually vote. It remains to be seen if the changes have improved accuracy however it would be surprising if all of those polls got it wrong.
I was looking at the same polls but I was talking in the context of the Trump campaign ramping up the negative attacks using social media and still 3 weeks to go for that to work.
That's all good but I'm not buying it and I'm not going to trust any pollsters for a while.. like ever!
All those crazy pics of lines and lines of people remind me of the posts here in the UK kids going to vote corbyn and Labour etc only to get absolutely smashed.
People were expecting similar last time re Hillary and she lost, you can claim the technical on overal vote and all that but Trump won on a campaign of lies and loads of shit flung at him from the grab em by the pussy stuff to the build the wall and Mexico will pay shit.
They knew he was a twat then and votes him, they know he's a twat now and will continue to vote for him.
They don't care if he's a twat, they only care about the effect of his policies upon their finances. Exactly the way it should be. It's only the liberal media and idiots on social media who collapse to their knees after being mortally wounded by one of his lies or an offensive comment, in the real world nobody gives a shit about their cries of mental pain, all that counts is the money.
The images from the campaign rallies are all you need to know. Biden is stood there like a total loser in a car park, the only people who bothered to show up were Trump supporters to heckle him. Trump comes out of hospital, possibly still carrying a highly infectious virus, thousands show up and cheer his every word. The polls and the fake news can try to spin the narrative, but the evidence is before your eyes. It's going to be a landslide.
What the fuck are you talking about. The vast majority of Trump's supporters will be hurt by his economic policies. The people who he actually works for though, love them. They just have to sell it to idiots. This is how you do that.
By paying less tax? By not losing their health insurance? By having their jobs protected from unfair trade deals? By having their pension values recovered by a rising stock prices?
I might be getting this wrong so apologies if I'm not getting the pulse right here.
but seems a whole bundle of people are almost not even that bothered about what he'll provide them, they seem to be more bothered about whose he's gonna take down.. The lefty liberals, immigrants, media etc
I suppose if they had a choice they'd be ok with losing some finances as long as the swamp gets taken out..and of course them pedos in the pizza shop will finally be arrested
Yep... my neighbor has a "make liberals cry again" trump poster, and that's his motivation, really.
Also don't think they give a shit about paedophile conspiracies. The anger is directed at corrupt politicians. Look at the £12bn Boris handed over to serco, it is criminal, it makes you want to put his head in a vice and crack his skull open, then let him be raped by pigs. But that sort of stuff is commonplace in the US. People are sick of it. Trump isn't a politician, so that's the end of the debate. The media labels him as thick, a nonce, a racist, a liar, a narcissist, none of it matters, they will never be able to label him as a politician. Victory is a formality from that point.
So Trump isn't corrupt?
Similar threads
