The Weiner laptop: Hunter Biden addition

[ElNono]

1. I agree that Twitter should not autonomously take down the Tweet. That would make them a publisher, which they are not one, legally. That said, you can't have that standard for Biden and then not afford the same rights to every one else.

You're talking editorializing, not censorship. Legally they can be whatever they want to be, they're private business after all, and largely unregulated. The question is if they should keep certain advantageous legal protections if they become editors, and that's certainly debatable.

Even the notion that they're editorializing is debatable and would have to be tested in court, as they don't actually modify the user's content. That would be an interesting case.

2. You just gave a blanket answer that it's okay to censor the NYP story. You give no justification because there is none and then you spend the rest of yourself blabbering on whatever.

Sorry you have trouble with words like ambivalent. Look them up, you have internet after all.

It would cost me absolutely nothing to tell you that I agree or disagree with the measure they've taken, but I'm being honest here, and I think about the pro and cons of this quite a bit. We're not anymore at a time where somebody would publish some slander on a newspaper, and then they could be sued for libel, and go through that whole process.

Instead now we have a million things going on at any given time, everybody thinks they're a journo, and there's both a ton of bull flying around and plenty of customers for it. This is also largely why I don't consume it.

So this is quite a new terrain, and I'm not sure what I have such a firm position on this as I did in the past.

I used to be much more pro-information-disclosure, I admit to that. I also think these things eventually become public and known anyways (this one did regardless of what social media did or did not do). Same fate awaits the much less redacted Mueller report, for example.

[ElNono]

That's what the authoritarian left is doing. Yes. They are demanding censorship of the stuff they don't like; to which they have labeled it fake news.

People uh muh need to be protected from outlooks deemed harmful

That's what banana republic dictators do.

Pass on your authoritarian left protection.

Like I said, you're too emotionally invested in this. You skipped over the fact that, indeed, they were dragged into Congress because we had a 3 years investigation where we got to know that foreign countries actively tried to interfere with our democracy, especially through social media.

I think that's serious, but I also think it puts these companies in untenable positions.

[Spurtacular]

You're talking editorializing, not censorship. Legally they can be whatever they want to be, they're private business after all, and largely unregulated. The question is if they should keep certain advantageous legal protections if they become editors, and that's certainly debatable.

Even the notion that they're editorializing is debatable and would have to be tested in court, as they don't actually modify the user's content. That would be an interesting case.



Sorry you have trouble with words like ambivalent. Look them up, you have internet after all.

It would cost me absolutely nothing to tell you that I agree or disagree with the measure they've taken, but I'm being honest here, and I think about the pro and cons of this quite a bit. We're not anymore at a time where somebody would publish some slander on a newspaper, and then they could be sued for libel, and go through that whole process.

Instead now we have a million things going on at any given time, everybody thinks they're a journo, and there's both a ton of bull flying around and plenty of customers for it. This is also largely why I don't consume it.

So this is quite a new terrain, and I'm not sure what I have such a firm position on this as I did in the past.

I used to be much more pro-information-disclosure, I admit to that. I also think these things eventually become public and known anyways (this one did regardless of what social media did or did not do). Same fate awaits the much less redacted Mueller report, for example.

No gray zone about NYP being the press. Having what is essentially a public utility like Twitter suppressing freedom of the press is unAmerican. This is the they do in Communist China and in Islamo-fascist states.

[Spurtacular]

Like I said, you're too emotionally invested in this. You skipped over the fact that, indeed, they were dragged into Congress because we had a 3 years investigation where we got to know that foreign countries actively tried to interfere with our democracy, especially through social media.

I think that's serious, but I also think it puts these companies in untenable positions.

Stop pretending the Mueller report was anything groundbreaking.
That's just your huge emotional investment speaking.

[Spurtacular]

Technically, he did. The data isn't owned by the repairman because he salvaged it. Companies like Best Buy have had to pay a good chunk of money due to similar situations.

You'd have to cite the cases. Google yields sayings like this:

As a reminder, the US doesn't (yet) have a federal-level general consumer

data

privacy

law

, let alone a

data

security

law

.

[Nathan89]

Amazing how that works.

[Blake]

No gray zone about NYP being the press. Having what is essentially a public utility like Twitter suppressing freedom of the press is unAmerican. This is the they do in Communist China and in Islamo-fascist states.

Twitter isn't a public utility lol. You're just an idiot.

[Blake]

Amazing how that works.

The stupid times we live in?

Trump president.

[Spurtacular]

Total liar.

[Spurtacular]

Twitter isn't a public utility lol. You're just an idiot.

Thanks for the update, board cuckold.

[hater]

No it doesn't. The NYT didn't obtain Trump's tax returns either by hacking or otherwise illegally. They were provided by a confidential source.

so a leak is ok but a hack is not? How would ter know which is which

[Spurtacular]

so a leak is ok but a hack is not? How would ter know which is which

In the second place, what makes a leak better than a hack? Bot are (typically) illegal.

[Winehole23]

In the second place, what makes a leak better than a hack? Bot are (typically) illegal.

If the information is in the public interest, the leaker and the publisher are usually protected by the 1st Amendment, the hacker, not so much. Seems inconsistent to me, but there's no requirement that the law be consistent, it is what it is.

Write your congresscritter or start a a 501(c)(40) to get the law changed to furnish hackers 1st Amendment protection.

[hater]

If the information is in the public interest, the leaker and the publisher are usually protected by the 1st Amendment, the hacker, not so much. Seems inconsistent to me, but there's no requirement that the law be consistent, it is what it is.

Write your congresscritter or start a a 501(c)(40) to get the law changed to furnish hackers 1st Amendment protection.

How would twitter know if the info came from a hack or leak???

Are the Manning Collateral Damage tapes leaks or hacks?

[Spurminator]

Came here trolling 20 years ago and haven’t changed a bit.

Trolling is posting rapid fire posts like Chris.

Trolling is not doing hours of research a day on the nuances of FISA applications and posting 40 straight tweets from Techno_Frog.

You're all in on this stuff. But denial is the first step in showing that you realize you were ing stupid. I'll take it.

[Spurtacular]

If the information is in the public interest, the leaker and the publisher are usually protected by the 1st Amendment, the hacker, not so much. Seems inconsistent to me, but there's no requirement that the law be consistent, it is what it is.

Write your congresscritter or start a a 501(c)(40) to get the law changed to furnish hackers 1st Amendment protection.

Bull . Leakers and hackers are both subject to prosecution. They're both (typically) breaking the law.

Moar convenience is all.

[Winehole23]

How would twitter know if the info came from a hack or leak???

Are the Manning Collateral Damage tapes leaks or hacks?

Not sure why this question is important to you. What are you driving at?

[Winehole23]

Bull . Leakers and hackers are both subject to prosecution. They're both (typically) breaking the law.

I didn't say leakers were immune to prosecution, just that the 1st Amendment affords some protection.

[Spurtacular]

I didn't say leakers were immune to prosecution, just that the 1st Amendment affords some protection.

That has really nothing to do with who is worse. That just means they might have a better safety net in some cases.

[hater]

Not sure why this question is important to you. What are you driving at?

Of course its important. Twitter says they dont allow "hacked" content yet they allow "leaked" content.

How do they know which is which?

[hater]

Were the hillary emails a hack or a leak?

[Winehole23]

That has really nothing to do with who is worse. That just means they might have a better safety net in some cases.

I wasn't passing judgment about who's better or worse, just noting that the law treats them differently.

[Winehole23]

Of course its important. Twitter says they dont allow "hacked" content yet they allow "leaked" content.

How do they know which is which?

I have no idea.

[Spurtacular]

I wasn't passing judgment about who's better or worse, just noting that the law treats them differently.

But the point in the first place is that neither is worse if they're "breaking the law".
Twitter can't pick and choose. They're going to have their asses handed to them.
But they're hoping to help steal an election in the meantime.

[hater]

I have no idea.

Exactly. Neither do they.

By their standards no hillary email, collateral damage, snowden files can possibly be posted as US says they are hacked.

Welcome to cherry picking land, 1984.