The biggest revelation from the previous dumps were that Joe Biden's team requested Twitter remove posts of Hunter Biden's nude body from the site, and they obliged. This is content moderation and completely reasonable.
The latest revelation is that Twitter tried to keep antivax shit off the site. Everyone paying attention knew that was the case already, and was the right thing to do (Hacker News should do that, too).
The biggest issue isn't the dick pics, but him smoking crack and potentially having sex with an underaged woman. He just happened to be naked while doing/potentially doing those things.
He also was not the candidate, did not have a chance of getting a government position like his predecessor’s children, and there was no public interest in seeing his acts. It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already along with Joe’s desire to help his son get treatment.
>He also was not the candidate, did not have a chance of getting a government position like his predecessor’s children
And? Does that mean we should suppress evidence of crimes that are posted on Twitter because of that? If I committed a crime, should Twitter delete the articles and pictures?
> It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already along
It is more than just addiction. He may have had child porn on his computer and may have had sex with an underage girl.
There is also the question of how he got such a cushy job with no experience and a drug addiction.
>with Joe’s desire to help his son get treatment.
Joe seems like he genuinely cares about his son and wanted him to get help. I don't think that is relevant though.
Twitter isn’t law enforcement so, no, there isn’t a requirement that they provide free hosting and promotion for everyone alleging a crime. In this case, they briefly used their hacked materials policy until deciding that it didn’t apply to the news coverage but did continue to yank non-consensual nudes under their existing policies.
If you genuinely believed that Hunter Biden had child porn or whatever Giuliani imagines, you’d definitely want that offline since there’s no public benefit to circulating criminal materials and law enforcement is definitely going to investigate it.
>Twitter isn’t law enforcement so, no, there isn’t a requirement that they provide free hosting and promotion for everyone alleging a crime
I didn't say they should be required to. I just think they should be consistent on their enforcement of the rules.
>In this case, they briefly used their hacked materials policy until deciding that it didn’t apply to the news coverage
Why didn't they do that when GiveSendGo was hacked (the hacking was not in doubt) and names of people who donated to the Freedom Convoy were leaked?
Like I said, I have an issue with the selective enforcement of the rules. If they want to ban material that is hacked that is fine, but to not do it when everybody knows the materials were hacked is ridiculous.
>but did continue to yank non-consensual nudes under their existing policies.
I am fine with suppressing non consensual nudes. I am not OK with suppressing articles about them.
>If you genuinely believed that Hunter Biden had child porn or whatever Giuliani imagines, you’d definitely want that offline since there’s no public benefit to circulating criminal materials and law enforcement is definitely going to investigate it.
No one was suggesting they should be releasing the child porn. I am advocating for allow news articles about it.
I fail to see why then it is Twitter's responsibility to report this to the general public or even allow its existence. Authorities exist for a reason, twitter is neither part of the judicial, executive, nor legislative branch, nor does it have any jurisdiction in conducting research into criminal offenses and prosecuting people.
I fail to see why Hunter Biden needs to be held at a different standard than other people, especially given that he did not hold office, nor was in the process of doing so via cronyism, nor did he make millions off his [non existent] position in the government.
>I fail to see why then it is Twitter's responsibility to report this to the general public or even allow its existence.
Should Twitter remove all evidence of other people's crimes or just Hunter's that get posted?
>Authorities exist for a reason, twitter is neither part of the judicial, executive, nor legislative branch, nor does it have any jurisdiction in conducting research into criminal offenses and prosecuting people.
Nobody is asking for Twitter to arrest Hunter or hold a trial. They just wanted to be able to spread information about the crimes.
>I fail to see why Hunter Biden needs to be held at a different standard than other people
He was held to a different standard when Twitter removed people posting pictures and articles about his crime. If I committed a crime would Twitter ban those pictures? Doubt it.
>especially given that he did not hold office
The only time Twitter should allow evidence of crimes is when the person is a government official? Seems like a weird standard.
>nor was in the process of doing so via cronyism
How did he get his job in Ukraine and why did the prosecutor get fired at Joe Biden's request if it wasn't for cronyism?
>nor did he make millions off his [non existent] position in the government.
He did make millions in a nongovernmental position that he was given due to his relationship with his father though.
> He was held to a different standard when Twitter removed people posting pictures and articles about his crime. If I committed a crime would Twitter ban those pictures? Doubt it.
First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted.
Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive orders or legal threats were issued.
> How did he get his job in Ukraine
No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own.
> and why did the prosecutor get fired at Joe Biden's request
Citation needed.
> if it wasn't for cronyism?
Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government.
> He did make millions in a nongovernmental position that he was given due to his relationship with his father though.
It does make quite a bit of a difference between inside and outside, don't you think? I hope you were proportionally outraged over Ivanka and Jared:
> Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump reported between $172 million and $640 million in outside income while working in the White House, according to an analysis of financial disclosures by CREW. It is impossible to tell the exact amount as the income is sometimes reported in broad ranges and cover four months of income before Ivanka Trump officially joined her father’s administration and nearly one month before Jared Kushner joined.
While Jared (Trump's son in law, appointed to __FEDERAL__ position, ergo more cronyism) signed a 2 billion dollar deal with Saudis. So are you equally outraged over this level of cronyism? Again, here is a definition of cronyism to help you:
> the practice of favoring one's close friends, especially in political appointments.
> no executive orders or legal threats were issued.
that is a pretty interesting high bar to uphold
> No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own.
That was an open and shut case of corruption, you playing innocent ("no idea") does not make it less so.
> Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government.
This is literally whataboutism. In the meantime, twitter did not remove information about Ivanka and the Trumps, on the contrary.
In an alternate reality, wouldn't you be pissed if Google removed all bad information about the Trumps?
>First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted.
There are literally pictures of him smoking crack. I don't fully remember, but there may have been a video of it as well. Do you think it is a deep fake?
>Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive orders or legal threats were issued.
That isn't what happened with the Hunter pictures and articles though. The government asked for it to be removed.
> No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own.
I never suggested that happened.
> Citation needed.
Joe Biden said it himself: "I'm not going to -- or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said -- I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
This was the prosecutor investigating the company Hunter Biden was working at. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but there was a clear conflict of interest.
> Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent.
Of course I am against this. The difference is Twitter didn't ban any articles about this like they did with Hunter.
>Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government.
I don't think this matters. The only reason (as far as I can tell) that Hunter got the job is because his dad was in an official position in the government. No different than the Trumps.
> It does make quite a bit of a difference between inside and outside, don't you think?
No. Corruption is corruption. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior.
>I hope you were proportionally outraged over Ivanka and Jared:
I am proportionally outraged at Ivanka and Jared as I am Hunter. I am not proportionally outraged over the situation since only one was censored by Twitter.
If it's proven true, is it still conspiracy?
reply