Hacker News Reader

Comment by insickness | Hacker News Reader

> Yet another form of misinformation is political lies of the sort that we’ve been seeing most notoriously from Russian propaganda lately.

Are you referring to propaganda that Russia is spreading or the labeling of anyone who disagrees with the common narrative as Russian propaganda? It would seem to be there's a lot more of the second going on. Likewise, as much misinformation as there is going around, there's just as much labeling things as disinformation in order wield political muscle, which was rampant for the last two years during covid.

View on HN

This appears to be a strange self-conversation. You take words and twist them until they fit a point you wanted to make.

Apparently you believe in things that most don't believe and that have been labeled (by whom?) as Russian propaganda. What does this add or subtract to the article?

And if I dare say so: if others get the impression that ideas you share are propaganda it is worth reflecting how you formed these opinions/beliefs. We are all victims of one form of propaganda or anotherz so it is generally a good idea to sometimes question whether important beliefs are indeed true, and especially what it would take to falsify them. What could someone show to you to prove that your views are false?

My point is that the "misinformation" label has constantly been used as a cover to censor. Two cases in point:

1. To say that Covid may have originated in a lab would get you censored on youtube, facebook and most other social media. It was misinformation until it wasn't. Now the lab leak theory is just as viable.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-...

2. When the story of Hunter Biden's laptop first broke, it was labeled by most mainstream media, along with 50 intelligence experts, as Russian propaganda. Now even the New York Times admits that it was authentic.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-news-thats-finally-fit-...

I agree that there's been too much of this lately. The lab leak one I fell for myself, feeling it was too conspiratorial, until Biden popped up on TV and said the US felt like the idea had legs. And then I felt stupid. But it was a good lesson in not drinking the whole cup of Kool-Aid.

Although I fell again for the Cosmonaut jumpsuit palaver :(

If you want a real kick in the gut… watch the videos and read the texts from Hunter Biden’s laptop. And know that it came out weeks before the election and literally everyone except the NY Post covered it up (and were censored for it).

I’ve seen more of Hunter Biden than I have ever wanted to see of any man.

How was the NY Post censored?

There was no coverup. Elsewhere in the comments someone linked to what I think is the original NY Times article.

What’s the authenticity verification timeline vs. NY Post’s article(s)?

Both Facebook and Twitter blocked sharing of the NY Post article. You couldn't even share it in a private message. Twitter froze the NY Post's twitter account saying they would unfreeze it once the NY Post took down the article.

Facebook and Twitter restrict controversial New York Post story on Joe Biden https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/14/facebook-...

Twitter Unblocks Account of New York Post, Which Claims Victory in Standoff Over Biden Stories https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-unblocks-new-y...

Huh. I did not know that. Thanks for the links.

Your citations don’t back up your claims, I’m afraid.

The citation is in my comment. Here it is again:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-07/facebo...

To say that Covid may have originated in a lab would get you censored on youtube, facebook and most other social media

Your citation does not say this.

> Facebook will no longer take down posts claiming that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured, a company spokesperson told POLITICO on Wednesday, a move that acknowledges the renewed debate about the virus’ origins.

Right. Facebook would take down content “claiming that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured”. I’m not arguing against cited claims.

Your wording is broader, emphasis added here to highlight the differences from the above text:

“To say that Covid may have originated in a lab would get you censored on youtube, facebook and most other social media.”

In table form, what’s been cited would look like this:

  Service _____ would take down content that said the lab leak / human manufacturing _____ happened:

                Did   Maybe
  YouTube
  Facebook      *
  Most other sm

Propaganda can be authentic. For example, during the 2016 election the Russians hacked the DNC and leaked the retrieved e-mails. They were authentic but they were also part of a propaganda campaign.

Hunter Biden’s laptop appears be authentic but it’s hard to tell what data and how much given the unknown provenance of the device. It was also clearly part of a smear campaign involving Rudy Giuliani, who himself has been caught literally spreading Russian propaganda. The heart of the whole Hunter Biden laptop issue was that it was being used to suggest that Pres. Biden was engaged in nefarious business deals with his son and China, which so far has not been proven, the laptop notwithstanding.

On measure given what Russia did in 2016, how the Republican Senate Intel Committee found that Trump and his associates willfully engaged with Russians to aid his campaign, and Trump’s clear assertion that he would engage in the same conduct in the future, the actions taken during 2020 seem prudent to me.

> When the story of Hunter Biden's laptop first broke, it was labeled by most mainstream media, along with 50 intelligence experts, as Russian propaganda. Now even the New York Times admits that it was authentic.

It’s seems impossible to have a nuanced discussion anything political.

Many parts of the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop were true, that doesn’t mean that the story was not propaganda.

The original NYPost story used the Trump team as sources, the story specifically cites Giuliani as the source of the emails seems like reason enough to doubt the veracity.

That said, censorship is not the right approach.

Why not link to the Times article on your second point? It’s more nuanced than you are making it seem. They’re just reporting that some of the emails in the email dump are authentic, not confirming the entire affair

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

This is what the Times reported in 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com