Was it the algorithm or was it a "guy in a room" which/who decided to block New York Post's article on Hunter Biden's laptop scandal?
Even the laptop has been proven to belong to him.
The onus is on you to prove it isn't Hunters laptop.
Those who investigated thoroughly found that the chain of custody of the hard drive was incredibly sloppy and the content of the hard drive was changed multiple times, making it impossible to confirm where the hard drive came from or who put which content onto it.
The speculation is that someone obtained Hunter Biden’s emails in some unrelated way (e.g. from other hacks) and then placed them onto the hard drive in question as a way to obscure the source/method.
Here’s the clearest story explaining the details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-...
Their skepticism turned out to be well founded. There’s really no story there. (This was similar to the non-story of Hillary Clinton’s email server, Russian-hacked DNC emails, etc. of 2016 which turned out to be completely anodyne and routine, but became the intense focus of months of news coverage and whipped partisans into a frothy frenzy based on wild lies/speculation.)
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it doesn't turn away from the fact that the story was suppressed. Real or not.
> This was similar to the non-story of Hillary Clinton’s email server, Russian-hacked DNC emails, etc. of 2016 which turned out to be completely anodyne and routine
At least it got proper coverage. There was no suppression of either the email gate or the Russia gate. Whether it was fake, true, hoax doesn't matter. It got the coverage it was due.
> were rightly skeptical of a tabloid fluff story with no details, corroboration, or expert analysis about a mysterious harddrive
Joe Biden said it was based on a "bunch of garbage". That it was "Russian disinformation". All news media outlets, including Washington Post, carried that forward in all their news headlines and editorial posts (except right wing news media outlets of course). What were the details, corroboration or expert analysis that they went through before labelling the Laptop as "Russian disinformation"?
> Their skepticism turned out to be well founded
I missed the part of their skepticism where they called it "Russian disinformation" and it turned out to be true. Can you highlight to me where it was proved that the Laptop was part of a smear campaign against Joe Biden initiated through "Russian disinformation"?
What Washington Post has finally done is admitted that the Laptop and its contents are real. Now when it comes to the meat of the matter, the actual contents of the Laptop, it hasn't gone through sufficient scrutiny yet. It also hasn't taken into account the whistleblower's account of what dealings the Biden family had with the Chinese and Ukrainians. On who the "Big Guy" was who received the payments; which is mentioned in a March 2017 email conversation between James Gilliar (Hunter's associate) and a Chinese energy firm where he says: "10 held by H for the big guy?". Who is the "Big Guy" here? Who is "H" here? I am assuming H is Hunter and "Big Guy" is Joe Biden. It is still an assumption and can only be proved in some Court of law in USA. But if you aren't even going to give this evidence a chance to see the light of the day you'll never be able to get to the bottom of the Truth.
Now I am not saying any of it is 100% true as it is still under scrutiny by a Grand Jury (though a lot of it is coming out to be true now). I am just saying that the media actively suppressed this information from the general public out of "fears" of it being "Russian disinformation" which still hasn't been proved. Or maybe, just maybe, they did not want their favorite candidate to lose.
There is unfortunately not enough verifiable information about the sources and chain of custody of the hard drive to distinguish between these two alternatives.
Various media sources (and the American public in general) were burned multiple times by credulously repeating Bannon- and Giuliani-pitched (completely made up) bullshit, some of which actually was later demonstrated to be Russian government produced disinformation. Even if the hard drive turned out to be what they said (again, this is still dubious), it would be a good example of a “boy who cried wolf” situation.
Now if you truly want to address this concern of the people, the question obviously would be if it was the algorithm that blocked the article or was it "a guy in a room"? I don't see what is the difficulty in admitting that it was "a guy in a room" because our values/ideology does not align with ideology of New York Post.
When you start to say that it was the algorithm that did it, and that there was zero human interference, without any proof to back up those assertions, then it is much the same as saying that it was a "popup" that triggered when one is caught watching porn. "I did not do it, it was the machine."
Then it becomes even more important to open source the algorithm so everyone can see what is happening internally. It at least puts some doubts to rest. It is better than saying "believe me it was the algorithm not me".
Excellent. So when is Twitter going to ban Taylor Lorenz for doxxing an anonymous Twitter user LibsofTikTok? This is her tweet right here: https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1516399663305297920
It has been up since April 19th, 2022. Twitter immediately blocked New York Post's tweet.
I wonder why the algorithm is so slow when it comes to Taylor Lorenz? Maybe we'll find out when the code is open sourced. Then we can all legitimately blame "the algorithm" for causing all this divide between the left and right wing in a neutral, faultless, perfect digital town square called Twitter.