Big Tech/Social Media Censorship. Musk: Blackmailing Advertisers Can ***** Off.

[Doc]

21 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

are you actually arguing the FBI did not know in 2020 that the Hunter Biden laptop was legit?  That the FBI is so incompetent that they went through it and literally thought it was russian disinformation? You seem to fixate on the author putting his name on the article, if I am breaking the news that a man who has a great chance to be president is extraordinarily corrupt I am not rushing to put my name to it. 

 

They knew it was real.  And if they didn't, they were incredibly incompetent.  Neither is a good look for them.

[ChiGoose]

34 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

are you actually arguing the FBI did not know in 2020 that the Hunter Biden laptop was legit?  That the FBI is so incompetent that they went through it and literally thought it was russian disinformation? You seem to fixate on the author putting his name on the article, if I am breaking the news that a man who has a great chance to be president is extraordinarily corrupt I am not rushing to put my name to it. 

I’m saying that there isn’t evidence that the FBI told social media companies not to post about the laptop or specifically talked about Hunter. There is in fact evidence to the contrary. 
 

In addition to that, while some of the laptop files have been verified, others haven’t. Doesn’t mean they are not real but does mean we cannot definitely say they are at this time. 
 

Quote

In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI.

 

Maxey had alerted The Washington Post to this issue in advance, saying that others had accessed the data to examine its contents and make copies of files. But the lack of what experts call a “clean chain of custody” undermined Green’s and Williams’s ability to determine the authenticity of most of the drive’s contents.

 

“The drive is a mess,” Green said.

He compared the portable drive he received from The Post to a crime scene in which detectives arrive to find Big Mac wrappers carelessly left behind by police officers who were there before them, contaminating the evidence.

 

That assessment was echoed by Williams.

 

“From a forensics standpoint, it’s a disaster,” Williams said. (The Post is paying Williams for the professional services he provided. Green declined payment.)

 

But both Green and Williams agreed on the authenticity of the emails that carried cryptographic signatures, though there was variation in which emails Green and Williams were able to verify using their forensic tools. The most reliable cryptographic signatures, they said, came from leading technology companies such as Google, which alone accounted for more than 16,000 of the verified emails.

 

Neither expert reported finding evidence that individual emails or other files had been manipulated by hackers, but neither was able to rule out that possibility.

(Source)

In looking at the appropriateness of the FBI’s actions, here’s how I would evaluate different scenarios what they potentially did:

 

Good:

1. Warn companies of potential cybersecurity and/or hacked materials during the election

 

Fine:

2. Tell companies about the laptop but state that they cannot verify all of its contents

 

Bad:

3. Tell companies not to allow anything about the laptop

4. Force companies to not allow anything about the laptop

 

All of the evidence points to scenario one as the most likely. Scenario four is literally impossible. People here seem to think it’s 3 or 4 without evidence to support it. 

[Orlando Tim]

22 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They knew it was real.  And if they didn't, they were incredibly incompetent.  Neither is a good look for them.

Truly either they are so incompetent that they have no idea what disinformation is and they allow their political identity to cloud their judgement or they are complete political hacks who lied to help a presidential candidate. 

[BillsFanNC]

28 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Truly either they are so incompetent that they have no idea what disinformation is and they allow their political identity to cloud their judgement or they are complete political hacks who lied to help a presidential candidate. 

 

The 50 former intelligence officials signed letter literally said that they had no evidence that it was Russian disinformation.  It said it right in the letter, that they have no evidence, but that didn't stop the FBI from putting out a "warning" about Russian disinfo efforts or a corrupt media reporting that it actually was Russian disinformation. 

 

The security state and media working hand in glove is so obviously and blatantly corrupt...and is actually the real disinformation program.

 

And yet we still have people defending it.

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

The 50 former intelligence officials signed letter literally said that they had no evidence that it was Russian disinformation.  It said it right in the letter, that they have no evidence, but that didn't stop the FBI from putting out a "warning" about Russian disinfo efforts or a corrupt media reporting that it actually was Russian disinformation. 

 

The security state and media working hand in glove is so obviously and blatantly corrupt...and is actually the real disinformation program.

 

And yet we still have people defending it.

50 former intelligence officials wrote a note stating that the Hunter story had all the marks of a disinformation op. Because given what was known at the time, it did. 
 

Completely unrelated to that, the FBI warned that there might be a release of hacked materials to influence the election because it had happened before. 
 

The media was free to take any action they wanted in regard to any of this. Nobody forced them to do anything. 
 

The most likely and simplest explanation is pretty banal and yet we still have people here with Very Online Brain who will just believe anything from anyone if it makes the media, the Dems, or any other perceived enemies look bad. 
 

The net-net of all of this is that the laptop story got far more coverage because of all of this than it would have otherwise. 

[BillStime]

So much doxxing 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

50 former intelligence officials wrote a note stating that the Hunter story had all the marks of a disinformation op. Because given what was known at the time, it did. 
 

Completely unrelated to that, the FBI warned that there might be a release of hacked materials to influence the election because it had happened before. 
 

 

Gtfo. The media collectively decided to all misreport the letter in unison? And say it WAS Russian disinformation and NOT report that the letter explicitly stated there was zero evidence to support the claim?

 

You have to be a massive partisan lemming to buy this narrative.

 

So you're asking for explicit evidence that the FBI coerced Twitter to censor.

 

But when security state partisans explicitly state that they do not have any evidence to support a claim....you just hand wave it away.

 

Shocker!

 

The cognitive dissonance on display here is staggering.

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

50 former intelligence officials wrote a note stating that the Hunter story had all the marks of a disinformation op. Because given what was known at the time, it did. 
 

Completely unrelated to that, the FBI warned that there might be a release of hacked materials to influence the election because it had happened before. 
 

The media was free to take any action they wanted in regard to any of this. Nobody forced them to do anything. 
 

The most likely and simplest explanation is pretty banal and yet we still have people here with Very Online Brain who will just believe anything from anyone if it makes the media, the Dems, or any other perceived enemies look bad. 
 

The net-net of all of this is that the laptop story got far more coverage because of all of this than it would have otherwise. 

 

They lied.  It was obvious to (most) everyone.  They could have easily investigated it before making any proclamations, but no one did.

[BillsFanNC]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

They lied.  It was obvious to (most) everyone.  They could have easily investigated it before making any proclamations, but no one did.

 

Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. 

 

Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year?

 

Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS.

Edited December 18, 2022 by BillsFanNC

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. 

 

Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year?

 

Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS.

 

Yup.  That's why I've been saying they lied and they need to be investigated fully.

[ChiGoose]

26 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. 

 

Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year?

 

Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS.

I’m not saying that. We don’t know what the FBI knows about it. There is an ongoing investigation into Hunter so we shouldn’t expect them to say anything about it.

 

In fact, we have zero evidence that the FBI said the laptop might be misinformation and good evidence that it didn’t. 

[BillStime]

27 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Glenn Greenwald has shown in painstaking detail how any reporter could easily determine if the laptop emails were real. Journalism 101 stuff. 

 

Yet we are supposed to believe that the world's premiere law enforcement agency couldn't determine the same after they had if for a year?

 

Again, massive cognitive dissonance to buy that huge load of BS.

Day 775 of DR clone searching for a scapegoat for Trumps loss.

 

 

[BillStime]

So many rules at the Peoples Republik of Twitter

 

 

[ChiGoose]

34 minutes ago, BillStime said:

So many rules at the Peoples Republik of Twitter

 

 

Twitter is now Free Speech*
 

 

 

*Free Speech does not include certain types of publicly available information, anything criticizing the Chief Twit, or any companies owned or operated by the Chief Twit; nor promotion of any competitors to companies owned and operated by the Chief Twit; or acknowledgment of the existence of said competitors or companies; or platforms that may be deemed to be competitors or future potential competitors. Content that is not considered free speech and may constitute a bannable offense may change at any moment at the whim of the Chief Twit and/or Royal House of Saud and apply retroactively to content that was not a violation when originally posted. Anyone found criticizing or even questioning the Free Speech policy should be told that the Chief Twit can do whatever they want and nobody has a right to criticize him for it and anyone doing so is a big whiny baby. Free speech void were prohibited. No purchase necessary. If your free speech lasts longer than four hours, please consult your local journalist. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

Twitter is a private company and can do what they want.

[ChiGoose]

41 minutes ago, Doc said:

Twitter is a private company and can do what they want.

Well, obviously. 
 

Doesn’t mean we can’t point out that the rules are basically just Calvinball at this point. 

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Well, obviously. 
 

Doesn’t mean we can’t point out that the rules are basically just Calvinball at this point. 

 

You can point out whatever you want.  It will fall on deaf ears just like what we were saying did on your (collective) ears prior to Musk owning it.  Oh and the "House of Saud" was cute.  Tell me about Joke giving that "pariah" MBS immunity again...

[BillsFanNC]

Yup. Russia!!!!

 

 

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You can point out whatever you want.  It will fall on deaf ears just like what we were saying did on your (collective) ears prior to Musk owning it.  Oh and the "House of Saud" was cute.  Tell me about Joke giving that "pariah" MBS immunity again...

Nice deflection. The State Department felt that precedent required it. Which is true but I would say there is a case for breaking with precedent when the person is made head of state almost certainly solely to be granted immunity to avoid being prosecuted. 
 

Twitter moderation wasn’t good before Musk. And now it’s worse. 
 

Pretending that Musk buying twitter and then seemingly making decisions by throwing darts at a board isn’t newsworthy is just sad. 

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Nice deflection. The State Department felt that precedent required it. Which is true but I would say there is a case for breaking with precedent when the person is made head of state almost certainly solely to be granted immunity to avoid being prosecuted. 
 

Twitter moderation wasn’t good before Musk. And now it’s worse. 
 

Pretending that Musk buying twitter and then seemingly making decisions by throwing darts at a board isn’t newsworthy is just sad. 

 

The only one deflecting is you.  Dems, Joke included, were up-in-arms over JK's murder and demanded Trump take swift and severe action against MBS.  Then when Joke becomes President, not only does he not do that, he begs them for oil and gives MBS immunity.  How much of a kick in the teeth is that for you/Dems?  Or is it excusable because it's different when you're President?

 

Twitter moderation is no worse than before Elon bought it.  It's just that you guys have every reason to complain about it now.

[BillStime]

What a mess.

 

 

[BillStime]

LMAO - you can't make this up...

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The only one deflecting is you.  Dems, Joke included, were up-in-arms over JK's murder and demanded Trump take swift and severe action against MBS.  Then when Joke becomes President, not only does he not do that, he begs them for oil and gives MBS immunity.  How much of a kick in the teeth is that for you/Dems?  Or is it excusable because it's different when you're President?

 

Twitter moderation is no worse than before Elon bought it.  It's just that you guys have every reason to complain about it now.

A lot of Dems were pissed at him giving MBS immunity. As I stated, it’s in accordance with precedent and the law but I would have made an exception for MBS and not done it. I don’t expect to agree with everything the president I voted for does because I’m not in a personality cult.

 

Twitter’s moderation policy had problems before Musk but at least Twitter had a policy. Musk decides by fiat and applies new rules retroactively. And all the people who were originally cheering because he was going to do free speech suddenly forgot all of that and now fall in line with whatever decision he makes because it upsets people they don’t like, regardless of how stupid the decision is. 
 

 

[Buffarukus]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

LMAO - you can't make this up...

 

 

 

 

 

im to lazy to get a twitter profile started. billstime do what you do best and start a thread about how under privledged i am!! twitter must implement mail in voting!!!!! 😂🤣

[Buffarukus]

26 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Twitter’s moderation policy had problems before Musk but at least Twitter had a policy. Musk decides by fiat and applies new rules retroactively. And all the people who were originally cheering because he was going to do free speech suddenly forgot all of that and now fall in line with whatever decision he makes because it upsets people they don’t like, regardless of how stupid the decision is. 
 

 

 

twitter had a policy.

 

they just didnt use it. banned people without any reason. used political bias to create their policy. arbitrarily enforced it at some faceless nameless "moderators" discretion and shadow banned users who without warning without their knowledge which they then lied about.

 

and you act like a new owner making mistakes is somehow worse!!? the guy is in a response right above you in your pals billstime response having a user vote on and  apologized on a mistake. imagine not lying and silence but acknowledging and apologizing. yeah what a tyrant. never seen a touch of that from the old regime 

 

again, noone wanted unabated free speech. thats 4chan. they wanted a equal playing field with transparency. applied to all and stopping with the heavy handed moderation.

 

 

threats, doxing and alot more i dont think most users want. only full bore libertarians wanted what your saying. yet you keep suggesting everyone "flipped" their opinion on it. no THATS DEMS! shutup. private company. dont like it leave. build your own. where is THAT opinion? seem to be hearing alot for people who said all that.

 

regardless how you twist it. it seems already alot better and the guy hasnt even gotten started with upgrades and such.

 

please explain what the old system had that is better?

Edited December 19, 2022 by Buffarukus

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

twitter had a policy.

 

they just didnt use it. banned people without any reason. used political bias to create their policy. arbitrarily enforced it at some faceless nameless "moderators" discretion and shadow banned users who without warning without their knowledge which they then lied about.

 

and you act like a new owner making mistakes is somehow worse!!? the guy is in a response right above you in your pals billstime response having a user vote on and  apologized on a mistake. imagine not lying and silence but acknowledging and apologizing. yeah what a tyrant. never seen a touch of that from the old regime 

 

again, noone wanted unabated free speech. thats 4chan. they wanted a equal playing field with transparency. applied to all and stopping with the heavy handed moderation.

 

 

threats, doxing and alot more i dont think most users want. only full bore libertarians wanted what your saying. yet you keep suggesting everyone "flipped" their opinion on it. no THATS DEMS! shutup. private company. dont like it leave. build your own. where is THAT opinion? seem to be hearing alot for people who said all that.

 

regardless how you twist it. it seems already alot better and the guy hasnt even gotten started with upgrades and such.

 

please explain what the old system had that is better?

If Elon had come in, replaced the content moderation policy and/or staff with something more akin to what Twitter’s conservative critics wanted, that would have been fine and likely wouldn’t have resulted in a ton of actual blowback.
 

Instead, he came in like a bull in a china shop, making decisions on a whim with little thought to downstream implications and likely exposing himself to hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liabilities (on top of the $1 billion per year debt service cost his overpriced purchase requires).

 

For a business that relies almost entirely on ad revenue, his chaotic and fickle actions fostered an environment hostile to advertisers who quickly began suspending their ad buys.

 

He changed his mind on a content moderation committee before it could even get off the ground and decided to make moderation policies on a whim. Even reportedly applying them retroactively to posts that were not in violation of the rules at the time they were posted. At some points, he left moderation decisions to unscientific twitter polls, which is crazy considering how much he complains about the bots on Twitter.

 

Because he slashed the legal department and moderation team, the new policies appear to be written by amateurs with little consideration to vagueness or how they will be interpreted. And even then, he declares the new rules mean something they don’t actually say, leading to more confusion about what the actual policy is. 
 

It’s a maddeningly dumb way to run a business. Which is reflected in how his mismanagement of Twitter is currently contributing to the destruction of the value of Tesla.

 

”But it’s a private company, he can do what he wants” is a pointless retort. Of course it’s a private business and he can do what he wants. But we’re still free to point out how bad those decisions are for the company. 
 

All of this could have been avoided with a thoughtful approach to the challenges Twitter was facing, including the moderation policy.

 

And despite the obviousness of it all, people just reflexively defend whatever decision he makes because they were so mad at the old regime and they prefer “owning the libs” to basically anything else. 

[Orlando Tim]

6 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m not saying that. We don’t know what the FBI knows about it. There is an ongoing investigation into Hunter so we shouldn’t expect them to say anything about it.

 

In fact, we have zero evidence that the FBI said the laptop might be misinformation and good evidence that it didn’t. 

What are you saying ChiGoose? You spend a ton of time telling us what you don't mean, likely because being clear and concise is impossible 

[Buffarukus]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

If Elon had come in, replaced the content moderation policy and/or staff with something more akin to what Twitter’s conservative critics wanted, that would have been fine and likely wouldn’t have resulted in a ton of actual blowback.
 

Instead, he came in like a bull in a china shop, making decisions on a whim with little thought to downstream implications and likely exposing himself to hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liabilities (on top of the $1 billion per year debt service cost his overpriced purchase requires).

 

For a business that relies almost entirely on ad revenue, his chaotic and fickle actions fostered an environment hostile to advertisers who quickly began suspending their ad buys.

 

He changed his mind on a content moderation committee before it could even get off the ground and decided to make moderation policies on a whim. Even reportedly applying them retroactively to posts that were not in violation of the rules at the time they were posted. At some points, he left moderation decisions to unscientific twitter polls, which is crazy considering how much he complains about the bots on Twitter.

 

Because he slashed the legal department and moderation team, the new policies appear to be written by amateurs with little consideration to vagueness or how they will be interpreted. And even then, he declares the new rules mean something they don’t actually say, leading to more confusion about what the actual policy is. 
 

It’s a maddeningly dumb way to run a business. Which is reflected in how his mismanagement of Twitter is currently contributing to the destruction of the value of Tesla.

 

”But it’s a private company, he can do what he wants” is a pointless retort. Of course it’s a private business and he can do what he wants. But we’re still free to point out how bad those decisions are for the company. 
 

All of this could have been avoided with a thoughtful approach to the challenges Twitter was facing, including the moderation policy.

 

And despite the obviousness of it all, people just reflexively defend whatever decision he makes because they were so mad at the old regime and they prefer “owning the libs” to basically anything else. 

 

a totally currupt biased, lying, social media site wasnt stepped into and running at peak performance? strange. 

 

i get what your saying about smart leadership and coming in prepared but twitter sounds like a very hard place to not make mistakes. free speech isnt exactly add friendly. dems just enjoy the problems because they don't like the man.  I'm not sure why that is. noone cared much about mistakes in his other endeavors. all of a sudden elon became enemy #1. hmm. 

 

for a guy who can't get advertisers I'd say he's doing a pretty good job getting eyeballs in the platform. all press is good press some would say. people screaming their leaving and can't take their eyes off it. im in the mind to thank him for exposing what he did. champion a place that has non biased free speech debates and good independent journalism that isnt suppressed ect. wasnt going to EVER get that then. so i wish him luck and will support his company if he proves it. 

 

when it comes to defending him regardless what he does. its because we want him to succeed. mistakes happen, big deal. getting a transparent free speech platform is a good thing regardless. 

 

the other side seems bitter

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

What are you saying ChiGoose? You spend a ton of time telling us what you don't mean, likely because being clear and concise is impossible 

Actually it’s because people here just pretend I believe whatever evil liberal fantasy they want me to regardless of the words I use. 
 

In this specific example, someone with a history of making ***** up claimed I believed something I have never espoused or even implied. 
 

I clarified that I did not believe that totally made up fantasy he claimed I believed in and explained what I did actually believe in regards to that particular situation.  
 

Apparently that’s not enough for people. So I guess everyone can just go ahead and believe I said whatever they want regardless of the text of the actual words I wrote. 

[Orlando Tim]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Actually it’s because people here just pretend I believe whatever evil liberal fantasy they want me to regardless of the words I use. 
 

In this specific example, someone with a history of making ***** up claimed I believed something I have never espoused or even implied. 
 

I clarified that I did not believe that totally made up fantasy he claimed I believed in and explained what I did actually believe in regards to that particular situation.  
 

Apparently that’s not enough for people. So I guess everyone can just go ahead and believe I said whatever they want regardless of the text of the actual words I wrote. 

Dude when you spend so much time saying what you don't mean people will read between the lines, especially on a topic where the question is ethics not whether it is coercion or just lying. 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Dude when you spend so much time saying what you don't mean people will read between the lines, especially on a topic where the question is ethics not whether it is coercion or just lying. 

Then stop reading between the lines and just read the actual lines. 
 

I even answered the morality question. It would be bad for the FBI to force Twitter to censor legal content. But that never happened so why are people even talking about it?

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

8 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

Dude when you spend so much time saying what you don't mean people will read between the lines, especially on a topic where the question is ethics not whether it is coercion or just lying. 

 

Not only does chigoose constantly hand wave around explaining what he didnt really mean. He also has the unique talent of telling us what conservatives actually mean when they speak.

 

I'm sure that it's the "former Republican" in him that provides this unique insight.

 

[BillStime]

👆🤡

👇🎯

 

Sound familiar?

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Then stop reading between the lines and just read the actual lines. 
 

I even answered the morality question. It would be bad for the FBI to force Twitter to censor legal content. But that never happened so why are people even talking about it?

You answered A morality question that is not even in play so you did not have to answer whether the FBI should have been discussing Russian Disinformation when the laptop information was released since they knew it was real. The reason the story was not the biggest story before the election is directly caused by the intelligence community lying about it 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

You answered A morality question that is not even in play so you did not have to answer whether the FBI should have been discussing Russian Disinformation when the laptop information was released since they knew it was real. The reason the story was not the biggest story before the election is directly caused by the intelligence community lying about it 

There is no evidence they were discussing the laptop. 
 

I also answered this earlier but you may have missed it. 
 

Good:

1. The FBI warns companies that there may be cyberattacks and/or release of hacked materials prior to the election.

 

Fine:

2. The FBI tells companies that the laptop does belong to Hunter, some of its contents are real but not all of it has been verified

 

Bad:

3. The FBI tells companies that they shouldn’t post anything about the laptop

4. The FBI somehow forces companies not to post anything about the laptop. 
 

All of the evidence points to scenario 1 as the one that played out. In which case, I believe the FBI acted appropriately. 
 

Scenario 4 is basically impossible and there’s no evidence that scenarios 2, 3, or 4 happened. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by ChiGoose

[Orlando Tim]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

There is no evidence they were discussing the laptop. 
 

I also answered this earlier but you may have missed it. 
 

Good:

1. The FBI warns companies that there may be cyberattacks and/or release of hacked materials prior to the election.

 

Fine:

2. The FBI tells companies that the laptop does belong to Hunter, some of its contents are real but not all of it has been verified

 

Bad:

3. The FBI tells companies that they shouldn’t post anything about the laptop

4. The FBI somehow forces companies not to post anything about the laptop. 
 

All of the evidence points to scenario 1 as the one that played out. In which case, I believe the FBI acted appropriately. 
 

Scenario 4 is basically impossible and there’s no evidence that scenarios 2, 3, or 4 happened. 

Have you not seen the list of posts they asked to have flagged? 

[SoCal Deek]

Unbelievable! So the FBI, knowing that the laptop is in fact real, preemptively warns these ‘social media’ companies about fake news so that when the anti-Biden story breaks it gets squashed. No election interference going on there at all….right? Apparently the tshirt wearing liberal information police can’t also then ask the FBI for confirmation? Nope! Just squash the story. And the FBI, that knows the story’s squashed doesn’t contact these woke millennials to say “actually, that one’s real”? Come on people! 

[BillsFanNC]

Perhaps it's accounts such as this that the FBI should have been flagging because they actually fall under the umbrella of promoting domestic terror?

 

But sure...let's flag Bily Baldwins tweets instead.