Confirmation that the FBI and Big Tech colluded to suppress information during the election.
Zuckerberg said Facebook enacted a policy of ‘decreased distribution’ to deliberately push down the story on people’s newsfeeds to limit its reach, while Twitter went even further and banned the story from its platform.
The billionaire said: ‘I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being determined whether it was false. The distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people were still allowed to share it. So you could still share it. You could still consume it.’
Three weeks before the election, the New York Post revealed the sordid contents of Hunter’s laptop, showing compromising photos of the then presidential candidate’s son and his questionable business dealings implicating his father.
The huge cache of files, emails and photos was seen by many as a smoking gun that could have turned the tide in the election, but social media bosses at Facebook and Twitter minimized the story for unfounded fears it could be Russian misinformation.
DailyMail.com independently verified the laptop with a forensic analysis by top cyber experts and has been regularly publishing revelations ever since, while many other news outlets refused to touch the story.
But now, Zuckerberg has openly admitted how he tried to limit the electorate from accessing the stories in a terrifying insight into how easily democracy can be undermined by tech firms.
Zuckerburg’s admission is worthless. Telling you what you already know is just a deliberate kick in the balls. There will be no repercussions and they’ll repeat their effort without hesitation. Both social media and conventional media have demonstrated that they can successfully perpetuate a ghost candidacy and effectively maintain a ghost presidency. They’re not likely to give up that kind of power-sharing easily.
If a liberal claims now claims that the 2020 presidential was not rigged, it ok now to say they are full of crap.
Ya’ll are really saying that Zuck should be legally required to bake your cake, eh?
There will be no repercussions and they’ll repeat their effort without hesitation
Since Vos discontinued any investigation of the Wisconsin Fraud, the same can be said here.
Gee. Same result, different Party affiliation. Stink much?
Leftist covering gross corruption.
Disgusting.
Awful.
Just awful.
So embarrassing to be a Democrat these days.
“But now, Zuckerberg has openly admitted how he tried to limit the electorate from accessing the stories i….”
He didn’t try to limit access to the stories. Anyone could have gotten to the stories at any time. The article itself says as much “DailyMail.com independently verified the laptop with a forensic analysis by top cyber experts and has been regularly publishing revelations ever since, while many other news outlets refused to touch the story.”
So anyone could have gotten to the stories at any time.
But the faux outrage from the Trump sycophants is cute.
Boo Hoo!!! A private company made editorial decisions and you *think* it hurt your candidate’s chance to get re-elected!?! Where is the outrage when Fox News doesn’t cover every aspect of the 1/6 Committee? NewsMax? OAN? Are they not “undermining the election” too? FB and Twitter took what they considered the appropriate actions on a story that seemed outrageous at the time to try and make sure that it was accurate, after the FBI warned them of possible additional Russian disinformation campaigns.
In 2016 Russians purchased $200K in Facebook ads to help the Trump campaign and spread disinformation. To which we heard such things as, “Yeah, but that didn’t affect real people.” and “No way those ads influenced votes.”
Cambridge Analytica broke the TOS of FB and collected user data from FB that it THEN sold to the Cruz & Trump campaign for targeted ads.
Nothing better than listening to people complain about “stolen elections” and “big tech influence”. Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.
Well, it’s easy to see that Flunky’s and JV’s candidate benefitted from the collusion of the MSM and top Social Media platforms… this time. No two fools are more shortsighted than they are.
Jason, I LITERALLY posted 2 scenarios in 2016 where the R’s benefited from issues with FB.
And once again, FB and all social media sites are private businesses, free to handle their filtering any way they want.
>Jason, I LITERALLY posted 2 scenarios in 2016 where the R’s benefited from issues with FB.
You posted two examples of your opinion of who benefited from “FB issues”… which really aren’t FB issues. Moreso if you really do think “FB and all social media sites are private businesses, free to handle their filtering any way they want.” I pointed out that you’re ok with it today, and your party was not ok with it previously. Hence the “No two fools are more shortsighted than they are.”
You could argue that the Cambridge incident wasn’t FB’s fault, although they should probably be more attentive to places that are able to pull that data. But the Russian purchased ads are 100% an issue with FB and what they allowed. And if you think that the Russian ad blitz and fake websites created did NOT advantage a specific side, you have your head in the sand. On the other hand, I am NOT saying that the Biden laptop scenario didn’t help the Biden administration get elected, it very well could have.
Yes, FB is a private company. And I am ok with them making their own editorial, algorithmic, and filtering decisions. There is something about conservatives that just THRIVE on the thought that everyone is out to get them.
There are a lot of parallels in the stories from 2016 and 2020. And back then all we heard was “Yummy liberal tears…”, so it does not pain me to say that when the shoe is on the other foot, your whiny “conservative tears” make my Coke taste a little better today.
>Boo Hoo!!! A private company made editorial decisions and you *think* it hurt your candidate’s chance to get re-elected!?! Where is the outrage when Fox News doesn’t cover every aspect of the 1/6 Committee? NewsMax? OAN? Are they not “undermining the election” too? FB and Twitter took what they considered the appropriate actions on a story that seemed outrageous at the time to try and make sure that it was accurate, after the FBI warned them of possible additional Russian disinformation campaigns.
You definitely remember different facts about FB in 2016. I remember Russia taking out ads (a lib business taking money? Gasp!) and then Democrats flooding every outlet they owned that Russia sabotaged the election for Trump, accusing him of treason. I remember no positive effects from FB for Trump before, during or after his Presidency. Do you think Russian ads on FB for the Trump Presidential election actually influenced anyone? If yes, I would say it was your head was in the sand…
It kinda proves that libs listen to different sources than conservatives (the greatest problem we have in America, imo, two different sets of facts for each side). How would you know that Fox doesn’t cover every aspect of 1/6 (just in a different light,,,like how come 1/6 has thousands of targets and millions of dollars in investigation while Portland has virtually zero dollars invested, no coverage for months of terror and millions in damage as it burned. They were both riots)?
I will simply believe you are lying if you say you ever watch much Fox, much less enough to pronounce they have not covered 1/6, so I am calling bullshit on that. Hell, I don’t watch Fox news because they are so slanted.
And as far as parallels, really? The liberal owned business taking money to run ads vs the same entity suppressing facts that could affect an election? The Russian collusion never had any facts behind it, yet it flooded the news before the election, facts for libs be damned. Are you trying to say that FB took no money that hyped the lib candidates? I know you are not that stupid, you just read the lib news that damned the Trump ads. You never heard a whisper of the millions that the Clintons filtered through their foundation from foreign countries into Hillary’s election campaign. Where your money comes from is all clean, just like all the votes delivered in bags and counted by non-Government personnel after post offices are closed. Despite video evidence, every lib just says “Debunked!” Looks like you included. But I get it, read ‘lib facts’ and you will believe that. Read ‘con facts’ and you will believe the opposite.
Hey T, don’t forget the Dirty 51, the group of so called national security “Experts” who within a couple of days of the Hunter Laptop news, wrote and signed and delivered a statement denouncing the story as Russian Disinformation. Rumor has it that if the R’s win the mid terms, there will be a lot of questions coming for that shady group of traitorous sellouts.
T. There is a distinct difference between the Russian Collusion story and the Russian FB Ad story. While they are probably intertwined in many people’s minds, they are not the same. One involved the Steele dossier while the other was relatively “independent’ of that and involved Russia trying to meddle into the election with purchased ads and fake websites disseminating pro-Trump information.
Saying you “remember no positive effects from FB” is short-sided and has no possibility to quantify. Much like the Hunter Biden info. Companies run ads because they feel like they have an influence on people. So you would have to assume that the 200K in ads that were run, had SOME effect on some voters. It is impossible to quantify that number. If FB and Twitter didn’t suppress the Biden story, would that have changed the election? Probably not. But we have no way of quantifying either story. Remember that there is still noting on the laptop that directly incriminates President Biden, just REALLY embarrassing crap about Hunter.
I don’t watch FoxNews (no cable for 14 years now!), but I do look at the FoxNews website at times to try and get a more rounded view of what people are talking about. And it is very often that they are not nearly as in depth with the 1/6 committee as the other news outlets. And while other outlets maybe go too hard on it.
The difference between the “Russian FB Ad” story and the “2020 stolen election” story is that liberals never have claimed that Americans didn’t vote in 2016. They felt like the average American was coerced and “tricked” into voting for DJT. While the 2020 election, people are still screaming about made up votes. And still NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. Instead we continue to hear about “video evidence” of “bags of votes”. Yet, no one can point to any significant amount of votes that don’t appear to be from legit American citizens. As always, there will be small instances of voter fraud. But not a single spec of legitimate evidence for the MASS amount of fraud that would be required to flip the election.
>One involved the Steele dossier w
You mean the Fully Discredited Steele dossier, right JV?
Jeremy Bash. One of the Dirty 51 just got his reward. The clown who was so very wrong about his Feelings about Hunter’s Laptop just got appointed to the Presidents Intelligence Advisory Board. Does that sit well with you JV?
Jason, maybe you should do a little more research. Many of the most outrageous claims were not able to be proven. But many of the conversations and notes were actually proven to be true.
Looks like the lead investigator has just been forced out of the FBI. Buy bye Timothy Thibault. How long before he’s on a Biden payroll?
>Saying you “remember no positive effects from FB” is short-sided and has no possibility to quantify.
I would give you that there is no way to quantify if you would admit there was no way to quantify your comments either, and Dems absolutely conflated the collusion and ad stories in the news at the time and they did it on purpose because lies and innuendo win elections today, not record or integrity.
That is really beside the point anyway. My primary argument is still that the FB stories that you brought up are an apples and oranges comparison. FB took money from Russia without censoring, I assume that Russia fooled them as I absolutely believe Zuckerberg would not have approved sales of false advertising in favor of Trump, especially if he had been approached by Russia or Trump for PERMISSION to run them. FB did agree to suppress information specifically because it would have been bad timing and would have cost votes in the election. He was approached by Dems and agreed to suppress it. How is that any sort of comparison except that FB is named in both? They were not even the villain in the Russia ads, they were the dupes (which is why liberal news at the time turned it into collusion and treason). Now if Russia had bought Hillary ads, there is also no doubt in my mind that it would have been ‘debunked’ as false in the liberal press. They do not have to prove or disprove anything anymore, because libs have been trained to believe whatever they are told by liberal sources and call anything else false. Can you name any story in the liberal news that you disbelieve? Most Republicans are the same way about news from their sources.
And of course there is less 1/6 info on conservative news sources. Most every con has a problem seeing the difference between year long nation wide riots sponsored by Dem organizers only on Presidential years and the 1/6 riot that reacted badly to an election result. Have there been no blacks killed by cops since 11/2/2019? How much would you be willing to wager that there will be no riots in 2023 that will point to voting for the Democrats, because I would gladly make a bet that there will be. Ironically, Dems count on the public forgetting about the riots every four years even as they savagely hold on to keeping 1/6 in the news and in the courts for as long as they can. They are protecting the riot as their right for means of getting votes.
You say there was no ‘proof’ of fraud, but that is simply because your news sources told you there weren’t. Long gone are the days of political journalists with integrity. There are no Woodwards or Bernsteins on staff anywhere today. Absentee ballots increased from 21% to 46% from 2016 to 2020. That is a 25% increase in total votes and 80 some percentage went to Biden (landslides are called when there is a winner with a 60+% of votes). Trump won the voting day vote and Biden won the new and loosened absentee ballot at an unheard of (one might say unbelievable) percentage. Whether you believe the large margin for fraud that was added to absentee voting was taken advantage of by one side or whether you just believe that liberals cannot be bothered to vote on voting day, there is clearly a lot more room for fraud with the just added 2020 rules. Denying there was any fraud with numbers like that is irresponsible because it tries to leave the loose voting laws in place. Unless, of course, you are okay with fraud so long as your side wins the election.
T. I didn’t claim there was “no fraud”. I said there there was no widescale fraud. I am SURE people voted who were not supposed to (on BOTH sides). And you know what the absentee ballot numbers say to me, that many people don’t want to go out of their way to vote or wait in hours long lines, but WILL vote when the barrier to entry is much lower. It also enforces what everyone seems to know, the more people that vote, the more likely we are to get a democratic candidate in office. The youth can REALLY change an election, but most of the time are unmotivated to actually do anything. And during the pandemic, there were many people who had a LOT of free time and made the effort to vote.
Another reason why I think our Nov. election day should be a national holiday. Give people more time to vote. Don’t force people to try and squeeze it in before work at 7am… HOPING you can get it done within an hour, or wait in line for an hour after work in major cities where almost ALL the long lines tend to be.
And as far as believing news organizations, I tend to believe them all. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, etc. They all view the facts from a different point of view. But they don’t make up facts, they report on what they see, hear, and find. Sometimes they get it wrong, or are given wrong information Now, you have to be able to separate the actual news reporting from the editorial stuff like Maddow, Tucker, Hannity, etc. They don’t provide news, they are opinion speakers and blowhards.
[blockquote]Denying there was any fraud…[blockquote]
Nobody, especially here, has said any such thing.
In an earlier thread you stated that it is “evil” to twist around peoples’ words&statements, did you not?
>Another reason why I think our Nov. election day should be a national holiday.
I have heard that before and really have no problem with it, but aren’t the greatest number of people who libs say don’t vote youth, indigents and retirees? I went to school in the 80s and virtually all my Professors had no problem with halving or cancelling class to allow students to vote. Universities are even more liberal and likely permissive on that today as Professors want their young liberals to vote more than ever. The whole lib narrative on people who can’t make it in to vote on voting day stinks like dead fish. It doesn’t track. What group of WORKERS are on the ‘libs cry because they aren’t voting’ list? Besides maybe immigrants…
>T. I didn’t claim there was “no fraud”.
No you just claimed it was nothing to have any concern about. I would say that a 25% increase in absentee ballots with virtually no checks available on most of them is not an insignificant issue that we should have no concerns about. I will not apologize for accusing you of saying NO fraud, because your meaning is just that. Nobody is concerned about a couple of hundred mistakes or even purposeful fraud across the country by either side. And I am not saying now that all of the 25% increase in absentee voting was fraud, far from it. However, if it was a a virtually 99.95 fraud free absentee election, it seems rather strange to me that the numbers were more overwhelming than most American vote numbers in history. And you won’t even consider it, you will nitpick over words like none over meaningless few.
>In an earlier thread you stated that it is “evil” to twist around peoples’ words&statements, did you not?
Yep, I still believe it and did no such thing. JonnyV said that there was no proof of any fraud. Saying there was no proof of any fraud is the same as saying there was none. He then went on to say that there were likely “…small instances of voter fraud.” but nothing to affect any election and of course done by both sides. He said both that there was none proven and probably small instances, so I can pick between the two and not be an evil twat for doing so. And miniscule or none is the same meaning in a 250 million vote election. It is clearly his meaning that there was zero fraud that affected an election and I disagree. I personally don’t think Trump won, but there were many very close votes across the country, many where a truckload of votes that have more than just Biden checked off could have made all the difference in a dozen state elections.
[blockquote] JonnyV said that there was no proof of any fraud[/blockquote]
No he did not, you simply assumed he did.
[blockquote]Saying there was no proof of any fraud is the same as saying there was none[/blockquote]
You don’t know too many agnostics, do you?
Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true
Anywhos, all that aside….
[blockquote]absentee ballots with virtually no checks available on most of them[/blockquote]
Can you define what you mean by “virtually no checks”?
Penquin
>No he did not, you simply assumed he did.
Jonny V
>While the 2020 election, people are still screaming about made up votes. And still NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN.
You could be correct there, I could have misinterpreted. Just look at how long it took me to spell Penquin. However, a true misinterpretation is not the same as purposefully twisting around other people’s words and statements, is it? And I am not interested in going back and forth with wormy little word benders like you are being right now, so I am done with you here.
So you (and anyone else?) make simple misinterpretations, yet when it comes to me you’re gonna assume I’m purposefully & evilly twisting around peoples’ words, eh?
heh. After so many of your assumptions have been shown to be wrong, it makes me chuckle that you still insist on clinging to so many of ’em time&time&time again.
Speaking of false assumptions….
[blockquote]absentee ballots with virtually no checks available on most of them[/blockquote]
….is this just another gut-feeling you have? Or is there any sort of proof of what you are claiming? Please clarify. Thanks.
>Buy bye Timothy Thibault. How long before he’s on a Biden payroll?
I’m sure it’s coming soon. John Podesta just got himself a cushy job. The Biden administration is trolling America.
More proof of collusion between the Biden administration and big tech.
https://nypost.com/2022/09/02/biden-administration-asked-instagram-to-take-down-fauci-parody-account-report/
Hey JV, do you still think its just a private company making editorial decisions? If so, You Fool!
Years ago, Owen asked me to stop using a parody account that was created for commenting on this blog. I respectfully complied ’cause basic manners says its “his house, his rules”
That aside, it’s kind of funny how conservatives are constantly belittling the commies for wanting to seize the means of production, yet now the Republican party and their base are wanting to seize the means of information in order to force these private companies to bake their cake.
>Years ago, Owen asked me to stop using a parody account that was created for commenting on this blog. I respectfully complied ’cause basic manners says its “his house, his rules”
Do you think someone on the POTUS staff contacted him via email asking him to take care of your parody account??? And that he replied “On it!” a minute later?
No? So I don’t see how you can compare the two.
>I don’t see
…you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear…
In my case, the person that was being parodied asked to have it removed. In the situation you’re whining about a person representing the person being parodied asked for it to be removed.
shrugs shoulders
Keep twisting your brain into pretzels Penny, it’s really cute.
It’s as cute as the Biden administration actually doing some of the things that Trump only talked about doing, and the Left screaming “Do more Joe, do more”!