- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Since the FBI admitted they interfered in the 2020 election to hurt Trump.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:22 pm to Wolfhound45
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:22 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:Wolf, I would submit that you too lack enough data points, if you do not even know the man’s name.
Zuckeberger
The FBI told us there was going to be a big data dump. Be vigilant. is that appropriate for the FBI to do?
(a) Did the FBI actually warn Zuckerberg of some undefined “data dump?” Or (b) did he try to deflect blame for his own actions in protecting a political ally? If it were really the FBI, did Zuckerberg name any names? If not, why not? Would the lack of specificity not cause you to question whether (b) might not be more likely than (a).
We used third party fact checking. Who was this third party fact check?
No idea. Of course, I am not convinced that it happened.
During the five to seven days it was being determined to be true or false, distribution was decreased. Is this the role of a social media outlet?
If I owned a social media company, I would probably try to stem the dissemination of false information via my servers. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if Zuckerberg killed a story solely to protect a political ally.
4
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You believe Zuckerberg, and you think that I am a “clown.” Humorous.
Another meritless lunatic response.
You're not a serious person
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:32 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The FBI goes on a news media junket prior to the election, falsely declaring the laptop story “Russian disinformation”.
Mark Zuckerberg says they did the same thing with Facebook.
AggieHank: IMPOSSIBRU!!!!!!
He also claimed there was no evidence, which is odd. I would think a lawyer would understand evidence.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Look at you, providing cover for an obvious liar.
I’m not providing cover for anybody. I was making a joke.
A thousand pardons, Hank…I forgot. This anonymous forum stuff is serious business to you. Carry on.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:37 pm to Icansee4miles
Those 87,000 will be FBI agents posing as IRS. You can bump that.
This post was edited on 8/27/22 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:38 pm to AggieHank86
You’re just a liar and a shill for centralized power.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:44 pm to AggieHank86
I am not asking whether you believe (or disbelieve) what he said. I am taking his interview at face value.
- Is it the role of the FBI to warn a social media platform on the potential of misinformation?
- Is it the role of the social media platform to use a third party fact check to determine if something is true or false?
- Is it the role of the social media platform to decrease the distribution of information based upon this warning and subsequent fact check?
- Is it the role of the FBI to warn a social media platform on the potential of misinformation?
- Is it the role of the social media platform to use a third party fact check to determine if something is true or false?
- Is it the role of the social media platform to decrease the distribution of information based upon this warning and subsequent fact check?
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:44 pm to Madking
quote:Show one, single, solitary factual assertion from me that was objectively false. Just one. I will wait.
You’re just a liar
quote:
shill for centralized power.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:45 pm to AggieHank86
Hank, I'm going to post the question from the bottom of the last page again because I'm sure you just missed it and really do want to answer it.
In an earlier post you essentially said you agree/believe that the FBI suppressed the laptop. What else do you need to know before you conclude that the FBI interfered in the election?
What say you, counselor?
In an earlier post you essentially said you agree/believe that the FBI suppressed the laptop. What else do you need to know before you conclude that the FBI interfered in the election?
What say you, counselor?
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:55 pm to AggieHank86
You are not a serious person. You are arguing with a straw man and the rest of us here are either laughing or throwing stones at you.
You can’t binge post your way out of these shite takes.
You can’t binge post your way out of these shite takes.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 6:55 pm to Wolfhound45
I am not asking whether you believe (or disbelieve) what he said. I am taking his interview at face value.
So, this entire discussion is now hypothetical. I do believe that you are capable of good faith discussion (and even disagreement), so I will expect you to correct any dimwit who claims that any or it is some sort of factual,admission.
Is it the role of the FBI to warn a social media platform on the potential of misinformation?
Officially, no. I also see nothing improper in such a hypothetical warning, assuming it is genuine and absent some ulterior motive.
Is it the role of the social media platform to use a third party fact check to determine if something is true or false? Is it the role of the social media platform to decrease the distribution of information based upon this warning and subsequent fact check?
Again, if I own a social media company, I have no problem with an attempt to prevent the misuse of my servers to spread misinformation, again assuming a good faith, hypothetical desire to determine whether the information was accurate.
So, this entire discussion is now hypothetical. I do believe that you are capable of good faith discussion (and even disagreement), so I will expect you to correct any dimwit who claims that any or it is some sort of factual,admission.
Is it the role of the FBI to warn a social media platform on the potential of misinformation?
Officially, no. I also see nothing improper in such a hypothetical warning, assuming it is genuine and absent some ulterior motive.
Is it the role of the social media platform to use a third party fact check to determine if something is true or false? Is it the role of the social media platform to decrease the distribution of information based upon this warning and subsequent fact check?
Again, if I own a social media company, I have no problem with an attempt to prevent the misuse of my servers to spread misinformation, again assuming a good faith, hypothetical desire to determine whether the information was accurate.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
assuming it is genuine and absent some ulterior motive.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:01 pm to AggieHank86
So is Zuckerberg a liar or not?
And further, how can the FBI declare the laptop Russian disinformation when they already had the hard drives, confiscated from the repair shop, with signed invoices, and at least 2 Hunter associates confirming the content publicly?
You are a fricking loathsome shill clown
And further, how can the FBI declare the laptop Russian disinformation when they already had the hard drives, confiscated from the repair shop, with signed invoices, and at least 2 Hunter associates confirming the content publicly?
You are a fricking loathsome shill clown
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:04 pm to David_DJS
quote:As I already said, the relevant question is whether they were affirmatively attempting to influence the election, or intending NOT to influence the election with a story that was not yet confirmed as accurate.
In an earlier post you essentially said you agree/believe that the FBI suppressed the laptop. What else do you need to know before you conclude that the FBI interfered in the election?
I do not know the answer to that question, and I have never claimed otherwise.
My beef is with those who jump to conclusions and insist that the answer is “clear” … when it is anything BUT clear.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:04 pm to AggieHank86
I am having this discussion with you (since my original reply to another individual went unanswered). Other posters will respond as they will.
I would agree with your first position. I would only further stipulate that I would not even entertain the initial discussion because it sets the conditions for a (potential) conflict of interest.
I would disagree with your second position unless there was made a very compelling case on misinformation. However, that would not be possible (in my scenario) because I would (respectfully) decline their overtures.
I would view my responsibility is to ensure that information is freely exchanged with no bias and trust the American public to consume it as they see fit.
I would agree with your first position. I would only further stipulate that I would not even entertain the initial discussion because it sets the conditions for a (potential) conflict of interest.
I would disagree with your second position unless there was made a very compelling case on misinformation. However, that would not be possible (in my scenario) because I would (respectfully) decline their overtures.
I would view my responsibility is to ensure that information is freely exchanged with no bias and trust the American public to consume it as they see fit.
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:06 pm to Flats
quote:Wolf, it took exactly ONE post for someone to ignore the hypothetical nature of our exchange.
Flats
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:09 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:And I would have trouble with my conscience, if I knowingly abetted the dissemination of patently false information.
I would view my responsibility is to ensure that information is freely exchanged with no bias and trust the American public to consume it as they see fit.
The government MUST be neutral.
Individuals are free to let their actions follow their conscience, so long as they do not violate the law. One could even argue that a good citizen has an implicit OBLIGATION to do so.
This post was edited on 8/27/22 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:15 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:How many times must I say that I am skeptical of anything he says?
So is Zuckerberg a liar or not?
quote:I got into this thread to ask for evidence in support of a demonstrably-false assertion. You see that as “shilling.”
You are a fricking loathsome shill clown
What do you say about your compatriot who MADE the demonstrably-false assertion? Nothing, right?
You people are hilarious.
This post was edited on 8/27/22 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:And stating that the laptop was misinformation was patently false.
And I would have trouble with my conscience, if I knowingly abetted the dissemination of patently false information.
Politico - Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say - By Natasha Bertrand 10/19/2020
Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails - October 19, 2020
Posted on 8/27/22 at 7:22 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:I thought we were speaking hypothetically, as opposed to specifically about Hunter Biden.
And stating that the laptop was misinformation was patently false.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News