Facebook rebrands itself as "Meta"

#105
#105
NorthDallas40 said:
By the Biden admin probably if the story is legit and holds up. But not likely by Meta.

However the “Biden admin” will largely be over in 10 weeks which is why I guess we finally get to hear about this. And absolutely nothing will come of it.
Click to expand...
just like Covid. it will turn into a bunch of "it was never that bad." and other just straight up gaslighting revisionism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, whodeycin85, CagleMtnVol and 1 other person
#107
#107
NorthDallas40 said:
By the Biden admin probably if the story is legit and holds up. But not likely by Meta.

However the “Biden admin” will largely be over in 10 weeks which is why I guess we finally get to hear about this. And absolutely nothing will come of it.
Click to expand...

In the first place, I'm not sure what could come of it even if we were in the thick of the Biden admin and the people and all the powers that be wanted to put the screws to Biden.

The FBI and the Biden admin should be able to talk to private companies. It's actually a necessity that Facebook and the FBI interact. The FBI is in a position where we want them to make recommendations to Meta (moreso about how they handle potential crimes on the website). It's not out of bounds for the FBI to say there is a Russian misinformation campaign, right? It's only out of bounds to lie about that and apply pressure in a way that would be considered compulsion. So now you gotta prove that going head to head with some of the most powerful people that exist. Much easier to move on and ignore it and your probably end up at the same place.

The deck is stacked.
 
#108
#108
n_huffhines said:
In the first place, I'm not sure what could come of it even if we were in the thick of the Biden admin and the people and all the powers that be wanted to put the screws to Biden.

The FBI and the Biden admin should be able to talk to private companies. It's actually a necessity that Facebook and the FBI interact. The FBI is in a position where we want them to make recommendations to Meta (moreso about how they handle potential crimes on the website). It's not out of bounds for the FBI to say there is a Russian misinformation campaign, right? It's only out of bounds to lie about that and apply pressure in a way that would be considered compulsion. So now you gotta prove that going head to head with some of the most powerful people that exist. Much easier to move on and ignore it and your probably end up at the same place.

The deck is stacked.
Click to expand...
is the Russian misinformation campaign a crime? FBI should only be weighing in on what is or isn't a crime. anything else are political games that they should stay out of.

not sure why you think its a necessity, or why we as the public would want them to interact. administrating a warrant is one thing, open contact about content policy? Unless its REAL shady or illegal, nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, InVOLuntary, McDad and 1 other person
#109
#109
n_huffhines said:
In the first place, I'm not sure what could come of it even if we were in the thick of the Biden admin and the people and all the powers that be wanted to put the screws to Biden.

The FBI and the Biden admin should be able to talk to private companies. It's actually a necessity that Facebook and the FBI interact. The FBI is in a position where we want them to make recommendations to Meta (moreso about how they handle potential crimes on the website). It's not out of bounds for the FBI to say there is a Russian misinformation campaign, right? It's only out of bounds to lie about that and apply pressure in a way that would be considered compulsion. So now you gotta prove that going head to head with some of the most powerful people that exist. Much easier to move on and ignore it and your probably end up at the same place.

The deck is stacked.
Click to expand...
Sure they should be able to talk. I’d guess they have fixed pathways setup to scan for potential nut jobs that decide to go to political rallies and shoot people.

But, again if true as submitted, this goes beyond talking and exactly lines up with government suppression of free speech. I just don’t see any middle ground on that stance in this case as stated.

We absolutely agree on your last sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and hog88
#110
#110
LouderVol said:
is the Russian misinformation campaign a crime? FBI should only be weighing in on what is or isn't a crime. anything else are political games that they should stay out of.

not sure why you think its a necessity, or why we as the public would want them to interact. administrating a warrant is one thing, open contact about content policy? Unless its REAL shady or illegal, nope.
Click to expand...

The FBI and Facebook interact every day trying to catch bad people committing crimes on the platform. This is a necessity, yes. Just like a cop talking to a store owner when theft has happened.

Loading…

www.findlaw.com
 
#111
#111
n_huffhines said:
The FBI and Facebook interact every day trying to catch bad people committing crimes on the platform. This is a necessity, yes. Just like a cop talking to a store owner when theft has happened.

Loading…

www.findlaw.com
Click to expand...

After reading your link I have to wonder why those 51 intelligence officials weren't prosecuted. Along with a whole bunch of other people, several that are up in the executive offices of the DOJ and FBI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, InVOLuntary, NorthDallas40 and 3 others
#112
#112
n_huffhines said:
The FBI and Facebook interact every day trying to catch bad people committing crimes on the platform. This is a necessity, yes. Just like a cop talking to a store owner when theft has happened.

Loading…

www.findlaw.com
Click to expand...
what happens when that misinformation turns out to be not misinformation a couple years later? like the laptop story. or what happens when the FBI is being selective? the Steele Dosier that created a lot of the anti-Trump bs was done by a Brit with information from Russia. that didn't get pulled down and it was foreign produced misinformation with direct election interference value.

if the FBI was calling it even, maybe I would feel different. but right now they are only cleaning up one side of the aisle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and McDad
#113
#113
LouderVol said:
what happens when that misinformation turns out to be not misinformation a couple years later? like the laptop story. or what happens when the FBI is being selective? the Steele Dosier that created a lot of the anti-Trump bs was done by a Brit with information from Russia. that didn't get pulled down and it was foreign produced misinformation with direct election interference value.

if the FBI was calling it even, maybe I would feel different. but right now they are only cleaning up one side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

Did a quick google for anyone convicted of federal election interference and only found 1, that social media influencer who tweeted about people being able to vote via text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#114
#114
hog88 said:
Did a quick google for anyone convicted of federal election interference and only found 1, that social media influencer who tweeted about people being able to vote via text.
Click to expand...
IIRC they went after the Russian group, had a court date, Russians showed up ready to defend themselves and the AD had to back off as they weren't ready to prosecute. am I misremembering?
 
#115
#115
LouderVol said:
what happens when that misinformation turns out to be not misinformation a couple years later? like the laptop story. or what happens when the FBI is being selective? the Steele Dosier that created a lot of the anti-Trump bs was done by a Brit with information from Russia. that didn't get pulled down and it was foreign produced misinformation with direct election interference value.

if the FBI was calling it even, maybe I would feel different. but right now they are only cleaning up one side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

I feel like we're making the same point. I'm saying the deck is stacked. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's government

Edit: I feel like the right is guilty of first weaponizing the FBI during the red scare and all that MLKjr stuff, right? Maybe in a few years they can be the ones controlling the puppet strings again. It's never going to be even.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#116
#116
LouderVol said:
IIRC they went after the Russian group, had a court date, Russians showed up ready to defend themselves and the AD had to back off as they weren't ready to prosecute. am I misremembering?
Click to expand...

It was something like that. The Muell charged them, thinking they wouldn't show but their lawyers did and the Muell had to back off. I think the charges were dropped in 2020.
 
#118
#118
CagleMtnVol said:
Click to expand...


I don't remember people calling it a conspiracy theory and that video doesn't cover that.

We had the information 18 months ago. The only new thing is Facebook offering their opinion that it constituted "pressure" which of course is damning, but nothing new was learned.
 
#119
#119
n_huffhines said:
I don't remember people calling it a conspiracy theory and that video doesn't cover that.

We had the information 18 months ago. The only new thing is Facebook offering their opinion that it constituted "pressure" which of course is damning, but nothing new was learned.
Click to expand...
Trying to rewrite history I see the left said it was right-wing conspiracies that social media sites were censoring things like covid or the hunter laptop stories.
 
#120
#120
CagleMtnVol said:
Trying to rewrite history I see the left said it was right-wing conspiracies that social media sites were censoring things like covid or the hunter laptop stories.
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about? They were censoring people in plain site. We knew it was happening when it happened as soon as it happened. It's not something conspiracy theorists only believed was happening.

I think you mean to say that the right was saying there was collusion and the left was calling them conspiracy theorists, but we knew the FBI was working with FB on stuff basically from the beginning. IIRC, when FB pulled the Hunter Biden story, they told us it was FBi suggestion/instruction/pressure whatever you want to call it. This was a totally 100% accepted fact by everyone, according to my recollection. Probably some exceptions.

So yeah, I'm confused about the tweet
 
#121
#121
n_huffhines said:
What in the hell are you talking about? They were censoring people in plain site. We knew it was happening when it happened as soon as it happened. It's not something conspiracy theorists only believed was happening.

I think you mean to say that the right was saying there was collusion and the left was calling them conspiracy theorists, but we knew the FBI was working with FB on stuff basically from the beginning. IIRC, when FB pulled the Hunter Biden story, they told us it was FBi suggestion/instruction/pressure whatever you want to call it. This was a totally 100% accepted fact by everyone, according to my recollection. Probably some exceptions.

So yeah, I'm confused about the tweet
Click to expand...
I think it was a buried lead in the past. it was pushed as a much more reasonable, and even necessary action. they had to cut down on misinformation to protect the election. but it turns out they were suppressing real information to impact the election. its a complete 180 from how it was reported.

the FBI aspect wasn't reported nearly as much as just SM sites shutting down what was falsely claimed as"misinformation", the focus was put on the right complaining about the censoring, and not what was censored or who, FBI, played a part in that censoring.

sure if you were informed back in the day you knew the truth, but in the public conscience that truth was completely lied about with click bait titles and sound bites to fool the average American.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol
#123
#123
LouderVol said:
I think it was a buried lead in the past. it was pushed as a much more reasonable, and even necessary action. they had to cut down on misinformation to protect the election. but it turns out they were suppressing real information to impact the election. its a complete 180 from how it was reported.

the FBI aspect wasn't reported nearly as much as just SM sites shutting down what was falsely claimed as"misinformation", the focus was put on the right complaining about the censoring, and not what was censored or who, FBI, played a part in that censoring.

sure if you were informed back in the day you knew the truth, but in the public conscience that truth was completely lied about with click bait titles and sound bites to fool the average American.
Click to expand...

All that's fine to argue, but I just got accused of rewriting history when the tweet is doing that.

Conspiracy theorists are always looking for validation for all their ideas. One idea gets validated, the rest are validated. The truth here was basically always known and there was no separation between CT's and normies. This wasn't a 5-year journey to get here.
 
#125
#125
n_huffhines said:
All that's fine to argue, but I just got accused of rewriting history when the tweet is doing that.

Conspiracy theorists are always looking for validation for all their ideas. One idea gets validated, the rest are validated. The truth here was basically always known and there was no separation between CT's and normies. This wasn't a 5-year journey to get here.
Click to expand...
I don't think the truth, the FBI working with FB to lie to help the Biden campaign, is nearly as known as you are suggesting. parts of that was known, but at the very least it was a wide spread lie of omission that most of society knows, or at least cares about.

Look at LG and EL, they still spout crap about people on this board bringing up Hunter's laptop. it went on for years in the general media with them dismissing and attacking any reference to Hunter's laptop as election interference. we haven't seen the same sustained widespread journalism or attention on the FBI working with FB, which is the same "wrong" just by the different side.

I do agree about CT going to far and generally arguing that one thing being true supports the rest, its why I got tired of being one, too much intellectual dishonesty to say they care about the truth. but in this case I think there was plenty of distinction from those called CT on this item, and the general public.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top