[HN Gopher] Definitive Account of the CIA/Media/BigTech Fraud
___________________________________________________________________
Definitive Account of the CIA/Media/BigTech Fraud
Author : noxer
Score : 76 points
Date : 2021-09-22 14:46 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (greenwald.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (greenwald.substack.com)
| 0xy wrote:
| This is why social media censorship is so dangerous, even despite
| the blatant partisanship from a DNC operative working as a senior
| manager at Facebook.
|
| Stories that damage the established world order are suppressed
| and "fact-checked" (by biased partisan organizations, or worse,
| literal operatives working at these companies).
|
| These organizations are looking a lot more like political
| machines as every day passes. They have their fingers on the
| scales in a multitude of respects. Google by boosting and
| deboosting certain political content, Facebook through algorithm
| manipulation, shadowbans and banning and Twitter through hashtag
| suppression, "trending" manipulation, "fact checks" and banning.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Hidden for some reason deapite 10 submissions/upvotes in 51
| minutes.
|
| I've sent a mail and asked mods nicely if they can override the
| flags on this one.
| noxer wrote:
| NH doesn't like Greenwald. I only posted this because HN also
| does not like BigTech so it at least had a chance to get seen
| by some people who are interested.
| b9be520d93286 wrote:
| The cognitive dissonance is staggering
| dang wrote:
| The community is divided on that, as it is on every other
| divisive topic. You can't expect HN to differ significantly
| from the population at large--the community is too large for
| that.
| dang wrote:
| Users flagged it. I've turned that off now. If there's
| significant new information here, we can roll back the clock on
| the submission--we'd need a more neutral title and I don't see
| any easy candidate. Both the main title and the subtitle are
| certain to produce an instant flamewar. What is the significant
| new information?
| h2odragon wrote:
| I think the significant new information is the politico
| reporter confirming things that have been said in other
| sources, which other sources had been widely dismissed.
| skinkestek wrote:
| > What is the significant new information?
|
| For me who doesn't follow it to closely the fact that
| significant more proofs - including from officials in Sweden
| - have been coming out since the case was dismissed as cased
| closed by fact checkers was the big one.
|
| For someone who follows it closely this is yesteryears news.
|
| For me this was the first time I read that. (edit: it ->
| that)
|
| Edit: as for the title if we don't have to honor the original
| in this case, could something like "Summary of developments
| in the Hunter Biden case previously dismissed as false news"
| work?
| zozbot234 wrote:
| It's a bit buried but there's significant information about
| Greenwald's own interaction with _The Intercept_ re: the
| Biden laptop story. Given Greenwald 's history with that
| outlet, this seems worthwhile enough.
| dang wrote:
| I doubt that that's significant or interesting enough to
| support a substantial discussion. I haven't read the
| article yet though.
| skinkestek wrote:
| If everyone knows it and it has been discussed
| extensively by everyone except me I'm just slow.
|
| If this is news to everyone like me that CIA and Facebook
| and the fact checkers got caught lying then it is a big
| story and it probably should affect how fact checkers
| work and how much we trust them.
| SiVal wrote:
| What Big Tech really does should be a principal focus of a
| tech discussion forum. What they really do is to use their
| unprecedented power to hide and censor information and
| silence people in order to influence opinion on a mass scale.
| They admit they do it every time they explain why they do it.
| But they hide the specifics of what they are trying to get
| people to think and how they do it. They hide the internal
| discussions of their agenda and the methods they employ to
| hide and censor and silence.
|
| What they intend to get people to think, the means they
| employ, and the extent to which they do it are fundamental to
| understanding tech in society. How ironic is it then that
| every time a report of details and extent of their censorship
| and hiding is submitted to HN, the same people doing the
| censoring are allowed to flag the article out of existence on
| HN, censoring and hiding information about their censoring
| and hiding of information?
|
| And if the argument is that reports of what Big Tech is doing
| to bias discussion will "ignite flamewars", well they know
| that means they can further bias discussion by threatening to
| rage until potential critics submit and self-censor.
| Certainly trillion-dollar tech corporations working to
| control society don't impose upon themselves any need to
| provide "new information". On the contrary, they repeat
| claims over and over that would not stand up to evidence,
| confident that any reports of the evidence can be severely
| limited and quickly swept from view.
|
| Big Tech has vast power to limit what people find out about
| in almost every venue. I would love for HN to be an exception
| where the details that they try to hide are always in full
| view.
| Tehchops wrote:
| I see GG is really enjoying being free of anything resembling
| editorial control/restraint.
|
| > Definitive account
|
| Yea..... This was flagged for a reason
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| phonon wrote:
| I think he's missing the point. The issue was never if _some_ of
| the info on the laptop was correct /validated. It was:
|
| 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered"
| through the repair shop.
|
| 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic
| misinformation technique.
|
| 3. If either 1. or 2. was true, was it through the intelligence
| efforts of Russia or the like.
| mint2 wrote:
| This is what makes me tear my hair out. why is it that despite
| serious flaws that are nearly impossible to attribute to
| ignorance, do people trust and treat his opinions as quality
| reasoning?
|
| My only answer is they seek confirmation bias.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| 1. Who cares where it came from? What matters is whether it is
| true or not.
|
| 2. This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest this and I
| followed this story form the start. Can you cite your sources
| for where this topic was consideres "the issue"? And besides,
| if some of it is misinformation, why is the obviously not
| misinformation stuff still censored? All the pro-censorship
| people I read wrote the whole thing off as Russian
| disinformation. It was clearly to influence the election
| because so many prioritized "Trump Losing" above the truth.
| Something I can't get on board with. I thought Trump was
| terrible, but censorship like that was obviously gross. It was
| some ends justify the means type stuff, and it really showed
| the CIA/Media links, which is what Greenwald specialises in.
|
| The issue was always about censorship and bias in the media.
| That's what Greenwald talks about a lot. It's trivially
| verifiable to confirm Greenwald's suggestions of DNC bias in
| these institutions. Seems as though you have something against
| this concept or against Greenwald? This seems common lately, is
| it because he attacks DNC institutions? For me, I just value
| truth above politics. I value Greenwald's reporting because I
| trust him.
| tdfx wrote:
| I thought it was astounding that the media wrote this off so
| quickly and thoroughly. I don't think I've ever seen anything
| like it. As soon as it might be "Russian disinformation",
| everyone except the craziest far right people immediately
| stopped wondering about the meaning of "10 points for the big
| guy". It was right on the cusp of providing some conclusive
| evidence that Hunter Biden's international antics were part
| of a family scheme of corruption as opposed to just fishing
| his last name around for perks. But because the story was
| essentially buried, it seems we'll never know.
| [deleted]
| chuckee wrote:
| > 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered"
| through the repair shop.
|
| The problem is that this standard is not consistently applied.
| If the US intelligence apparatus launders some information
| through "anonymous officials", they are taken at their word and
| their statement is parroted. Only when the Bad Guys reveal some
| bit of information do we become more concerned with where the
| information came from, than whether it's true.
| stickyricky wrote:
| With respect, I think you're missing the point.
|
| What is the author's main critique? The author is stating that
| the CIA, the "liberal-wing of the corporate media", and Big
| Tech companies conspired to suppress and censor information
| that was politically damaging to their preferred candidate.
| Even if that information was verified to be correct.
|
| According to the article, the authenticity of the laptop's
| information was verifiable.
|
| > "From the start, the evidence of authenticity was
| overwhelming. The Post published obviously genuine photos of
| Hunter that were taken from the laptop. Investigations from
| media outlets found people who had received the emails in real-
| time and they compared the emails in their possession to the
| ones in the Post's archive, and they matched word-for-word."
|
| The counter point would be that the "intelligence community"
| declared it a Russian disinformation campaign. But, as the
| author notes, they did so without evidence.
|
| > "in their words -- "we do not know if the emails are genuine
| or not," and also admitted that "we do not have evidence of
| Russian involvement.""
|
| You don't have to take the author's word for it. You can read
| the statement issued by former intelligence officials which is
| linked in the source.
|
| > "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails,
| provided to the New York Post by President Trump's personal
| attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not
| have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our
| experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian
| government played a significant role in this case."
|
| The assertion or "concern" that the laptop is Russian
| disinformation has never had any evidence to support it. And
| yet that was sufficient to completely censor the story on
| facebook and twitter.
|
| So with all the said, let's recap your points.
|
| > 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered"
| through the repair shop.
|
| There is no evidence for this.
|
| > 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic
| misinformation technique.
|
| There is no evidence for this.
|
| > 3. If either 1. or 2. was true, was it through the
| intelligence efforts of Russia or the like.
|
| Again, no evidence. So why was it censored?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| But surely he knows all that, so why is he pretending not to?
|
| I've never really followed his work, but has he always been
| like this or was this a recent development?
| yostrovs wrote:
| I would argue you're missing the point since he's arguing that
| the media never tried to confirm the story. It took the
| narrative that this was "Russian disinformation" and made it
| seem that that's probably what it is, without actually doing
| the work that is expected of journalists. Obviously had this
| laptop belonged to Don Jr., they would have certainly done the
| due diligence to dig through it and confirm its contents. The
| issue is Joe Biden is part of the "system" and is therefore
| protected, unlike those that don't come from it.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Recall that some of the people who got copies of this laptop's
| drive image felt they had a legal obligation to report the
| contents to (iirc) Delaware State Police almost immediately
| thereafter.
|
| Remember: A "footjob" is different than a pedicure.
| cnst wrote:
| What I don't understand is how all of that MSM and Big Tech aid
| is not considered to be an in-kind donation to the campaign of a
| single party.
|
| Don't we have campaign finance laws?
| tomohawk wrote:
| We do, but Biden liquidated everyone from the campaign finance
| committee in an unprecedented move, and guess which party
| controls the white house and congress?
| cnst wrote:
| But this all started over a year ago when he wasn't supposed
| to have been in power yet, why was nothing done in that time?
| Why always blame a specific party if neither one does any
| action to effect change?
| cosmophany wrote:
| Not obvious from the title, but in this article Greenwald takes
| the opportunity to air some of the dirty laundry about why he
| left the Intercept. Worth reading.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-22 23:02 UTC)