good article, first part, election fraud in the leftie frauds faces

that user wants all biden voters to have their votes revoked since they believed that russia 'hacked' the election via facebook

I remember. Didn’t somebody in Russia spend like 20 grand on Facebook ads or something?

yeah and according to all biden voters and anti-trump people, that was akin to 'hacking' the election

would explain a lot

it aint gona work....

FIB gona look like trash again....

trump gona be *your president again....

(*large and in charge)

reee

I was stunned that anyone could be so stupid, but then I remembered he's a crack addict.

The New York Post isn't the Weekly World News, it publishes news, whatever the tabloid sensationalism. The FBI had the laptop. There was no evidence of Russian involvement. The call to Facebook took place as Facebook was pledging to combat disinformation. The implication was clear, Facebook would believe that the FBI had reason to believe this was disinformation, and would work to suppress the story.

We don't need to ask what the FBI would do if the shoe was on the other foot, because we saw it firsthand. Putin having pee-tape kompromat of Trump? Come on. The Steele dossier was a collection of outright fabrications and lies talked up over drinks, which the FBI knew for a very long time. Did they admonish social media sites on the perils of disinformation? Of course not, they leaked it to the press and made sure to include it as evidence in support of FISA warrants for years. Carter Page was a CIA source, so of course a lawyer doctored an email, "in good faith", so he tells us, to make sure that it would look like he wasn't.

The FBI created this mess, and no one is going to clean it up for them. You can't blame the country for thinking you have no credibility when agents continue to be fired, reassigned, and "retired" for improper bias and prejudice that only ever goes one way.

2016 FBI/Social media relations and 2020+ FBI/Social media relations are a terrible comparison. social media misinformation "swinging the election" was nationwide news after 2016, 2020 and beyond actions are a result of this.

i am not pro-FBI nor am i pro-Social media, but this is a simple fact we have to recognize. the timeline exists. and this can be true and valid context even if the FBI is flooded with bureaucrats and biased individuals.

"they didnt suppress steel dossier information" is a silly argument. they didnt suppress anything. they allowed edited videos of HRC claiming she had liver cancer or w/e and was dying. the FBI under comey had to last minute release Wiener laptop news and if they hadnt it would have been front page foxnews/NY post headlines reporting the internal leak info and they'd have allowed that too. it was 2016.

as to facebook's desire to combat misinformation, DOUBT. its expensive and a lose/lose, facebook has a desire to skirt regulation and avoid bad headlines. they want to boost marketplace sales and ad traffic, misinformation isn't on their radar nearly as much as twitter, which is far more infested with far lefties.



as a fringe issue it predates 2016, but brexit's vote and the 2016 presidential election were what put it on the forefront.

and recall when people first started talking about russian bot farms infesting every corner of social media and having an effect on the 2016 election most of right wingers called it tinfoil nonsense. then stories started to break about church groups protesting against antifa on the streets and we found out russian implicated trolls incited both sides just to get people angry.

We're discussing the FBI's internal response to salacious and outlandish allegations against Trump, versus their response to the Hunter Biden laptop in their possession. In the first case, the FBI quickly learned that the underlying allegations had no merit. Steele was untrustworthy; his main source contradicted him and admitted the "sources" used for the dossier mostly didn't exist. In the latter case, the FBI had Hunter Biden's laptop in their possession. The laptop's contents were quickly authenticated by 3rd parties to the emails in question, as well as by the obvious fact that Hunter himself refused to just come out and deny that the laptop was his. Their response in the first case was to conceal contradictory evidence and use the discredited information as evidence with which to buttress an ongoing investigation into the President. Their response in the second case was to remain mum while internal agents attempted to preemptively close the investigation and otherwise nip it in the bud. If it weren't for the whistleblowers a few weeks back, they'd still be at it.

The FBI had the laptop in their possession, and had no reason to suspect that it was disinformation. As Ratcliffe said later, there was never any indication or evidence that Russia was involved. So why come out and say that "something very similar" to 2016 Russian propaganda was about to come down the pipe?



Zuckerberg wanted the bad press to stop. He took intense heat in 2016, and that intensified in the run-up to 2020. Facebook had already begun to police "disinformation" via 3rd party fact-checkers. Now they're being told by the FBI that the drop is Russian propaganda. It's not a hard decision, they're going to defer to the FBI and knock it down in their algorithms, and that's exactly what they did. No one expects the FBI to just flat out lie, and you have cover it they did. If you ignore the report, and it turns out that the FBI was telling the truth, the bad press is about to become a whole lot worse. Zuckerberg wants to be a businessman, and it's not a hard business decision.