So let us get this straight, the former BRitish ambassador to Uzbekistan who is now part of the Assange Admiration Society is privy to information on Russia's innocence? Do tell..
Assange's bias wasn't just some sort of background noise. He had a specific desire to nail Clinton to the wall, which is why all these timed releases, which he hoped would do as much political damage at all.
And the people claiming the Russians were behind the DNC leaks aren't just nutballs on 4chan testing out fake stories to throw on Facebook and Twitter. The people saying there are links are people capable of making that determination. Now we can debate whether the NSA and CIA are trustworthy all day long, but to act like they're the same as some Breitbart troll is absurd. And when you factor in that there are strong indications that the Trump campaign was hacked as well, but that the mystery people feeding Assange leaks didn't feed him any Trump information suggests that, at best, Assange was a knowing stooge, and at worst, has willfully suppressed damaging Trump leaks. In either case, he was intentionally trying to screw over Hillary Clinton, which flies completely in the face of the alleged intent of Wikileaks to be a non-partisan and unbiased source of leaked information.
Assange made Wikileaks an active player, a maker of news, rather than a reporting of news, so for him to try to claim it was all on the up and up now, when he didn't even really conceal the relish with which he was going after Clinton, is hypocritical to the extreme, and makes his now declarations that it wasn't the Russians (something I doubt he has any ability to determine) fairly unbelievable to me.
And Brexit and the US are just the start. The fake news being used to try to muck up the Austrian election is going to be followed by all kinds of fun for other European races coming up. I'm sure all sorts of right wing pro-Russian anti-NATO anti-EU politicians will not be having their emails leaked, while centrist pro-EU pro-NATO politicians will be have to wade through private communications being cast about, even as they have to try to put up with their own Pizzeria Child Porn conspiracy theories.
A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor, and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.
And here we go again with the Clintons As Mafioso conspiracy theory once again...
Nilihism as a political philosophy. "I don't accept any kind of proof, so therefore it's all lies."
The pizzeria child porn thing was fake news. Fake all the way down. It was fake fake fake fake fake. It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't somebody misremembering something. It wasn't a screw up. It was a specifically engineered fake story meant to damage a political opponent. And really, the Dems are going to sue? Even if they could actually identify the original creator of the lie, their day in court would be a very long way down the road, so wouldn't exactly have done Clinton any good at all.
How would Assange even know? It's not like someone would phone him and say "Hello, Julian, this is Yuri from FSB, and we have Democrat emails for you to publish." Beyond which, I have so little faith in Assange as a teller of truth these days I see no reason to accept any claim he makes. Even Ecuador shut down his Internet access, clearly believing he was using their facilities to less than noble ends.
And that's why the alt-right is so spooked about Twitter and Facebook beginning to reign in the fake news. They could never create a social networking site that anyone other than they and their fellow travelers in space and time would want to frequent. They need the large distribution network that sites like Twitter and Facebook represent. By the same token, Twitter and Facebook face a crisis of legitimacy of their own if they allow themselves to become a swamp of far-right goons. I've seen even some successful forums collapse under the weight of trolls, as ordinary users simply abandoned the platforms out of frustration.
Yes, it's obvious you're not a mouth breathing idiot, as that would still require a functional hindbrain, and I don't think you have even that much neural capacity.
There isn't "free speech legislation", there's the First Amendment, which protects Google and FAcebook's right to publish or not publish as they see fit, as much as it protects anyone else's right to free expression.
Facebook isn't a phone line, it's one end of a phone line. If you don't like its rules, found your own social networking site.
Of course, at that point, you no longer have the ability to distribute widely, but really, you have the right to speak your mind, you don't have the right to force large numbers of other people to listen.
I think there are a great many conservatives who are not fact-free lunatics and morons, but the tribalism that is taking over politics in the Westerns world means that they, like their counterparts on the left who might hold some fiscally conservative views, have to sublimate that to retain their membership in the club.
There is no difference. Facebook is a soapbox owner, and as a soapbox owner, it has the right to determine who gets to stand on the soapbox. Your right, as it were, is to use some other soapbox. The First Amendment protects Facebook as much as it protects you.
For the purposes of mass dissemination of fake news to as many people as possible, yes, services like Facebook and Twitter are the primary means of delivery.
What's funnier is how constitutional purists are all about constitutional purism... until they're not.
At any rate, the cake baking thing has been blown out of proportion, and for the record I don't think anyone should be forced to put a message on a cake if it violates their personal conscience.
No, I'm saying the alt-right is going to run out of runway, pretty soon, as they lose the ability to use mainstream social networking and web forum sites to spread their crapola
This like complaining "the newspapers won't publish my letters to the editor", and demanding the government force the newspapers to publish your letter. It's an absurd demand. Start your own newspaper if you think your unpopular view needs an airing. The liberty to say what you want does not infer the limitation on someone else's liberty so that they have to publish or listen to what you have to say. If your views are so beyond the norm that the only way you can get anyone to listen is by demanding the state force them to, then I think you already know what your views are worth.
FAcebook is a private company. The First Amendment does not apply to them. They are, in fact, allowed by that very same First Amendment, to disseminate or not disseminate information as they please. You're guaranteed your right to stand on a soapbox by the First Amendment, you're not guaranteed the right to stand on someone else's soapbox.
By "black supremacist" you mean an African-American who is concerned they are far more likely to be unarmed and yet still shot to death by a police officer than a white American. Yes, quite horrible that them there colored folk are gettin' all uppety.
Slashdot Mirror
So let us get this straight, the former BRitish ambassador to Uzbekistan who is now part of the Assange Admiration Society is privy to information on Russia's innocence? Do tell..
Assange's bias wasn't just some sort of background noise. He had a specific desire to nail Clinton to the wall, which is why all these timed releases, which he hoped would do as much political damage at all.
And the people claiming the Russians were behind the DNC leaks aren't just nutballs on 4chan testing out fake stories to throw on Facebook and Twitter. The people saying there are links are people capable of making that determination. Now we can debate whether the NSA and CIA are trustworthy all day long, but to act like they're the same as some Breitbart troll is absurd. And when you factor in that there are strong indications that the Trump campaign was hacked as well, but that the mystery people feeding Assange leaks didn't feed him any Trump information suggests that, at best, Assange was a knowing stooge, and at worst, has willfully suppressed damaging Trump leaks. In either case, he was intentionally trying to screw over Hillary Clinton, which flies completely in the face of the alleged intent of Wikileaks to be a non-partisan and unbiased source of leaked information.
Assange made Wikileaks an active player, a maker of news, rather than a reporting of news, so for him to try to claim it was all on the up and up now, when he didn't even really conceal the relish with which he was going after Clinton, is hypocritical to the extreme, and makes his now declarations that it wasn't the Russians (something I doubt he has any ability to determine) fairly unbelievable to me.
And Brexit and the US are just the start. The fake news being used to try to muck up the Austrian election is going to be followed by all kinds of fun for other European races coming up. I'm sure all sorts of right wing pro-Russian anti-NATO anti-EU politicians will not be having their emails leaked, while centrist pro-EU pro-NATO politicians will be have to wade through private communications being cast about, even as they have to try to put up with their own Pizzeria Child Porn conspiracy theories.
And I do trust you have stopped beating your wife, right?
A guy who specifically times releases of data to coincide with the US election isn't exactly what I'd call an unbiased actor, and the fact that he didn't seem to be delivering any details on Trump indicates that whoever was feeding him the data had specific objects in mind.
And here we go again with the Clintons As Mafioso conspiracy theory once again...
Nilihism as a political philosophy. "I don't accept any kind of proof, so therefore it's all lies."
The pizzeria child porn thing was fake news. Fake all the way down. It was fake fake fake fake fake. It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't somebody misremembering something. It wasn't a screw up. It was a specifically engineered fake story meant to damage a political opponent. And really, the Dems are going to sue? Even if they could actually identify the original creator of the lie, their day in court would be a very long way down the road, so wouldn't exactly have done Clinton any good at all.
And how many cake bakers were sued into non-existence exactly?
Your pharmacist or your employer can be required to give the government your data if a court order shows up at their door. Facebook is hardly unique.
How would Assange even know? It's not like someone would phone him and say "Hello, Julian, this is Yuri from FSB, and we have Democrat emails for you to publish." Beyond which, I have so little faith in Assange as a teller of truth these days I see no reason to accept any claim he makes. Even Ecuador shut down his Internet access, clearly believing he was using their facilities to less than noble ends.
And that's why the alt-right is so spooked about Twitter and Facebook beginning to reign in the fake news. They could never create a social networking site that anyone other than they and their fellow travelers in space and time would want to frequent. They need the large distribution network that sites like Twitter and Facebook represent. By the same token, Twitter and Facebook face a crisis of legitimacy of their own if they allow themselves to become a swamp of far-right goons. I've seen even some successful forums collapse under the weight of trolls, as ordinary users simply abandoned the platforms out of frustration.
Yes, it's obvious you're not a mouth breathing idiot, as that would still require a functional hindbrain, and I don't think you have even that much neural capacity.
There isn't "free speech legislation", there's the First Amendment, which protects Google and FAcebook's right to publish or not publish as they see fit, as much as it protects anyone else's right to free expression.
I don't think "Dewey Defeats Truman" is in quite the same league as "Comet Ping Pong Pizza Democrat Child-trafficking HQ".
Facebook isn't a phone line, it's one end of a phone line. If you don't like its rules, found your own social networking site.
Of course, at that point, you no longer have the ability to distribute widely, but really, you have the right to speak your mind, you don't have the right to force large numbers of other people to listen.
What a fine collection of crackpottery you've provided
I think there are a great many conservatives who are not fact-free lunatics and morons, but the tribalism that is taking over politics in the Westerns world means that they, like their counterparts on the left who might hold some fiscally conservative views, have to sublimate that to retain their membership in the club.
I doubt Facebook is going to lose much sleep over losing a few angry Nazis.
Well, if that's what Facebook wants to be (by your interpretation), then that's Facebook's right.
There is no difference. Facebook is a soapbox owner, and as a soapbox owner, it has the right to determine who gets to stand on the soapbox. Your right, as it were, is to use some other soapbox. The First Amendment protects Facebook as much as it protects you.
For the purposes of mass dissemination of fake news to as many people as possible, yes, services like Facebook and Twitter are the primary means of delivery.
What's funnier is how constitutional purists are all about constitutional purism... until they're not.
At any rate, the cake baking thing has been blown out of proportion, and for the record I don't think anyone should be forced to put a message on a cake if it violates their personal conscience.
No, I'm saying the alt-right is going to run out of runway, pretty soon, as they lose the ability to use mainstream social networking and web forum sites to spread their crapola
This like complaining "the newspapers won't publish my letters to the editor", and demanding the government force the newspapers to publish your letter. It's an absurd demand. Start your own newspaper if you think your unpopular view needs an airing. The liberty to say what you want does not infer the limitation on someone else's liberty so that they have to publish or listen to what you have to say. If your views are so beyond the norm that the only way you can get anyone to listen is by demanding the state force them to, then I think you already know what your views are worth.
FAcebook is a private company. The First Amendment does not apply to them. They are, in fact, allowed by that very same First Amendment, to disseminate or not disseminate information as they please. You're guaranteed your right to stand on a soapbox by the First Amendment, you're not guaranteed the right to stand on someone else's soapbox.
And now you can go back to 4chan and repeat memes like that endlessly in your far right circle jerk.
I smell a "No True Scotsman" fallacy bubbling to the surface here...
By "black supremacist" you mean an African-American who is concerned they are far more likely to be unarmed and yet still shot to death by a police officer than a white American. Yes, quite horrible that them there colored folk are gettin' all uppety.