Maybe Twitter would have found other reasons to block the story if it didn't violate an explicit policy literally, for example it being fake news. Calling something fake news takes more investigation and judgement so the reason they gave was simplest.
It's like, boy, they sure have it in for a sleazy and deceptive hit-piece meant to influence an election at the last moment. Unfair!
https://twitter.com/blue_leaks
This one is more also nefarious than it looks, because it includes private information on victims of crime.
But you're right. Blue Leaks, if they share hacked personal data on Twitter, should absolutely be banned under the same policy.
They allegedly have a contractual right to the laptop due to non-payment. It's a damn good reason not to take your PC there for repairs, though.
I've heard rumors that Hunter was allegedly hacked to get them, but I have yet to see media reports of this from prior to this story breaking. If you can provide some, please do!
Right now, my take is that, at best, this is an elaborate cover story for releasing real dirt and at worst, it's legit, like the time Hunter returned a rental car with a crack pipe in it. We'll need to dig into it further, though, I want to see if the emails have DKIM validation with a body hash parameter, etc.
Fundamentally, the reason this got banned and then ignored is that that need is SUPPOSED to be supplied by the journalists doing the research, not random conspiracy nerds on the internet.
> I've heard rumors that Hunter was allegedly hacked to get them, but I have yet to see media reports of this
Exactly! Which is the level of rigor you should expect to see from your sources. Which makes it doubly frustrating that you seem not to be applying that same logic to the original story.
FWIW: I'll bet you anything that no headers ever appear for those emails anywhere (at least none from western domains -- I'll admit to the possibility that the Kremlin could forge a DKIM signature for a Burisma address). They're almost certainly forgeries, which is why they're being distributed in the crazy obfuscated way they are.
Oh, and the relevant DKIM key in that case came from Hillary's DNS server, I know because I pulled it myself. Maybe the Kremlin hacked that, but that would implicate a lot more reporting than just Donna's claims.
So yes, I do want to see more journalism regarding this, but it also needs sufficient rigor. I don't just believe any random person who claims XYZ, whether or not I tend to agree with them, I want to see verifiable facts.
And yeah, those are in pretty short supply. I've seen tons of anonymous rumors, various forms of citogenesis, etc. far more often than I've seen things that can be subjected to some kind of objective fact finding process.
Uh... why would the journalist "validate" the DKIM signature? Publish the RFC822 content of the email and let everyone do it themselves. That's the whole point of public key encryption. And the fact that the Post skipped that very obvious and easy step tells me that this is almost certainly faked data.
> I don't just believe any random person who claims XYZ
With all respect: you clearly seem inclined to believe this nonsense about the emails with only the barest of evidence. It's only the attempts to refute it that have you worried about "rigor".
> With all respect: you clearly seem inclined to believe this nonsense about the emails with only the barest of evidence.
I haven't said anything about the email content, though. I investigated a photo of Hunter sleeping with a meth pipe using hackerfactor.com's tools to look for manipulation and did not find any. That doesn't mean they're real, but it gives them some level of credence, given that there are old reports about his rental car substantiated by police reports.
You're right that it doesn't validate the email content. I plan to withhold judgement until we have more data, but it looks like they do have some files of his.
It doesn't help that the last time we went through this sort of thing, there were spurious claims of manipulated documents which were actively disproved and some of the denials I've read parse very narrowly, which isn't right.
Actually, and this is coming from someone who is definitely not a Democrat: I'd think that picture points towards planted evidence. The picture is probably real for what I know, but why would he keep it on his laptop?
I mean, how many times have we heard variations on "Idiot caught doing drugs after posting pics on Facebook/Instagram/etc."?
This sums up the central problem in modern politics as a whole right here.
George Washington on “the spirit of party” in his farewell address:
> It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
like imagine this was like child trafficking or something. you denounce that shit heavily each and every time, no ambiguity, no question. even if you're asked to do it 50 times it should be 50/50. the fact that people have to pull that as a "defense" is ridiculous lol.
Yes. This tells you his public stance is that he's anti white supremacist and willing to denounce them.
Do you honestly think he chose the debates as a the best time to secretly signal his base that he's a closet KKK member?
> like imagine this was like child trafficking or something. you denounce that shit heavily each and every time, no ambiguity, no question. even if you're asked to do it 50 times it should be 50/50. the fact that people have to pull that as a "defense" is ridiculous lol.
If my wife asks if I love her 50 times and I say yes 49 times, but once I get distracted. Which is more likely I secretly hate my wife or I just got distracted.
Literally one of the people explaining how trump supports white supremacists to me made this exact same mistake despite him being in his 30s and not coming down with covid.
Trump is a terrible president for plenty of reasons, we don't need to make ones up.
- Gavin McInnes, the founder of Proud Boys
The group claims to not be racist, yes, and they do have non-white members. However, their specific stances on various issues do add up to a white supremacist group in practice. As for non-white membership, it seems to be more along the lines of "honorary Aryans".
At a certain point you get tired of answering, “have you beaten your wife today?” Even if the answer is always no.
> The results are sobering. We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points. Among other elements, the message condemned “illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs” and called for “fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.”
> Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage of African-Americans agreed, as did an even higher percentage of Latinos.
> These numbers do not translate directly into support for the Republican Party; too many other factors are at play. Nevertheless, the results tell us something important: a majority across the groups we surveyed did not repudiate Trump-style rhetoric as obviously racist and divisive, but instead agreed with it.
If the media had any self-awareness, it wouldn’t automatically label points a majority of non white people “agreed with” as “obviously racist and divisive.”
As someone from a third-world country I felt this way over the pearl-clutching when Trump said “s—thole countries.” It’s a crass and very cruel thing to say. Definitely offensive. But not racist. People don’t leave Bangladesh because they’re racist, they do so because of the poverty, arsenic in the water, etc.
A diplomatic person would break out the canned condemnation for the 50th time. Trump is not a diplomatic person.
If 50 different people ask you the same question you put out a press release.
If 5000 ask you put out a news conference.
Responding to anything implies many things not r
Also some former white supremacists seem to disagree with you: https://www.wbez.org/stories/7-tipping-point/a46a38bb-198d-4...
Do you think actual white supremacists are dumb enough to accept that? I accept that actual white supremacists aren't the brightest souls on this planet, but seriously?
Or is it just the general problem of
- taking things out of context
- using "white supremacist" as a general slur for people one doesn't like?
Because if all the people I see named as white supremacists were that then I think 2020 would be the year were white supremacists stood up for the Jews and that would be quite a news story for anyone who dared to break it :-)
Any non-dumb actual white supremacists are surely capable of playing the long game and deal with son-in-laws when they get there.
I'd recommend following people on both sides. It is ugly but you might come out smarter.
I think the idea is that if this is the rule, a lot of Republicans think it has already been broken a number of times against them.