Column: Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

Post Reply New Topic

I probably should have left that off, it really is a different topic. But hiding factors involved with information voluntarily provided to the FBI has not, apparently, been prosecuted in the past. He volunteered the information. He was never under oath.



I am not aware there is any proof that it was intentionally disguised. The connection existed, and anyone looking for dirt would naturally (in my opinion) think they were onto something. We're in pretty sketchy territory for proving wrong doing beyond a reasonable doubt.



You didn't, but Kraichguaer did allude to it. He mentioned Russian troll farms, so I found it relevant to mention that a true Russian connection did exist.

I don't really want to try the lawyers case here, that wasn't my point. Its all in quite a gray area and we'll have to see what comes of it as the law runs its course. Because its gray, we're both going to see it with partisan eyes, that is relatively natural. I can accept that and leave it be.

She is allowed to believe that, she is the one who lost, but she still managed to do the right thing by the country and officially concede. She isn't running rallies and pushing a highly visible narrative.

The name General Michael Flynn comes to mind regarding offering information voluntarily to the FBI while not under oath. I seem to recall a prosecution related to that...



As noted above (and a portion of the post you mysteriously excluded from your reply):

Source: paragraphs 23 and 24 of indictment

For the record, the "communication" was merely DNS lookups.

^^^
Flynn is also a raving nutbar who lied to the FBI. Today, he's gone completely over the edge of sanity, taking his family with him, as they all took an oath to QAnon.

Perhaps the saddest attempt at a "gotcha!" I've ever seen. Not going to answer my question, are you?

Spoken like every political assassin in history, and I'm sure you'd have a different tune if this had gone the other way.

Nothing mysterious; long and never ending posts drive me nuts both visually and mentally. To the extent I can sort through the text efficiently enough while responding, I'll cut it down to hopefully just enough to keep the necessary trail.

I honestly don't trust your selective cut and paste from the indictment; it isn't personal; I wouldn't trust anyone's. One of the keys to reading law is knowing that every word, and every comma, matters. I read the indictment when it came out and my impression was, apparently, different from yours. So be it; reasonable minds are allowed to differ.

Are you equating suppression of clearly misleading information, that the posters often know is erroneous, with assassination?

All the media companies did was take a few people's bull horns away. That's all.

If it was flipped ... hm, depends on if I could figure out that my side was lying.

But, seriously, we know we're going to default in totally different directions here. I do believe in freedom of expression, freedom of speech, allowing differing voices to be heard, but I have trouble with the intentional spread of provably false and erroneous information. The line between the two gets hazy. You'll say if the line is hazy, don't draw one. Actually, never draw one at all. I worry about what the spread of bad information does and would like SOMETHING to hold people accountable to the truth. I don't want that something to be government and I don't want it to be private companies ... I've floated a few ideas in the past but you hated them all (I still lean towards professional ethic standards). So stalemate.

Sad, isn't? Once upon time he was worthy of respect.

Or was I overly generous with my respect all along? Hard to know. But until he went over the edge I was never going to write off him off simply for having some opinions I disagreed with.

Well... we really didn't get to know him till he got moved up to a staff position in the Obama years. That's when he went off the rails with his paranoid Islamophobia, which cost him his job. It was that same need to be locked in a rubber room that made Trump think he'd be a great hire.

Then walked it back.
Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’


Yes other progressives don’t concede elections.


Trump Hasn't Conceded Georgia. Neither Did Stacey Abrams.

And there were protests and riots after Trump won and all the “Trump is not my President” signs and bumper stickers that sprung up.

Neither Clinton, Carter, or Abrams signaled to supporters to physically try and stop certification. But not conceding elections is dangerous and what they all have combined to do is normalize it as evidenced by all the “Biden is not my President” paraphernalia still around.

Nope, just pointing out that the justification sounds identical.




I'd say they did a bit more than that, especially in an election cycle where everyone was more dependent than usual on the media for their information, the ability to control what is and is not shown is tantamount to the ability to control reality for a fair chunk of the country.



So you'd have been fine if every flaw of Biden's had been heavily covered and every scandal of Trump's ignored, and us being 9 months into the second Trump administration? Assume no lies, simply that what was and was not covered and/or emphasized was reversed.



So, just as a hypothetical, let's say that WP decided to adopt that as a moderating policy, and I'm the fact checker; does this sound like fun to you?

I'm afraid you have moved the goal posts so far even I can't remember the original question.

Opportunists flocked to Trump like moths to a flame
https://theintercept.com/2021/06/27/qan ... -soldiers/

You can't take the lies out of it, my entire position rests on the fact that we have a right to not be lied to.

If Trump was always telling the truth and Biden was always lying, and Trump got elected, first, I doubt I would have supported Biden as a candidate and, second, at least I would know people had made an informed decision.



The hypothetical may mirror the current system, but we already know I do not consider the current system to be suitable. Facebook et al are currently applying the monitoring system used in private forums everywhere, but on this large a scale, where the social media platforms are often functioning as news delivery platforms, that model leaves me extremely uncomfortable.

Professional standards would work differently, and could be adapted from professional standards used for financial statements, the law, and engineering. When you view the financials of a company to decide if you want to invest, you need to be able to rely that some standard of accuracy and presentation has been applied. Hence, CPA audits and an entire profession of certified professionals. When you move into a building, you need to be able to rely that come level of minimum building standard has been applied. Hence, professional engineers with a specific stamp to put their work. In both cases professions and standards have evolved to supply the need to be able to trust what is in front of you. How stridently those standards are applied and enforced depends on the specifics of what one is looking at. The professions by and large develop their own standards, test prospective members on their understanding of the standards, and have peer systems in place for making sure those standards are followed. It is generally consensus based and self-policing. The professionals with letters behind their names understand that those letters are supposed to mean something; that they've been entrusted with a fiduciary duty. The details of how to apply that type of framework to social media would require some creative thinking because, obviously, it's a very different situation, but the concept could be a starting place.

Take, for example, the twitter blue check marks. They tell you that the person is who they say they are. But what if users could also apply for, say, just to brainstorm, a green check mark, that indicates they have agreed to apply some level of professional fact checking standards before posting information? The green check mark people would then develop peer groups and standards to ensure that the green check mark continues to have means something. When someone continually fails to follow the standards, they go through a peer system and could lose their green mark. In the CPA profession, professionals who work with SEC statements must go through regular peer review, where fellow CPAs look at their work and make comments on how to improve. A report gets written, but the meat is in the discussion the professionals share on how the standards were applied. The aim is to continually improve how the standards get applied more than to censor. Only egregious cases move into discipline action. That might, theoretically, be one way to use professional standards on social media.

If you want to claim I moved the goalposts, why don't you tell me what they were before I moved them? Or is this more buzzword bingo, a term you don't actually know the meaning of, but see other people using so you just throw it in?