Bill Barr and his October Surprise

If he's a simple sharing platform, he has every right to show anyone the door biased on any criteria he decides.

if he's a content provider, he has a duty to the truth to not share false information.

There is no place anywhere on the "Content Provider / Platform" hairsplit where it matters.
 
Dangit guys, we were almost at a point where the type of person Giuliani depended on to be a gullible fool who amplified his transparently stupid BS was going to explain to us why this time the guy known for promoting Russian disinformation campaigns was worth listening to! But Noooo! Now he's going to pretend he never saw this thread and I'm going to go back on ignore and two years from now Daily Mail is going to write a sneeringly comic article about what sort of blithering maroon ever gave this nonsense a moment's credence.

Sigh
 
wareyin said:
Dangit guys, we were almost at a point where the type of person Giuliani depended on to be a gullible fool who amplified his transparently stupid BS was going to explain to us why this time the guy known for promoting Russian disinformation campaigns was worth listening to! But Noooo! Now he's going to pretend he never saw this thread and I'm going to go back on ignore and two years from now Daily Mail is going to write a sneeringly comic article about what sort of blithering maroon ever gave this nonsense a moment's credence.

Sigh
Click to expand...
Well even with "ignore" your posts seemed completely visible for the purposes of argument. "Gullible" IMO is a charitable way of describing what was going on. Remember birtherism? How hard could it be to prove Barack Obama wasn't born in Kenya? Even with a birth certificate, the evidence was never quite proof-y enough for many Trump supporters. They, and perhaps Trump himself, are still convinced they were right. Trump even tried to shut down his own message, and it fell flat.

Joe Biden is a big boy. He's capable of coming up with his own strategy for dealing with a perpetual-motion innuendo machine, though I don't know what that would look like. Convince voters he didn't receive a given email 4 years ago? Repeat that 36,000 times, or whatever number it's supposed to be? Whack-a-mole indeed. Hillary Clinton couldn't quite manage it, true. But Biden may be somewhat more teachable than she was.
 
Minoosh said:
Well even with "ignore" your posts seemed completely visible for the purposes of argument. "Gullible" IMO is a charitable way of describing what was going on.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, but we're told to apply the principle of charity here.

Minoosh said:
Remember birtherism? How hard could it be to prove Barack Obama wasn't born in Kenya? Even with a birth certificate, the evidence was never quite proof-y enough for many Trump supporters. They, and perhaps Trump himself, are still convinced they were right. Trump even tried to shut down his own message, and it fell flat.
Click to expand...

Agreed again. But years later, the more sophisticated innuendo promoters are laughing at those who fell for the birther propaganda. That's why I predict that the Daily Mail or NY Post of tomorrow will be laughing at the rubes they conned this time. Currently, the shutIt's of the world may be necessary to spread the message, but the more transparently bonkers the message the more quickly the Giuliani/NY Posts of the world will throw their "useful idiots" under the bus.

Minoosh said:
Joe Biden is a big boy. He's capable of coming up with his own strategy for dealing with a perpetual-motion innuendo machine, though I don't know what that would look like. Convince voters he didn't receive a given email 4 years ago? Repeat that 36,000 times, or whatever number it's supposed to be? Whack-a-mole indeed. Hillary Clinton couldn't quite manage it, true. But Biden may be somewhat more teachable than she was.
Click to expand...

I can't fault Hillary Clinton for falling victim to a decades long smear campaign, no matter how much I appreciate a similar but shorter campaign failing this time. There will always be people willing to believe and amplify even the most glaringly BS claim about their political opponent. I would hope that the American public is becoming more aware of the abysmally retarded propaganda and how to ignore it this time around, but I fear this is a fleeting victory.
 
how would Ratcliffe know?`
It's not like anyone in the IC tells him anything.
And he's certainly not going to ask.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If he's a simple sharing platform, he has every right to show anyone the door biased on any criteria he decides.
Click to expand...

No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one.

And there are attendant liabilities in that decision.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one.

And there are attendant liabilities in that decision.
Click to expand...

Facebook has done that from day one. Since it has not been held responsible for the content it curates and it is still existing I think your interpretation may be tad broad and not in line with the actual legislation.
 
I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?

And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?

Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here?
 
Blank said:
I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?

And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?

Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here?
Click to expand...
I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person.

The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. It isn't a question of what right he has to show anyone the door. It's a question of what that makes his platform. If he shows people the door based on content criteria, then his platform isn't a simple sharing platform. That's just a definitional thing. He has every right to not run a simple sharing platform, but curating content makes his platform not be one.

And there are attendant liabilities in that decision.
Click to expand...
I think that until you provide evidence, and perhaps learn what words you should be using when making your flimsy argument, I'll consider this a lie.
 
Giordano said:
I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person.

The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner.
Click to expand...


Only if the repair guy hacked to get the info. The Supreme court ruled you have no expectation of privacy if you leave open your email on a shared computer. If he didn't have the mail protected with a password it's a big oops on his part.
 
Blank said:
I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that mean that almost any leak of information would be a copyright breach? Plus making a copy of the data on the laptop is the service that Biden supposedly requested.

Blank said:
And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody is claiming that this nobody repair shop guy hand wrote tens of thousands of emails and elaborately faked the photos of Hunter Biden.

Blank said:
Or does the computer repair guy actually have a out here?
Click to expand...
If you think that the emails are genuine and Biden is going to go after him for copyright, you are dreaming. What possible benefit could there be in suing? If they are fake, then it's hard to believe the repair guy faked it.
 
Giordano said:
I’ve been wondering about this myself. If the data was not evidence of illegal activities then it was at minimum an unprofessional breach of privacy ethics, and in California, possibly illegal to release this information to another private individual. If it was evidence of illegal activities then the computer tech should have released it to the appropriate authorities, but not to Giuliani or to any other private person.

The tech may end up owning the hard drive but the data on it still belongs to the original owner.
Click to expand...
You don't know what the terms were under which Biden handed over the laptop. Even if it is a breach of law to have handed the data over, it's a ridiculous side issue. Nothing of any importance about the story is changed by whether or not the repair guy was on legally solid or shaky ground by handing over the data to Giuliani.
 
Blank said:
I'm not too familiar with US legislation but IF the laptops are indeed Hunter Bidens the argument seems to be that there's a provision in the laptop maintenance guys agreement that in case the laptop doesn't get picked up the ownership of the laptop transfers to the store.

This probably doesn't mean the data in the laptop, videos or fotos etc..? That's separate from the hardware and under IP rights? So if this laptop is actually Bidens, the store owner might face time in the slammer for copyright violations?
Click to expand...

Copyright violations rarely end up with prison time. And they certainly won't in this case, for several reasons. First, there's the authorship issue. For example, Hunter may not have taken the picture of him apparently asleep with a crack pipe in his mouth. Whoever did would nominally own the copyright, not Hunter, and Hunter may not want to publicize their identity. Establishing authorship also establishes authenticity, which Hunter and Joe probably don't want either. And discovery is a bitch, so even with stuff he did take, going through each item and describing the conditions under which it was taken in order to establish his authorship is probably not something Hunter wants to pursue.

Second, since copyright exists to protect commercial interest in works, copyright violations are generally punished in proportion to the potential commercial loss they represent. There's no commercial loss here. Even were a case to be brought and won, the outcome would likely be a slap on the wrist with some nominal fine. That's really not going to be worth the Streisand effect it would bring.

Lastly, there may even be an out with fair use exceptions, if only a sampling of these works is publicly released.

And if it is made up, then he opens himself up to some libel/slander charges?
Click to expand...

Yes, if these are fakes, they would create a huge defamation liability for the faker.

It doesn't look like they are fakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom