'It was a mistake': Ex-Twitter safety chief FINALLY admits censoring Hunter Biden's laptop story was a huge error

submitted by [deleted] from dailymail.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes - about what is known, not about what the GOP want to claim.

How do you propose we discuss unknowns then, or things that are inherently unknowable? The mechanism by which we would determine if something is known or not is also free discourse. We gain knowledge through experience, not through unelected information aristocrats deciding the truth for us.

It was "known" that the Sun orbited the earth until it wasn't.

Hence we can wait until we have better information.

The current consensus is that it's real. The censors who you are defending for censoring it are no longer censoring it because they no longer classify it as misinformation. Are they correct or not? And if not, why defend the censorship at all when there's such an obvious example of them getting it wrong?

The emails that have been available for a long time were not particularly useful for the GOP misinformation propaganda

I'm not sure what the duration of the availability of the emails has to do with their veracity, but if you know of a way of breaking cryptographically secure email signatures please do tell.

You cheapen your responses by blaming everything on the GOP. Let your arguments stand on their own.

[–]Schwarzenigga 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How do you propose we discuss unknowns then

Merely admit they are unknown.

For example, much of history is literally unknown. Historians often make the mistake to connect evidence and documents in a manner that affirms trajectories of development, rather than admit there are refutable aspects of that self-affirming constructions or narratives. The answer to this was proposed by a science historian - Karl Popper - to focus on the least refutable evidence in one's assessments of potential historical narratives. For those who'd rather not use logical exercises to rank the least refutable evidence above more easily refutable evidence can also use the words: 'allegedly', 'potentially', &c. We can all propose theses for investigation without drawing initial conclusions about those theses.

Read the emails here: https://bidenlaptopemails.com/biden-emails/index.php This is not the same batch shared with the Feds. This group has emails that extend beyond April 2019. Note the last email. That's when this batch was made available online. We should ask: how did those emails become available online? Why were they made availabe? How were they made available? Who can be prosecuted for defamation? Why is there nothing in those emails that is an affirmaiton of any serious national security problems? If there are no significant problems noted in those emails, why share them? What is the point of these hackers who've provided these emails? How easy was it to include emails in this email list, if one wanted to? Merely type an email into the list....