Dana Loesch's Chapter and Verse

Share this post
Big Tech Declares Information War
danaloesch.substack.com

Big Tech Declares Information War

Twitter and Facebook admit to stopping spread of bombshell Hunter Biden report

Dana Loesch
Oct 14, 2020
17
2
Share this post
Big Tech Declares Information War
danaloesch.substack.com

Twitter and Facebook suppress bombshell report on Hunter Biden

(Updates below)

This morning the New York Post reported how a laptop owned by Hunter Biden held an email revealing that Joe Biden lied about knowing anything about, or meeting, a Burisma executive ahead of pressuring Ukraine to fire one a top prosecutor investigating the company for corruption.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

This follows a report showing Joe Biden golfing with a Burisma executive in August of 2014, several months after Hunter Biden was named to the lucrative $50k per month board position — and before Joe Biden denied knowing anything about his son’s business dealings.

In response to this, both Twitter and Facebook have moved to stop sharing of the report. What happened when I clicked the link from Twitter’s website:

What other users saw when they tried to share the link:

Twitter even moved to limit what the government could share about the Democrat nominee’s son:

Twitter avatar for @omricerenOmri Ceren @omriceren
In which Twitter, against the backdrop of a debate over the extent to which they act as a publisher, tags a politically explosive story posted by @JudiciaryGOP on the eve of an election as "unsafe."
Image
Image

October 14th 2020

314 Retweets369 Likes

Even Buzzfeed reported it: Facebook Limited The Reach Of An Unconfirmed Story About Joe Biden's Son Hunter.  Twitter Blocked It.

When Biden was first confronted about the Burisma story and Hunter Biden’s advantageous hiring, Biden was angry and short:

Without identifying any source material that it disputes, Facebook’s Communications Director, longtime Democrat staffer Andy Stone (Don’t forget, Twitter’s Public Policy Chief joined the Biden campaign), Tweeted today:

Twitter avatar for @andymstoneAndy Stone @andymstone
While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.

October 14th 2020

1,970 Retweets6,202 Likes

In its response, the New York Post notes that Hunter Biden nor anyone else disputes any aspect of the story beyond his hunter saying vaguely that the story is “discredited,” which it has yet to be widely reported on, much less discredited. Joe Biden’s campaign simply said their schedule doesn’t reflect any meeting.

So now you have two tech companies giving every optic of engaging in corporate censorship to benefit a Democrat campaign. Isn’t the point of such reporting to invoke further investigation? If legacy press had a problem with any aspect of this story why then wouldn’t they work to report to the contrary instead of demanding the story be stricken outright from national discussion? As I discussed on air, I always have questions whenever the sourcing of anything involves Steve Bannon because my distrust of his character is built on a decade of having known him in person, beyond far-removed headlines. Legacy press’s refusal to knock that low-hanging fruit just makes the story look even more legitimate, not less so. Their insistence on demanding radio silence from their ideological compatriots (several progressive journos were reprimanded for even broaching the topic to counter it, for daring to give it any attention) furthers the belief in the story’s legitimacy rather than subtracts from it. Also, what an incredibly blockheaded move: Twitter and Facebook just made the story even bigger and what’s more, they made themselves part of it. How can they claim to support an open society of information exchange as they work against it?

I’ve leaned somewhat against the removal of Section 230 protections while understanding both sides, but these tech companies aren’t helping themselves, and an absolutely merciless Senator Josh Hawley is waiting in the wings:

Twitter avatar for @HawleyMOJosh Hawley @HawleyMO
.⁦@Facebook⁩ explain your decision to censor the sourced reporting of the ⁦@nypost⁩. Did Biden campaign ask you to do so?
Image

October 14th 2020

10,214 Retweets17,706 Likes

Others are using phrases like “coup.” Hawley doesn’t disagree:

Twitter avatar for @HawleyMOJosh Hawley @HawleyMO
These are the most powerful monopolies in American history https://t.co/1zlme17sHk

Sohrab Ahmari @SohrabAhmari

This is a Big Tech information coup. This is digital civil war. I, an editor at The New York Post, one of the nation’s largest papers by circulation, can’t post one of our own stories that details corruption by a major-party presidential candidate, Biden. https://t.co/BKNQmAG19H

October 14th 2020

1,487 Retweets3,412 Likes

One thing is for certain: Twitter and Facebook have zero respect for the intellect of their users to navigate challenging reporting. When is enough enough?

Hawley’s approach here is the right one:

Twitter avatar for @HawleyMOJosh Hawley @HawleyMO
I am asking the Federal Election Commission whether this coordinated intervention by @Facebook @Twitter for the Biden campaign constitutes a violation of campaign finance or other election laws

October 14th 2020

3,108 Retweets6,973 Likes

*UPDATES BELOW:

Senator Ted Cruz has now responded:

Twitter avatar for @tedcruzTed Cruz @tedcruz
My letter to @jack regarding @Twitter’s censorship of the @nypost.
Image
Image

October 14th 2020

7,591 Retweets15,533 Likes

Reporter Curtis Houck was suspended for even sharing screencaps of the story:

Twitter avatar for @DLoeschDana Loesch @DLoesch
FYI @CurtisHouck was suspended for sharing the @nypost report on Hunter Biden. (DanaLoesch on Parler)
Image

October 14th 2020

62 Retweets84 Likes

Meanwhile:

Twitter avatar for @ChuckRossDCChuck Ross @ChuckRossDC
Test -- yep, Twitter lets me post the Yahoo story that was based on fake info from Christopher Steele.
yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel… via @YahooNewsU.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and KremlinCarter Page speaks at the graduation ceremony for the New Economic School in Moscow in July. U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an...yahoo.com

October 14th 2020

502 Retweets904 Likes

Twitter is now blocking any attempt to share the story (I just tried again). More:

Twitter avatar for @ggreenwaldGlenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
You're seeing the immense, unchallengeable, unaccountable power of Silicon Valley giants over the flow of information. Imagine if Google joins in. What's so amazing is that they never wanted this role. It was foisted on them by people, led by journalists, demanding they censor:

Alex Thompson @AlxThomp

Wow. twitter going even further than FB and is no longer letting ppl tweet the NYPost story. This is what pops up if you try. https://t.co/YVlOTeF1iX https://t.co/66kzYdwq21

October 14th 2020

2,114 Retweets4,896 Likes

Here’s a legitimate question I have:

Twitter avatar for @DLoeschDana Loesch @DLoesch
Serious question: How does Big Tech gain from losing Section 230 protections and falling under federal regulation?

October 14th 2020

39 Retweets107 Likes

I’ll update on the responses with a separate, follow-up post tomorrow morning and follow that with on air discussion during tomorrow’s program.

More:

I previously discussed Section 230 here:

So where from here? If you’re opposed to government regulating a large and influential private entity because the entity operates according to the partisan politics of the owners and/or staff, what is the solution? It’s a private entity. After everything we saw with the FBI and even within the DOJ regarding the Russia/Trump witch hunt, are we seriously considering giving government agencies the authority to regulate the final frontier of speech? If anything, that all of these government agencies were fueled with bitter partisanship makes me realize how much moreresponsibility we should assume back from the federal government. Here we are talking about giving them more control. To put it quite simply, I don’t trust the government to tie a shoe and I definitely do not trust it to determine winners and losers in publishing. I’m too battle-scarred for that. Trump has been careful to prioritize the individual over the state, most definitely witnessed in his pandemic response so I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt more than I’d perhaps give to others attempting to influence him, for better or for worse, in the punditry circuit. Maybe he’s playing chicken with Twitter.

So what then, impose anti-trust laws? Some have proposed this as a more sensible solution than modifying or dissolving immunity via section 230. But this only reignites the debate on the incompatibility between antitrust laws and laissez-faire capitalism. While all this takes place, we’re still left with a large and influential digital entity (entities, really) that can absolutely affect the outcome of an election, the news cycle, even perhaps foreign policy. I’m in search of an answer and unopposed to good arguments.

The anti-trust approach looks to be like the most commonly-supported position at the moment.

More previous commentary on Section 230 from radio:

So here is the big question: Is this affecting an election? Is that argument alone to allow the federal government to regulate private tech companies? Also, I’m more interested in why Big Tech is so insistent on triggering this reaction from the federal government. To squash smaller companies that lack financial resources and cannot fight nuisance suits?

More — from Twitchy:

Twitter avatar for @shannonpareilShannon Bond @shannonpareil
From Twitter spox: "In line with our Hacked Materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter."

Scott Gustin @ScottGustin

BREAKING: Twitter has blocked the NY Post article about Hunter Biden. If you attempt to share the story, you will see this message: "We can't complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful." https://t.co/TWaTKzvtQP

October 14th 2020

654 Retweets1,241 Likes

******* FACEBOOK * YOUTUBE * PARLER * TWITTER * WEBSITE * SHOW ARCHIVES *******

2
Share this post
Big Tech Declares Information War
danaloesch.substack.com
2 Comments

Create your profile

0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)

Skip for now

Only paid subscribers can comment on this post

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

Check your email

For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.

Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.

Anne Gassel
Oct 16, 2020

Someone should ask twitter how their algorithm filters were set to flag this tweet as soon as it was posted. What were they looking to block? What other tweets might never have seen the light of day because of these filters that the public should now be aware of? The instantaneousness of the response points to the filters. It's not a room of humans making snap judgements. Or did someone tip off Twitter that this was coming so they could set the filters to catch it? There are many more questions that need to be asked.

Expand full comment
ReplyGive giftCollapse
Scouts Honor
Oct 15, 2020

Disclaimer: My anti-trust knowledge is 10 min old from investopedia.

Anti-trust seems to fit business competition protection.

Amend 230 to prohibit restriction of politicians.

Expand full comment
ReplyGive giftCollapse
TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2022 Dana Loesch
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Publish on Substack Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing