Is the 6th floor museum losing its touch?

[Andrew Mason]

Yes, they have the right to ban whatever subject matter is being disseminated under whatever rationale. But to argue that this is simply them trying to prevent "false" information from being disseminated is, I think, missing the concern. If you don't think there isn't a ideological or political bias in their determinations then I have to disagree.

Social media sites saying that there is no verifiable evidence to support the allegations is not making a determination of what is true or false.  The political aspect is that the allegations are being made for political reasons, not that social media does not want to be associated with them.  Do you think that judges who throw out meritless Trump legal actions for lack of evidence are operating with political bias? 

As far as the allegations about Trump not being suppressed, what allegations made without supporting evidence are you talking about?  Allegations about Trump wrongdoing, such as Trump paying to cover up affairs, committing sexual assaults, and trying to get the Ukrainians to start an investigation into Joe Biden were based on evidence e.g. hard documents, actual victims and official transcripts of the President's calls.

And for what it's worth, I voted for Biden.

For what it's worth, I didn't.  Congress passed a law that took away my vote - not because I am a convicted felon or anything like that, but merely because I am Canadian.  How unfair is that?

[John Iacoletti]

Social media didn’t “stifle” the Hunter Biden story. But reputable news organizations didn’t run with it because it was unverifiable Rudy-invented tabloid nonsense. Lying “Richard” should be ashamed for uncritically swallowing it.

[John Iacoletti]

For what it's worth, I didn't.  Congress passed a law that took away my vote - not because I am a convicted felon or anything like that, but merely because I am Canadian.  How unfair is that?

If you’re Canadian, then you never had a vote to be taken away, did you? Or were you a US American who revoked his citizenship?

[Richard Smith]

There is no substance to the Hunter Biden allegations. It's moot he had no "oil-and-gas experience" because his law firm took the Burisma account to do legal work. By contrast, Joe Biden and Kamala showed great honor by not attacking the Trump family members, most of whom are leeches and some a danger to society.

One thing in need of investigation (that the conservative media--which is neither small, benign or non-influential--shut down in the closing weeks of the campaign) was how far up did the Giuliani-proffered laptop go.

Aren't you far-rightists really just looking for a lazy means to be given a "pass" on misogynistic and racist "jokes" and offhanded comments?

You don't know that there was no substance to the Hunter Biden story.  There is an ongoing Federal investigation.  But that is not the point.  The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias.  Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider?  How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies?  I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed.  Put them out there and let the public make their own decisions.  We don't need a Big Brother being the arbiter of the truth for us.

[Richard Smith]

I hate to break it to you Richard but Fox News does not always present the truth. The reason responsible news media is not covering the Hunter Biden story is because there is no story and there may never be one.  It is not censorship.  You are talking like a CT.

The state must not engage in fishing expeditions to see if it can dig up evidence against a person that someone suspects did something wrong.  They may do that in Russia.  If the FBI receives a specific complaint with evidence that Hunter Biden did something illegal, the FBI will decide whether the complain merits serious investigation. If it does, it will investigate and if sufficient evidence is found charges will be laid.  Responsible news organizations don't talk about FBI investigations until a charge is laid.
You have it backwards.  A free but responsible public media is an essential component of democracy.  Otherwise, media platforms become instruments of propaganda.  This is why Congress was all over Facebook and other social media platforms for not policing their data and allowing their platforms to be used for promulgating Russian hoaxes.  Congress was hinting that in return for Safe Harbour laws given to internet service providers the public is expecting some level of control over abuse.  What is wrong with holding mass social media platforms to a minimal level of responsible journalism?  Or do you think that the internet equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre should be protected free speech?

Maybe you need to define censorship.  Twitter suspended the NY Post's account for breaking the Hunter Biden story.  That is a text book example of censorship.  And it was entirely due to political bias.  Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of the underlyng story.  If you want to believe that Russian boogeymen were behind Hunter's lap top, then so be it.  But is a story that the public deserves to hear and come to their own conclusions about its merist.  Just because you falsely have come to a conclusion about it, doesn't mean that others don't deserve to be given access to the information.  That is classic, elitist Big Brother censorship.  Someone believes they know best what is for the benefit of everyone else and all opposing views should be silenced.  Traditional liberals would be shocked by that Stalinist view of the media.

[Martin Weidmann]

You don't know that there was no substance to the Hunter Biden story.  There is an ongoing Federal investigation.  But that is not the point.  The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias.  Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider?  How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies?  I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed.  Put them out there and let the public make their own decisions.  We don't need a Big Brother being the arbiter of the truth for us.

The point is that the story was suppressed by the social media outlets due to political bias.

No it wasn't. The unproven allegations were made public, without a shred of evidence, for political reasons and to influence the election. If Guiliani had made the evidence available it might be another story, but he never did and still hasn't done so to date.

Do you want information controlled by some social media weirdoes who get to decide what is permissible for the public to consider?

What if I publish on social media, without a shred of evidence of course, the allegation that Richard Smith is a child molester and serial rapist. Would you defend my "right" to make such a story public?

How about let the public decide what has merit instead of some biased kooks who work for these companies?

What, you advocate mob justice and extrajudicial trial by public vote?

I wouldn't want any of the many fake, negative stories relating to Trump suppressed.

But what about fake stories about yourself?

[Andrew Mason]

Maybe you need to define censorship.  Twitter suspended the NY Post's account for breaking the Hunter Biden story.  That is a text book example of censorship.  And it was entirely due to political bias.  Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of the underlyng story.  If you want to believe that Russian boogeymen were behind Hunter's lap top, then so be it.  But is a story that the public deserves to hear and come to their own conclusions about its merist.  Just because you falsely have come to a conclusion about it, doesn't mean that others don't deserve to be given access to the information.  That is classic, elitist Big Brother censorship.  Someone believes they know best what is for the benefit of everyone else and all opposing views should be silenced.  Traditional liberals would be shocked by that Stalinist view of the media.

Under the Stalinist system the leader's false propaganda had to be published. If you refused to publish it or if you published the evidence of government abuses you ended up in the Gulag or dead.  It is still much like that in Russia. 

The Hunter Biden allegation was started by Trump and is being investigated at his behest by his toadies in the DOJ. Media organizations have asked to see the evidence so that they can check it out.  The government refuses. So news organizations with any integrity have refused to report on it.

Who is the Stalinist here?