Open letter to Aaron Sorkin: lies you happen to like aren't necessarily "truth". Everything else in this "open letter" is behind a paywall, so I can't comment on anything but the headline.
What are "lies" that Aaron Sorkin likes which he is conflating as truth? Also are you suggesting because the New York Times has a paywall that no one should publish any "open letters" like somehow he's involved in the paywall?
A rational person would eventually conclude that dumb people do not become multi-billionaire real estate moguls or tv stars, or win US presidential elections with half the money and without any political experience. But that's not the possibility TDS sufferers are willing to entertain. Eccentric? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Not a good speaker? Yes. Dumb? Hell no.
Is there any doubt in your mind that Sorkin's diatribe is aimed squarely at barring just _one_ kind of political advertisements and speech? I mean, let's take just one sentence of what he wrote: "Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son." There are two problems with this sentence:
1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then,
2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing.
You can't have it both ways, and yet that's exactly what the likes of Sorkin seem to be arguing for. And at a minimum, you have to agree that what Sorkin is characterizing as "truth" in this case, not only smells fishy, but, well, there's no evidence that it is, in fact, truth.
This was, in effect, "banned" from mainstream "free" press for years, until Trump dragged it out in the open in a way they could not ignore. Did he do it to destroy Joe's presidential campaign? He sure did (Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising). Can you fault him for it? I can't, espeically not after the shit bath Trump himself was subjected to. No matter how you slice it, this stinks to high heaven. Given the situation I don't want any Biden ties to the Chinese in particular, and that $1.5B his "talented" son got from them kinda gets in the way of that.
>1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then,
No matter what you believe, what we can say is that there's literally no evidence for this. Firstly, there's no evidence that Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion dollars- which frankly, is a big hole in such an outrageous claim. Given that this is an extreme claim which not only has no factual basis, but actually has been investigated and found not to have a factual basis, it is a lie.
You can make an argument that there was some issue around holding up a loan guarantee, to the ukrainian state from the US in return for pursuing US foreign policy objectives, but the fact is that the relationship between the details of that discussion, and what is actually claimed in Sorkin's example is non-existent.
>2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing.
There is a difference between using state apparatus to pursue US foreign policy objectives, and using state apparatus (and questionable private entities) to pursue US domestic political objectives. A fact you either don't understand or are deliberately glossing over to try and score political points.
>(Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising).
Again, you can make claims like these if you want, but if you have no evidence to support your claim and the opposition to your point of view can bring up obvious facts to show you're lying, then I'm afraid, we all have to just call you a liar and move on. Biden has raised $16m in the last quarter, so your claim is factually wrong. It's also a conspiracy theory - that somehow Joe Biden is pretending to run a campaign.... to what? Like, you've just descended into nonsense.
>> Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion
Nobody claims that they were. But Biden not only did get the Ukrainian AG fired in the span of 6 hours under the threat of withholding $1B (which, BTW, ended any further investigation into Burisma, how convenient), he had the gall to brag about it on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY. It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find). I mean, if this is the kind of stuff you're pissed at Zuck for not censoring, then I'm sorry, you're supporting blatant, third-world style government corruption.
> Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion
>Nobody claims that they were
Your quote from the article.
>"Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son."
So, am I to understand that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars despite Joe Biden not having a billion dollars and the Ukrainian attorney general never having had a billion dollars.
You post an editted clip out of context, about the level of honesty of Nancy Pelosi's speech being slowed down to make her sound drunk. In return I'll give you a link to a trusted fact checking site showing the full clip and a debunking of your claim.
>https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukr...
That's because your claim is a lie.
> It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find)
What does this have to do with the specific lie we're talking about? Let's be clear about this: If you think there's a scandal about Hunter Biden being appointed to a company you were welcome to make that argument before you came out with a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden, but now you've started on crazy lies about Joe Biden's time as VP you've lost the credibility to talk about this.
>I didn't read the rest of your message.
And for everyone reading this, this is the level of intellectual honesty we've come to expect from people pushing this conspiracy theory. We get it, Hunter Biden is the new "But her emails!", but unfortunately, we all lived through "but her emails!" so we're not going to take this bullshit seriously anymore.
Trump is unfit for office because he's unable or unwilling to fulfill the constitutionally required fiduciary duty of the office holder, his oath of office requires that he put country over personal gain and he consistently chooses personal gain.
The difference is, Biden was stating the official position of the U.S. government, with respect to Shokin slow walking corruption prosecutions. All the U.S. allies were saying the same thing about Shokin. He should have been prosecuting companies like Burisma, the company Hunter Biden sat on the board for. But he say on that board to years after the alleged wrongdoing by Burisma.
Per usual, Trump claims conspiracies the exact opposite of the truth. Whether he knows he's lying, or is confabulating, is an open question.
The bribery has already been admitted in plain sight, by Trump, by Guiliani, by Mulvaney. And it is bribery, Trump wanted headlines "Ukraine investigates Bidens!" however phony, to impugn the credibility of Joe Biden, whole holding up aid to get it. He literally wants Ukraine to engage in corruption to benefit his campaign. It's unquestionably impeachable bribery. It's also a crime:
18 USC §601, it is a crime to directly or indirectly attempt to get someone contribute something of value to benefit a political candidate by threatening the denial of any benefit made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.
Success isn't required by the statue. Just like obstruction of justice laws, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime.
The WH released "memo" about the Trump Zelensky phone call, the whistleblower statement, the corroborating witnesses including Alexander Vindman are consistent with each other, and are evidence of consciousness of guilt by the White House.
It's hilariously transparent to a turnip Trump can only look decent by conning people into thinking his enemies are just as bad. Maybe you like the corrupt person he is, or maybe you lack the character assessment skill to recognize it.
>> put country over personal gain and he consistently chooses personal gain
I'd like some of the stuff you're smoking. If he wanted to put personal gain ahead of everything else, all he had to do is _not_ run for president. He'd still be the darling of the democrats and republicans alike giving money to both. Just watch some of the interviews with him from 2014 and before. Everyone totally loved the dude until he ran (and won) against the Clinton dynasty. Now he's an orange man bad and literally Hitler. The very same guy that just 10 years ago was pals with all of the establishment on both sides of the aisle.
That's facile whataboutism. None of that is relevant to his actions to extort and bribe, by offering a quid pro quo with a foreign government to wage a disinformation and propaganda campaign n the United States of his behalf. And then go on national TV and ask China to do the same thing: export Chinese propaganda to make my political enemies look bad and I'll make you a better trade deal. It's an explicit request by the POTUS for a foreign government to engage in psychological warfare against the American public.
My whataboutism? In NYC he had been considered hot garbage for decades after multiple bankruptcies leaving small businesses holding the bag for his incompetency. This is why he turned to the shadiest people in the world to make money. There's a reason he fights so hard to keep his taxes secret. NYC folks voted against him 10:1. There, he's been considered a D-minus tabloid trash celebrity for a very long time, him as president was a long running hilarious joke to New Yorkers, until it happenened. Hardly everyone loved him. Most people didn't, per the polling and the total vote count.
Here’s an example from the article that shows how ridiculous the “lie you like = truth” refrain is.
> And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo.
Why should we hold Facebook to a different standard than the postal service? No, you put mail in, they deliver it. What about broadcast TV? You buy the time, they air it.
ninja edit: AOC's big "gotcha" was "can I use facebook to show ads that say that XYZ republican supported the green new deal". Well. Yes. She should. Just like she should using the mail to deliver that message, or broadcast TV. Let the republican respond. Let the republican sue AOC. The carrier of the ad shouldn't be held responsible, that would be on AOC.
TV networks can and do reject putting on ads that violate a certain threshold of misinformation. As for mail, that's closer to private chat than broadcasted ads so I don't think that's super relevant. They're not talking about censoring people's FB messages.
This movement to get social media to enforce misinformation is a new one. It might be the right thing to do, but it's drastically different than the status quo.
You're confusing political ads with adverts from political candidates. Your link specifically notes the difference, TV stations won't censor adverts from candidates but will from super PACs. So glassing over that difference is a bit of a red flag, since the super PAC ads are exactly what's at issue on facebook.
First. I don't want Facebook to be forced by the government to fact check its political ads, but I still think it's the right thing to do. Allowing the free dissemination of lies isn't a virtue. They may not have a legal obligation to do something, but I think there is a moral obligation.
Also the USPS is a government body and for the most part mail is confidential. Facebook is a private company and the ads on its platform are public facing.
1. The Postal Service was established by an Act of Congress pursuant to explicit Constitutional authorization. Facebook wasn't even imagined by the Founders.
2. Facebook is a broadcast medium. Postal mail is 1:1. Very different behaviors, models, and outcomes follow.
3. The Postal Service is not a for-profit enterprise. Facebook is, and therefore has different motives, among other things.
I'll ask the opposite question: Why should Facebook be treated as a common carrier? It's not as though there aren't vast numbers of other, open, "free" methods to communicate with people over the Internet (e.g., email). Usually we designate entities as common carriers where having competition would have detrimental effects (e.g., railroads).
Ads are sort of also 1:1, in the sense that you have to pay for them to be shown, and the number of impressions is proportional to the price. You could argue USPS is more expensive in this regard, but they'd be quite happy to accept your election ads and stuff them into my mailbox, for a fee. In fact, they do this pretty much all the time, and political candidates, at least where I live, don't put a single word of truth about their opponent on the leaflets.
> Why should we hold Facebook to a different standard than the postal service?
That's maybe not the right standard to call out. Every postal service ever has a rich history of allowing mail to be intercepted for intelligence purposes, USPS included. USPS has also been retaining scanned images of the exterior of mail since 2001.
23 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 58.6 ms ] threadA rational person would eventually conclude that dumb people do not become multi-billionaire real estate moguls or tv stars, or win US presidential elections with half the money and without any political experience. But that's not the possibility TDS sufferers are willing to entertain. Eccentric? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Not a good speaker? Yes. Dumb? Hell no.
Is there any doubt in your mind that Sorkin's diatribe is aimed squarely at barring just _one_ kind of political advertisements and speech? I mean, let's take just one sentence of what he wrote: "Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son." There are two problems with this sentence:
1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then,
2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing.
You can't have it both ways, and yet that's exactly what the likes of Sorkin seem to be arguing for. And at a minimum, you have to agree that what Sorkin is characterizing as "truth" in this case, not only smells fishy, but, well, there's no evidence that it is, in fact, truth.
This was, in effect, "banned" from mainstream "free" press for years, until Trump dragged it out in the open in a way they could not ignore. Did he do it to destroy Joe's presidential campaign? He sure did (Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising). Can you fault him for it? I can't, espeically not after the shit bath Trump himself was subjected to. No matter how you slice it, this stinks to high heaven. Given the situation I don't want any Biden ties to the Chinese in particular, and that $1.5B his "talented" son got from them kinda gets in the way of that.
No matter what you believe, what we can say is that there's literally no evidence for this. Firstly, there's no evidence that Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion dollars- which frankly, is a big hole in such an outrageous claim. Given that this is an extreme claim which not only has no factual basis, but actually has been investigated and found not to have a factual basis, it is a lie.
You can make an argument that there was some issue around holding up a loan guarantee, to the ukrainian state from the US in return for pursuing US foreign policy objectives, but the fact is that the relationship between the details of that discussion, and what is actually claimed in Sorkin's example is non-existent.
>2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing.
There is a difference between using state apparatus to pursue US foreign policy objectives, and using state apparatus (and questionable private entities) to pursue US domestic political objectives. A fact you either don't understand or are deliberately glossing over to try and score political points.
>(Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising).
Again, you can make claims like these if you want, but if you have no evidence to support your claim and the opposition to your point of view can bring up obvious facts to show you're lying, then I'm afraid, we all have to just call you a liar and move on. Biden has raised $16m in the last quarter, so your claim is factually wrong. It's also a conspiracy theory - that somehow Joe Biden is pretending to run a campaign.... to what? Like, you've just descended into nonsense.
Nobody claims that they were. But Biden not only did get the Ukrainian AG fired in the span of 6 hours under the threat of withholding $1B (which, BTW, ended any further investigation into Burisma, how convenient), he had the gall to brag about it on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY. It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find). I mean, if this is the kind of stuff you're pissed at Zuck for not censoring, then I'm sorry, you're supporting blatant, third-world style government corruption.
I didn't read the rest of your message.
>Nobody claims that they were
Your quote from the article.
>"Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son."
So, am I to understand that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars despite Joe Biden not having a billion dollars and the Ukrainian attorney general never having had a billion dollars.
> he had the gall to brag about it on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY.
You post an editted clip out of context, about the level of honesty of Nancy Pelosi's speech being slowed down to make her sound drunk. In return I'll give you a link to a trusted fact checking site showing the full clip and a debunking of your claim. >https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukr...
That's because your claim is a lie.
> It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find)
What does this have to do with the specific lie we're talking about? Let's be clear about this: If you think there's a scandal about Hunter Biden being appointed to a company you were welcome to make that argument before you came out with a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden, but now you've started on crazy lies about Joe Biden's time as VP you've lost the credibility to talk about this.
>I didn't read the rest of your message.
And for everyone reading this, this is the level of intellectual honesty we've come to expect from people pushing this conspiracy theory. We get it, Hunter Biden is the new "But her emails!", but unfortunately, we all lived through "but her emails!" so we're not going to take this bullshit seriously anymore.
The difference is, Biden was stating the official position of the U.S. government, with respect to Shokin slow walking corruption prosecutions. All the U.S. allies were saying the same thing about Shokin. He should have been prosecuting companies like Burisma, the company Hunter Biden sat on the board for. But he say on that board to years after the alleged wrongdoing by Burisma.
Per usual, Trump claims conspiracies the exact opposite of the truth. Whether he knows he's lying, or is confabulating, is an open question.
The bribery has already been admitted in plain sight, by Trump, by Guiliani, by Mulvaney. And it is bribery, Trump wanted headlines "Ukraine investigates Bidens!" however phony, to impugn the credibility of Joe Biden, whole holding up aid to get it. He literally wants Ukraine to engage in corruption to benefit his campaign. It's unquestionably impeachable bribery. It's also a crime:
18 USC §601, it is a crime to directly or indirectly attempt to get someone contribute something of value to benefit a political candidate by threatening the denial of any benefit made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.
Success isn't required by the statue. Just like obstruction of justice laws, attempting to obstruct justice is a crime.
The WH released "memo" about the Trump Zelensky phone call, the whistleblower statement, the corroborating witnesses including Alexander Vindman are consistent with each other, and are evidence of consciousness of guilt by the White House.
It's hilariously transparent to a turnip Trump can only look decent by conning people into thinking his enemies are just as bad. Maybe you like the corrupt person he is, or maybe you lack the character assessment skill to recognize it.
I'd like some of the stuff you're smoking. If he wanted to put personal gain ahead of everything else, all he had to do is _not_ run for president. He'd still be the darling of the democrats and republicans alike giving money to both. Just watch some of the interviews with him from 2014 and before. Everyone totally loved the dude until he ran (and won) against the Clinton dynasty. Now he's an orange man bad and literally Hitler. The very same guy that just 10 years ago was pals with all of the establishment on both sides of the aisle.
My whataboutism? In NYC he had been considered hot garbage for decades after multiple bankruptcies leaving small businesses holding the bag for his incompetency. This is why he turned to the shadiest people in the world to make money. There's a reason he fights so hard to keep his taxes secret. NYC folks voted against him 10:1. There, he's been considered a D-minus tabloid trash celebrity for a very long time, him as president was a long running hilarious joke to New Yorkers, until it happenened. Hardly everyone loved him. Most people didn't, per the polling and the total vote count.
> And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo.
ninja edit: AOC's big "gotcha" was "can I use facebook to show ads that say that XYZ republican supported the green new deal". Well. Yes. She should. Just like she should using the mail to deliver that message, or broadcast TV. Let the republican respond. Let the republican sue AOC. The carrier of the ad shouldn't be held responsible, that would be on AOC.
This movement to get social media to enforce misinformation is a new one. It might be the right thing to do, but it's drastically different than the status quo.
Also the USPS is a government body and for the most part mail is confidential. Facebook is a private company and the ads on its platform are public facing.
1. The Postal Service was established by an Act of Congress pursuant to explicit Constitutional authorization. Facebook wasn't even imagined by the Founders.
2. Facebook is a broadcast medium. Postal mail is 1:1. Very different behaviors, models, and outcomes follow.
3. The Postal Service is not a for-profit enterprise. Facebook is, and therefore has different motives, among other things.
I'll ask the opposite question: Why should Facebook be treated as a common carrier? It's not as though there aren't vast numbers of other, open, "free" methods to communicate with people over the Internet (e.g., email). Usually we designate entities as common carriers where having competition would have detrimental effects (e.g., railroads).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/198...
That's maybe not the right standard to call out. Every postal service ever has a rich history of allowing mail to be intercepted for intelligence purposes, USPS included. USPS has also been retaining scanned images of the exterior of mail since 2001.
That made me chuckle!