Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

This article is incredibly vague and is written in a way that obscures what this incident is about.

First line: "a controversy arose involving data from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden". Okay, so we have definitively stated that the laptop did belong to Hunter. So what exactly was this controversy about? Hmm, well we have this line:

Later assertions by Twitter owner Elon Musk and others that the government had ordered the company to suppress the Post story to favor Joe Biden in the weeks leading to the election were not supported by a Twitter Files examination authorized by Musk.

Wait, so did the government not order that? Or did the company (Twitter) not suppress the story? (Also, is this even unequivocally true?) Let's continue:

In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac.

I see, the FBI seized the laptop 10 months before this "controversy arose".

PolitiFact wrote in June 2021 that, while "over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden", the laptop "was real in the sense that it exists, but it didn't prove much", as "[n]othing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma".

Less doubt? So there was doubt to begin with? Is that maybe what the controversy was about? That people doubted it? Were any actions taken by companies, institutions, agencies, etc, because of this doubt? Were any accusations levied against the story? Did anyone dub it "Russian disinformation"? How about "dozens of intel officials" (even though the FBI had seized the laptop 10 months earlier).

Did the controversy have anything to do with the fact that Twitter and Facebook suppressed the Post story with unprecedented measures like banning users who posted a link to the story? Perhaps the controversy has to do with the fact that the mainstream media (and the intelligence community) openly accused this story of being Russian disinformation, despite, as Vox reported (mentioned later) 'no evidence had ever emerged "that the laptop's leak was a Russian plot"'. Had ever emerged. Maybe that should go in the introduction, and be written in clear and direct language. Sysiphis (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The controversy is that the opponents of the Bidens alleged the laptops were a vast and important smoking gun that would "totally prove" (to use their favorite verbiage) everything from Burisma to Shokin was a big ball of corruption masterminded by Joe himself. While the physical laptops may have once belonged to the younger Biden, the contents therein were tainted by unclean hands, particularly Giuliani's. Zaathras (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? So Twitter/Facebook censoring the Post's reporting, the accusations from the media, the Biden campaign (and, inexplicably, the intelligence community) that this was Russian disinformation, none of that is part of the controversy? Because that's all in the article, just scattered grudging admissions. I'm saying these facts shouldn't be treated as ancillary background trivia, and instead should be brought into the introductory overview. Also, "may have belonged"? "The contents therein were tainted by unclean hands"? Who are you to make this judgement? The laptop has been authenticated a million times over and is now being used as evidence in Hunter Biden's trial. Giuliani is not the prosecutor. Sysiphis (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The laptop has been authenticated a million times over... This is a mischaracterization commonly made by people with only a surface-level understanding of the topic. The physical laptops and the hard drive contents are two entirely separate issues. See the link to the news article provided one level above, at Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#interesting_twist. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting link. Let's check out that article:

Lowell sought earlier Wednesday to cast doubt on the authenticity of personal messages allegedly from Hunter Biden's personal devices. Under questioning from Lowell, FBI special agent Erika Jensen said she could not verify the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop admitted into evidence were not tampered with before law enforcement collected it from the Mac repair shop

Yeah, even with a surface-level understanding of the topic we can see that a) this was prompted by carefully crafted questioning from the defense counsel (can you think of a more biased source? Maybe only his grandma), and b) it is logically not possible to prove a negative.

And what are you even talking about? Please pay attention. It's stunningly dishonest to claim that the suppression of the story and the baseless accusations of Russian disinformation not only from the media but also the intelligence community who were already in possession of the laptop for 10 months before the story in the Post was published is somehow now part of this controversy. Sysiphis (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

baseless accusations of Russian disinformation not only from the media but also the intelligence community who were already in possession of the laptop

the memo was from 51 former IC officials who had no access to the laptop but wrote:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

they did not lie, as they are commonly accused. only the FBI had the laptop, and until today they said nothing about it. and Taibbi found no evidence of government suppression of the story, despite the Twitter Files hype soibangla (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on your statement then, I think the summary should have something to the effect of:

The mainstream media and intelligence community strongly suggested, based on admittedly no evidence, that the story of the laptop was Russian disinformation. This prompted Twitter and Facebook to censor the story and take measures such as blocking links to the story. Twitter banned the New York Post's account 16 days, reinstating it one week before the election. No evidence ever emerged to support the theory of Russian disinformation.

Also, several sections later in the article we have this:

Natasha Bertrand of Politico wrote a story about the letter, with the headline, "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say."

According to you, that headline is completely false. Maybe something should be added to let the reader know that? Ctrl-f the word "false" and you will see that it is used to refer to:

• false allegations against Joe Biden
• false claims made by Donald Trump
• false claims made by conservative media
• false claims made by Tucker Carlson
• false claims about Hunter Biden

Would you agree that this statement by Natasha Bertrand, which is false, and which, as it is later suggested, "likely shaped perceptions of the letter that continue to this day", also deserves the clarification that it is false? Currently, the reader is immediately treated to apologetics instead. And this as well probably deserves a mention in the intro. Sysiphis (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Perhaps the controversy has to do with the fact that the mainstream media (and the intelligence community) openly accused this story of being Russian disinformation, despite, as Vox reported (mentioned later) 'no evidence had ever emerged "that the laptop's leak was a Russian plot"'.

If I recall correctly, there may have been discussions similar to this one in the archives. It's possible the lead currently doesn't mention Russian dis-info assertions due to previous discussions.

However, it's unclear how this shines light on any discrepancy.

"I'm saying these facts shouldn't be treated as ancillary background trivia, and instead should be brought into the introductory overview. Also, "may have belonged"? "The contents therein were tainted by unclean hands"? Who are you to make this judgement?"

Editors are allowed to have opinions on the talk-page if they choose, but the overview is bound by things like WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP which dictate to some degree what is in the lead.

The current lead puts focus on the original catalyst for the controversy, ie "laptop data allegedly containing evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden". The lead does not focus on any alleged cover-up by IC or the media, or claims about Russian dis-info because there have been discussions and WP:CON in regard to how best to adhere to policy and avoid things like WP:SYNTH.

I think I still have my T-shirt from the last RfC.

How is this different from picking out certain statements or facts to create a new context or narrative on the "controversy" other than what is already predicated by the timeline of events, which seems to ignore parts of RS that already explicitly dispute what the "controversy" was about and when it started? Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahh I see the same players are still spinning narratives to prevent this article from stating simple truths.

cut all the nonsense language that’s attempt to equivocate and compromise because editors couldn’t accept that Hunter Biden owned a laptop and forgot it

anyway, look forward to perplexity taking over as it’s clear this place will never change. Same useless gatekeepers perpetuating half truths and hiding behind “but actually…” Slywriter (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Same useless gatekeepers perpetuating half truths and hiding behind “but actually…

Is that the same as hiding behind veiled personal attacks and accusations? DN (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s not very veiled and seems quite general. Yet another set of editors are being discouraged from getting this page to reflect semblance of truth. Instead it is a shrine to a misinformation campaign launched by former intelligence agents. any evidence the signers of that letter has any evidence that their was a Russian plot? Did several mainstream media organizations of general reliability promote a false story by amping up the letter without doing any verification of their own and also downplaying the laptop that Hunter Biden dropped off? Did social media companies overreact to an accurate story of Hunter Biden forgetting his laptop with his data on it by blocking the story? Could Russian agents have independently hacked the iCloud or Gmail or any other laptop or hard drive of his and not be talking about this laptop and therefore any attempt to connect the two is WP:SYNTH? The answer to those questions is clear. And this article still pretend they are not Slywriter (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

a misinformation campaign launched by former intelligence agents suggests to me that you are listening to disreputable sources, which is why "gatekeepers" say "but actually..." soibangla (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Your deflection is noted as a non-answer. good job there focusing on one of seven points and thinking you have a victory. You don’t. So address all the questions especially what evidence do reliable sources have that the letter was based on any real evidence? Slywriter (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Slywriter, remember that time you confidently hauled me to AE because you alleged I had brazenly violated consensus here, but in reality you misinterpreted what I actually did, and I noted "but actually..." and the matter was promptly dropped? "but actually..." is vital in a highly contentious environment in which some get their "facts" from sources that lie soibangla (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hunter Biden walked into a computer store to get a laptop repaired and forgot it is fact.

Any editor who disputes that statement and continues to encourage the tortured lead and other obscuring of fact in this article should not be editing.

That the same characters are

still here making sure this article remains convoluted and obscuring the facts to perpetuate some left wing fantasy that a Russian agent dropped off the laptop is pathetic. Slywriter (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

what we know is that Hunter once owned the laptop and it was in his possession for some time

but the chain of custody between his possession and its appearance in the repair shop of a legally blind man remains unclear, but no one has said it was dropped off by a "Russian agent." Bannon said on Dutch TV months earlier that he had the Hunter hard drive. how did he get it? what did he and Rudy, who was also in the chain of custody, do with it? it would not be difficult to remove the drive, alter it, put it back in the laptop and plant it. this is likely, almost certainly, a common technique of modern espionage. there remain many unknowns, including this week's twist that the FBI did not verify that the laptop contents had not been altered prior them taking possession. that is why editors paying close attention are reasonable to say "but actually..." no one, anywhere, comprehensively scrutinizes all this information as it arises better than we do. this is what Wikipedia excels at. soibangla (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s the “but actually” where the entire world but Wikipedia editors know a fact is a fact and only because of torturous debates must we use “legally blind” three times to protect Hunter Biden from the fact that he dropped off a laptop and forgot it. WaPo and 40 Intellignece agents lie but hey it was printed in WaPo so it can be used but the fact Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop at a store near his residence of the time … nope that’s crazy. Give me a break. Slywriter (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Even the NYT says he dropped it off.

[1] Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

maybe some editors should stop whinging on Talk about how it's all so unfair, and edit the article

this has gone on for years soibangla (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking this all along, but I didn't want to get sucked into the shitshow.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It can’t be fixed when a Cabal sits on top of it guarding zealously the false narrative presented Slywriter (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is overlong, stuffed with trivia seemingly only to muddy the core story, constantly primes the reader to reject any idea of Big Tech/Democrat/Biden/intelligence community malfeasance, downplays the significance of data, practically insists the whole thing is a giant nothingburger. It's honestly one of the most gamed introductions I have ever read.

At least three entire paragraphs (roughly 60% of the intro), are devoted to excruciating detail of chain of custody and authentication (or impossibility thereof) of this laptop and/or its data, making sure that the only thing the reader knows is that they know nothing. Meanwhile, it's not until the last line that we hear about the Russian disinformation aspect at all By March 2022, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme. Wait what? Why are we talking about potential Russian schemes? Were people saying that at the time?

And this line Later assertions by Twitter owner Elon Musk and others that the government had ordered the company to suppress the Post story to favor Joe Biden in the weeks leading to the election were not supported by a Twitter Files examination authorized by Musk. - makes absolutely no sense given that nothing is even mentioned about Twitter's suppression of the story in the first place.

My favorite line is probably this: The drive analyzed for The Washington Post lacked a clear chain of custody, and was considered "a mess" and "a disaster" from a forensic standpoint by the two analysts. It contains emails marked to and from Hunter Biden and other digital files relating to him. ORLY? Sysiphis (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"downplays the significance of data?"

it's larded with forensic analysis soibangla (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That is used to obscure the truth and convolut the truth so readers learn nothing. Great job maintaining the readers first!!! Slywriter (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I can only assume based on your response that the other nonsensical stuff is fine in your opinion. Sysiphis (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

How is this different from picking out certain statements or facts to create a new context or narrative on the "controversy" other than what is already predicated by the timeline of events

The timeline as told in the summary has glaring omissions. And as I stated, I am not doing my own synthesis, I am using what is already in the article and commenting that the placement of various facts about significant events, i.e, Twitter and Facebook censoring the story and even banning the news outlet's account weeks before an election, i.e, an influential member of the media literally claiming (without evidence) that this was Russian disinformation. By the way, Joe Biden himself claims this in the debate with Trump, and is sometimes not very carefully worded:

Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage.

Is that in the article? I couldn't find it, but as a statement coming out of the Joe Biden's mouth regarding the laptop or data from it, it seems a pretty glaring omission. It should be stated unequivocally that there is NO EVIDENCE that either the release of the laptop or the data found on it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. It's a conspiracy theory in the most literal sense, and Facebook and Twitter took extraordinary steps to censor the story as a result. Sysiphis (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Things like Facebook and Twitter took extraordinary steps to censor the story are MAGA talking points, and pretty much invalidate anything else you have to say on the matter. Nothing will be changed in the article on the basis of wild "CENSOR!!!" claims. Zaathras (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYP article was literally censored. What are you talking about? Amthisguy (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"censored" by whom?[2] soibangla (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

By Twitter and Facebook. Here is a BBC article, titled "Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship", that is used as a source in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532

It has been called censorship for years, by many sources. What would you call it if not censorship? Sysiphis (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Smug, partisan dismissals do not qualify as arguments. This was censorship. But I can compromise. Would using "Twitter/Facebook blocked access to the story" make you feel better? Sysiphis (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You can save yourself these kerfuffles by not using the questionable words used to frame reporting, words from unreliable sources like Fox News, Taibbi, WSJ, etc. Their wordings are framings designed to incite suspicion and distrust of the opposition, government, intelligence agencies, and reliable sources. Use the wordings that frame what's written in reliable sources. We don't usually object to them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not one time cited Fox News, Taibbi, or WSJ. I've only cited sources and language already used in the article. Usually direct quotes. This must be a fluke. Sysiphis (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It has been called censorship for years, by many sources

reliable sources? or ... Jim Jordan? on Hannity? soibangla (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice quote. Did you read the sentence directly before it?

Here is a BBC article, titled "Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship", that is used as a source in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 It has been called censorship for years, by many sources.

I hope this helps you understand. Sysiphis (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

so you found one, which quotes Zuck. impressive. I am owned. soibangla (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not out to "own" you, but yeah, I guess I have left you unable to respond except with smug dismissals. Now is your chance to show some humility and concede that it has indeed been called "censorship", and not just by some "MAGA" boogeymen. And as I said, if that word is just too damaging, I will settle for something like this:

Twitter and Facebook took what the Washington Post called "unusual steps" to limit the readership of the New York Post article. Twitter blocked links to the story from October 14th to October 16th and locked the New York Post's account from October 14th to October 30th. Facebook, prompted by an FBI warning on misinformation, restricted the article's spread.

Here's an additional source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-hunter-biden/

These actions were taken just hours after the story was published, so if we're talking about timeline, this sentence should be put before we get to the part about "later forensic analysis authenticated" or "later assertions by Elon Musk". Sysiphis (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

still don't see censor* except by the usual suspects. consider that another smug dismissal. soibangla (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't see the word "censorship" in "Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship" ?? Really? Sysiphis (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I just addressed that: one RS quotes what one man said. and that's all you got. that is not called censorship for years, by many sources, as you continue to insist. it is weak. soibangla (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The additional context of "The moves prompted an outcry from Trump, Republicans and right-leaning publications, which repeated claims of politically motivated censorship by Silicon Valley giants." seems more appropriate. DN (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The source not only quotes Zuckerberg using the term, but also the author of the article characterizes it as such.

Facebook and Twitter restricted sharing of the article, before reversing course amid allegations of censorship. ... In that context, the New York Post story, based on exclusive data no other news agency had access to, was met with scepticism - and censored by social media outlets. ... "Depending on what side of the political spectrum [you're on], you either think we didn't censor it enough or we censored it way too much."

I'm not sure what could more definitively resolve whether or not what Facebook did was "censorship" than the guy in charge of the company saying it was. But hey, I have given you several alternatives I would settle for. How about "suppression" ?

Former Twitter executives acknowledged to lawmakers Wednesday that the social media company erred when it temporarily suppressed a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop in October 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/politics/twitter-hearing-house-oversight/index.html Sysiphis (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"amid allegations of censorship"

and

"In that context"

what was that context?

"Critically, it fed into long-running unproven allegations about corruption on Joe Biden's part to ensure his son's business success in Ukraine"

the BBC piece does not affirm censorship and there is still no called censorship for years, by many sources soibangla (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Censoring "censorship" makes you a meta-censor. Just like Facebook. Get it? Meta?

So how do you feel about the word "suppression"? Sysiphis (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"meta"

funny. very funny.

"suppressed" is still suggestive of political motivation

"withheld" is more neutral and reflects their legitimate concerns about allowing material from a notorious fabricator to go viral on their platform as a bogus October Surprise soibangla (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How about a word that is used by sources, since this is so contentious. Let's see, I have:

• 1 for "censor"
• 1 for "suppress"
• 1 for "block access"

Sysiphis (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

would you agree that a private company withholding a story by an outlet notorious for publishing pure fabrications, on its private property as they deliberated their policies in the matter, in which they had concerns a fabricated October Surprise story might go viral on their platform during the closing weeks of a presidential campaign and wrongly affect the election outcome, is considerably different from the government violating the First Amendment by censoring the story? soibangla (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

did the government censor it, in violation of the First Amendment?[3] soibangla (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You have been talking about Taibbi. I have not. I am not concerned with whether the government censored it. I am saying Facebook and Twitter did. You seem to agree, based on a comment below. So that fact, and the dates they were censoring the story, and probably also the fact that Twitter banned the New York Post for 16 days, should go in the intro. Sysiphis (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

what Twitter did is not censorhip. it was a moderation decision on private property soibangla (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not true that Taibbi reported there was no evidence that the government didn't supress the story, only that it wasn't ordered the supression. His actual report was that the fbi misled twitter into believing it was a hoax even though they already knew the laptop was authentic. Amthisguy (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

source, please? soibangla (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Taibbi found no evidence of government suppression of the story" is your claim. You're the one who needs to back it up. Amthisguy (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

ok[4] soibangla (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"22. Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem..." It was Twitter, not the government, that blocked this stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Now added. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Though I didn’t find “direct evidence” of government involvement in censorship programs in the first Twitter Files piece, we did discover it, on a grand scale, almost immediately after." [5] Amthisguy (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Amthisguy then why have Jordan and Comer completely dropped their investigations and fallen silent about it? soibangla (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not the point. The article currently says twice that Taibbi didn't report finding evidence of government involvement, quotes him, and uses that as evidence against the narrative. That info is long outdated, and is the opposite of what he later said, and should be removed. I would, but am not extended confirmed. On the other hand, his later statement shouldn't be added either unless a reliable source reported on it.

This isn't about whether there was government involvement. This is about wrongly using Taibbi to support the case that there wasn't, despite the fact he made the opposite case. Amthisguy (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

did he find evidence specifically about the NY Post story, which is the matter of this article? soibangla (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 2 pieces of evidence[6]

1. In Taibbis earlier report he argued that Twitter made the censorship decision because of the FBIs indirect involvement. He argued that they decided to censor the Post story because of general warnings by the FBI that Russia could leak hacked materials.

2. In his later reports he argued that the FBI was directly involved in the censorship of the laptop story, and gave evidence of them requesting twitter take action on different accounts, etc.

Whether we consider that good evidence of the FBIs direct involvement in censoring the story is not the point. Taibbi wrote that he did consider it evidence of that, and it is false to say he didn't. Amthisguy (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

please quote exactly what he said about the laptop story soibangla (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Again, Taibbi never reported that there was no government involvement. He argued that there was no direct government involvement. That is not the same. He argued in the first twitter files installment and many times later, that the censorship decision of the story was made by Twitter because of general FBI warnings of hacked material.

From On Today's Absurd New York Times Hit Piece by Matt Taibbi:

Rutenberg and Lee Myers imply Benz influenced a change in my personal reporting, since I didn’t discover “evidence of direct government involvement” in the first installment of the Twitter Files about the Hunter Biden laptop story:

The author of that dispatch, Mr. Taibbi, concluded that Twitter had limited the coverage amid general warnings from the F.B.I. that Russia could leak hacked materials to try to influence the 2020 election. Though he was critical of previous leadership at Twitter, he reported that he saw no evidence of direct government involvement. In March 2023, Mr. Benz joined the fray. Both Mr. Taibbi and Mr. Benz participated in a live discussion on Twitter, which was co-hosted by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence, an organizer of the Trump rally that preceded the riot on Jan. 6… As Mr. Taibbi described his work, Mr. Benz jumped in: “I believe I have all of the missing pieces of the puzzle.” There was a far broader “scale of censorship the world has never experienced before,” he told Mr. Taibbi, who made plans to follow up.

Nice try. Though I didn’t find “direct evidence” of government involvement in censorship programs in the first Twitter Files piece, we did discover it, on a grand scale, almost immediately after. Subsequent Twitter Files reports reflected this, including “Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary” from December 16th, 2022, and the “Twitter and Other Government Agencies” story published on Christmas Eve of 2022, the day the IRS opened a case on me. Amthisguy (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see he is specifically referencing the laptop story. soibangla (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"I didn’t discover 'evidence of direct government involvement' in the first installment of the Twitter Files about the Hunter Biden laptop story:"

You're right. He wasnt directly talking about the laptop story when he said he did find direct evidence of fbi involvement in censorship. That's why instead of wanting to remove the statements, like I said before, I want to add the word "direct", which he used himself here, and in other places. He is specifically talking about his claims made in the same twitter files installment being quoted about the hunter biden laptop story. This is strong support for the addition of the word "direct". Amthisguy (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also undue to have both a paraphrase and a quote for the same quote. Amthisguy (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your thoughtful comments, which are quite a lot to chew on, and you've had a head start here and it might take me some time to respond in full, but I initially detect some things that are not quite precise portrayals. I hope to get back to you as time allows. soibangla (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Request is unclear. DN (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Are we all agreed now that the laptop actually exists? TFD (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of a narrative making the rounds since yesterday's testimony that "the FBI proved the laptop is real!" but this was known long ago, as well as Hunter's ownership, and our article has long reflected that. but yesterday's testimony actually showed the FBI did not verify the laptop contents had not been altered before they picked it up.[7] soibangla (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the discussion in this article has been about whether the laptop really existed. I just want to know where we are:

1. There is no laptop.
2. There's a laptop, but the Russians planted it.
3. The laptop belongs to Hunter, but the emails are fakes.
4. Some of the emails are fakes.
5. The emails are real, but they don't show wrongdoing.
6. Yes, but Trump.

TFD (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't find that a serious response, but anyway...

this article long ago established it was Hunter's laptop

no one has asserted "Russian agents" planted it at the repair shop, but Bannon and Rudy were in the chain of custody before the laptop surfaced, though these days it can be difficult to ascertain who might be aligned with Russia, know what I mean?

some of the emails have been authenticated, though most have not, bearing in mind that GRU hacked Burisma to steal email credentials that could be used to forge emails in undetectable ways. cryptographic certificates.

the laptop shows that Hunter descended into drug-induced debauchery with prostitutes as he was in despair that his big brother died, but the laptop has not revealed any evidence that he or his father were involved in illicit business or political activities soibangla (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that when you're at a point where you're smoking crack every 15 minutes and sleeping on cars and all the other wild stuff, you cannot get paid huge amounts to sit on the board of a large foreign energy company unless something else is going on. That alone should be enough for extreme suspicion. The laptop may not quite be a smoking gun, but it is definitely evidence to that end. This is why it is so important to introduce as much doubt as possible, despite being unable to point to a single email that was definitively faked. If we have to we will delve into unhinged conspiracy theories that the Russians might have used stolen Burisma cryptographic certificates to forge flawless fake emails, well so be it.

Hey did anyone else find it a little weird that there is a nice picture of Hunter to top off this article about the data on his laptop? How about a picture of him taken from the laptop? Would be more appropriate. Sysiphis (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Whoa! Now you are endangering any support and sympathy you might be getting here. Back off from the conspiracy thinking and SYNTH ideas. Don't go down that road. Keep Burisma out of it. In fact, you should delete what you just wrote, and you can also delete this comment of mine at the same time. Just leave a good edit summary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is a joke or trolling or serious. Is speculating that GRU used stolen cryptographic certificates from a Burisma hack to make untraceable forgeries... is that not a conspiracy theory? Is that not SYNTH? Who brought up Burisma? Sysiphis (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about not being clear. I am not talking about certificates, but your insinuation here: "you cannot get paid huge amounts to sit on the board of a large foreign energy company unless something else is going on." What's the "something else is going on"? Explain what you mean. (We already know about why some would want to try to exploit Hunter's relationship with his father, so I assume you are referring to something else (?).) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sysiphis Slywriter are you gonna edit the article? this is your big opening to stage a coup and take down the Cabal. you can do it!

if not, this thread has become a waste of time and should be closed soibangla (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

No one has suggested that Joe Biden acted on Burisma's behalf. You keep bringing that up as a strawman argument to exclude facts reported in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No one has suggested that Joe Biden acted on Burisma's behalf

"there's video of him bragging about it, dude! he and Hunter took bribes for it and the FD-1023 proves it!" soibangla (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a time and date reference. I cannot find it. TFD (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find a reliable source to support this, but if someone can I am prepared to add this as paragraph #6 in the lead:

By June 2024, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.

soibangla (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the Vox source I mentioned not reliable? Then why is it in the article? Sysiphis (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

it would be helpful to hand me that source so I don't need to hunt for it in a wall of text soibangla (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ctrl-f is your friend: https://www.vox.com/22992772/hunter-biden-laptop

So, nearly a year and a half later, it’s worth revisiting what happened back in the heat of the 2020 campaign. Some decisions and claims look dubious in retrospect. Twitter briefly blocked links to the story for potentially containing hacked material and Facebook briefly restricted it as possible “misinformation” — but it may have been neither. And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot. Sysiphis (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And up-to-date articles should be your friend. That Vox piece is over two years old. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources in the article are older than that. Invalid complaint. Sysiphis (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there an actual editing suggestion to be made?

This has been essentially a 36-hour lecture with nothing aimed at article improvement. Let's see an actual "change X to Y" proposal soon, otherwise this section should be archived. Zaathras (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually many suggestions have been made. You said that you think all the suggestions are "invalidated" because they are somehow associated with "MAGA", and that's fine, just ignore if you like, but maybe give other people a chance to address before you rush to archive less than 2 days before the topic has opened, while other topics on here are from over a month ago. Here are a few, for anyone else reading:

• From the opening post on the topic: the mainstream media (and the intelligence community) openly accused this story of being Russian disinformation, despite, as Vox reported (mentioned later) 'no evidence had ever emerged "that the laptop's leak was a Russian plot"'. Had ever emerged. Maybe that should go in the introduction, and be written in clear and direct language.
• It should be stated unequivocally that there is NO EVIDENCE that either the release of the laptop or the data found on it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
• Natasha Bertrand of Politico wrote a story about the letter, with the headline, "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." According to you, that headline is completely false. Maybe something should be added to let the reader know that? ... this as well probably deserves a mention in the intro
• So Twitter/Facebook censoring the Post's reporting, the accusations from the media, the Biden campaign (and, inexplicably, the intelligence community) that this was Russian disinformation, none of that is part of the controversy? Because that's all in the article, just scattered grudging admissions. I'm saying these facts shouldn't be treated as ancillary background trivia, and instead should be brought into the introductory overview.

Sysiphis (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Valjean's remarks, if a publisher is free to "reverse course", they are not being censored. Words have meaning, partisan and self-serving spinmeisters to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Words have meaning.

"censor" means "to suppress or delete as objectionable". Your statement is false. Sysiphis (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Those weren't editing suggestions, just a repackaged list of things you do not agree with. Zaathras (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Your complaint is obviously not valid, and you are engaging in tedious contrarianism. Yes, it is a list of editing suggestions. Notice the form of "X should be added/should be mentioned/should be moved". Sysiphis (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

No, they are all just repeated lines of "this is something I don't like, someone should change it." Provide your own re-write of a specific section, new citations and all, then we'll have something to discuss. Zaathras (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

it's just another long whinge, like we've seen many times here. no article edits have been made, total waste of time. it should be closed. soibangla (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be clear, what's being proposed. Recommend closure of this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

here’s an official

proposal, the lead shall reflect the reality of the world without extra words or addendum or any other caveat and unequivocally state that “the controversy began when Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop” a statement most recently used by none other than the NYT.

Further that reference to Isaac disability be limited to one reference not in the lead and not as it is currently used three times to impeach the fact that Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop.

Rudy Giuliani, Burisma, Ukraine, Russia play no part in dropping off the laptopf. They do not improve their standing or diminish their role in this saga by acknowledging the singular fact Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop. Further the data does not become reliable by acknowledging this fact.

It just ends the farce that implies a Easter Bunny/ GOP/Russian agent dropped

off the laptop. Slywriter (talk) Slywriter (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If H. Biden dropped off the laptop? Then I've no objections to mentioning it. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Giuliani is the only source listed

Bevan Cooney should also be listed as a source. J.P.Dill (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)