China bots flood Twitter with porn spam to drown protest news

Twitter faces scrutiny for relying too much on automated content removal.

See full article...

 

[watermeloncup]

If anyone ever wondered how some people fall down the Q conspiracy hole, wonder no more. Imagine if your feed was full of threads like this.

Also, what if AmanoJyaku was doing this just to illustrate how easy it is to drown out news, like in the thread title? Just a few operatives can go a long way.

Exactly, this is a complete waste of time. It's drowning out discussion of literally anything else which would be more interesting and/or useful. Even the original trolls who brought up the subject are long gone. Best to just ignore anything about Hunter Biden until/unless he faces a court of law, and even then it's more like celebrity gossip than anything relevant.

 

[crmarvin42]

The point still stands. Why the actual fuck would he fly across the country to drop it off?


Again, why would he drop the laptop off on the east coast when he lives in LA?

I genuinely don't give a flying fuck about this laptop. The owner is not a politician, and at this point I find it highly unlikely there is anything on there that might tie back to one. I likely wouldn't hire him, but since he's not running for office, his past activities do not concern me in the slightest.

That said, Wheels did address this question. The Biden family is from Delaware. It is completely plausible for him to find himself in need of computer repair while visiting his relations in Delaware, and to bring the machine to a local repair shop as a result. If you can't see that as plausible or reasonable, then you are clearly not arguing with them in good faith.

Did that actually happen? I have no idea, and as I said above I really don't care. However, you do your side of the debate no favors by simply pretending inconvenient points have not been raised. Debate them on something else if you feel you must, but someone needing IT repair services while visiting relatives is perfectly plausible, regardless of what else is being asserted.

 

[mausium]

If anyone ever wondered how some people fall down the Q conspiracy hole, wonder no more. Imagine if your feed was full of threads like this.

Also, what if AmanoJyaku was doing this just to illustrate how easy it is to drown out news, like in the thread title? Just a few operatives can go a long way.

I'll take all my wasted time as a learning example of how some people construct their reality and how un-weighted their assignment of "facts" are, how they uncritically adopt reactionary framings, and how they feel like they've done themselves an ideological service for not only accepting reactionary framings but gold-star extra mile endorsing further crank-magnetic theories about "those people" who "don't want you to know".

 

[s73v3r]

The shop isn't in New Jersey, it's in Delaware.

Two small states that are right next to each other, that are on the opposite side of the country from where he lived. Question still stands, why the fuck did he drop the laptop off there and not in LA?

Hunter moved to California, but Delaware is where the rest of the Biden family lives.

Doesn't explain why he dropped his laptop off there and forgot about it.

Also, the media has noted if the laptop was Hunter's and it was stolen, then a crime was committed.

Then why are we concerning ourselves with the contents of the laptop, and not constantly asking how Giuliani came into posession of a stolen laptop?

Because there are quite a few people admitting to crimes, but haven't been charged with anything.

And yet, no one talks about those crimes.

 

[s73v3r]

That said, Wheels did address this question. The Biden family is from Delaware.

That does not address the question in the slightest. No one, literally no one, would fly all the way back home just to get a laptop fixed.

It is completely plausible for him to find himself in need of computer repair while visiting his relations in Delaware, and to bring the machine to a local repair shop as a result. If you can't see that as plausible or reasonable, then you are clearly not arguing with them in good faith.

Bullshit. He flew out a day or two later. No one is going to leave a laptop in a shop when they're leaving a couple days later, without arranging for the laptop to be shipped back to him.

This idiotic fucking idea that there is some plausible reason why he did this is in no way, shape, or form "good faith." By defending this idiotic story, you are the one not participating in good faith.

However, you do your side of the debate no favors by simply pretending inconvenient points have not been raised.

I am not pretending. None of the points have actually been raised and addressed. There is still literally no plausible explaination for why he dropped the laptop off on the East Coast. "Visiting family" is not one considering there were no arrangements made to have the laptop returned. Are you honestly suggesting that he just planned to pick it up the next time he visited family? And that he would just go without his computer until then? And you're claiming that is made in good faith?

 

[SeanJW]

Because if you, for example, had $5bn to offer Twitler for Twitter, you'd be buying only the assets. Twitler would keep all the debts unless that was part of the deal you negotiated. It's like when you sell a house, you don't get to magically walk away from the mortgage you took out on it, if you can't sell it for at least enough to break even on that front, you're stuck paying for the remainder. Your biggest concerns would be 1) the gutted workforce, 2) the advertisers scattering to the winds, and 3) getting rid of all the Nazis and other undesirables.

The first two are going to be your primary problems. You might still be able to get the bulk of the workforce back if it becomes clear that the management has changed. However, a lot of the top talent has probably already found other jobs. Dealing with Problem #3 would go a long ways towards helping solve #2 as well.

If I magically had $10bn, $5bn to buy Twitter outright and then another $5bn to finance it for a period of time, the first thing I'd probably do is give Twitler the boot from the platform along with Trump, all the other people Twitler reinstated that were banned for good reason, and then also ban anyone who has words like "nigger" and "jew" in their name. Then I'd reach out to all the people who've ever bought ads on Twitter in the past and make sure they know the company's under new management and steps are already being taken to ensure hate groups are booted from the platform, and here's some "welcome back" discount rate for the first 10K ad impressions or something. Then I'd be going through the roster of former employees and start adding people back as fast as I could justify. I'd also reinstate remote work effective immediately. WTF do I care where you do your work from as long as you do it. I don't even care if you can hold down 2, or even 3, jobs at once. As long as the work I'm paying you for gets done on time and in a satisfactory way, and you're not working for a direct competitor like Facebook, go nuts.

You don't buy the assets; you buy the company - that includes it's liability for the $13 billion in debt. That's not Musk's personal problem, it's the company's. You could in theory buy the assets, individually, but there's no chance in hell that would fly. That would leave Musk owning a company with no assets, a $13 billion liability, a whole bunch of employees that need to be fired (gosh, more liabilities), and an immediate bankruptcy declaration that would not pass muster in courts - selling of all the assets and leaving creditors in the lurch is viewed very dimly by bankruptcy courts typically.

 

[SeanJW]

Because I'm still confused (no amount of explaining leveraged buyouts makes it make any more sense to me), Twitter owns the debt because "X Holdings" or whatever bullshit company Musk created for the purpose of purchasing Twitter transferred the debt to Twitter after buying Twitter, right? And X could do that, because they are the parent company (on paper) of Twitter, right?

There's really no way to prevent it. Even if you made it illegal to assign the debt, Twitter could just take out an equivalent loan, pay a special once-off dividend to the owners who pay down their debt.

 

[graylshaped]

Chairs don't have the contents of people's emails, verified by third parties, on them.
"Ah, but where did the contents come from?"
I don't know. But none of the experts are offering anything other than "they originally came from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden."

Inventing extra steps to divorce the claimed laptop from one that Hunter Biden owned at the time seems like grasping at straws. Occam's Razor applies until we get something more firm. I'm not wedded to the idea that it was Hunter's laptop. I don't find the alternative hypotheses convincing.


I didn't say "in fairness" about anything.
I laid out why I think stridently, abjectly denying the hardware was ever Hunter's is going overboard and inconsistent with the forensics that have been done.

I'm one of the people that pointed out how later versions of the purported laptop data were tampered with and different from what was provided to investigators.

As to the shop owner claiming it wasn't Hunter's, here's what I could find (WaPo paywall):

Which is consistent with what I said previously; the right-wing spin machine fabricated bullshit to assert it was found on the laptop when we know, and investigators have since concluded, it wasn't.


Delaware, not New Jersey. You know, that state where lots of businesses incorporate because of their extensive legislative and caselaw relating to running them and avoiding fair taxes?

The Bidens are from Delaware. Joe Biden famously rode the train home from DC to Delaware almost daily as a senator. Hunter was born and went to school there, and did various work in finance and lobbying in and around DC from the 2000s to the present, as well as serving as the head of Amtrak. One of the authenticated email exchanges from 2018 makes reference to him threatening to bring suit against Chinese businessmen in the Delaware Chancery Court. Another of the email exchanges (WaPo again) in 2017 outlined a business venture called Oneida Holdings, LLC, which was incorporated in Delaware in 2017. It's one of only several ventures Hunter incorporated in the state. And he was burning cash faster than it came in to support that kind of lifestyle and his various addictions, apparently.

Based on what I've seen, I don't see anything strange about Hunter Biden being in Delaware with a laptop when he has family and most likely business dealings in the state. He was definitely working in the general area around that time. Nothing I'm aware of requires him to fly out there, drop off a laptop, and fly back to the other coast with no other possible motivation. So the story that he dropped off a laptop doesn't seem far-fetched.

Here's the thing: I don't have to believe he really did drop off that laptop. But I don't find the "he couldn't have been there that doesn't make any sense why would a Wookie native to Kashyyk be on the forst moon of Endor???" angle persuasive in the least.

So that's where I'm at. If you have something that definitively puts him on the other side of the country at that time I'd like to see it.



No, I'm saying it's the most likely explanation until we hear something firm otherwise. AS I SAID FROM THE START, IT SEEMS TO BE THE CONSENSUS POSITION.
This means you're arguing against the consensus.
The burden of proof is on you to show how a different origin is more probable.

I know you think you have smoking guns. I find your hypotheticals to be lacking. I'm not basing what I've tentatively accepted upon any claim by right-wingers, only what forensics, Snopes, and mainstream journalists have been confident in saying.


The FBI have the original laptop.


I can't find anything to the effect of him disclaiming the image in question. He's said a lot of the stuff circulating in the right-wing echo chamber isn't from the data he copied from the laptop. That's not what the latest analysis, comissioned by CBS, was done on.

I admit I haven't been paying too much attention to the story since it's mostly unimportant, despite GOP bleating to the contrary. If you have a link to him saying the data didn't come from Biden's laptop, I'd like to see it; my Google Fu can't turn up anything other than the stories in the vein of the above about him deflating the Trumposphere's trumped-up bullshit which wasn't in the data he copied.


This is literally an appeal to ignorance.
The FBI isn't usually in the habit of commenting about ongoing investigations if charges might be involved for obvious reasons.
It could be that nothing comes of this, that they don't think there's any "there" there, but that's not something we can conclude at this time.



I'm the one who's disappointed.

Sometimes we find ourselves in a deep hole of our own making. Best to tip a hat, find a ladder, and walk away. Says the guy who has dug himself into many a hole.

 

[graylshaped]

You don't buy the assets; you buy the company - that includes it's liability for the $13 billion in debt. That's not Musk's personal problem, it's the company's. You could in theory buy the assets, individually, but there's no chance in hell that would fly. That would leave Musk owning a company with no assets, a $13 billion liability, a whole bunch of employees that need to be fired (gosh, more liabilities), and an immediate bankruptcy declaration that would not pass muster in courts - selling of all the assets and leaving creditors in the lurch is viewed very dimly by bankruptcy courts typically.

I'm still confused about what assets Twitter has, and given it is now a private company, not sure how to research that. Also, yes. I read financial statements for fun.

 

[VividVerism]

There's really no way to prevent it. Even if you made it illegal to assign the debt, Twitter could just take out an equivalent loan, pay a special once-off dividend to the owners who pay down their debt.

Saw a proposal somewhere in the past few days for regulations on what percentage of a company's purchase can be backed by loans. Maybe that's a place to start, I don't know.

 

[SeanJW]

I'm still confused about what assets Twitter has, and given it is now a private company, not sure how to research that. Also, yes. I read financial statements for fun.

It has IP (including all the application code that runs Twitter - it's very much not COTS), it has its own datacentres and servers - it uses AWS for extra capacity and CDN (so those VMs contents are its too as IP). Its user list and their tweets/DMs is an "asset".

Honestly, that userlist/tweets/DMs is probably its biggest asset. And any value it has is completely arbitrary at this point - Musk can claim its worth $US1 or $US40 billion and nobody can say much about it. The worst that might happen is the government comes looking if it drastically reduces your taxes and you don't have some validity to the valuation.

Edit: Oh, and you have to be consistent (just ask Trump); saying its only worth $US10 billion for tax reasons and someone coming to you with an offer for $US12 billion ... well, you can refuse but if you say "no, I want more money" then the government does come looking again....

 

[SeanJW]

Saw a proposal somewhere in the past few days for regulations on what percentage of a company's purchase can be backed by loans. Maybe that's a place to start, I don't know.

Anything they could do to stop it would infringe fairly drastically on normal rights and responsibilities of actually owning the company. There's different ways to structure it and they all work out the same way - the company purchased owns the debt used to buy it.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Then why are we concerning ourselves with the contents of the laptop, and not constantly asking how Giuliani came into posession of a stolen laptop?

This whole fiasco started because I said the laptop's contents vindicated the Biden's, and the forum insisted we not talk about the laptop's contents. We wouldn't be talking about this now if ya'll didn't make an issue of it.

And I'm the one who raised the question of how Giuliani got the laptop, so...

And yet, no one talks about those crimes.

Um... I did. That's what you're replying to.

I'm glad we're all in agreement we don't have to discuss the laptop any more. Doesn't matter if you believe it exists or not, or if it's Hunter's. Let's all agree the evidence discredited the individuals who made the claims to the point most no longer want to pursue this any further, and even Republicans in Congress are uninterested in signing articles of impeachment against Joe Biden because there's nothing to impeach him over.

 

[graylshaped]

It has IP (including all the application code that runs Twitter - it's very much not COTS), it has its own datacentres and servers - it uses AWS for extra capacity and CDN (so those VMs contents are its too as IP). Its user list and their tweets/DMs is an "asset".

Honestly, that userlist/tweets/DMs is probably its biggest asset. And any value it has is completely arbitrary at this point - Musk can claim its worth $US1 or $US40 billion and nobody can say much about it. The worst that might happen is the government comes looking if it drastically reduces your taxes and you don't have some validity to the valuation.

Edit: Oh, and you have to be consistent (just ask Trump); saying its only worth $US10 billion for tax reasons and someone coming to you with an offer for $US12 billion ... well, you can refuse but if you say "no, I want more money" then the government does come looking again....

Hadn't thought about the data centers, so good point. The user list is ephemeral, as Musk is proving.

If the tweets people have shared using their service are assets, then it is another reason to despise data harvesting.

 

[graylshaped]

This whole fiasco started because I said the laptop's contents vindicated the Biden's, and the forum insisted we not talk about the laptop's contents. We wouldn't be talking about this now if ya'll didn't make an issue of it.

And I'm the one who raised the question of how Giuliani got the laptop, so...

Um... I did. That's what you're replying to.

I'm glad we're all in agreement we don't have to discuss the laptop any more. Doesn't matter if you believe it exists or not, or if it's Hunter's. Let's all agree the evidence discredited the individuals who made the claims to the point most no longer want to pursue this any further, and even Republicans in Congress are uninterested in signing articles of impeachment against Joe Biden because there's nothing to impeach him over.

There is no court of law in which a good attorney couldn't get this whole issue dismissed because of the chain of custody. It's tough to stop a good conspiracy theory, though. Or even a crappy one.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

There is no court of law in which a good attorney couldn't get this whole issue dismissed because of the chain of custody. It's tough to stop a good conspiracy theory, though. Or even a crappy one.

That's the only reason I keep on top of this story. There's a long list of people who should be on trial, and none of them are named "Biden".

 

[SeanJW]

Hadn't thought about the data centers, so good point. The user list is ephemeral, as Musk is proving.

If the tweets people have shared using their service are assets, then it is another reason to despise data harvesting.

It's absolutely an asset. You buy the userlist and ancillary data (and any associated domains for connectivity), and migrate it into your own service, boom, you're now Twitter. Things like that are usually valued 'per user' though, so a declining userbase - something that's not actually happened significantly yet, there hasn't been time - would lower the value to a buyer. But until faced with a buyer, Musk can assign it any sort of reasonable value he likes. I doubt there's a reasonable metric you can use to estimate it's real value at this point.

 

[VividVerism]

The NY Post is biased and has failed several fact checks, but it is still considered a reputable source overall. Just like Bloomberg and NBC despite the Apple and Pelosi fiascos.

For what it's worth, I don't trust a damn thing out of Bloomberg anymore, until I see it independently confirmed elsewhere.

What did NBC do? I haven't heard of anything they did wrong regardless the Pelosi attack, unless they're the original source for the "they knew each other" fantasy or something.

 

[mausium]

There is no court of law in which a good attorney couldn't get this whole issue dismissed because of the chain of custody. It's tough to stop a good conspiracy theory, though. Or even a crappy one.

No evidence of a conspiracy existing is the exact sort of "factual evidence" that drives a conspiracy theorist.

The funny thing is how the conspiracy theorists contort themselves and their rhetoric to ignore every other smell test about far right nation-state ratfucking, this being a follow-up to the GOP literally out and begging the GRU to supply But Her Emails.

And in both cases, nothing of value was found through nation-state assistance, but conspiracy theorists pound the desk over these "facts", because they are uninterested in actual conspiracizing out in the open.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

For what it's worth, I don't trust a damn thing out of Bloomberg anymore, until I see it independently confirmed elsewhere.

What did NBC do? I haven't heard of anything they did wrong regardless the Pelosi attack, unless they're the original source for the "they knew each other" fantasy or something.

An NBC video claimed Pelosi told the police nothing was wrong and that he didn't need help. Which isn't true, because he called them and said a stranger was holding him hostage. However, he spoke in a way that wouldn't trigger the attacker: slowly, calmly, and suggestively so the attacker would just leave. The operator realized what he was doing and sent the police immediately, and the court filing includes their statements they saw a broken window and a hammer in DePape's hand.

That's why NBC suspended the reporter, because it was poor journalism, and called out in just a few hours. The story was taken down, which conspiracy theorists claim is a cover up. However, the New York Post has an axe to grind with anything left, so they archived the video as an example of NBC fucking up. Which turns out to be useful, because it's evidence that can be thrown in the face of anyone claiming "cover up!". No, the NBC reporter was wrong, he didn't read the court filing. Oops.

 

[graylshaped]

It's absolutely an asset. You buy the userlist and ancillary data (and any associated domains for connectivity), and migrate it into your own service, boom, you're now Twitter. Things like that are usually valued 'per user' though, so a declining userbase - something that's not actually happened significantly yet, there hasn't been time - would lower the value to a buyer. But until faced with a buyer, Musk can assign it any sort of reasonable value he likes. I doubt there's a reasonable metric you can use to estimate it's real value at this point.

I don't dispute the "what is." I would prefer a different "what should be."

 

[SeanJW]

I don't dispute the "what is." I would prefer a different "what should be."

It's entirely normal in lots of industries - a large ISP doesn't need all the overlapping billing and server infrastructure of a smaller one its taken over; it buys the userbase, migrates it into their existing stuff, done.... So the smaller ISP is usually bought piecemeal.

 

[graylshaped]

It's entirely normal in lots of industries - a large ISP doesn't need all the overlapping billing and server infrastructure of a smaller one its taken over; it buys the userbase, migrates it into their existing stuff, done.... So the smaller ISP is usually bought piecemeal.

I get that. I just don't see how it applies here. Twitter, is, intentionally, ephemeral. The userbase isn't sticky.

 

[SeanJW]

I get that. I just don't see how it applies here. Twitter, is, intentionally, ephemeral. The userbase isn't sticky.

400 million signed up accounts is very sticky, and the whole point.

Edit: Usage is about 3/4 monthly but which 3/4 will not be predictable.

 

[just_cruisin]

Doesn't explain why he dropped his laptop off there and forgot about it.

drugs?


.....but what does any of this have to do with China protests, twitter, or porn?


.

 

[graylshaped]

400 million signed up accounts is very sticky, and the whole point.

Edit: Usage is about 3/4 monthly but which 3/4 will not be predictable.

Hence not sticky. There are those who need Twitter as an income stream, and I feel for them--except for the "influencers." If your job is to surreptitiously sway people, then you are a con man, and fuck that shit. Most people can walk away at any time, and many already have. No one's life quality is lessened by just saying "no more Twitter." That is the calculation Musk failed to make.

 

[zenparadox]

I'm surprised at the lack of tactical ponies at this point...

 

[mausium]

Nice to see others' awareness of the Q-Evangelical bent of these creeps spreading fascism draped in a faux "leftist" costume.


View: https://twitter.com/tressiemcphd/status/1598845639487811584

 

[numerobis]

It has IP (including all the application code that runs Twitter - it's very much not COTS), it has its own datacentres and servers - it uses AWS for extra capacity and CDN (so those VMs contents are its too as IP). Its user list and their tweets/DMs is an "asset".

Honestly, that userlist/tweets/DMs is probably its biggest asset. And any value it has is completely arbitrary at this point - Musk can claim its worth $US1 or $US40 billion and nobody can say much about it. The worst that might happen is the government comes looking if it drastically reduces your taxes and you don't have some validity to the valuation.

Edit: Oh, and you have to be consistent (just ask Trump); saying its only worth $US10 billion for tax reasons and someone coming to you with an offer for $US12 billion ... well, you can refuse but if you say "no, I want more money" then the government does come looking again....

You need to have a methodology. The methodology has to be reasonable.

Refusing an offer doesn't affect whether you valued the company in a reasonable way though. The value to the owner can be much higher than the fair market value.

 

[SeanJW]

You need to have a methodology. The methodology has to be reasonable.

Refusing an offer doesn't affect whether you valued the company in a reasonable way though. The value to the owner can be much higher than the fair market value.

Yeah, but that's the case if you're valuing it higher than the market ... if you say it's worth say.... 1 billion for the purposes of taxes, and then take out loans against it saying it's actually worth 5 billion..... well, we know that eventually the government comes looking. Both could be reasonable figures depending on how you assess it, but sticking to the plan matters. And if you're saying "it's only worth 1 billion to me" for tax, and someone comes along with an offer for 2 billion and you say "no" (because you have plans for it and don't want to sell, which is perfectly fine), the government is still going to raise an eyebrow and reassess your earlier claim of 1 billion, because clearly the market value is higher...so you'd better update your methodology.

 

[SeanJW]

Hence not sticky. There are those who need Twitter as an income stream, and I feel for them--except for the "influencers." If your job is to surreptitiously sway people, then you are a con man, and fuck that shit. Most people can walk away at any time, and many already have. No one's life quality is lessened by just saying "no more Twitter." That is the calculation Musk failed to make.

Those numbers make it sticky by network effects; 1-2 million (waves at Hive) much less sticky. It's not super-glue, as MySpace and Livejournal both demonstrate, but it's a definite commercial advantage.

 

[graylshaped]

Exactly, this is a complete waste of time. It's drowning out discussion of literally anything else which would be more interesting and/or useful. Even the original trolls who brought up the subject are long gone. Best to just ignore anything about Hunter Biden until/unless he faces a court of law, and even then it's more like celebrity gossip than anything relevant.

I don't see anything on his laptop, given the chain of custody (and utter lack thereof), lasting two minutes in front of a judge.