He also was not the candidate, did not have a chance of getting a government position like his predecessor’s children, and there was no public interest in seeing his acts. It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already along with Joe’s desire to help his son get treatment.
>He also was not the candidate, did not have a chance of getting a government position like his predecessor’s children
And? Does that mean we should suppress evidence of crimes that are posted on Twitter because of that? If I committed a crime, should Twitter delete the articles and pictures?
> It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already along
It is more than just addiction. He may have had child porn on his computer and may have had sex with an underage girl.
There is also the question of how he got such a cushy job with no experience and a drug addiction.
>with Joe’s desire to help his son get treatment.
Joe seems like he genuinely cares about his son and wanted him to get help. I don't think that is relevant though.
Twitter isn’t law enforcement so, no, there isn’t a requirement that they provide free hosting and promotion for everyone alleging a crime. In this case, they briefly used their hacked materials policy until deciding that it didn’t apply to the news coverage but did continue to yank non-consensual nudes under their existing policies.
If you genuinely believed that Hunter Biden had child porn or whatever Giuliani imagines, you’d definitely want that offline since there’s no public benefit to circulating criminal materials and law enforcement is definitely going to investigate it.
>Twitter isn’t law enforcement so, no, there isn’t a requirement that they provide free hosting and promotion for everyone alleging a crime
I didn't say they should be required to. I just think they should be consistent on their enforcement of the rules.
>In this case, they briefly used their hacked materials policy until deciding that it didn’t apply to the news coverage
Why didn't they do that when GiveSendGo was hacked (the hacking was not in doubt) and names of people who donated to the Freedom Convoy were leaked?
Like I said, I have an issue with the selective enforcement of the rules. If they want to ban material that is hacked that is fine, but to not do it when everybody knows the materials were hacked is ridiculous.
>but did continue to yank non-consensual nudes under their existing policies.
I am fine with suppressing non consensual nudes. I am not OK with suppressing articles about them.
>If you genuinely believed that Hunter Biden had child porn or whatever Giuliani imagines, you’d definitely want that offline since there’s no public benefit to circulating criminal materials and law enforcement is definitely going to investigate it.
No one was suggesting they should be releasing the child porn. I am advocating for allow news articles about it.
