Post readers voted overwhelmingly (78%) that they are in favor of eliminating the legal liability shield against lawsuits on content that our government extends to Twitter and Facebook.
I am not sure if they all realize that such a thing would crush the social media companies' racket. I have personally never been a fan of social media, I think they have already done more harm than good. I agree with our readers that they should not be exempt from liability.
I am getting a lot of letters from conservative readers asking why we haven't been writing much about the Hunter Biden emails. The answer is that we are awaiting substantiation, precisely because we are NOT Facebook and Twitter.
It's not like this free, local newspaper can finance our own Washington and Moscow investigative reporters from all the ads we get from say, Doylestown. If you want to read unsubstantiated crapola, then you should just read social media and your favorite propaganda cable television networks.
My own hunch – and for now that's all it is – is that the Hunter Biden emails are actually authentic, but that they were obtained from illegal hacking, not from Hunter Biden's laptop.
Even if it turns out that those emails came from hacks, it would still be a big story that possibly would disqualify Joe Biden as a candidate. I mean, it appears to imply direct involvement in political payoffs by the candidate himself.
Did anybody complain when The New York Times gained stolen files of Trump's tax returns and published them?
We are awaiting substantiation that those emails, however obtained, were indeed authentic. A newspaper cannot run things it has reason to believe may not be true. But social media can. And does everyday. Except in this case. Why?
Twitter did the country a big disservice by banning the whole discussion. Because if that is not what social media is good for, what are they good for? Apparently just for taking all the personal information that people willingly turn over and selling it to advertisers and vultures?
I have never been a fan of social media for those reasons, but at least if it is the wild, wild, west they can provide some benefit by facilitating exploration of such things as the Hunter Biden emails. We certainly should never be allowing them to start picking and choosing what gets in and what doesn't.
Just give us an answer, Joe! That is the title of our featured Guest Column today by conservative Carl Golden. Golden writes about "Joe Biden’s stubborn, self-defeating refusal to venture an opinion on suggestions to increase the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices."
Biden has since been forced to backtrack from his response to reporters that the American people didn’t “deserve” to know his position on the court packing scheme being pushed by his party’s left wing. He now says he will say more just before the election – after he reads all the polls and many people have already voted.
John Kass writes a Guest Column on the same subject. Why hasn't Joe Biden said no to Democratic threats to pack the Supreme Court? He explores why Biden finds it so hard to answer the question. Bottom line, because it looks like he is going to win the election and does not want to make a mistake that would change that reality.
"Sowing confusion in the weeks before an election" is Kathleen Parker's Guest Column on the Hunter Biden emails.
"There has been a lot of speculation about a much-discussed New York Post story alleging, without much evidence, that Joe Biden's son Hunter may have arranged for a meeting between his father, then the vice president, and a Ukrainian businessman" she begins. "And then there is some confusion about what social media companies owe their audiences when it comes to distributing these stories."
Parker, a veteran newspaper journalist, details why most newspapers have not been able to cover this story much yet. She asks the basic question that all legitimate newspapers (as opposed to social media) must ask. "We are supposed to accept that Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop at a Wilmington, Del., computer shop in 2019 and never retrieved it, despite probably knowing that its contents would ruin him and his father?"
You can, and should read Parker's column yourself. She is a journalist that I respect. Not that I agree with all of her conclusions.
Parker talks about how the New York Post played the story "bigly" with several splashy articles. Other news organizations, including The Washington Post (who Parker writes for), have been unable to authenticate the story.
"Twitter is not the U.S. government" says Parker. Her point is that with just a few extra keystrokes, you can find out about it. That may be true, but if that is the case then why does big tech enjoy freedom from lawsuits, if they also get to pick what goes in and what stays out?
"In blocking the New York Post story, Twitter and Facebook weren't shutting down hate speech" states Parker. "They were making an editorial judgment."
I do agree with her final conclusion that she ""will be surprised if Twitter or Facebook gets to the bottom of the New York Post story, whether it came from a Delaware computer shop or somewhere more mysterious. More likely, that tell-all scoop will come from one of the legacy news organizations that do their own reporting the old-fashioned way."
In the meantime, we will continue to urge Joe Biden to come clean about what his plans are. By the way, I find it amusing that Republicans are being ridiculed for mispronouncing Kamala Harris's name, but Biden himself can't even pronounce it right. Maybe that is a sign?
The Daily Post Reader Poll for Sunday asks "Will Biden surprise and come out against court packing?"