By Brad Polumbo
Source: Activist Post
Elections are messy. As the day of any election gets closer, more stories are leaked as opponents and muck-raking journalists try to hurt the opposition’s campaign. This process can be ugly—just ask John Adams and Thomas Jefferson—but it plays an important role in informing voters. It was on display just a few weeks ago, when President Trump’s tax returns were leaked and published to call to light the fact that he had limited his federal income tax liability to just $750 in 2016 and 2017.
Similarly, a blockbuster report from the New York Post this week asserted that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, introduced business contacts to his father in an allegedly improper pay-for-influence set-up. The Post reported on “a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.” It also reported on salacious images of Hunter Biden using drugs and engaging in sexually explicit acts.
The report has been contested, declared false by the Biden campaign, and challenged by left-leaning media outlets. The Washington Post fact-checker, for example, has cast doubt on the authenticity of the emails and the claim that Biden ever met with Pozharskyi.
Does any of this matter? Are the allegations legitimate? It should be up to voters to weigh conflicting reports and decide for themselves.
But instead, Silicon Valley tech wizards decided to throttle and ban the Post story, which they presumptively and unilaterally declared “misinformation,” across their massive platforms. Facebook used its algorithm to try and limit the story’s reach, while Twitter took it several steps further.
Twitter actually locked the New York Post’s Twitter account and even banned the president’s press secretary for sharing the story. Journalists who shared the link awoke to find their accounts suspended. The company claimed the article violated its policy on spreading “hacked content,” even though it is not proven that it stems from hacking—and this policy is rarely applied to other big stories.