Twitter and Facebook got more people talking about Hunter Biden

Did Facebook or Twitter plan to kill the Hunter Biden story?  Maybe so, but they've accomplished the exact opposite.  In other words, more and more people are talking about it and wondering why it was censored in the first place.

This is from Emily Zanotti:

Twitter's crackdown on a controversial New York Post story that "purported to show new emails from Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, about his business dealings while Joe Biden was the vice president in the Obama administration," "nearly doubled" the story's visibility and triggered the so-called "Streisand Effect," amplifying the Post's claims, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a high-profile media intelligence firm.

"When Twitter banned, and then unbanned, links to a questionably sourced New York Post article about Joe Biden's son Hunter, its stated intention was to prevent people from spreading harmful false material as America heads into the final stretch of the election campaign," MIT's Technology Review reported Monday. "But thanks to the cycle of misinformation—and claims from conservatives that social-media platforms are deliberately censoring their views—Twitter managed to do the opposite of what it intended."

So it blew up in their faces?  Yes it did, and big time.

Facebook and Twitter underestimated the intelligence of voters.

First, it caught our attention that they banned the New York Post story.  Why?  Because we remember all of those unconfirmed stories about President Trump.  Not one of them was "paused" for further details.

Second, there are alternatives to Facebook and Twitter.

A week later, and Hunter Biden is a huge topic.  Do you wonder if that would have happened if Facebook and Twitter had not intervened?  I don't think so!

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Did Facebook or Twitter plan to kill the Hunter Biden story?  Maybe so, but they've accomplished the exact opposite.  In other words, more and more people are talking about it and wondering why it was censored in the first place.

This is from Emily Zanotti:

Twitter's crackdown on a controversial New York Post story that "purported to show new emails from Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, about his business dealings while Joe Biden was the vice president in the Obama administration," "nearly doubled" the story's visibility and triggered the so-called "Streisand Effect," amplifying the Post's claims, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a high-profile media intelligence firm.

"When Twitter banned, and then unbanned, links to a questionably sourced New York Post article about Joe Biden's son Hunter, its stated intention was to prevent people from spreading harmful false material as America heads into the final stretch of the election campaign," MIT's Technology Review reported Monday. "But thanks to the cycle of misinformation—and claims from conservatives that social-media platforms are deliberately censoring their views—Twitter managed to do the opposite of what it intended."

So it blew up in their faces?  Yes it did, and big time.

Facebook and Twitter underestimated the intelligence of voters.

First, it caught our attention that they banned the New York Post story.  Why?  Because we remember all of those unconfirmed stories about President Trump.  Not one of them was "paused" for further details.

Second, there are alternatives to Facebook and Twitter.

A week later, and Hunter Biden is a huge topic.  Do you wonder if that would have happened if Facebook and Twitter had not intervened?  I don't think so!

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.