This was a good investigation and contemplation on how these two stories were shown in the media. I remember thinking that the Post story sounded very possible, where the Times one actually sounded pretty shady. But social media, and many other forms of media more broadly, are very center-leaning, and Biden was the candidate that fit the mold better.

For example, the fact that "the Times didn't disclose its source" whereas the Post had to, really indicates a preference based upon some perceived authority. Of course, it seems like the reason was because the Post received the tip via "hacking," but I can't imagine the Times was much different. One is a hack, another is a leak. To me, they don't seem all that different.

Yet whereas we have yet to find anything else about the Times piece, the "Biden campaign quietly acknowledged to Politico that an 'informal interaction' could've happend after all." It is natural to think of journalism as a form on ongoing trust, and the New York Post maybe doesn't wield that much trust, but thinking about it afterwards indicates how the system can not work 100% of the time.

What gets me more broadly, however, is that there is this focus on "censorship" rhetoric. On one end, we need to regulate the social media platforms because of misinformation and disinformation. Yet on the other, we have to be aware of cencorship because of political choices like this one. Marcetic mentions how the account of "Distributed Denial of Secrets" was blocked because of "BlueLeaks" a treasure trove of police misconduct. Where is the line drawn?

To me, then, the argument is less about censorship and more about breaking up these huge firms. They wield a monopoly-like power over the internet, and as they get bigger they attract more talent and can throw money at problems. Meanwhile, I sit here trying to build this website to talk about articles and nobody goes on it. The focus should be to build competition and break down the authority that these mega sites have. But quite frankly, I don't think that's a goal because the stock market, and essentially the American economy, now depend largely upon them (think about how they are used all over the world, almost all American). I have yet to completely formalize this thought, but I don't think "censorship" should be the goal here, but "enabling" better competition and access to diverse media platforms.