Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#191

Post by zimpenfish »

katastic wrote: post #173
viraptor wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pivoted away from the topic. Bill Maher case may be interesting to discuss, but doesn't change whether the_donald calls for hate. Which actually looking at the subreddit shows it does.

Not at all. Which is the hate? Either Bill Maher (a liberal hero) is a racist islamaphobe, or, the_donald users who share the same views as him... aren't islamaphobes. Because unless we're not talking about Islamaphobia, what else did you actually see that could be considered "hateful"? Because on that same sub you'll find people of all colors, and most religions discussing things. You'll find legal immigrants. You'l…

> Bill Maher (a liberal hero) is a racist islamaphobe

He isn't a liberal hero these days and he definitely is a racist islamaphobe.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#192

Post by agumonkey »

s73ver_ wrote: post #155
agumonkey wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I'm curious, I wonder how feasible it would be to use acoustic sniffing to hear people like him talking or typing. Some guys infered letters from the sound of keystrokes.

Wouldn't you have to be close enough to his location to where he'd be within a bomb's range anyway?

Sure but I'm not talking about killing but dismantling a terrorist network. Having more informations stealthily.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#193

Post by i_cant_speel »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #104
i_cant_speel wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? You aren't going to keep up with them without automated tools.

>What is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? Yes

Well than I would say automated detection is the better of the two options.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#194

Post by s73ver_ »

Simon_says wrote: post #189
s73ver_ wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's conflation to compare coontown with the_donald. Go there right now. You won't find "kill the jews" posts. You won't find "kill the gays/black people" posts. You'll find a ton of supportive people with a particular worldview--and there's nothing wrong with that." Go read the comments. You will find plenty of that stuff. "If the other candidate had won, would we consider her subreddit a hate sub?" False equivalen…

> I don't recall Clinton ever saying she wanted to jail her political opponent. This part isn't really fair. If I want to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent, this is a big problem, but if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes, that's perfectly fine.

When numerous investigations turned up jack squat regarding her doing anything wrong, calling for her to be jailed IS calling to jail her simply because she's your political opponent.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#195

Post by forgottenpass »

proofofstake wrote: post #175
katastic wrote: post #3

I'm more interested in why it took them this long, while they're perfectly fine suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview. How are political dissenters more dangerous than actual terrorists?

> why it took them this long There is no direct business value in banning users from your platform. In fact, doing so is a short-term net negative. This is also why Twitter was so slow to ban bots: you gain a fraction of satisfaction for your users that interact with annoying bots, at the cost of dwindling user numbers. > suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview Because highly visible user…

Because highly visible users of their platform (verified celebrities) started DMing the CEO and threatened to leave if bullies were not dealt with. Creating a safe space for the social elite is very much adding business value to Twitter and makes investors happy.

Really? I wish more people would have just come out and said that. Special treatment for the whales explains everything so much better.

But I guess that doesn't sell well to the have-nots, and it needed to be recast as harassment problem at all levels. Which subjugated all of us to years of commentary and squabbling over how we're going to use computers to fix undesirable-but-totally-natural aspects of human behavior. Also explains why the highly-visible people seemed so cool with instituting a privately-controlled nanny state every step of the way.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#196

Post by mrguyorama »

appleflaxen wrote: post #169
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't he know Tor is completely compromised?

that's news to me. a cursory google search doesn't show anything substantive (only tor browser vulnerabilities). are you saying that tor, the protocol, is compromised? what's the basis for your claim? we do know that state actors can break it at great expense, but that isn't really a statement about tor weakness as much as it's a statement about the resources of state actors. and for a person like RMS who is likely n…

Weren't those side channel attacks? IE getting the tor browser to leak info over plain internet when connecting to an onion site so the connection could be correlated?

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#197

Post by grandalf »

notahacker wrote: post #136
grandalf wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Twitter is a US company and has an incentive to please US officials. Thus the context of terrorism in modern America and American politics is broadly relevant. It might be terrorists you don't like this time, but what about next time when it's terrorists you support? Who gets to decide what groups deserve that label? Donald Trump? > ... corporations' right to make moral judgements about whether they wish to off…

> Who gets to decide what groups deserve that label? Donald Trump? Twitter, on Twitter's platform. And yes, people are perfectly free to disagree with Twitter's characterisation of particular groups and comments. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on the notion that platforms which distribute more criticisms of US policy to more people on a daily basis than most revolutionary subversive movements man…

> platforms which distribute more criticisms of US policy to more people on a daily basis than most revolutionary subversive movements manage in their entire history

This characterization of dissent is highly misleading. Dissent should be thought of as speech that the powerful interest actually wants to suppress.

In the US, our powerful interests love speech such as "Trump is a clown" or "Obama is not a US citizen" because they are nonsense issues that have nothing to do with policy, yet they animate voters effectively.

To the powerful interests, the ideal electorate is one that is deeply passionate about issues that pose no threat to the status quo. To use a more specific example, much campaign funding is raised by rallying groups to donate based on issues that are unlikely to result in policy change.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#198

Post by throwawaymanbot »

ohsnapman wrote: post #107

Saw a lot of speculation about what ISIS does or does not do without actual links. Here are a few good ones I've seen in the past: https://www.wired.com/2015/11/isis-opsec-encryption-manuals-... This podcast was pretty good. ISIS were using a Turkish Dropbox like service to move files ... except the service was actually based in France, something a whois on the domain could have easily detected. Fighters have also ge…

I believe its called Schroedinger's Opsec.

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#199

Post by Simon_says »

zimpenfish wrote: post #190
Simon_says wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't recall Clinton ever saying she wanted to jail her political opponent. This part isn't really fair. If I want to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent, this is a big problem, but if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes, that's perfectly fine.

> if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes Except, as many, many investigations have proven over many, many years, she hasn't. Hence it largely being a dogwhistle for... > [wanting] to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent

I don't have a dog in the fight either way. I dislike Democrats and Republicans alike. There's enough publicly available evidence that she mishandled classified documents. If I did that, they'd lock me up and throw away the key.

It flabergasts me that otherwise reasonable people can say what you're saying. Is it confirmation bias? Is it a media that while rarely outright lying, just avoids mentioning anti-Clinton facts? How?

Re: Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017

#200

Post by zimpenfish »

Simon_says wrote: post #199
zimpenfish wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes Except, as many, many investigations have proven over many, many years, she hasn't. Hence it largely being a dogwhistle for... > [wanting] to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent

I don't have a dog in the fight either way. I dislike Democrats and Republicans alike. There's enough publicly available evidence that she mishandled classified documents. If I did that, they'd lock me up and throw away the key. It flabergasts me that otherwise reasonable people can say what you're saying. Is it confirmation bias? Is it a media that while rarely outright lying, just avoids mentioning anti-Clinton fac…

> There's enough publicly available evidence that she mishandled classified documents.

In the same way that many people did before her and in the same way that people continue to do now. Are you proposing to prosecute everyone the same way?

Why is it suddenly an issue when HRC is doing it but not when Gowdy and Chaffetz do it? Or when almost the entire Trump administration is doing it? Or when the Bush administration "lost" 50M emails they were supposed to have kept?

Hint: If you only have a problem with it when HRC does it, you probably want to check your sexism and misogyny settings.

Post reply on HN