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

Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 412 posts

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#361

Post by wybiral »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #265
wybiral wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there examples of Democrat-funded attack ads like this with hashtags that Twitter allowed icons for? EDIT: I ask because this is an example of an attack ad targeted to an individual candidate rather than a general promotion or political concept, which I can see why Twitter wouldn't necessarily want to promote.

The issue is more it being approved at lower levels, but CEO Jack Dorsey directly killing it: an example of bias at the very top. Any ad that directly mentions the opposing candidate, no matter how polite, is an attack ad. And there is no guidance from ANY regulatory authority that I can see, that bans, discourages, or even regulates them.

It still isn't an example of bias. It's just an example of Twitter not having clear internal policies and coordination for dealing with sensitive issues.

Which, frankly, has been an issue that plagues them on both sides of the political divide.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#362

Post by Semirhage »

IGI-111 wrote: post #348
Semirhage wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes there’s a bit more nuance, but it does tend to come down to this. Often flagging mechanics are pointed to as censorship, or anything which falls short of engaging with someone in debate is censorship. In most cases there’s a lack of understanding that just as they have a right to say something, other people have a right to respond with a flag, or not respond at all. Freedom of expression doesn’t imply an ob…

It is a core tenet of Liberalism (in the actual sense of the word) that yes, free speech does mean that you have a right for your ideas to be engaged. Moreover people like Mill or Popper would argue people have a duty to engage every idea, because that's how the open society works. The reduction of free speech to the first amendment and to State censorship is a modern american barbarism that is as absurd as it is bas…

People have a right to be illiberal, liberal, and everything in between. People have a right to hew to the thinking of Mill and Popper, or ignore it. That’s also an aspect of freedom of thought, and consequent expression. You’re also free not to like it, and I’m free not to care.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#363

Post by IGI-111 »

Semirhage wrote: post #362
IGI-111 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a core tenet of Liberalism (in the actual sense of the word) that yes, free speech does mean that you have a right for your ideas to be engaged. Moreover people like Mill or Popper would argue people have a duty to engage every idea, because that's how the open society works. The reduction of free speech to the first amendment and to State censorship is a modern american barbarism that is as absurd as it is bas…

People have a right to be illiberal, liberal, and everything in between. People have a right to hew to the thinking of Mill and Popper, or ignore it. That’s also an aspect of freedom of thought, and consequent expression. You’re also free not to like it, and I’m free not to care.

Certainly. But free speech is an inherently liberal position by definition, construction and history.

You're free to think that it's all bunk and tyranny of the majority is just fine. Many people do.

I'd just like it to be clear to everyone that such an opinion is being against free speech. Because what greatly annoys me is when people try to claim that they advocate a "reasonable" version of free speech when they simply oppose it. Or indeed try to claim that their censorious position is a liberal one.

Which I am not at all accusing you of incidentally.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#364

Post by johnminter »

greglindahl wrote: post #203
soundwave106 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two angles to this: general crowd psychology, and how social media tailors the news feed in response to it. In the old Internet (forums and Usenet), sure, there was crowd psychology too. There always is. However, these social media designs were far less prone to hiding unpopular opinions. As a general rule, unless you had an overtly strict moderator or something, you could read posts with unpopular opinions,…

Usenet's classic problem was that it amplified the most extreme voices in any conversation. Extreme voices and unpopular opinions are different things. You can be extremely polite in expressing an unpopular opinion, and get upvoted on HN.

As I recall, Usenet took freedom of expression to the extreme and a few trolls ruined it. I remember one who referred to himself as Archimedes Plutonium and would spam the discussion of specific science and programming topics with wild discourses claiming the Plutonium atom was god. The turned whole newsfeeds into spam. I believe this is where the comment "Don't feed the trolls" came from. I am all for civil, productive discussion where ideas are refined. There is a time and a place to say, "This is off topic and not producing a productive dialog, so take it elsewhere."

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#365

Post by pvg »

JackCh wrote: post #339
pvg wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only takes a dozen short comments or so even on a giant screen. And yes, almost everything is censorship if you redefine censorship to mean any random irksome thing. Incidentally, I do think the way the comment fading works is pointedly user-hating and dumb (it's traditionally dumb, though!), but it's not really censorship. More generally, since we're talking about taking things seriously, framing forum irritants…

I don't think that describing a system which deliberately suppresses the legibility of posts you've already scrolled to see as 'soft censorship' is an unreasonable "redefinition" of censorship. If you disagree, I suppose I consider you unreasonable.

Very well. I have added 'soft unreasonable' to my profile.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#366

Post by thanatropism »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #253
thanatropism wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't force a population to use a limited set of symbols. It's called an "alphabet".

I think the point was "you can't force a population to use a limited set of symbols [that can't be used to express an arbitrary idea]".

Well, not yet.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#367

Post by s73v3r_ »

nailer wrote: post #350
s73v3r_ wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about when he said that people should, "Start killing journalists," and then the next day someone opened fire at a newsroom.

That's a massive bending of the truth. It was said as a private response to a journalist asking him for comment, and clearly in jest. > The truth, as always, is the opposite of what the media tells you. I sent a troll about “vigilante death squads” as a private response to a few hostile journalists who were asking me for comment, basically as a way of saying, “Fuck off.” They then published it. Amazed they were prete…

Given his track record, I'm not going to believe a single word of his facebook post. Find another source that does not rely on that post to prove the point.

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#369

Post by nailer »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #367
nailer wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a massive bending of the truth. It was said as a private response to a journalist asking him for comment, and clearly in jest. > The truth, as always, is the opposite of what the media tells you. I sent a troll about “vigilante death squads” as a private response to a few hostile journalists who were asking me for comment, basically as a way of saying, “Fuck off.” They then published it. Amazed they were prete…

Given his track record, I'm not going to believe a single word of his facebook post. Find another source that does not rely on that post to prove the point.

I'm not sure what track record you're speaking of - historically people making these kinds of claims have been found to have lied about Milo.

Are you saying the screenshots on his instagram are doctored?

Re: Most Americans Think Facebook and Twitter Censor Their Political Views

#370

Post by splintercell »

gnicholas wrote: post #242

Interesting that although Republicans are more likely to think that social media platforms are biased against them, they are less likely to think that such platforms should be subject to increased government regulation. As a cynic, I was expecting that Republicans might want more regulation here (in contravention of their general desire for less regulation) because it would be in their own interests. Note: I'm not sa…

> As a cynic, I was expecting that Republicans might want more regulation here (in contravention of their general desire for less regulation) because it would be in their own interests.

That's the thing you don't understand about Republicans. They don't consider regulation on social media platforms as something in their interest.

The model, "IF you don't like something, then advocate making a law against it" is not how conservatives see the world. However, this is the model which liberals subscribe to. There is nothing which liberals don't like, which they don't advocate making a law against it.

Before you point out other things, their model is "Govt should only act against things which are objectively morally wrong, like violation of private property rights".

Keep in mind, they opposed Gay marriage for as long as they could, but at this point, 'reverting gay marriage' is a dying (or never was a) cause among conservatives, reverting 'Roe v Wade' is.

Post reply on HN