261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the NY Post considered a serious newspaper over there?
Yes, it's a serious newspaper. But it is known to use sans serif fonts and hire people that went to public schools.
For a counterpoint on why this story is likely BS: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/5-points-on-why-the...
Which of these points do you find persuasive?
I have a feeling that Facebook wants Trump to be elected. I think Mark Zuckerberg may have discovered how to play "Good cop, bad cop" this year. First, he played good cop trying to protect free speech while his employees played bad cop trying to censor. That was just a test to see how people reacted. To see if people perceived Mark Zuckerberg better after this. Now Facebook is playing bad cop so that Trump can be the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulation of online media is all but inevitable. Historically all media sources were directly compared by individuals and groups. You used to get the paper from a news stand/paper boy and could glance at all the headlines in comparison to each other, your colleagues knew what the tabloids were running and what the different takes on the headlines were. In the radio and TV age, a small number of commentators were dir…
I don't have a compelling argument for why you're wrong, but it really seems like this is a weightier claim than you're giving it credit for. If social harmony is a sufficient reason for censorship, is there any basis left for objecting to the Great Firewall?
- Mandatory content identifiers tags on content/claims for unfactual or unverified reporting reaching more than X people.
- Identifying frequent reporters of misinformation and identifying them as such when presenting/resharing information.
- Reducing the spread of misinformation in algorithmic sources such as newsfeeds/search rankings.
None of these approaches removes or censors the content, but they do identify it and help place it in the appropriate context. In the 90s I had to go looking for claims that the president had dinner with aliens every Tuesday, today such news articles are pushed via feeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>NYP is pretty obviously smearing for a major civil event here What makes this "obviously smearing"?
1. The sensationalism of the original title. The accusation here is that the candidate’s son introduced a Ukrainian businessman to him. This is hardly a smoking gun evidence against the father doing anything wrong. 2. There is no evidence that the emails are in fact real, and nothing is even offered to that extent. 3. The article does not come from a reputable news source. In fact it comes from a news source with ser…
Seriously we should have a 4 week quiet period. So people can sort out though all the dirt and make sense of what is real.
This just pushses everyone into sensory overload to blind out any rational thought.
There's a recurring argument on social media censorship that goes: "you wouldn't want the telephone company censoring phone conversations would you?" And the response is along the lines: "these are hardly private conversations, any tweet can go viral and be seen by millions". This story breaks that mold in that it involves social media censoring private conversations via DM. If you think that's OK for Twitter on its…
I really hope AT&T starts censoring these damn spam calls. I've had 5 today.
I got one (Verizon) just as I started reading the comments for this post. :(
There are solutions[1], but you'll need to wait until next July[0],at least in the US. It's not a complete solution, but it should take care of the vast majority of scam calls.
[0] https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
[1] https://transnexus.com/whitepapers/stir-and-shaken-overview/
Robert Graham [1] pointed out that if the emails are authentic, they can be trivially verified via DKIM. That the email metadata was not released implies the emails are either inauthentic, or that the post did not contact someone with basic competence in computer forensics. Either possibility seriously undercuts the article's credibility. [1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1316407424648179717
We need to take all of the press releases about "leaks" with a grain of salt, because I keep seeing "leaks" without actual content or verification. It's bullshit and why places that provide the actual contents of leaks are so important. Yes, certain publications are more trustworthy than others historically, but that doesn't mean they get an indefinite pass on providing verified information.
If I was a Twitter or Facebook investor, I have one question: What did you expect was going to happen? Honestly. Did nobody have the foresight at Facebook or Twitter to think that this wouldn't blow up? Did nobody think, just once, that this might invite regulatory action or be in news headlines? And if honestly nobody thought this might happen, I'd want the entire management and "safety" team replaced for having no…
This post has a very odd tone, as if a private company enforcing their policy to remove unverified & leaked personal correspondence of a private citizen is some unquestionable moral wrongdoing that's apparently going to blow up. Surprised to see this as at the top, on HN. National Review is a conservative wing-nut website trying to turn this non-story into fuel for their censorship culture war.
Even the wikipedia entry for them seems to counter that assessment pretty strongly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review