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

Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

nationalreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#291

Post by Karunamon »

This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason.

There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging the link to each other, and blocking people who share screenshots, and not invite serious scrutiny or action.

The legislative blowback is going to suck. Section 230 is an ordinary law, not a constitutional right or based on one, and that means it's exposed to all the usual political fighting.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#292

Post by RonanTheGrey »

tzs wrote: post #273
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Twitter has one massive thing to lose: Section 230. Already, senators are taking this as the perfect reason to repeal or reform 230, and that would directly impact twitter. Remember how there were hearings about 230 just two weeks ago? Twitter just shot themselves and their arguments for 230 in the foot with this. Which again begs the question from an investor's point of view: What did you expect was going…

Repeal of section 230 would probably result in Twitter blocking a lot more things than they do now.

Which hopefully would spell the end of Twitter, in a shocking positive twist for human civilization.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#293

Post by rightbyte »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #142
jimbob45 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote the story off this morning. The Ukraine stuff didn’t stick to Trump and there’s no reason to think it would be any stickier on Biden. If Twitter is censoring DMs of it though, then there must be something to it.

Why would Twitter allow sharing something in DMs that they block in tweets? I’m sure this is just their normal policy - block things platform wide.

Why would Twitter enforce a Tiananmen Square-ish policy? Do they want to lose all credibility as a platform?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#294

Post by disown »

runarberg wrote: post #152
partiallypro wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.) But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked.

Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary actions. The coming US election is no small deal, and we have seen in past elections how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy (including but not limited to influencing elections). You really can’t blame Twitter and Facebook here for taking the more radical step against an obvious smear campaign that blatantly fails the smell test. I’m sure if this…

> how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy

That's the propaganda some have been pushing. What was it? Russia spent $50K on facebook ads and won trump the election?

> I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media,

Like CNN or the nytimes or the washingtonpost which peddled trump-russia conspiracy for 4 years?

Lets be real here, you support this censorship because of your political bias. If facebook was censoring the other side, you'd be railing against facebook.

"he/him" lmao.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#295

Post by throwawaysea »

runarberg wrote: post #202
TMWNN wrote: post #157

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…

Major news outlets differ greatly on which stories the give attention to based on their biases. And their reputation depends on your personal political bias.

You're asking for evidence the emails are real but no such evidence was demanded when NYT posted findings from what they claim are Trump's financial records.

If you're a social media company, your job isn't to decide what's true or untrue or what is permissible to share or not share. It is to facilitate communication and get out of the way. Instead, we're seeing companies that control the digital public square enact severely biased policies that favor their employee's politics. That's dangerous and unacceptable.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#296

Post by rightbyte »

beervirus wrote: post #96
rmrfstar wrote: post #13

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

Have you ever read an article in the mainstream press that spent space publishing metadata?

NY Post claim to have a copy of the HD (including a sex tape with Biden Jr) so they will surely spin on if it is real.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#297

Post by sparkling »

tootie wrote: post #144
croissants wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this being downvoted? As far as I can tell from reading the article, this is an accurate summary. The provided evidence that said laptop is genuinely connected with Hunter Biden is 1) a Biden sticker on the laptop, 2) the fact that it's a Delaware repair shop, and 3) a pornographic video featuring somebody who "appears to be" Hunter Biden. What about this is convincing evidence?

They're also declaring a "smoking gun" of Hunter peddling influence when the only data point is an email from a Ukrainian to Hunter saying that he was looking forward to meeting the Vice President. There doesn't seem to be any message from Hunter, and Joe has already said his official schedule is public record and no meeting ever happened.

> and Joe has already said his official schedule is public record and no meeting ever happened.

Must be true if Joe says so huh

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#300

Post by dexen »

kthxbye123 wrote: post #227
dexen wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those weren't hacked or leaked. The story is much simpler, and the provenance of the files is not in question: By falsely claiming the records were hacked, rather than the legal property of the repair shop following payment default by Hunter Biden, Twitter is itself deliberately spreading false information to justify its illegal election interference. [1] -- [1] https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1316484977928941570

The provenance of the files is not questioned by far-right political operatives like Sean Davis who are pushing this story in the first place, but to anybody with half a brain cell and an ounce of skepticism the whole story stinks. Just listen to this interview with the owner of the repair shop these files purportedly came from, who changes his story about a half-dozen times in the span of sixty minutes: https://www.…

I hear your objection. Here is a fair and balanced coverage of the document's provenance by a 3rd party, uninvolved, newspaper:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8841255/Man-Hunter-...

Post reply on HN