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

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#391

Post by jcadam »

remarkEon wrote: post #192
tootie wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's amusing about this whole thing to me is that Facebook and Twitter dropping the ban hammer on this piece will Streisand the hell out of it. If they'd left it alone, it would've been lost in the news cycle with everything else going on and no one would remember it in a week. Now the story is, once again, "Big Tech censors conservatives".

And, if the NYP really does have an entire hard drive o' shame on its hands, this story is only the appetizer.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#392

Post by glenstein »

hirundo wrote: post #54

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…

Yeah, I think it's necessary and honestly overdue. The problem with these attempted defenses of the race to the bottom we are witnessing in online communication is they step back from the direct examination of specific harms to the abstraction of "speech."

Once the subject is switched, we can comfortably speak in generalities about the abstract value of speech. It reminds me of what Keats said about a certain way of thinking about economics: "Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."

We're dealing with something that most reasonable people agree is a genuine crisis of democracy, and it's sheltered by a naiive conception of speech that doesn't have anything specific to say directly about Qanon, Covid, the 2020 election. It's a view from 10,000 feet generality that works when the ocean is flat again.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#393

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #327
taxicab wrote: post #90

To be fair, the fact that it was published by the New York Post already seriously undercuts the article's credibility. Edit: and also the fact that it was written in collaboration with the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Yet I don't recall anyone questioning Buzzfeed News when they dropped their bombshell story years back. I remember the defenders saying something along the lines of "If the news is newsworthy and constitutes journalism, then the publication it was produced in shouldn't matter" As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed…

Buzzfeed was previously famous for apolitical clickbait articles and quizzes, they practically invented the genre. New York Post, meanwhile, has been a tabloid-level spreader of pro-conservative and anti-progressive misinformation. It's smart to be skeptical of obviously politically motivated reporting from any outlet, but especially so when one has such a concerning track record.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#394

Post by space_fountain »

tootie wrote: post #76
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #8

Whatever your perspective, directly verifiable censorship like this is just begging for legal trouble and monopoly investigations. Tactically speaking, I would say this is a massive mistake from Twitter.

This is what I don't get. People are screaming for digital channels to not allow disinformation even though they are just a passive communication channel. Is anyone screaming at printing presses for printing the NY Post? It's a garbage publication and this information is at least suspicious, but why are we holding Twitter to such a high standard of integrity and not actually journalists?

I think new things do have the potential to vastly change the status quo in a way that well understood institutions like the news media don't. Social media and recommendation algorithms are a truly new thing. We're just starting to understand how they intersect with society. Mass media has to be widely palatable to spread. The flat earth society would struggle to pay to run national newspaper let alone a TV station, but you can find hours of "quality" flat earth videos on the intent. We now have systems that can pick out for you exactly the group that agrees with you. Where before you'd only get exposed to the opinions of your surrounding community now, it's easy to find that there are thousands of people who agree with the little bits of racism that you subscribe to.

I think I agree that this article shouldn't have been blocked partially because it don't fit perfectly into this distinction

Bonus second reason why people might feel differently. People know and treat the NY Post as suspect. People like me don't read it. Probably some advertisers won't touch it, but I do use Twitter and FB. Most people do. They are arguably natural monopolies

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#395

Post by jcadam »

rectang wrote: post #108

For a counterpoint on why this story is likely BS: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/5-points-on-why-the...

I don't think facebook and twitter would have acted this quickly and this brazenly if it were 100% BS. This reaction just reeks of "Oh @#$!! Kill it!"

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#396

Post by jimmydorry »

donohoe wrote: post #363
hirundo wrote: post #54

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…

>> is it also OK for AT&T on its phone network? For Google on Gmail Twitter is a closed-system and not a utility, and I guess that makes all the difference.

That is also a matter for interpretation, I believe. This cuts to the heart of the raging platform vs publisher debate (section 230).

From my understanding, the current status quo is:

1. A platform can not moderate its content beyond removing illegal content that is brought to their attention;

2. A publisher can moderate and selectively cull what ever user content they like, but is held liable for any infringing content that breaks its ToS or the law.

This is a matter I strongly believe requires an update to relevant legislation and a clear / strong precedent that can be pointed to. It feels like social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) is trying to be both a platform and publisher when it suits them.

EDIT: Made the language a bit more neutral and closer alined to the current than the "should be". A child reply linked an article that is worth reading [1], however take it with a grain of salt, seeing as it's more opinion and interpretation of intent than a reading on application of the law as it is written. This issue has been simmering away long before 2016. It's only started to come to the foreground as the social media giants started moving closer to "publisher" than "platform". It would have been unthinkable to see Twitter, Facebook and Youtube "fact checking" and adding content below posts ten years ago.

I see this less as a partisan issue and more of a civil rights issue. I don't want to imagine a future where we have untouchable arbitrers of truth.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#397

Post by Jach »

AndriyKunitsyn wrote: post #305
likeafox wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It seems like this computer shop fellow voluntarily gave over this hard drive only after the computer in question became his property (as a result of someone not collecting the computer and not paying the bill) To say this strains credulity would be be a massive understatement.

No. People leave their computers in repair shops for good all the time. There are other red flags in the NY Post article (like, why wouldn't they just post e-mails with DKIMs), but this part is totally believable to me.

Also, people routinely abuse their privileges to snoop on others, and computer repair shops copying disks and having a looksie is no exception.

On the email remark, are you aware of any mainstream news org (wikileaks doesn't count) who has posted a full raw email with DKIMs as part of their story's evidence? I'd honestly be surprised if you can show me one, double so if it's commonplace, since it's one of those things I just sort of consider nearly impossible for the media to actually do.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#398

Post by busterarm »

donmcronald wrote: post #205
tootie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bizarre story. Unidentified person drops off a damaged computer at a repair shop and never comes back. Hard drive contains lots of salacious info about Hunter Biden. Repair shop decides the correct course of action is to give it to Rudy Giuliani. That is fishy as hell.

> Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday. I want to see the raw emails.

So your theory is that the emails are fake...what about the video of Hunter smoking crack?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#399

Post by tootie »

sparkling wrote: post #297
tootie wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

His meeting schedule as VP was public record. He was constantly in the media spotlight. Someone would have seen it if not photographed it.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#400

Post by dpeck »

ars wrote: post #217
bigbubba wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had to give me five dollars for every spam call that got through, I bet they'd find a way to stop it. T-mobile already classifies these calls as 'Scam likely' and they've never seemed to misclassify any, so obviously it can be done.

> and they've never seemed to misclassify any They do, my local politician robo-calls all his constituents with info, and T-Mobile always flags his calls as spam. I guess in a way it's spam since it's unsolicited? But it's real info, and relevant to the local people he's calling, and keeping people informed is part of his job.

| They do, my local politician robo-calls all his constituents with info, and T-Mobile always flags his calls as spam.

That’s a feature, not a bug.

Post reply on HN