Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#451

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #436

Karunamon wrote: post #291

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…

I agree they blundered here. They don't want to be hijacked by another "leaks" story days before the election but now the suppression of this has become the entire story, and its convinced a lot of people the story is true and dangerous to Biden. Even if the email is true I don't see how its dangerous and if the only media carrying the story are the NY Post and Fox it doesn't hurt Biden.

That's an angle I hadn't even considered, but I'm surprised Twitter didn't. SV social media companies, of all the organizations in the world, should understand the implications of a Streisanding.

If they had just left it alone, maybe attached the standard "this might be false" disclaimer, it would likely have passed as yet another partisan thing, but now they've gone and infused it with a bunch of power it didn't have prior.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#452

Post by rtlfe » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #446

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's hilarious to me that the Post is now viewed as pro conservative. Framing the Post as pro-conservative is like calling Joe Rogan alt right. Finding some of the progressivism that has performed a hostile takeover of the democratic party hilarious, contradictory, and satire-friendly automatically makes you pro-conservative.

How is that funny or surprising? Every source that mentions political leaning of news media says they're right wing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-post

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#453

Post by _qulr » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #432

_qulr wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Twitter will ban posts that deny the Holocaust, a company spokesperson confirmed today. The news, first reported by Bloomberg, comes two days after Facebook implemented the same policy." https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/14/21516468/twitter-holocau... The Holocaust happened 75 years ago. Twitter's decision came 2 days after Facebook's. Q.E.D.

Sounds like competitor A does something and competitor B decides to keep up, or both of them responded to market conditions. If airline A decides to offer free checked bags, and then a couple days later airline B does the same thing, would you think they're colluding?

I was responding to "Or they are using similar criteria to decide what is allowed, and so independently arrive at the same decision when the same thing is posted to them all."

If airline A decides to offer free checked bags, and then a couple days later airline B does the same thing, I would not think they arrived independently at the same decision. Whether they're "colluding" is of course controversial, but there should be no controversy that B did it because A did it.

Is there a "market for censorship"? Perhaps there is. That would be an interesting discussion. But it's not interesting to entertain the idea that Facebook and Twitter independently and totally coincidentally decided to ban Holocaust deniers within days of each other.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#454

Post by dimitrios1 » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

rtlfe wrote: post #452

dimitrios1 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hilarious to me that the Post is now viewed as pro conservative. Framing the Post as pro-conservative is like calling Joe Rogan alt right. Finding some of the progressivism that has performed a hostile takeover of the democratic party hilarious, contradictory, and satire-friendly automatically makes you pro-conservative.

How is that funny or surprising? Every source that mentions political leaning of news media says they're right wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-post https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

Is all of the right wing conservative? Is all of the left progressive?

(turns out human beings don't fit neatly into these nice little categories)

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#455

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

To be honest it sounds like a regular end of the election craziness. To all those people, who think this is somehow special and deserves special new set of rules, I can only point to 2016 ( Comey saga that also included Guliani ). It is not special. It is not new. It is still speech. It may be lies ( and I am sure we will find out soon enough ) and I get that a lot of people can be influenced. I get it. And it still think it is risky to the existing system that RELIES on lies flowing freely.

What I do not get is why some people honestly do believe that an average person needs to be protected from lies by a censor? And who ensures censor is not a liar? Who guards the guards? The question is important as people seem to be clamoring for rather powerful guards of 'what is true truth'.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#456

Post by bleepblorp » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

It's highly ironic that the so-called defenders of free speech have torn through this HN thread downvoting and flagging posts that support Twitter's specific actions or anti-disinformation efforts in general.

Free speech for me but not for thee, much?

To those of you who have done this, or don't have a problem with it, or are about to downvote and/or flag this post, think carefully about if you're actually defending free speech or only speech that you agree with.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#457

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #406

Solvitieg wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you opt-out from Twitter, etc. Your political leaders and journalists are tuned in. Thus your life is still affected.

Even if you stop subscribing to (National Review|Atlantic|NYT|Reason|New Yorker|...) your political leaders and journalists are tuned in. Thus your life is still affected. Ergo, we should .... ???

We should make sure that the media landscape contains a wide range of political thought, including ideas that you or I might individually find wrong-headed and offensive. That's how we ended up with the Fairness Doctrine from the 50s to the 80s, when broadcast media was monopolized to a comparable degree as social media today.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#458

Post by _qulr » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #430

_qulr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just Twitter, it's also Facebook. (I believe Facebook was actually the first to take action.) What if Google does it too? In the past few years, we've seen these big tech companies operate in a manner that seems collusive. They follow each other's cues. One company is the first to censor, and then the other companies follow very quickly with the exact same censorship. (The quick collective action tends to di…

If they're really being collusive, then you investigate them for violations of antitrust law or otherwise figure out what they're doing that's breaking the free market, and you fix it. Alternatively, if every company in a free market seems to believe that X is objectionable, then X is considered objectionable by all of society, and it's not the place of the government to override that. If Facebook bans 419 scams, and…

This is not the scenario described. The scenario is that all of these web sites allow 419 scams for years, and then all of the sudden in the same week they all decide to ban 419 scams. That would be really strange, don't you think?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#459

Post by pensatoio » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #361

Crux of the issue is that everyone knows there’s a double standard. Why do they co-ordinate to block this story and not the countless other “unverified” scoops? Because it threatens a protected politician.

I see ridiculous (even virulent) hot takes blasted out by overwhelmingly left-leaning major media orgs with near zero consequences on twitter and facebook. Half the time, this stuff proves to be incomplete - borderline maliciously so - or even factually incorrect, within days.

I'm still hearing daily from people who think Breonna Taylor was shot in her sleep.

Regardless of how you lean politically, this behavior should scare you. People with more power than you can censor at will while the public has basically no recourse.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#460

Post by cscurmudgeon » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #393

dimitrios1 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is skeptical and there is censorship.