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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#481

Post by krapp »

Sargos wrote: post #469
bleepblorp wrote: post #456

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…

I'm not sure what argument you're making here. Twitter is a public forum akin to a government institution and is now censoring political viewpoints it disagrees with. You shouldn't be surprised that free speech advocates are livid about this and perplexed at those who would defend such a thing.

>Twitter is a public forum akin to a government institution and is now censoring political viewpoints it disagrees with.

No it isn't. It's a platform run by a private company for its own ends that offers membership under terms of service which grant it absolute, universal, irrevocable and arbitrary rights over user content and accounts. Terms of service that everyone with an account agreed to beforehand.

That it has global reach no more makes it a public forum than CNN, the BBC or the Wall Street Journal, and "akin to a government institution" is just an attempt to muddy the waters between the definitions of public and private enterprise.

If you or anyone wants to make this a free speech issue, don't misrepresent the nature of the problem. State that you want the government to take over social media platforms, restrict their free speech rights and force them to publish content against their will. Even if it's racist, even if it's false, even if they're not a general purpose forum, the men with guns should force them to.

People who claim, for instance, that it should be a crime for websites to moderate any content, in any way, that isn't strictly illegal, or that all moderation should be subject to judicial review (both positions I've seen repeatedly here) should realize just how radical and potentially authoritarian such moves would be, particularly given their correlation with the current atmosphere of anti-leftist panic.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#482

Post by aboutBen »

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.

Don't confuse Buzzfeed with Buzzfeed News. The former is a full of lists and click-bait. The latter is an award winning news site.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#483

Post by srtjstjsj »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #302
spamizbad wrote: post #275

The interview with the repair shop owner is also reduces this story’s already dwindling credibility: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...

IMO it's relevant that twitter is blocking the story due to their rules about releasing hacked material, not misinformation. If the hard drive is a hoax, I think it's important to have an open discussion to shine a light on it. Banning the article in a way that appears to validate its claims will only embolden claims of a conspiracy. I think it's also interesting that the "hacking" ban doesn't have an exemption for t…

How could it possibly make sense to say that "it makes sense to ban publishing of hacked materials, except if the hacked materials are published"?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#484

Post by nsonha »

fumar wrote: post #466
_qulr wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is an extremely powerful bit of technology that can basically make you believe anything. I don't believe this.

Can you prove algorithmic based information from a Twitter feed does not influence your behavior or opinions? Twitter itself as a organization is not making you believe anything specifically. However the information presented to you may influence your ideas and potentially your behavior.

everything influences your behaviors or options, do you sue your childhood neighbour for setting a bad example? Ultimately it's you who's responsible for your behaviors and if there's something wrong with you the only way to fix it is you learning to discern truth from lie, NOT everyone else shielding you from lies.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#485

Post by petee »

acituan wrote: post #447
optimuspaul wrote: post #81

I don't pay for twitter, I don't have any reasonable expectations for a SLA regarding anything including DMs. Just like I have no responsibility to listen to people on soapboxes on street corners, and soap companies have no responsibility to provide soapboxes to anyone to shout from.

To think that your personal transactionality with Twitter, whether you pay for your SLAs or DMs etc, is what matters here is myopic at best. Because this soapbox found itself to be used at planet scale, 24/7 available and proven to be increasingly influential, even consequential, on our institutions that depend on healthy public discourse. Not only your analogy doesn’t follow, trying to apply market based normativiti…

'planet-scale soapbox' is an even better argument for them to be limited in what they allow... just because they found themselves popular doesn't suddenly make them a public utility

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#486

Post by _qulr »

takeda wrote: post #470
_qulr wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of freedom. The standard argument is that freedom of speech only applies to governments, but that's based on an outdated assumption. In human history, we've never before had individual companies like Facebook and Twitter that are so enormous and have so much control over our public speech. (2.7 billion and 330 million monthly active users, respectively.) They have become "the town square of the world",…

The freedom of speech means that government can't prosecute you for having an opinion. It doesn't require anyone too listen to you. It also only applies to the government.

Twitter doesn't require anyone to listen to you either.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#487

Post by srtjstjsj »

jtbayly wrote: post #253
Hamuko wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Because the factuality of the story seems like a pretty big deal here. If it's completely bogus, how is it different from any of those Russian trollfarm posts that the US government was worried about?

Of course the factuality is a big deal. But Twitter didn’t discover the story was false and then remove it. Rather they decided that because the information came from a hack that it couldn’t be posted on their site. If anything they confirmed it was true by doing this. Magine if they had applied this to WikiLeaks.

There are two possibilities: Either it's really a hack or it's a felonious attempt to manipulate an election. Or it's both -- a hack of personal private photos and also fake emails feloniously manipulating an election. Either way, a ban is appropriate.

Saying "if it's true, it's ban able for X" without out bothering to say that obviously it's bannable if it's false, isn't saying it's true. How could Twitter even know?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#488

Post by smabie »

bigbubba wrote: post #106
ianai wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can’t. Because that actually is a technology not built to be moderated.

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.

Yeah they would just block all of your calls. Probablem solved

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#489

Post by bosswipe »

0xy wrote: post #479
bosswipe wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if the party that is attacking our democracy by spreading disinformation in the last few weeks of the election gets into power?

Just curious why you say this is disinformation given the lack of proof. Is this your opinion or are you attacking the article based on the source?

I don't believe the source because they're known liars. I definitely don't believe the story that a laptop with Ukrainian emails was left in a DC repair shop and then given to Trump's personal propagandist lawyer Rudy Guliani. Also they're not publishing the emails headers as explained here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780927

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#490

Post by petee »

celdon25 wrote: post #368
riffic wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between the telephone company and Twitter is that the phone company was (historically) a monopoly - the only game in town . Use their wires or get lost. It required common carrier neutrality by regulation. Twitter (and every single commercial social media space) is not the above, and can do what it wants on its service. It's not a public utility.

> Twitter (and every single commercial social media space) is not the above, and can do what it wants on its service. Not exactly. The public has the right to have all laws applied fairly. The social media platforms have enjoyed the rights of a neutral forum without the liabilities that come with being a publisher. Yet the platforms act like a publisher, deciding what is seen or not seen, and the public directly or i…

Yet you have no rights on a private platform. Is the New York Times forced to publish the same article? No, and they are a publisher. Their existence doesn't suddenly give you a right to use it and 'publish' what you'd like.

Every forum online has rules about what you can and cannot post; there is no law stating they have to leave whatever you post up.

Post reply on HN