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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#531

Post by 0xy »

iaw wrote: post #500
0xy wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is one source of information, Rudy Giuliani. Someone with known ties to Russian intelligence claiming that his lawyer received a surprise hard drive from a computer repairman who has an utterly implausible explanation for his acquisition of said drive. Someone who has been known to spread false allegations and conspiracy theories including the claim that Joe Biden is suffering from dementia. The Biden campaign…

Most news articles based on leaks are uncorroborated allegations.

Even if the source was Putin himself, shouldn't the question be "are the emails authentic" rather than "who leaked the emails"?

Wikileaks has had questionable sources in the past, but they've generally been authentic leaks (for example the DNC email leaks had authentic and signed email headers).

I'm not saying the emails are authentic, I'm saying the question of whether they are authentic is unanswered and that should be your primary concern over who the source is.

Theoretically, if Russia had proof of corruption would you not want to see it on the basis that it's Russia and it's close to an election?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#532

Post by busterarm »

donmcronald wrote: post #437
busterarm wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I said I want to see the raw emails. That would be enough to determine if it’s purely made up or if _someone_ actually sent those emails. Raw emails would provide a lot of extra information for almost no effort. I didn’t see the video. Was it published?

It's a 12 minute video claimed to be in the possession of the fourth-largest circulated newspaper in the US. They released some screenshots from it.

If they don't actually have the video in their possession they are subject to a massive libel suit that they will lose.

They'd also be stupid to release a Hunter Biden sex tape in its entirety. Hulk Hogan sued Gawker Media into oblivion for doing the same.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#533

Post by bleepblorp »

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.

I feel my point is clear.

People who advocate that Twitter should not exercise editorial control over content are hypocrites for using HN's community editorial control tools to suppress, or remove, content that they don't agree with on HN.

People who value free speech as an absolute right in virtually all contexts have no business curtailing what they argue is an absolute right when it is exercised by people who have views they disagree with.

. . . .

As a substantive question, I agree that Twitter is large enough that it should be regarded as an infrastructure platform, akin to the phone carriers, and should not be expected to unilaterally decide on the fair bounds of political speech. That much power does not belong in the hands of any one CEO. Absent a more suitable long-term legal framework to combat propaganda, however, unilateral action is the best of a set of very bad choices. The political situation in America is far too dangerous for potential disinformation to spread unchecked.

If there is truth to the NY Post story, it will be corroborated by other news outlets and will eventually find its way to Twitter via that route. Until that happens, however, October surprises of potentially dubious validity should not be allowed to spread unchecked.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#534

Post by 0xy »

bosswipe wrote: post #489
0xy wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even if Guliani got the source from Russian intelligence, that does not mean the emails are automatically not authentic. Does it mean the Russians are interfering? Probably. Does it mean their evidence of corruption is void? Not really.

If this is the Russians (unproven speculation on your part), it does not mean the emails are not authentic.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#535

Post by hda2 »

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.

Twitter is still profiting off you with ads. A transaction is still being made.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#536

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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?

> why are we holding Twitter to such a high standard of integrity and not actually journalists?

Virality. Information spreads in a fundamentally different way over print [1] versus social media. It spreads faster. It spreads more insidiously. And it mutates--not per se, but in the context attached to it.

There is also social media's concentration. Before cable news, broadcast television was held to stringent standards. As competition emerged that went away. Facebook and Twitter are singular in their domains. Holding them to a higher standard while an election is underway seems reasonable.

[1] A newspaper on a website still behaves like print media. It has to be explicitly shared.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#537

Post by [deleted] »

bosswipe wrote: post #489
0xy wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#538

Post by koolba »

iaw wrote: post #509
alehul wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buzzfeed has been deemed left, which is a category beyond left-leaning, by an objective fact-checker [1]. As one example of why: > In June 2016, the left-leaning media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting found that in 100 BuzzFeed stories about Barack Obama, 65 were positive, 34 were neutral, and one was critical. [1] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/buzzfeed-media-bias

I don't think having more positive stories about a Democratic president makes a publication left-leaning, especially given that Obama is the only president in recent memory not actively involved in some scandalous behavior. This is coming from someone who did not agree with most of Obama's policy decisions but at least could respect his integrity.

> I don't think having more positive stories about a Democratic president makes a publication left-leaning, especially given that Obama is the only president in recent memory not actively involved in some scandalous behavior.

This gave me a real chuckle.

It’s easy to not be “actively involved in scandalous behavior” when the media refuses to consider anything you do scandalous or investigate it further. It’s a self fulfilling prophesy.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#539

Post by sillysaurusx »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #520
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…

> 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 The GOP is prioritizing § 230 reform. Given their likely fall from power and prioritization of the SCOTUS confirmation, as well as Democrat control of the House and its focus on stimulus bills, the short-term threat is minute. From an a…

It seems like the GOP might lose, but it’s hardly “likely”. It’s probably a good idea to consider what might happen if they don’t.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#540

Post by laverya »

iaw wrote: post #509
alehul wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buzzfeed has been deemed left, which is a category beyond left-leaning, by an objective fact-checker [1]. As one example of why: > In June 2016, the left-leaning media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting found that in 100 BuzzFeed stories about Barack Obama, 65 were positive, 34 were neutral, and one was critical. [1] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/buzzfeed-media-bias

I don't think having more positive stories about a Democratic president makes a publication left-leaning, especially given that Obama is the only president in recent memory not actively involved in some scandalous behavior. This is coming from someone who did not agree with most of Obama's policy decisions but at least could respect his integrity.

> Obama is the only president in recent memory not actively involved in some scandalous behavior.

Uhhhhh... Not involved in scandalous behavior that you knew of, perhaps. Fast&Furious [0] would have been a major scandal in a Republican administration (despite the fact that it was started by a previous president), and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki [1] was a massive step in the erosion of civil liberties in the US. These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure that there are others.

Not to say that Obama was a bad president, but "no scandals I've heard of" and "no scandals" aren't quite the same thing.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2009%E2...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Post reply on HN