Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 2:09 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #451

jeremyjh wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Post by ehsankia » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 2:10 AM UTC

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.

Post by esoterica » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 2:10 AM UTC

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…

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 2:10 AM UTC

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.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

prawn wrote: post #504

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.

Isn't it because a hack was involved?