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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#581

Post by netfl0 »

aboutBen wrote: post #482
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.

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.

What percentage of their content do you consider award winning?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#582

Post by rectang »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #543
rectang wrote: post #108

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

Sorry, but TPM is extremely partisan and must be recused as a source in this discussion.

I agree that TPM is partisan. So is National Review. That's why I proposed TPM as a "counterpoint".

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#583

Post by rat87 »

smokebutnofire wrote: post #219
rectang wrote: post #108

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

A few things take make these emails a bit more credible: 1. "And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, na…

Biden simply gave them the message from the Obama administration and the EU

They wanted the prosecutor fired because he was ridiculously corrupt and protecting/ not prosecuting corrupt companies including Burisima (I repeat he dropped the investigation into Burisima). All of this is old news and was reported on during the impeachment trial

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#584

Post by Rapzid »

justinzollars wrote: post #569

When I was in high school, our network had software, perfectly branded as "Net Nanny" installed which prevented us from visiting certain websites. It was totally lame. I can't understand why my generation wants to recreate Net Nanny on facebook and twitter. It just adds to the 2020 feeling that everything, all at once, is completely falling apart.

Why didn't you just go to a different high school?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#585

Post by rlanday »

Karunamon wrote: post #549
0xy wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two organizations have these supposed emails, Fox and NYPost. They could mathematically prove their legitimacy by simply posting the entire raw messages, with headers. DKIM was active at the time these messages were supposedly sent, so if the signatures match up, authenticity is confirmed. The fact that this hasn't been done is concerning, unless it's being sat on for future impact.. the "drip drip drip" method of po…

I think you might be overestimating the level of technical sophistication at play here—if you asked me “how can we verify that these emails are real,” I might’ve been able to come up with this idea, but it certainly wasn’t the first thing that jumped into my head reading the article, and I doubt NYPost has anyone on staff who thought to do this either (unless perhaps verifying leaked emails is something they do regularly?).

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#586

Post by kthxbye123 »

sk2020 wrote: post #580
rmrfstar wrote: post #13

Robert Graham [1] pointed out that if the emails are authentic, they can be trivially verified via DKIM. That the email metadata was not released implies the emails are either inauthentic, or that the post did not contact someone with basic competence in computer forensics. Either possibility seriously undercuts the article's credibility. [1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1316407424648179717

I would think the financial risk for libel would be serious if it were true that the emails are fabrications and so made with intent to harm. Similarly, I would expect attorneys or all involved would be aware of this and were not sufficiently concerned.

It is nearly impossible for a public figure to win a libel suit in the US.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#587

Post by rat87 »

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.

It's not censoring viewpoints

It's refusing to spread likely BS propoganda. And he is correctly implying that many people who claim to be free speech advocates are in no way free speech advocates and merely are upset that racist and conspiratorial speech is being censored and are fine censoring viewpoints they disagree with

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#588

Post by millstone »

0xy wrote: post #531
iaw wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 q…

We can be clear eyed about this. "Are the emails authentic" is exactly the question they (NYPost) should have asked and were best positioned to answer, but they did not even try.

They presented screenshots (!) uncritically, with no suggestion of doubt regarding the emails' provenance. They did not even bother asking the Biden campaign about the story prior to publication.

It's a transparent attempt to get to "just asking questions" which is where we are today.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#589

Post by [deleted] »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #487
jtbayly wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#590

Post by cm2187 »

benmmurphy wrote: post #27
rmrfstar wrote: post #13

Robert Graham [1] pointed out that if the emails are authentic, they can be trivially verified via DKIM. That the email metadata was not released implies the emails are either inauthentic, or that the post did not contact someone with basic competence in computer forensics. Either possibility seriously undercuts the article's credibility. [1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1316407424648179717

It wouldn’t prove they were authentic. It would just prove they were sent through gmail’s servers. If you trusted gmail then it would prove the username, time and content was legitimate. All it looks like to me is some Russian username. I don’t see how it ties to a real person. I haven’t read the article so maybe the post explains that bit.

I think DKIM also signs the sender of the email. Does gmail enforces that only the owner of the mailbox can be the sender?
Post reply on HN