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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#631

Post by remarkEon »

untog wrote: post #620
dahfizz wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you seem so confident in a widespread democratic victory when the republicans did so well in 2016? EDIT: for those unaware, not only did the republican party take control of the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2016. They also made big gains in state elections. In fact, the republican party had a 'trifecta' (house, senate, and executive) in 25/50 states. It was a very significant shift in power: https…

You could just as easily counter and ask why anyone would expect a Republican victory when Democrats did so well in the 2018 midterms. Previous result are only predictive to a point.

They did well in the House, but lost seats in the Senate. Midterm elections are an imperfect signal, like you're suggesting, but it's not true that the democrats won a landslide or something in 2018.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#632

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #105
pseudo0 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Yahoo article that you've linked appears to be a republication of an article from the National Review ( https://www.nationalreview.com/news/twitter-cites-hacked-mat... ). Perhaps it would make more sense to link to the original source?

Ok, changed to that from https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-cites-hacked-materials-policy... . Thanks!

[deleted]

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#633

Post by dang »

rectang wrote: post #576
dang wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also felt more comfortable with yahoo.com than with a politicized site like NR. The intention here is simply to be accurate and neutral to the extent possible. But it's the same article, so it doesn't make sense to pretend that it comes from a different source, besides which the HN guidelines say " Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. " ( https:…

I understand the moderation decisions made today, but I'm alienated by them. A political article like this one would ordinarily get flagged off the HN front page. The subject matter of Twitter and Facebook imposing constraints on distribution is germane, but this article goes way beyond that by propagating the suspect email content.

Obviously HN readers are going to want to see the emails and decide for themselves. There's zero implication of authenticity (or inauthenticity for that matter). The only thing we care about at our end is having an accurate article (and headline) for the story.

Politics isn't completely off-topic for HN—there's overlap and it depends. There's lots of previous explanation about that at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., and if anyone has a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is.

We turn off user flags sometimes when a story contains interesting (in HN's sense) new information and the probability of a substantive discussion clears a certain threshold.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#634

Post by stale2002 »

travmatt wrote: post #450
Karunamon wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that the Dems wouldn't like to make social media companies liable for misinfo? That's what I'm trying to say, here. Either way you slice it, 230 is in the crosshairs, it's just a matter of who's holding the gun and for what purpose. I also wouldn't bet a cent of my own money on the GOP being "wholesale evicted". I heard very similar, equally confident talk in 2016.

Democrats haven’t been raising 230 regulation though, that’s been republicans disgruntled that their ads had been fact-checked (by partisan conservatives, it turns out). The proposed regulations coming out of the house have been more about competition and anti-monopoly. It’s hard to see this as anything more than an attempt to change their bet on a losing horse in this race, as the commenter you replied to pointed ou…

> Democrats haven’t been raising 230 regulation though

They may not be raising specifically 230 concerns. But democrats are absolutely bringing up anti-trust concerns regarding major tech company.

Arguably, anti-trust breakup of major tech companies would be much more destructive to those tech companies, than merely removing some tech companies ability to moderate content.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#635

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

syndacks wrote: post #522
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #455

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…

Not everything can be reduced to a O or 1. Our imperfect species often draws a line in the sand and says you're either on this side or that. Sometimes that line is a fucked up line and we go to war over it. And other times, we accept it (yes there are other states), internalize it and move along collectively as consciously elevated apes with a new feather in our culture-cap. That you might not feel a sliver of moral…

One's man disinformation is another man's propaganda.

What is the bigger issue at play? I honestly cannot see a bigger issue than a society wide decree on what can and cannot be uttered. To me, the notion of being able to say what I want to say without the reprisal of "globally dominant companies today"/government/we, is so ingrained that it is possible that I genuinely cannot see the forest for the trees.

Great. And now I feel like a Boy Scout reciting badly written essay about why I love America.

For me there is no bigger issue.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#636

Post by artificialLimbs »

drewrv wrote: post #603
Covzire wrote: post #100

Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. Controlling "disinformation" is a dog whistle for censorship, hoping that average citizens don't realize what they're really after. We all know who is going to be the moderators in flagging "disinformation" and we all know which ideology they overwhelmingly favor. I'd sooner trust a pyromaniac as fire chief of my local county than I wou…

> Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. This year the president has sued to stop publication of two books because they embarrassed him, one from John Bolton and another from Mary Trump. This year police in cities across the country have opened fire on journalists. These are legal and physical attacks, on journalists and publishers, coming from government officials. Social m…

I suspect the original statement is referring to sheer volume, where your examples are more few and far between, particularly where it concerns violence. "Only" could have been left out of the sentence for greater accuracy.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#638

Post by dang »

chillee wrote: post #235
dang wrote: post #64

We changed the URL from https://twitter.com/sohrabahmari/status/1316446749729398790 to an article with more information. If there's a more informative source, we can change it again. Edit: I've changed it from https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos... to what looks like it may be a more neutral source. Other users have supplied these related links: https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-h…

One issue now is that the title mentions Facebook but the linked article does not, which is somewhat confusing.

I kept the headline from one of the previous articles because it seemed the most neutral. If anyone wants to suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#639

Post by artificialLimbs »

iaw wrote: post #545
0xy wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My primary concern is about whether the information I'm looking at is factual or not. If Russia had proof of corruption on the candidate they did not excessively favor then I would be interested. When historic propagandists have "proof" I need corroboration otherwise I'm being controlled by the propaganda as it was intended. Remember Benghazi? How confident everyone was, for years? Nothing came from it because nothin…

"Nothing came from it"

Uh, what? A U.S. embassy was actively under attack and our "leaders" said "No thanks!" to sending help.

How is that not a scandal?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#640

Post by artificialLimbs »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #556
0xy wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For christ's sake yes. Russia, a known bad actor, who has been openly trying to destabilize America for years does not get the benefit of the doubt on literally anything. Everything that Russia "has" should be outright considered purposeful disinformation until it is clearly and widely proven otherwise. They have lost all credibility to provide proof of anything. Particularly in an election year.

I am completely ignorant of why Russia is a known bad actor (aside from, you know, the whole run-by-a-dictator thing). Could you help me out?
Post reply on HN