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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#741

Post by res0nat0r »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #737
bduerst wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I don't think it's going to have the impact you think it will. The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and not doing enough to combat misinformation. If anything, it gives FB and Twitter a defense against an accusation of spreading political misinformation.

Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? If the roles were reversed and a similar story came out about Trump and his son, would Twitter and Facebook have taken it down as part of a misinformation campaign?

> Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation?

Yes.

Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target should be removed.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

There needs to be more censorship on FB and YouTube which are in addition to Fox News doing WAY more damage to the United States than any foreign terrorists could ever dream.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#742

Post by bduerst »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #737
bduerst wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I don't think it's going to have the impact you think it will. The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and not doing enough to combat misinformation. If anything, it gives FB and Twitter a defense against an accusation of spreading political misinformation.

Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? If the roles were reversed and a similar story came out about Trump and his son, would Twitter and Facebook have taken it down as part of a misinformation campaign?

Yes, they were. The PDFs with the emails were created long after the laptop was allegedly dropped off and abandoned, and the tech store owner claims they only copied the hard drive. This is on top of obvious formatting errors and the removal of the email headers.

None of the information was verified (even the easily verifiable bits) and the source, who was doxxed by the NYPost, is a Seth Rich conspiracist: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter...

In some hypothetical "whatabout the other party", the only way to test it is if it were to happen.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#743

Post by Thorrez »

Barrin92 wrote: post #56
throwawa3495 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, i definitely agree that as a private company Twitter is well within its rights to censor what it believes is "misinformation" but an important line has been crossed today by Twitter and Facebook. A story about potential corruption of a candidate for the US president has been censored by two of the largest information brokers in the world. Also interestingly, no denial from Joe Biden about the authenticity of thes…

>Wouldnt that be the first thing you'd do if this wasnt true? If i was Joe Biden and the yellow press came after me honestly I'd do exactly what Joe Biden does and ignore them rather than giving them oxygen. If people like Biden or Clinton responded every time someone tries to capitalise on some bullshit attached to their name they'd not be doing anything else

> I'd do exactly what Joe Biden does and ignore them rather than giving them oxygen.

Joe Biden ignored the reports? The article says Joe Biden responded, saying the meeting didn't take place:

> In a Thursday afternoon statement, the Biden campaign said the paper “never asked . . . about the critical elements of this story,” and that a review of “Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time” show that “no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.” The Biden campaign did not dispute the veracity of the emails, though no other media outlet has confirmed the Post’s story so far.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#744

Post by rbecker »

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…

I'm sure they've learned their lesson, and next time it won't be a ban, but a difficult-to-prove reduction in visibility.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#745

Post by aksss »

Hamuko wrote: post #23
throwawa3495 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's honestly irrelevant about the credibility of the emails and other data at this point, its the blanket censorship of this article that's now the real story.

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?

The factuality is what we should be debating. When Twitter bans its dissemination that becomes as big a story and - like it or not - makes folks believe there’s more truth to the story than they perhaps would have in absence of such blatant, double-standard censorship.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#746

Post by jimmydorry »

geofft wrote: post #423
jimmydorry wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is also a matter for interpretation, I believe. This cuts to the heart of the raging platform vs publisher debate (section 230). From my understanding, the current status quo is: 1. A platform can not moderate its content beyond removing illegal content that is brought to their attention; 2. A publisher can moderate and selectively cull what ever user content they like, but is held liable for any infringing cont…

Your understanding is the new interpretation of Section 230 being pushed by the ruling party in the US as justification for rewriting it and expanding the scope of what is actually a pretty targeted regulation. There's nothing in the actual text of Section 230 (which you can read in about a minute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 sections C and F are the relevant bits) about fairness or equality of enf…

Thank you for the link. It had been a while since I had read the specifics of section 230, and the Overton Window certainly has shifted since then, when it comes to this topic.

The key part that stands out to me and after refreshing my memory of the particulars, should be interpreting where "good faith" ends with respect to censoring topics and people, and what the bounds of "objectionable content" is.

Deciding that some news articles cannont be shared or talked about (even privately via the platform) while allowing others in similar circumstances to be distributed, is surely far from ideal.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#747

Post by Niten »

bduerst wrote: post #734
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…

Eh, I don't think it's going to have the impact you think it will. The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and not doing enough to combat misinformation. If anything, it gives FB and Twitter a defense against an accusation of spreading political misinformation.

The only thing that terrifies me more than Trump is the number of my tech industry colleagues who seem to think we can and should abuse our power to shape public discourse.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#748

Post by burgerzzz »

esotericimpl wrote: post #686
Plough_Jogger wrote: post #3

The article in question can be found here: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...

It’s funny cause the nypost is about to get sued out of existence. Why was the pdf created in 2019? If the emails were supposedly found now and turned into a pdf for distribution. It’s almost as if Rudy Giuliani is terrible at committing crimes like he’s been doing for the past 4 years.

The emails weren't supposedly found now though. Did you read the article?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#749

Post by aksss »

iaw wrote: post #524
davismwfl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be easily argued while they are not rewriting the story they selectively choose the facts they present as "fact checked" information. In the recent past both FB and Twitter have linked to "fact checked" articles/sources that represented only the narrative they wanted you to read. If they wanted to show neutral behavior they could have linked to articles that represented both sides of an argument which would…

The "both sides" of an argument thing does not work when one side is intellectually dishonest and bases arguments on misinterpretations and mistruths.

Problem is that both sides see the other as exactly this. I’m sure I can argue the point on behalf of either side selected by a coin toss. In today’s example though we have the side that dominates academia, media, big labor, healthcare, public sector workers, and big tech using that dominance to censor a story harmful to their candidate with very disingenuous reasoning.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#750

Post by ww520 »

benmmurphy wrote: post #17

I think it is crazy that twitter has gone down this path. Being the arbiter of truth makes their job much harder and doesn’t seem to have a big upside. If they have an agenda they want to push the upside might be there but otherwise it’s just a perpetual shitshow.

They do have an agenda to push. What they are doing is consistent with their agenda.
Post reply on HN