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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#771

Post by nobody9999 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #609
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…

Many polls are showing a Biden win is above 80% probability, the House is solidly Dem, and a possible sweep in the Senate. Make of that what you will. Its a fair point that polls missed in 2016. 2020 has kicked the hornet’s nest (rather, the last four years), voter turnout appears to be higher than previous years, and I’d bet an expensive bottle of bourbon current polls align close to what results will be (with model…

>Many polls are showing a Biden win is above 80% probability, the House is solidly Dem, and a possible sweep in the Senate. Make of that what you will.

I'd point out that it's not the polls that are predicting such things. Rather it's people who are interpreting those polls.

Polls are just a snapshot of opinion in time. They are useful and can provide information about public opinion, but they certainly aren't predictive in the way you're stating.

Making predictions like "Biden is 80% likely to win" is a guess. Possibly based on polling data, but are not a poll.

A poll reporting[0] that the respondents of that poll prefer one candidate over another is not a prediction, rather it's data.

[0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general...

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#772

Post by mynewycombi »

Twitter is handing out week long bans to people retweeting the information 'because it is against our hacking rules'

But there is no evidence the information was hacked - the shop owner says Hunter Biden signed the data and computer over to him via the 90 day unpaid clause.

So Twitter is selectively enforcing their rules to suit their preferred narrative?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#773

Post by aksss »

runarberg wrote: post #152
partiallypro wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.) But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked.

Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary actions. The coming US election is no small deal, and we have seen in past elections how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy (including but not limited to influencing elections). You really can’t blame Twitter and Facebook here for taking the more radical step against an obvious smear campaign that blatantly fails the smell test. I’m sure if this…

You would expect Twitter and Facebook to articulate standards in advance and adhere to them consistently, but in this case we have individuals who have literally been on the payroll of one political side making exceptional judgements on behalf of the platforms that nakedly favor one side over another, consistently.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#774

Post by aksss »

jeffbee wrote: post #321
rhino369 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but I've never seen the media ever publicly discuss document verification in a story. Stories about Trump's tax returns don't include any sort of explanation about verification. They wouldn't even publish the documents in order to keep the source secret. So I don't think its reasonable to assume the lack of easy confirmation means it is necessarily fake.

Perhaps you just haven't read the newspaper much. "So-and-so McOfficial confirmed the authenticity of the documents" is standard copy. This is a result for just googling "confirmed the authenticity of the emails": https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/12/trump-contr...

Yet the pattern of the last four years for bombshell stories has been more to the tune of “unnamed intelligence official”, “high-level anonymous source”. That’s anything but verification.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#775

Post by prawn »

Thorrez wrote: post #767
prawn wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it because a hack was involved?

What's the definition of hack? If we believe NY Post's story, did a hack happen? Or are we assuming NY Post's story is false, and the materials came from an unreported hack?

I was just going by Twitter's statement in response. Hadn't looked into it beyond that.

"Twitter blocked users from sharing an article that indicated Hunter Biden introduced his father Joe to a Ukranian businessman — charging that “hacked materials” were used in the story."

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#776

Post by microtherion »

jimmydorry wrote: post #396
donohoe wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> is it also OK for AT&T on its phone network? For Google on Gmail Twitter is a closed-system and not a utility, and I guess that makes all the difference.

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 summary of the "current status quo" is a reasonably accurate summary of the legal situation BEFORE S230 was passed, and is exactly what S230 was designed to remedy.

The current status quo, as I understand it, is:

1. Everybody (newspapers, social media) can be held liable for their OWN content (e.g. the NYT for their articles). 2. Nobody can be held liable for disseminating OTHER people's content (letters to the editor, tweets), whether or not they decide to filter some of that content out of their own volition. 3. (This is where my understanding gets murky) Once the disseminating entity has been made aware that something they disseminate is illegal (copyright violation, illegal pornography, etc), they bear some responsibility for stopping the further dissemination.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#777

Post by aksss »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #595
dahfizz wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump, who is the President (not VP), meets regularly with all sorts of people who spend money at his resort and other businesses and no one cares about that. I hear people (rightly) complain about this all the time. > Can someone explain why it even matters. I think it matters because Joe has denied any participation at all with his sons business dealings. The emails explicitly mention using influence, buying time…

> You'd also be openly admitting that Joe is no better. Nah. Everyone lies from time to time, or bends the truth to make themselves look better. Frequency and magnitude are the important factors. Also, Joe could have had dinner with this guy and still never talked with his son deeply about work. Joe having eaten with this dude would call into question his claim, but it wouldn't be proof he was telling a falsehood. Ho…

I don’t know why we give politicians the benefit of the doubt. You and I knew that CGI was a pay for play scheme before the emails confirmed it. We also know that nobody pays a crackhead son of the VP of the US with zero industry or qualifying professional experience $50k/mo. without expecting something in return that said cracky is uniquely positioned to deliver.

For the record, I don’t hate crackheads. Also, yeah this cynicism goes for Trump too. It should be how we regard all politicians, as the profession overwhelmingly shows a high preponderance towards deceit, graft, rent-seeking, kickbacks, etc.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#778

Post by refurb »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #663
Karunamon wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The safest bet is it changes nobody's opinion. If you're left leaning, you've drowned out Trump's repeatedly false statements --or become numb to them-- no October surprise will have an effect on you. If you're right leaning, this furthers your perspective that Clinton and Deep State are up to no good. Nobody comes across content like this without an existing world view to inspect it, and the lines have been drawn a…

I agree on those firmly in either camp. But there is a big chunk of voters who aren't firmly in either camp. That's why you have Bush Jr. winning some years, Obama others and then Trump.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#779

Post by nobody9999 »

ignoramous wrote: post #448
kube-system wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope AT&T starts censoring these damn spam calls. I've had 5 today.

Truecaller works even though the app is hard to stomach privacy-wise. Google recently unveiled plans for its "verified calls" feature, so that might help if you're on an Android 11 device. I personally do not answer any calls from numbers not on my contact list. If a call was urgent, I'd normally recieve a text message (if informal) or an email (if formal, like the bank, for example) from the caller eventually.

> personally do not answer any calls from numbers not on my contact list.

I do. Then take the time to get an actual human on the phone. Then I verbally abuse them until they hang up.

It's not effective in stopping them, but while I'm spewing vulgar stuff at them, they're not trying to rip anyone else off.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#780

Post by refurb »

Niten wrote: post #747
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.

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.

Highly underrated comment.

It's easy to be a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views. It's not easy when it doesn't.

Post reply on HN