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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#781

Post by aksss »

bosswipe wrote: post #612
remarkEon wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is indicative of the absolute sea change that has happened over the last four years with how we treat speech and journalism. Gone are the days when if you read a story and thought it was BS, you ignored it and moved on. Or when a politician says something dumb, that's obviously untrue or a distortion, you just laughed and said "what an idiot". Today, these things are "disinformation" and are "an attack o…

There's a difference between framing events vs fabricating them from whole cloth. The only way democracy can work is if voters are making decisions based on real world information. Injecting completely false information into the public discourse is a direct attack on democracy.

> The only way democracy can work is if voters are making decisions based on real world information.

Let’s review the history of the oldest democracy on the planet. And then the history of the second, the third, etc. Who gets to decide what information is real? CDC? WHO? NYT? Fox? Who’s the final authority if not each of us? Your statement implies incredibly low expectations for the people and inflated expectations for “authorities”. It is ultimately an _authoritarian_ view, quite the opposite of democracy.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#782

Post by arminiusreturns »

lettergram wrote: post #343

Reminds me of why I wrote this chrome extension a few years back (uses Keybase for now): https://lettergram.github.io/AnyCrypt/ Basically, you can encrypt a message over any medium (facebook, twitter, email, etc.). Wasn't super secure by any means, but the media companies wouldn't know what's being shared. Honestly, I might rework it (not utilizing keybase). I think I can make it decentralized and / or super easy to…

I've always thought this might be a great approach in limited situations (using encryption over unencrypted public "channels"). Kudos to you for the project, even if it didn't get much traction.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#783

Post by mellow-lake-day »

rendall wrote: post #738
moneybadger wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the Washington Post isn't releasing possibly faked or hacked emails about Breonna Taylor being shot in her sleep three weeks before an election in a blatant attempt to manufacture an October Surprise. Don't try and create false equivalency here.

Respectfully, I beg to differ The Washington Post released unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks. This is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence should be likewise extraordinary 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles If you're inclined…

>4 years later, however, these remain allegations only

As the other user already pointed out this was has been proven. And they also have the exact unit and names of the Russian intelligence officers who did the hacking.

Please stop spreading disinformation about this.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#784

Post by stale2002 »

travmatt wrote: post #652
stale2002 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> They may not be raising specifically 230 concerns. But democrats are absolutely bringing up anti-trust concerns regarding major tech company. My comment that you replied to says that democrats in the house have been bringing up anti-trust concerns. Anti-trust and 230 regulation are two separate things done for different reasons. They are not equivalent actions nor do are they being pursued out of the same concerns.…

> Trying to conflate

I think that from a higher level principle, they can be conflated.

The way that they can be conflated is that many of these tech companies, just don't have many friends left.

Even if the exact reason as for why they don't have many friends left may be different, the end result is still the same.

The left and the right may be going after them from different angles, but that is still pretty bad, because nobody is there to defend them.

People who may have stuck their neck out to defend them in the past, just aren't going to do so anymore.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#785

Post by rightbyte »

evan_ wrote: post #311
rightbyte wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Twitter enforce a Tiananmen Square-ish policy? Do they want to lose all credibility as a platform?

Did Twitter kill hundreds of people with tanks?

I meant the policy of automatic censorships of certain keywords on the internet, not military crowd control ...

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#786

Post by nobody9999 »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #327
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.

Yet I don't recall anyone questioning Buzzfeed News when they dropped their bombshell story years back. I remember the defenders saying something along the lines of "If the news is newsworthy and constitutes journalism, then the publication it was produced in shouldn't matter" As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed…

>As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed is legitimate, correct?

I've not read any comments on HN that claims that they have a problem with "this being published by the Post" whether it's legitimate or not.

It's possible that I missed such comments, but I don't think so.

I would be grateful if you could point me at a few of them.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#787

Post by mellow-lake-day »

_iyig wrote: post #701
libraryatnight wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other countless unverified scoops?

One relevant example is the Steele Dossier, which Mother Jones reported on a week before the 2016 election. It was published without permission, and its more sensational claims remain unverified or have since been disproven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Mother_Jones_st...

Speaking of the Steele Dossier, here is an interesting website about the Steele Dossier. It shows you which parts have been corroborated and proven:

http://annotateddossier.com/

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#788

Post by nullc »

millstone wrote: post #621
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 The GOP is prioritizing § 230 reform. Given their likely fall from power and prioritization of the SCOTUS confirmation, as well as Democrat control of the House and its focus on stimulus bills, the short-term threat is minute. From an a…

GOP is talking big about Section 230 reform, but it is absurd on its face. Prior to Section 230, if you censor ANY content (say, child pornography) then you are "moderating" the discussion and are liable for ALL content. If Twitter deletes a death threat tweet, why didn't they delete the defamatory tweet against Hunter Biden or whomever? Biden could sue. So Section 230 allows websites to delete the kiddie porn withou…

> and blocking anything that could be the basis for a lawsuit.

Almost. That is the situation it would create for small venues like Hacker News-- extreme liability issues and heavy handed moves to mitigate them (if not just a shutdown as would probably be the case for many non-for-profit venues).

But Facebook, Google? These multibillion dollar companies have very little to fear from a lawsuit by the likes of me or you.

They could just staff up their legal team and work anyone who sues them into bankruptcy-- they already do. It isn't like litigation against parties for content they post in the US is easy to begin with even when you're not going after a 900 lb guerilla.

It would be bad news for them but ultimately just a cost of doing business. It might even ultimately be the best for their businesses as the ability to endure lawsuits would be one hell of a moat.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#789

Post by cbnotfromthere »

microtherion wrote: post #763
millstone wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GOP is talking big about Section 230 reform, but it is absurd on its face. Prior to Section 230, if you censor ANY content (say, child pornography) then you are "moderating" the discussion and are liable for ALL content. If Twitter deletes a death threat tweet, why didn't they delete the defamatory tweet against Hunter Biden or whomever? Biden could sue. So Section 230 allows websites to delete the kiddie porn withou…

This is the first comment I've seen in this discussion that accurately summarizes what section 230 does, and what its removal would mean. It's rather sad that it has been downvoted, and those doing the downvoting should think a bit about their motivations.

"is the first comment I've seen in this discussion that accurately summarizes what section 230 does"

That's correct.

"and what its removal would mean."

That's incorrect, since it promotes the fallacy of false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to get rid of Section 230 by replacing it with a different set of rules, not only by simply erasing it out.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#790

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

Completely and thoroughly unacceptable. The standard they're citing as the reason is something they have never enforced before.

They have never once throttled or banned articles that are anti-Dem.

This was a massive screw-ups by Twitter and by Facebook and they know it.

The argument for their regulation as publishers (rather than platforms) just got twice as strong.

Absolute fools, and biased fools.

Post reply on HN