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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#821

Post by nobody9999 »

easterncalculus wrote: post #385
nemothekid wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah ok, when Trump says a negative article about him is "fake news" it's criticism, but when "disinformation" comes out about Biden it's a call for censorship? Am I insane for seeing the dissonance here?

I am agreeing with refurb's comment below you. Most people calling "fake news" are trying to convince you to not watch something. Most people calling "disinformation" are trying to convince you that you should not be able to watch something. I'm not taking the side of Trump or anyone at all by saying that criticism is different than censorship, that's just a fact. Your argument is not in good faith if bringing that u…

>I am agreeing with refurb's comment below you. Most people calling "fake news" are trying to convince you to not watch something. Most people calling "disinformation" are trying to convince you that you should not be able to watch something.

Huh?

You state that criticism is different than censorship. I agree.

However, I don't get the connection here. Calling something "fake news" or calling it "disinformation" are both criticisms. In fact, those terms are pretty much synonymous.

Which is irrelevant to the issue.

Twitter and Facebook are limiting distribution of this particular piece. Which is certainly akin to censorship. However, It's Twitter and Facebook taking these actions, not "most people."

Based on the details I've read (and thanks to this post, I've read quite a few), this story doesn't really pass the smell test, and may well be "disinformation."

Will you now accuse me of advocating censorship?

What if I'd said it was "fake news" instead? Am I advocating censorship now?

Calling for censorship would be something like "Don't let anyone see that!" Or "These monsters need to be silenced!"

There's a difference.

Unfortunately, we're all wrapped so tightly because, you guessed it, Twitter and Facebook (and others) use exactly those sorts of tricks to rile us up, to boost engagement and make more advertising dollars.

Which leaves us fighting each other over which synonym is worse.

In truth, most people are kind, decent human beings who just want to have a decent life. Sure, we disagree about a few of the details concerning how to have a decent life, but we agree about many more details.

The interactions of a bunch of really small groups who want to influence us for their benefit (whether that be for political power, profit or both) are laughing all the way to the bank as we tear each other apart.

Let's not let them do that any more, as we're only hurting ourselves.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#822

Post by robertlagrant »

runarberg wrote: post #689
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…

In the grand scheme of things, the Pandora's box Twitter and Facebook might have opened today seems minute next to the Pandora’s box the Bush administration opened after the 9-11 attacks, the homeland security and all. I think after the election we will have completely forgotten about this conduct while we still have to live with the spying on innocent people, non-sense travel restriction, and human-rights violating…

How does the immigration system violate human rights?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#823

Post by lozaning »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #811
invalidusernam3 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So hacker news shouldn't be allowed to remove spam comments?

hacker news shouldn’t be allowed to censor legitimate information or dissenting political opinions, which is what is covered by the 1st amendment. It doesn’t mean you can literally say whatever you want, e.g. flood sites with spam.

Who gets to be the arbiter of "legitimate"?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#824

Post by robertlagrant »

awerawerawrjhui wrote: post #794
refurb wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Being a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views is an oxymoron. Defending free speech by definition means defending people's right to say things you disagree with. If you only defend people's right to agree with you then you're not a free speech advocate.

No. The point being made is that if your speech is being suppressed for whatever reason, you will care about free speech.

If you're not being suppressed, you won't even realise you have it, and will happily advocate for censorship.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#825

Post by CyberRabbi »

lozaning wrote: post #823
CyberRabbi wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hacker news shouldn’t be allowed to censor legitimate information or dissenting political opinions, which is what is covered by the 1st amendment. It doesn’t mean you can literally say whatever you want, e.g. flood sites with spam.

Who gets to be the arbiter of "legitimate"?

Judges do when a lawsuit happens under a civil rights violation case.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#826

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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 value does an award from journalists awarded to other journalists have?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#827

Post by CamperBob2 »

adventured wrote: post #817
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If the roles were reversed, the story would be on the lead story of every major left-leaning media outlet (which is all of them except Fox) in the nation for days: CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, Reuters, AP; all of them would carry it non-stop and beat it to death, covering every possible aspect and angle. Which is what they do any time there has been a hint of a story against Tru…

Since the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists

Yeah, I remember when the editor-in-chief at WaPo settled a Federal suit for $20M to avoid facing charges for his role in running a fraudulent university. Good times. Then there was the NYT board member whose namesake cancer charity foundation was shut down by the state attorney general's office because it turned out to be a front for his own business and political interests. What a con artist, huh. Not to forget the time the chairman of the Democratic National Committee stiffed his contractors for $70 million on a casino project that later went bankrupt. There oughta be a law.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#828

Post by rayiner »

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.

Democrats base their arguments on some bombshell mistruths. Like trillion dollar mistruths. The idea that America underinvests in schools and social welfare, for example, when we spend more than European countries per person on both metrics.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#829

Post by awerawerawrjhui »

robertlagrant wrote: post #824
awerawerawrjhui wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views is an oxymoron. Defending free speech by definition means defending people's right to say things you disagree with. If you only defend people's right to agree with you then you're not a free speech advocate.

No. The point being made is that if your speech is being suppressed for whatever reason, you will care about free speech. If you're not being suppressed, you won't even realise you have it, and will happily advocate for censorship.

That's a very cynical take. You don't need to have your own speech rights threatened to care about free speech, and many, many people are capable of defending free speech even if their own views aren't being "suppresed".

My political opinions are reasonably mainstream, but I'll happily defend the free speech rights of groups I disagree with (e.g. pro-lifers.)

Post reply on HN