11–20 of 1001 posts
Anyone remember how Twitter was giving Trump a pass for gross and flagrant violations of it's overt rules, then responded to the ongoing outcry over that by changing the rules to officially give a pass to any user it deemed sufficiently politically connected? Live by Twitter favoritism,...
To add to this Trump's official campaign Twitter had it's account locked this morning and a video Trump uploaded was promptly deleted. This is new information from today. The thread yesterday was about the initial wave of censorship. I posted about the new actions this morning but it got flagged as a dupe of yesterday's discussion. It was not a duplicate, Twitter has taken new action and decided to go further this mo…
Do you think its correct to delibrately spread a false story about Hunter Biden? Is this type removing false information censorship?
The question is whether this standard of reliability is one that they can actually apply evenly. This is a far higher standard that what was pitched. This content moderation was pitched as being limited to Russian bots and “vaccines cause cancer” and the like. Moderating articles from a publicly listed brick and mortar news organization, even if it’s a tabloid, based on the perceived credibility of the underlying facts, is a whole new level. It’s dramatically raising the bar. And maybe that’s where the bar should be, but I absolutely do not believe that Facebook and Twitter have the resources or integrity to apply that high standard fairly.
Also it's unfair to say they are doing this for political favoritism. Democratic politicians are the loudest ones calling for their breakup, ie. Bernie, AOC, Warren.
Reading this story without understanding the entire political landscape is as dangerous as the misinformation itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think its correct to delibrately spread a false story about Hunter Biden? Is this type removing false information censorship?
I think the NY Post is probably getting played. But the media has gotten behind plenty of stories about Trump that turned out to be false: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/h... . This sloppiness is a general symptom of the need for media organizations to beat the Twitter cycle. The question is whether this standard of reliability is one that they can actually apply evenly. This is a far high…
Censorship is when the government, not private enterprises, stifle speech. When it a private entity, it’s called free market. This is a difficult concept for whiners to accept.
Both platforms bans anyone mentioning the supposed "whistleblower" (whom actually only had newspaper articles as 'evidence'), bans anyone mentioning Bidens kid, bans anyone mentioning the death of Clintons ex-staffers, Wikileaks content related to Dems is blacklisted, and they remove videos of Bidens gaffes for being "manipulative" when it's just clips from livestreams.
While no action is taken if you post conspiracies about Reps, fabricated videos of Trump (for humour or propaganda), discredited 'leaks' such as the infamous dossier, that ICE is running concentration-camps and engaging in genocide, or pictures of you vandalising Trump-supporters property.
EDIT: Even on HN, a site that usually is for free speech and discussing alternative theories, the posts about bias in tech are near instantly flagged and users praising media companies for removing "bad information" while people not following political narratives get downvoted; seems to indicate larger issues.
Censorship is when the government, not private enterprises, stifle speech. When it a private entity, it’s called free market. This is a difficult concept for whiners to accept.
Otherwise the phrase “government censorship” would be redundant. And that’s why the Hollywood Production Codes were a kind of censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
And the idea that criticizing censorship when private organizations do it is “whining” is quite odd. Not everything bad is illegal. Lots of people criticized the Hollywood Production Codes as bad censorship, even though it was voluntary. Except back then it was liberals complaining that the Hollywood companies that controlled distribution were using their power to entrench conservative ideas and suppress liberal ones: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/17/cens-m17.html
In our field we constantly see languages with stronger intellectual foundations (Haskell, Lisp, Scala, Perl6) constantly lose out market share to pragmatic, practical, messy and oftentimes ugly languages/libraries/tookits etc. We often knowingly choose the latter set knowing full well what their downsides are, because we still come out ahead.
If you're wondering why someone would support Facebook/Twitter/YouTube's recent moves, it really is that simple. Their foundations don't have to be perfect, or even particularly good or fair. They just have to be better the deluge of toxic sludge that's currently overwhelming these systems. That is to say, there is no answer to the Paradox of Tolerance and you don't need an answer. If you feel people are taking advantage of you, you will (and should) crack down, and if you crack down too much eventually people will (and should) rebel.