Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#201

Post by nkurz »

pcmoney wrote: post #147

I don't understand why this is so controversial. You cannot reveal personal details of someone on Twitter (email, phone number etc.) The article contained unreacted personal info so should be blocked. You also cannot link directly to hacked/obtained without consent material on twitter. The article contained screenshot of the material so should be blocked. You CAN link to material that discusses hacked/obtained withou…

This is a reasonable enough comment, but adding it four times into the thread makes it spam. Please delete some of the copies.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#202

Post by rayiner »

tzs wrote: post #197
rayiner wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that Twitter and Facebook can do this in a “non-distortionary” way is unrealistic. Peoples’ personal biases are too strong. The “fact check” websites used to be great. Now, they wander way over “fact checking.” The worst abuses are when they provide “context” or challenge assumptions. Conservatives and liberals are not working from the same assumptions, and have a different set of contextual facts top of min…

The Puerto Rico bill had good support from both parties. The vote in the House to send the bill to the Senate was 227-0 among Republicans and 186-10 among Democrats. When the Senate's modified version came back to the House, the R vote was 160-70 and the D voter was 192-2. When it got back to the Senate in final form, the Senate vote was 76-22. The stupid senate.gov site does not tabulate vote by party and I'm too la…

If 22 Senators voted against it, it’s fair to argue that Biden was in the wrong side of that vote. The fact that the parties might agree on something doesn’t immunize a Senator who voted for that thing of responsibility for the vote. NAFTA was bipartisan too (61-38 with 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats) and Trump strongly opposed that. The Iraq war was nearly unanimous and it would be totally fair to criticize Biden for that.

I actually have no idea whether this was a good bill or not. But who else voted along with Biden doesn’t really tell you anything. And that’s why it shouldn’t be the province of fact checking. It’s political defense of Biden’s vote.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#203

Post by sangnoir »

CivBase wrote: post #200
sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

How does this constitute hacking? The repair shop almost certainly retains ownership of unclaimed deviced after some period of time. The shop owns the laptop. The data is theirs to do with as they please and they chose to publish it (at least, that's the story). No hacking necessary.

> The data is theirs to do with as they please. No hacking necessary.

I'd love to see the jurisprudence on this. If there are any photos, do they also get the copyrights? Can they share any nudes they find? How about that Adobe license?

As a non-lawyer, it is clear that owning the medium doesn't mean you own the information on it (or the cloud wouldn't be a thing). If we agree on that, then logically, it is possible to exfiltrate information that does not belong to you without authorization, which I think can be called "hacking".

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#204

Post by ciarannolan »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #191
cowmoo728 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if FB and Twitter are in contact with some of the national intelligence agencies. US intelligence officials talking to NYT suggest that this "leak" is a forgery by the GRU. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

I don't see that claim anywhere in the article you linked.

> The Times reported last January that Burisma had been hacked by the same Russian GRU unit that was one of two groups that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Last month, United States intelligence analysts contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack for further information after they had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an “October surprise.”

> Among their chief concerns, according to people familiar with the discussions, was that the Burisma material would be leaked alongside forged materials in an attempt to hurt Mr. Biden’s candidacy — as Russian hackers did when they dumped real emails alongside forgeries ahead of the 2017 French elections — a slight twist on Russia’s 2016 playbook when they siphoned leaked D.N.C. emails through fake personas on Twitter and WikiLeaks.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#205

Post by CivBase »

sangnoir wrote: post #203
CivBase wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this constitute hacking? The repair shop almost certainly retains ownership of unclaimed deviced after some period of time. The shop owns the laptop. The data is theirs to do with as they please and they chose to publish it (at least, that's the story). No hacking necessary.

> The data is theirs to do with as they please. No hacking necessary. I'd love to see the jurisprudence on this. If there are any photos, do they also get the copyrights? Can they share any nudes they find? How about that Adobe license? As a non-lawyer, it is clear that owning the medium doesn't mean you own the information on it (or the cloud wouldn't be a thing). If we agree on that, then logically, it is possible…

Ownership of data is not the same as ownership of publication rights. However, the pictures and emails in question were clearly not copyrighted or licensed.

If transferring ownership of a physical data storage device does not constitute transferring ownership of the data stored therein, then I don't know what does.

When it comes to the cloud, that sounds more to me like leasing storage rights, but I'm no lawyer.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#206

Post by patagurbon »

rayiner wrote: post #187
sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

If this is hacked emails, doesn’t that prove the article is credible?

Any subset of it could've been fabricated or modified to for the narrative.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#207

Post by nkurz »

CivBase wrote: post #205
sangnoir wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The data is theirs to do with as they please. No hacking necessary. I'd love to see the jurisprudence on this. If there are any photos, do they also get the copyrights? Can they share any nudes they find? How about that Adobe license? As a non-lawyer, it is clear that owning the medium doesn't mean you own the information on it (or the cloud wouldn't be a thing). If we agree on that, then logically, it is possible…

Ownership of data is not the same as ownership of publication rights. However, the pictures and emails in question were clearly not copyrighted or licensed. If transferring ownership of a physical data storage device does not constitute transferring ownership of the data stored therein, then I don't know what does. When it comes to the cloud, that sounds more to me like leasing storage rights, but I'm no lawyer.

However, the pictures and emails in question were clearly not copyrighted or licensed.

I think you misunderstand US copyright law. With few exceptions, almost all pictures and emails are copyright by whoever took the picture or wrote the email. Is there some reason that these would not qualify?

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#208

Post by 12xo »

rayiner wrote: post #18
12xo wrote: post #6

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.

That’s literally not the definition of censorship: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship 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…

No one ever stopped people from making the films, they only disallowed the distribution and showings via their operations. The Gov, banning a film (porn)was censorship by the Gov and thus was struck down by the Warren court. But you know that right?

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#209

Post by rightbyte »

mattnewton wrote: post #47
quantummkv wrote: post #31

Keep aside the accuracy of the NYPost story for a moment. With this move, Facebook and Twitter have effectively backed one political side over the other. Even if in the nitty-gritty they might not have, this is the perception that is sent out and is the perception that will be played to the hilt by the Trump camp. And timing of this is damning as well, with distrust of big tech and social media rising even before thi…

I think this is one of the damned if you do, damned if you don’t situations. Twitter and Facebook were largely blamed by traditional media for being a vector of misinformation that harmed the American public in 2016, and suffered a lost of trust then. When they try to combat that, whoever would have benefited from the material being censored will cry fowl, and it was a doomed venture from the start.

Russia was blamed, not Twitter or Facebook. They were victims ...
Post reply on HN