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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by DudeInBasement »

nexuist wrote: post #247
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

I grew up in the early 2000s. I find it difficult to understand as well, but I think what happened is that emotional human contact was overrun by corporate/nation-state bots. Bots cannot be convinced that their positions are wrong; they exist solely to spread discontent and fear. This is far different than the early Internet where you could safely assume everyone you were talking to is a real person. They may be a da…

Free speech works even if people don't listen.

Respect/creditable is earned.

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

#262

Post by nemothekid »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

I was born in the early 90s, and likely grew up on the same internet you did in the late 90s/2000s. In that time, I remember fondly, of participating and even moderating many, many, phpBB, vBulletin and Invision forums, and this idea that, in the past, you could post anything you wanted and people would just "put up with it" has never been true to me at least. Even 4chan never had the "free from consequences" free speech that seems to be worshipped.

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

#263

Post by rtx »

mnky9800n wrote: post #253
nexuist wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in the early 2000s. I find it difficult to understand as well, but I think what happened is that emotional human contact was overrun by corporate/nation-state bots. Bots cannot be convinced that their positions are wrong; they exist solely to spread discontent and fear. This is far different than the early Internet where you could safely assume everyone you were talking to is a real person. They may be a da…

So make political bots illegal and the world becomes sane again?

What needs to be banned is thinking that some people can't think for themselves.

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

#264

Post by sailingparrot »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s.

Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean that they can say whatever they want, but also that they are entitled to have their thoughts broadcasted at large using the amplification mechanisms I mentioned above.

While I believe free speech is a good thing, I believe free amplification is terrible.

If you think about it, before social networks, amplification was done through TV and newspapers, and those have editorial boards that filters the content they share. If a newspaper's staff is pro-environment, they can prevent any columnist writing anything that denies climate change, and it's not controversial.

However the problem is how do we decide who can get free amplification and who can't? Based on what? My preference would be that no one is, and we go back to uncurated things and to an internet where you have to look for the things you want to read/watch, versus getting content pushed onto you.

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

#265

Post by cheeze »

mc32 wrote: post #244
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…

So obviously no Wikileaks or any “sources inside the $agency with access to information” (but with no clearance to leak) cannot be published on Twitter any more, right? No guessing in who poisoned Navalni, etc... Got it!

I mean, you can logical fallacy all you want here but this isn't what OP said at all. I'm not agreeing one way or another, but holy weak argument.

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

#266

Post by Fauntleroy »

mjfl wrote: post #255
Fauntleroy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "unchecked misinformation" alternative hasn't really been working out so well either, for what it's worth.

I don't think it's working nearly as badly as you think.

If only the dead in the US could talk.

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

#267

Post by millzlane »

andrew_ wrote: post #250
senthil_rajasek wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't happen overnight. 2016 U.S elections changed things a lot. Spreading misinformation is not free speech.

What? It absolutely is. A lie is covered under free speech. One can say anything under that doctrine.

This is not true and does not cover fraud.

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

#268

Post by 8f2ab37a-ed6c »

mnky9800n wrote: post #253
nexuist wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in the early 2000s. I find it difficult to understand as well, but I think what happened is that emotional human contact was overrun by corporate/nation-state bots. Bots cannot be convinced that their positions are wrong; they exist solely to spread discontent and fear. This is far different than the early Internet where you could safely assume everyone you were talking to is a real person. They may be a da…

So make political bots illegal and the world becomes sane again?

I'm ready for a social media Butlerian Jihad.

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

#269

Post by shrubble »

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…

Did Twitter block the NYT story on Trump's taxes, which they did not have any official authority for having?

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN