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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by fareesh »

lanstin wrote: post #67
high_derivative wrote: post #58

Ahhh: 1. We must censor terror propaganda and child abuse to avoid harm & because it's the law 2. We must censor stormfront and the far right because it's the right thing to do 3. We must censor covid misinformation because it could kill people 4. We must selectively censor news reporting for political candidates we are aligned with because it's probably false. ---- we are here now 5. We must remove all news critical…

Twitter is not the government. Support decentralized messaging and publication platforms if you don’t like big winners having too much power.

The principle of free speech is enshrined in the constitution at a time when the only thing powerful enough to constrain speech to this degree was the government.

Times have changed. Twitter is more powerful.

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

#742

Post by pclmulqdq »

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…

Twitter allowed the NY Times to post about Trump's tax returns after they were leaked by an IRS employee: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310474354967359489

The official policy appears to be flexible when the leaked supports Twitter's political opinions.

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

#743

Post by whatever1 »

kyle_martin1 wrote: post #700
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…

This wasn't hacked. It was legally obtained as it was left and became business property after repeated attempts of returning the machine. Jack's response came much after the censorship actions were taken. You have to analyze with timelime. his PR firm told him he needed to do damage control. Moreover why was this policy not applied to Trump's alleged tax return? This is one of many examples one could give. You may be…

Having my data in your hard drive does not mean that it allows you to view my my data, unless I specifically I allowed you to do so.

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

#744

Post by RonanTheGrey »

farias0 wrote: post #368
hartator wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe free amplification is terrible It's exactly what they were saying at the invention of the printing press. Amplification becoming too cheap. Maybe being on the side of censorship is always being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

I don't think it's comparable. If social network is the new newspaper, everyone is free to create your own newspaper. That's why I'll always defend net neutrality. But forcing a private institution to adopt a specific editorial stance, THAT'S anti-freedom. In general, we should work to promote alternative platforms, not to force the existing ones to promote what we believe is right.

> But forcing a private institution to adopt a specific editorial stance, THAT'S anti-freedom

Who is forcing a private organization to adopt any stance? "Leaving alone" is not the same as "actively promoting." Twitter leaving alone a story does not mean Twitter is promoting that story, that is exactly what section 230 is about.

> not to force the existing ones to promote what we believe is right.

I guess they don't need to pay taxes either, or take a stand against violence, or racism, or....? They still exist within the society in which they function and that means both social and legal rules bind them, same as you or me. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, their status as a corporation doesn't somehow entitle them to a more special or louder voice than any one else's.

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

#745

Post by fareesh »

taxicab wrote: post #23

The story reeks from top to bottom. The owner of the repair shop that allegedly received the laptop from Biden is a super far right conspiracy theorist. To the point where he literally believes that the Clintons are out to kill him for the information he has [1]. The whole story is that this is Hunter Biden's laptop, but in reality some random dude dropped it off and the owner said that "he had a medical condition th…

1) Ad hominem

2) Conspiracy theory

3) Lie by omission (it was sent to the FBI in December, he sent a copy to Giuliani)

Your debunking is objectively poor

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

#746

Post by fareesh »

xaei wrote: post #670

The NY Post is not a serious news organization. Whatever the implication politically, this is more akin to limiting the spread of a headline like "Lizard-man found at UFO landing site." And a naked political hit job.

Lizard-man should not be censored either.

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

#747

Post by sangnoir »

om2 wrote: post #710
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…

Copyright violation is not hacking.

I made no such argument - I was establishing rules around ownership of information when the medium belongs to someone else, seeing that you cannot hack your own information (gp's argument)

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

#748

Post by cambalache »

jonstewart wrote: post #613
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 late 70s and also was there and ready for the heady birth of the web—as a teen and then a college student, it was great. I subscribe to the free speech, anti-censorship ethos. But this ain’t censorship; free speech is alive and well for anyone willing to find the right platform. This is a platform provider [belatedly] denying access to lies (they aren’t opinions) that have been weaponized to exploit…

I am probably your same age and I have a totally different position. This does not mean I am wrong and you are right, it just only mean your opinion is just an individual take, not a generation voice.

Yes, there are many platforms, but what is happening now is the 90s equivalent to be banned from MSN messenger, MICQ, IRC and Usenet at the same time, sure you could go to an obscure geocities page to express yourself there but it is not the same. Thankfully that did not happen then.

In this specific case is not about lies, it is just unsavory emails and pics, highly unethical but not very different from what all the rags do all the time, it's very disingenous to think Twitter acted on good faith and not because it was politically convenient for its CEO. If the leaks would have been about Trump people would be crying bloody murder about the censorship.

Humans, humans never change.

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

#749

Post by sk2020 »

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.

It’s pretty easy to confuse principles for tactics and vice-versa

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

#750

Post by sellyme »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #438
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…

Their policy applies to content published on twitter, but does it also apply to linking to (or simply discussing) content published elsewhere? Because twitter has been removing posts and suspending accounts for that.

Linking to doxxing is in and of itself doxxing, so you're now doxxing people on Twitter. This does not necessarily apply to all other rules (e.g., linking to someone making death threats wouldn't constitute you making death threats), but it definitely would to some (you're not going to last long linking CP).

Jack's tweets were clear that "simply discussing" is okay, however.

Post reply on HN