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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by snowwrestler »

nickysielicki wrote: post #732
snowwrestler wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Even if it is a very popular website. If they make bad decisions, then people can go to competitors; it's as easy as typing in a different URL. That's how the Internet--and open societies in general--are supposed to work. What it looks like to me--someone who has been on the Internet since before the turn of the century--is tha…

> It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Imagine I make a website where I censor everything except pro Trump memes. Is that a bastion of free speech, compared to a website where I allow, y'know, actual free speech and discourse? I can't stand when people try to conflate the first amendment with freedom of speech. Nobody is (seriously) arguing that websites shouldn't…

Facebook and Twitter have never been impartial principled venues for free speech. They have blocked content from the very beginning, mostly relating to sex and violence. Facebook even banned photos of mothers breastfeeding their children.

And they make editorial decisions constantly about what content each person sees. The fact that these decisions are scaled by computer algorithms does not mean they are not happening.

This idea that they are neutral and free communications channels is a marketing message that they invented and pushed, because they thought it would help them succeed in business. We don’t have to believe them.

They’re just private companies, two among millions. If they make unpopular decisions about how to operate, they will fail. They should be allowed to do that.

Conversely, if they make popular decisions that you disagree with, it doesn’t mean the whole concept of free speech is damaged. Again: just two companies.

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

#892

Post by Karunamon »

xg15 wrote: post #873
NeverFade wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence that any actual hacking took place to obtain the Biden emails. The article stated that they were obtained from a laptop negligently left at a repair shop. Twitter just decided to claim that the post is lying, with no evidence and no fact-checking, and then banned the Post Twitter account and every other account that shared the article. At the same time, they allow content like the Panama Papers, P…

If you consider the Snowden leaks the result of "hacking" but the current leaks not, what exactly is your definition of "hacking"?

I for one, would specifically exclude the legal owner of a set of data from copying that data and giving it to a third party from the definition of "hacking".

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

#893

Post by [deleted] »

vehemenz wrote: post #273
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…

Who is we? Fox News has been at 6.5 since Bush Jr.

[deleted]

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

#894

Post by donmcronald »

paul7986 wrote: post #99
naiveprogrammer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media has been pedaling the Russian collusion story for 4 years and you don't seem to care because it fits your priors and political agenda. The bigger lesson here is that everybody is ready to accept censorship as long as they are not bearing the (immediate) costs of it.

Exactly all the sheep follow and believe what their side says. To me from pizzaGate to RussiaGate to the impeachment to this Hunter Biden thing is all junk ... arbitrary distractions to the issues that are important ... the economy, healthcare, equality, etc. Each side will do whatever it takes/strategy to try and win and too many sheep follow along/get soaked up in the soap opera drama. For me it's all transparent a…

I'm not American, but the same thing is happening in many countries. A stable country where the citizens trust the government and judicial systems is resistant to corruption. If you can destabilize those countries by spreading lies, hate, disinformation, etc. there's an opportunity for the most corrupt morally bankrupt scumbags on the planet to come in and seize control of important assets and infrastructure.

Just watch closely for a while and you'll see it happening everywhere. There are lies and misinformation and hate and fear directed _everywhere_ no matter what "side" you're on and the volume of it is massive. Then the media and influencers and regular people amplify it and spread it and debate it until they all hate each other and don't trust anyone.

It's working too. America is imploding. The UK got duped into Brexit. Several countries have a growing following of citizens that think immigrants and minorities are the cause of their misfortune even though those tend to be vulnerable groups that are exploited the most. Cancel culture is dialed up to 11. It's crazy and scary.

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

#895

Post by 75dvtwin »

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.

I think the outrage is not at NY Post for posting the alligations or at ABC townhall anchor for ignoring them.

Instead the outrage is about Twitter, FB and others who claim to be 'platforms' and therefore protected under section 230, but instead, systemtically and actively, acting as publishers (that are not under 230).

Perhaps an anology is the outrage and legal consequences , when a for-profit-business uses non-profit charity tax code.

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

#896

Post by TwoBit »

notadev wrote: post #339
snowwrestler wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Even if it is a very popular website. If they make bad decisions, then people can go to competitors; it's as easy as typing in a different URL. That's how the Internet--and open societies in general--are supposed to work. What it looks like to me--someone who has been on the Internet since before the turn of the century--is tha…

Where does one go when Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube seem to take these steps in tandem? The joke of "go make your own social network" has been tried with places like Parler and Gab, but they get banned from app stores, ironically blocked from technically, but not ideologically, decentralized services like Mastodon, or even dropped from web hosts. The open Internet is dead.

There's already a place which disseminates right biased information and censors opinions from the left: Fox News.

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

#897

Post by dillondoyle »

gnicholas wrote: post #194
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-...

This is a fair concern, and it is a tricky issue because if true Twitter might not be able to disclose this fact. But if it were true, wouldn't Joe Biden have come out already and said "These emails are fake and I never met with that person"? Instead, all we get is the campaign saying that those meetings do not appear on his calendar.

Could be a mix of real and fake emails, or real but slightly altered. They could not have any copies of the originals so they can't say which are real or not.

Plus oh my god if we go into 'but his emails!' and Trump is elected again I will leave this country. Keep 'hacked' 'email' ten thousand miles away from Biden campaign's mouth

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

#898

Post by 75dvtwin »

DaniloDias wrote: post #692
btbuildem wrote: post #690

Amidst all this chatter, the deafening silence regarding the veracity of that NYP article. Knowing the facts would really put this discussion in focus: preventing spread of misinformation vs censorship.

What nyp article are you referencing?

and their view on censorship:

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/if-unreliable-is-the-issue-why...

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

#899

Post by 75dvtwin »

533474 wrote: post #318

Who cares, the censoring ended up spreading the story. If you are all so unbiased, why can't you just read both sides of the story - it is not like the article has disappeared from the internet...

because we do not want corporations claiming protections that they do not deserve.

Editorializing content by twitter's own employees, or by crowd-sourcing, is still editorializing.

So Twitter and FB, HN and others are publishers, not platforms.

Claiming legal shields that apply to platforms, therefore, is not legal.

This is like claiming taxable deduction of a charity, while being a for-profit-business.

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

#900

Post by rdiddly »

75dvtwin wrote: post #878
rdiddly wrote: post #674

As a former New Yorker the thing I can't wrap my head around is how the Post ("Headless Body in Topless Bar") is now apparently being referred to as a respectable publication.

Ok, as a former New Yorker, what do you think about this explanation of the outrage with the behaviour of social networks executives: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/if-unreliable-is-the-issue-why... ?

Don't care, sorry.
Post reply on HN