921–930 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should the press secretary’s Twitter account get special treatment?
No. The White House Press Office does not need a twitter account. They can issue press releases and hold press conferences, and both will be widely covered by the national media or view on the internet. There is no reason they need to use twitter.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I think you underestimate the gravity of this. A thoroughly corrupt money laundering Biden family machine (which also involves children of other previously high profile politicians) -- may become the presidential family of US. And the social networks in the country, have chosen to do what they have always done with anti-left news -- they censored them. My view, make the execs accountable now. They have to be on…
I don't see how it is big news that both sides of American politics are profoundly corrupt. If I were American (thankfully I am not) I would be thinking about the upcoming election as a choice between a corrupt arsehole whose rhetoric does not move your country towards a race war, or a corrupt arsehole whose rhetoric does move your country towards a race war.
i remember during the BLM Riots, we had stories going around that jacob blake was just "breaking up a fight" between two women. when it turns out he had just finished robbing someone he'd previously sexually assaulted with her kids in the house. and twitter let it trend i remember they had a video of gunshot sounds trending with a description saying that an innocent 16 year old girl was shot by police when in reality…
> BLM Riots This is a harmful characterization of an important movement. No protests on that scale are going to go without a hitch. That shouldn't minimize their importance. > Researchers at the US Crisis Monitor analyzed over 10,600 nationwide protests between May 24 (the day before George Floyd was killed by police) and Aug. 22, and found that nearly 95 percent were peaceful [1] Jacob Blake was shot seven times in…
so >500 riots then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any examples of someone's non-public contact information being shared without a response? Their guidelines permit discussion and linking to press stories of hacks provided they don't include someone’s private information, information that could put people at risk of physical harm or danger; and/or information related to trade secrets.
Saying a public person's email address is private information that could lead to physical harm is quite a stretch. If the NYP had redacted the email addresses they would have named a different excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any examples of someone's non-public contact information being shared without a response? Their guidelines permit discussion and linking to press stories of hacks provided they don't include someone’s private information, information that could put people at risk of physical harm or danger; and/or information related to trade secrets.
Blue Leaks comes to mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any examples of someone's non-public contact information being shared without a response? Their guidelines permit discussion and linking to press stories of hacks provided they don't include someone’s private information, information that could put people at risk of physical harm or danger; and/or information related to trade secrets.
Trump shared Lindsey Graham’s phone number on Twitter during the 2016 election primary.
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 th…
Why? So that poor people can't be heard?