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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by cm2187 »

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…

1) the emails weren't hacked

2) the NYT articles about Trump's tax returns that were obviously obtained illegally weren't given the same treatment.

3) apparently tweets were also blocked based on hashtags: https://twitter.com/ChrisGolas/status/1316806523243225095

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

#942

Post by PhilosAccnting »

jMyles wrote: post #842
croes wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides if a newspaper is a newspaper or just a tabloid?

You mean a broadsheet vs a tabloid? Some newspapers are in a broadsheet format, others in a tabloid format (and some, in other less common formats). The tabloid format is often used to shock. Is any of this in dispute?

I don't think anyone's debating your claim. It's a fascinating point of view, and reflects closely to the conveyed image of the matter.

What people are disputing, though, is more closely tied to the story. Right now, many people see NYT and WaPo as NYPost-likes regarding their journalistic rigor.

If it feels like Windows and runs like Windows, but has a different-ish UI, people will treat it like it's Windows-esque even if it's Linux.

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

#943

Post by krimeo »

barbacoa wrote: post #865
Robotbeat wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn’t a credible argument. Why would Hunter Biden, whose dad is running for President, leave his laptop at a Trump-supporting discount computer repair shop without paying with (supposedly) incriminating emails on it? It’s so convoluted... it only makes sense if you wanted to fabricate cover for illegally hacking someone’s data (or more likely, modified and/or falsified data) and releasing it. As it is, the compu…

Why would you smoke crack when you know the navy would drug test you? Why would you knock up a stripper while cheating on your dead brothers widow who you were also dating? How the contents of that laptop made their way to the news is a bizarre story. But that dude also made some bizarre decisions.

> Why would you smoke crack when you know the navy would drug test you?

Because you are addicted.

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

#944

Post by krimeo »

cm2187 wrote: post #941
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…

1) the emails weren't hacked 2) the NYT articles about Trump's tax returns that were obviously obtained illegally weren't given the same treatment. 3) apparently tweets were also blocked based on hashtags: https://twitter.com/ChrisGolas/status/1316806523243225095

> 2) the NYT articles about Trump's tax returns that were obviously obtained illegally weren't given the same treatment.

This, the unbelievably biased treatment of this throughout the media and social media and good old qui bono tells me all I need to know.

Everything else is just technical details.

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

#945

Post by andy_ppp »

swebs wrote: post #938
andy_ppp wrote: post #474

Is Twitter down? I don’t know where to look to check if everyone can see if Twitter is down...

Are you using Firefox? There's been a bug affecting Twitter the past few days. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1665368

No it really was down it turns out: https://status.twitterstat.us/pages/history/564314ae3309c22c...

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

#946

Post by dudul »

mdoms wrote: post #620
rllearneratwork wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speech, trust me the USA in its current state is hundred million times better and more just. Free speech is just super fundamental. So, in my opinion, nothing restricting free speech is acceptable - the downsides of that are just too enormous. We need to learn to l…

Counter point, I live in a country with no constitutional free speech and a government with a censorship office, and this country is free and open and a wonderful place to live. So you're going to have to find a better causation theory.

Maybe it's a wonderful place for you because your specific speech is not suppressed. Maybe not all your citizens think that way.

Based on the description I would be interested to know which country we're talking about.

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

#947

Post by JohnBooty »

frankzen wrote: post #760

They're a publisher that edits content, plain and simple. Take away the platform status and let them play by the same rules as other publishers.

You realize that this also applies to Hacker News, right? Browse with "showdead" on and see what has been killed by centralized and/or community moderation.

(I happen to think the HN team and community do a fine job of it)

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

#948

Post by JohnBooty »

joeloya wrote: post #282

The Galileo Principle. If you and everybody else is trying to silence something. You probably are on the wrong side of history.

Ridiculous.

Galileo was persecuted and could have been killed for his "crimes."

That is not comparable to Twitter refusing to allow your content on its platform. It is not "silencing" when you can publish it elsewhere or make your own platform.

It is of course dangerous and fallacious to automatically assume the majority is correct, But it is even more absurd to assume an idea is correct because it exists in the margins.

- Lots of folks said it was absurd that there were canals on Mars, presumably populated by little green men.

- The vast majority of people mock the idea of a "Flat Earth"

- The majority of people think the antivax movement is dangerous and dumb

- Anybody with even a minimal science background understands that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, and that anybody who thinks they've created one is delusional or fraudulent.

- etc. etc. etc.

I feel pretty confident I'm on the right side of history. At least as far as those examples go.

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

#949

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

rayiner wrote: post #89
dkackman11 wrote: post #48

Maybe getting rid of professional journalism, and crowd sourcing the news via secret algorithms, isn't such a great idea after all...

The “professional journalists” aren’t that great either. The field has been overtaken by 20 year olds. Even Matt Yglesias, who has spent most of his career to the left of Democrats as a whole, has been grumbling on his podcast about journalists these days failing to respect the difference between journalism and advocacy. Matt Taibbi (who I don’t like as a person but who is at least a real journalist) has written an e…

Another part of the problem of journalism/advocacy is cancel culture. Some people want to deny that it exists, or that it's problem, even if it does. But it's precisely the reason that you felt the need to virtue-signal that you didn't like Taibbi (whoever he/she is; I don't know). Everyone feels the need to "take sides" in whatever is being discussed. All of this tribalism is part and parcel to the problem you're decrying. It's the thing that's blurring the line. The twenty-somethings have been raised in this culture, and it is a normal function of society to them. Only people in middle age or better can readily remember what the world looked like before the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, and opened the gates for pure advocacy. We're all living in Rush Limbaugh's media world now, and Twitter just gives everyone a platform, and takes it to the extreme.

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

#950

Post by brandmeyer »

fareesh wrote: post #885
brandmeyer wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't get your head around which part? The idea that the White House Press Secretary would tweet ban-worthy remarks? Or the part where Twitter banned the account?

If the Press Secretary makes ban-worthy remarks, the people have a right to know what those remarks are. This is basically secrecy, not ban-worthy remarks. She said something that the public is not allowed to know.

The moment she started speaking on behalf of the Trump campaign she stopped acting in her role as an agent of the government, and became a spokesperson for the campaign.
Post reply on HN