Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Oh noes, my beloved hacker news has sunk down into the political morass. I think the bigger picture, and meta topic here is that private companies have become the arbiters of what is and what is not appropriate social discourse. We as a society have chosen to let the Marks and Jacks of the world decide what is appropriate to publish. I think the bigger part of the problem is that while we sit and argue about whether…

This is a rare case where the political class actually has a better grasp of the root cause of a social problem, and is further along in solving it, than the people at large.

In the past year, we've seen both sides of the aisle clamoring to repeal CDA 230, while the public is split between either not caring or recoiling in horror at the thought.

I don't believe for a second that the repeal of the CDA is really on the table in Washington. If they wanted to do it, they would have done it. But that would nuke Google, Facebook, and Twitter, all at once. (I personally don't think that would be all that bad for the internet or society in general, but I digress.) But they (meaning the swamp creatures, Trump included) realize now how much power they hold over Big Tech via this law, and how much influence they can exert over the world with this power. And they realize how bad it would be for the US stock market (which all of Washington worships as their god) if the tech giants failed all at once.

I believe Techlash will either kill these companies or transform them, and I think that much is inevitable. That is why Zuckerberg straight up asked for regulation. He wants the government to save his company. We will probably see a series of regulations that places these giants under the control of Washington. Maybe it's time to put forward some kind of tech Bill of Rights now to limit what the government can do with our data beyond what's already prohibited in the actual Bill of Rights. Things like "No about queries." "No recording conversations in the home." etc.

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

#962
post #124

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…

I agree. We have no reason to give our data and power of speech to these shit companies. We need a decentralized authority in charge of social networks. Nothing these companies provide is of any substantial value that cannot be open sourced and decentralized.

How do you go about decentralizing it? I'm fairly new to the industry and have career aspirations in this direction, so please fix what I'm missing:

1. Build out a good FOSS alternative.

2. Market the snot out of it until the unteched masses use it.

3. ??? open a foundation with that niche's leaders, or something?

4. FOSS is the new normal for that niche.

(edited for line breaks)

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

#963
post #793

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…

"A spokesman for the Biden campaign, Andrew Bates, said that Mr. Biden’s official schedules showed no meeting between Mr. Biden and the advisor." Sounds different to Biden did not meet the advisor. Overly specific dementi are suspicious. And is GRU using authentic emails or fake ones? Because if they are valid, it doesn't matter who obtained them. Just like when the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders during Hillary Clinton's…

I don't understand why any of this matters. Is it just to paint Biden with a 'corruption' brush? Trump's family has already been shown to have done as much or worse than these claims against Hunter, and Trump's network of hotels have been raking in cash for access (recent NYT story: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/10/us/trump-prop...).

This is such a strange argument.

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

#964
post #124

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…

I agree. We have no reason to give our data and power of speech to these shit companies. We need a decentralized authority in charge of social networks. Nothing these companies provide is of any substantial value that cannot be open sourced and decentralized.

my question is how we decentralize it without allowing child exploitation etc. it seems like you need moderation at some level but the second you add it, they have the leeway to abuse that authority for political reasons

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

#965

This is the Streisand effect in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Here in Czechia we mostly concentrate on our outrageous Covid numbers of late, but this story about Twitter pulling down a NY Post article made it through into our local news. If it stayed up, no one would have cared enough to write about it.

Not really. I think most people take a glance "Biden, Hunter, Burisma" and tune out -- they decided long ago what they think of the matter. The only news here is Twitter/FB's policies -- which is what people are actually discussing. So, respectfully, I don't think this is the Streisand effect at all in this case.

[deleted]

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

#966

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.

You are still surrounded by people with the same ideologies, it's just harder to hear us because of the noise. The people who are pro-censorship and regulation have never been a friend to the internet or its philosophies.

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

#967

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.

Biden was the Vice President; what if he did meet this person in passing and the GRU has a photo of the brief head to head encounter, or there is a doctored photo ready for him to deny a meeting.

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

#968
post #964

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. We have no reason to give our data and power of speech to these shit companies. We need a decentralized authority in charge of social networks. Nothing these companies provide is of any substantial value that cannot be open sourced and decentralized.

my question is how we decentralize it without allowing child exploitation etc. it seems like you need moderation at some level but the second you add it, they have the leeway to abuse that authority for political reasons

That question could be rephrased as "how much entropy should a system have?"

Specifically, I refer to "chaos/evil" as a type of entropy. It's a perversion of virtue. We live in a world system that always seems to have self-interest in there somewhere, but self-interest taken to extremes becomes evil.

So, "Freedom v2.2" is a system that allows for some entropy to motivate independent decisions that affect the public good (e.g., an entrepreneur), but are also punitive toward the public bad (e.g., child porn).

The real battle here that becomes political is the quantity and scope of controls. Generally, in the USA, the Republicans are presently leaning away from more controls and the Democrats toward it. The voter decides based on whether they think the system is self-correcting.

Or, to put another way, the entire essence of free information is either a self-correcting negative feedback loop (like the stock market) or a holy-crap-let's-stop-this-train-before-we-all-die positive feedback loop (like a horrifically dysfunctional family).

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

#969
post #930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe free amplification is terrible. Why? So that poor people can't be heard?

You are confused with the meaning of "free" in this context.

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

#970

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People were also stopped from sending the article in a private direct message In this instance, the solution has already reached beyond the realm of "don't allow certain things to be amplified". You literally cannot share this information even in a private 1-on-1 chat. > we go back to uncurated things Yeah. The more I reflect on things the more I think social networks are just a thing that shouldn't exist. Although…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN