Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#31

Post by jchw »

kobayashi wrote: post #5

I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...

Note that the article in question is not suggesting the story is true and goes as far as to paint a picture that it is surely sensational and intentionally misleading. It is specifically interested in a change to the nature of which social media companies partake in censorship of information in a way that is unprecedented.

Personally, I think that Facebook and Twitter are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If they do interfere and censor perceived misinformation, they run the very real, maybe inevitable chance of censoring information that is, in fact, true, or maybe just as bad, censoring misinformation with bias. On the other hand, if they do not interfere, they will surely be blamed for not doing anything to curb the misinformation spread on their platforms.

I think it’s all a symptom of the fact that social media websites like Facebook and Twitter that are effectively unmoderated trash fires should probably just not exist. Exactly why they should not exist is up for grabs but my personal pick is the seemingly reduced-to-zero liability they seem to have on many horrible things going on on their platform that wouldn’t be looked over on a small forum even if the owner tried to claim it was “unmoderated.”

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#32

Post by iaw »

indy wrote: post #26
kobayashi wrote: post #5

I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...

That thread questions how the data was acquired, not any of the claims against Hunter Biden

If the data was acquired through an alternative means then what was stated doesn't that raise questions about the validity of the claims against Hunter Biden?

I mean, liars are gonna lie about more than one thing.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#33

Post by iaw »

woo01 wrote: post #30
kobayashi wrote: post #5

I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...

The emails have already been confirmed to be real, at least some of them. The technician spoke on record about getting the laptop from the owner who abandoned it, and by law became his. There are gaps in the story that need to be investigated, but who the heck are Facebook and Twitter to make that call minutes/hours after the story broke?? This is not some weird obscure conspiracy story. The other thing here is the d…

DKIM?

Link to independent (non-tabloid) confirmation?

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#34

Post by deeg »

laurent92 wrote: post #20
deeg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would work that well. Phone conversations are private and so there won't be much pressure to crack down on hateful or false conversations. Social media is very public. I'd say it's closer to radio than telephone.

Should radio be state-controlled? For me, democracy has 4 pillars that must be independent, and currently are not is most countries: executive, legislative, judicial and media. The 4th one is controversial but nonetheless necessary for the country to be a democracy. Democracy without equal speech time for all parties isn’t a democracy – it is like Singapore, a single-party democracy. Finally, we must have a populatio…

I don't have a good answer. My original comment was just to point out that I don't believe social media can be treated like the telephone.

From a legal/political standpoint SM is on new ground: a privately owned (i.e. non government) platform but with massive reach. Free speech laws are aimed at the government so should they be applied to private companies? I can understand both sides and I don't think there's an obvious solution.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#35

Post by iaw »

2bitencryption wrote: post #25
kobayashi wrote: post #5

I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...

Not saying it's not accurate, but if you want to debunk a news publication, I think a more reliable source is needed than some guy on Twitter... "The claims in that news publication were totally fake and deserve to be censored -- here, check out this Twitter user who has the real truth!" In other words, when debunking an article as true/false, I think extra rigor needs to be put into the debunking -- you can't debunk…

The twitter user is making a rational argument about the claims in the tabloid article. The twitter users claims are demonstrably true. There is no trust involved in understanding the twitter users thesis.

There are oodles of trust involved when you trust a tabloid.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#37

Post by vinhboy »

wyxuan wrote: post #16

I don't think that this article is very honest in the other lurking factor: Russian hackers. The NYT reported that US intelligence officials picked up on conversations that there was to be an October surprise [0] that was designed to throw a monkey wrench in the US election. It would be straight up dangerous to society if the false narrative created by a Russian disinfo was allowed to spread, and in that sense, the c…

I started following Glenn Greenwald since he first became popular with Snowden. 80% of his FB is defending Republicans against Russia related allegations.

I no longer trust him, and by association, The Intercept. Of all the government corruption that happened in the last four years, the only time he really speak up is when it's against Democrats. I am not saying his writing is bad, or that he doesn't make some valid points, but I question his motives.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#38

Post by elevenoh »

2bitencryption wrote: post #25
kobayashi wrote: post #5

I strongly disagree. This thread breaks down the ridiculous nature of the claim and makes clear why the spread of (likely purposeful) misinformation in the lead up to one of the most impactful elections in US history. https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316844679783223297?s...

Not saying it's not accurate, but if you want to debunk a news publication, I think a more reliable source is needed than some guy on Twitter... "The claims in that news publication were totally fake and deserve to be censored -- here, check out this Twitter user who has the real truth!" In other words, when debunking an article as true/false, I think extra rigor needs to be put into the debunking -- you can't debunk…

Agree.. It looks to me like 95%+ of those commenting on this in tech circles haven't actually read the NY Post article.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#39

Post by geofft »

nilkn wrote: post #4

This Biden story was unlikely to cost him the election. But censoring it is going to be prime fuel for the right leading into the election and is a much bigger story than what was censored. This was a stupendously naive move.

Strategically, the left needs to stop worrying about providing "fuel for the right." They will find fuel, no matter what. This should have been abundantly clear after the entire Benghazi saga. Statistically, an event like an attack on a US embassy in a dangerous part of the world is going to happen at some point - you can't completely avoid it. While there absolutely should be a legitimate postmortem on how to reduce the dangers, the extent to which this event was seized and the four martyred patriots' lives were turned into a tool to win the election should make it clear that anything can be turned into fuel.

The left needs to worry about accomplishing its policy goals and convincing people that left-wing approaches will improve their lives, and then it won't matter how much fuel the right gathers.

Re: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line in Censorship

#40

Post by iaw »

geofft wrote: post #29

> State censorship is not the only kind of censorship. Private-sector repression of speech and thought, particularly in the internet era, can be as dangerous and consequential. Imagine, for instance, if these two Silicon Valley giants united with Google to declare: henceforth we will ban all content that is critical of President Trump and/or the Republican Party, but will actively promote criticisms of Joe Biden and…

There is some level of irony that Republicans, who are notoriously anti-regulation, want more regulation when an unregulated industry negatively impacts them.
Post reply on HN