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

Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 596 posts

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#171

Post by skindoe »

kenjackson wrote: post #133
haltingproblem wrote: post #2

I fear Taibbi is right, the suppression by Twitter, irrespective of the merits and veracity of NY Post's report, will now normalize all kinds of behavior by platforms of all kinds big and small. Which will then incentivize governments to take on the platforms. This also raises issues of unequal treatment - say the NY Post report was factually wrong - why pick on the NY Post only? Why not the hundreds of other "news o…

I think delaying the story until it could be somewhat verified is reasonable. I actually read it minutes after it was posted on the NY Post and my first thought was that it sounded like it shouldn’t have been published. I literally thought they’d retract it. I think the internet is breaking into various niche groups. I fully expect there soon to be completely partisan social networks. That’s probably the best way to…

> I fully expect there soon to be completely partisan social networks.

As if that already isn't the case...

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#172

Post by zests »

zachware wrote: post #138

I'm definitely not one closed off to this story, I think it's important. That said I think "we" tend to forget that platforms like Twitter are private companies, we don't really have a "right" to post anything to them. Now if the government had ordered this moderation, that's where the idea of rights and first amendment comes into play. If we're not happy about the moderation we don't have to use the moderating platf…

I do not think anyone is confused about whether or not the bill of rights applies to private companies. Free speech is an idea that can be extended to all types of speech.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#173

Post by jakelazaroff »

chroem- wrote: post #165
zachware wrote: post #138

I'm definitely not one closed off to this story, I think it's important. That said I think "we" tend to forget that platforms like Twitter are private companies, we don't really have a "right" to post anything to them. Now if the government had ordered this moderation, that's where the idea of rights and first amendment comes into play. If we're not happy about the moderation we don't have to use the moderating platf…

> Now if the government had ordered this moderation, that's where the idea of rights and first amendment comes into play. That may be the latest popular interpretation of the bill of rights, but it is absolutely not in the original spirit of its authors. They were defined as "inalienable rights" granted to all people. In other words, your essential human rights to free expression don't get waived depending on who the…

There is no “offending party”. Freedom of speech means speech cannot be compulsory. What would be contrary to the “original spirit” would be forcing Twitter and Facebook to amplify speech they don’t want to.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#174

Post by nwienert »

dang wrote: post #84
nwienert wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even my post trying to discuss suppression of suppression articles, just got suppressed! How suppressing :( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835

Users flagged it. That's usually what happened. Probably in this case it's because metadrama threads like that are a dime-a-dozen and never lead anywhere new - they just become generic hodgepodges.

Of course they flagged it.

Even more ironic is you missed the point of the post anyway, and your core reply here off: it wasn't meta-discussion, it was an entirely different discussion on the overuse of flagging on this site with examples of how it's happening + call for comments specifically on how to change flagging. In fact it was constructive, and the tone tempered.

Not being able to discuss changes to the flag system itself because it gets flagged is a big... red flag.

It's become used for "I personally don't agree with this" instead of "this is off topic, inflammatory, illogical, etc". Once you go down the path of allowing flagging for personal distaste, you've lost.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#175

Post by 23B1 »

mmsmatt wrote: post #152

This has got to be Taibbi click-baiting pro-Trump subscribers. He buries his admission that Trump's Biden/Burisma narrative is a lie so deep in the piece, you really have to trudge through a lot of hand-wringing drivel to find it. You can read 90% of this piece thinking that Taibbi is clearly sympathetic to the Republican narrative, and he gives no indication otherwise!

I read the whole article, though.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#176

Post by srtjstjsj »

haltingproblem wrote: post #59
tracer4201 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liberal wing was upset that state and non state actors influenced the 2016 election by manipulating social media. Now, Twitter is working to suppress some content that they believe is a repeat attempt — the October surprise if you will. I don’t have strong opinions on whether it’s right or wrong, but I don’t think this is a scandal. Twitter is a private company. You don’t have a constitutional right to write what…

You make valid points and I don't know why are you downvoted. But Twitter is not a journalism play, it is a platform play and purported to be neutral. If there is blatant supression then they will antagonize atleast 50% of Americans which would be terrible for their bottom line.

1. Twitter is absolutely a journalism play. Look at the front page.

2. Neutral doesn't mean "whoever can game the algorithm wins"

3. Less than 50% of Americans are opposed to suppressing sharing of articles like the one suppressed.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#177

Post by hackyhacky »

timoth3y wrote: post #96

Many are confusing "censorship" with "content moderation". The difference is very important. Censorship is when you are prevented from publishing on your own platform. Content moderation is when a platform owner choses what can be published on theirs. Twitter decided they did not want their platform used to spread what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda, but they in no way prevented the NY Po…

You can call it "censorship" or "content moderation." I don't care, the distinction is meaningless for this conversation. The only meaningful argument is what Twitter (for example) CAN do (legally), and what they SHOULD do (morally).

Clearly, Twitter is legally in the right to suppress this information, because it's their platform. They can set the content rules as they like, as arbitrarily and capriciously as they like.

More of a judgment call, but I would argue that Twitter is morally in the right as well. This is obviously a case of carefully engineering disinformation, using America's value of freedom of speech against us. If they don't suppress it, Twitter is actively aiding bad actors, with very serious consequences. Twitter does not want to be in the business of content moderation, but in this case the information is question is so obviously falsified; it is spread so obviously in bad faith; and its consequences are so obviously dangerous to the nation, that they are justified in taking a moral stand against it.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#178

Post by beaner »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #155
beaner wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment contains no information about the veracity of the content in question. It's a straight-up ad hominem.

It's not anyone's job to inform you of easily available history. Pointing out that someone is a known liar goes to credibility, and is not as hominem. Calling them "Republican" or would be an ad hominem argument against credibility..

This is a very roundabout way of expressing inability to accept that such a paper may still be more accurate in its reporting than other papers that you prefer.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#179

Post by hackyhacky »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #162
hackyhacky wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cursory reading of the both the data itself and the circumstances by which it came to light will reveal that your interpretation is highly improbable. You can believe what you like. But don't ask me to believe that a person took 3 laptops to a repair company in a state where he doesn't live; that the said company was operated by a blind person; that the security camera footage of the delivery of the laptops was era…

Where are you getting this idea that 3 laptops were dropped off to this repair company? There was one laptop. The repair shop is in Delaware, where Joe Biden was a senator for many decades and where the Bidens have held various political positions for many decades. I suspect that you really don't understand the story that well. That is understandable considering the insane amount of gaslighting, misinformation, and c…

My apologies: one laptop, three hard drives. My point stands.

He had been a senator in Delaware, but no longer lived there at the time. Why would he travel across the country to visit a repair shop in the middle of nowhere with a conveniently blind owner and conveniently erased camera footage. There is no universe in which this story is plausible.

Before accusing me of not understanding the story, please take a moment to read what I wrote. You are contributing to the gaslighting around this topic.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#180

Post by nwienert »

nkurz wrote: post #110
dang wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users flagged it. That's usually what happened. Probably in this case it's because metadrama threads like that are a dime-a-dozen and never lead anywhere new - they just become generic hodgepodges.

> Probably in this case it's because metadrama threads like that are a dime-a-dozen and never lead anywhere new I think that's unlikely. While it would be great to know why users flag the stories that they flag (feature request?) in this case I'd wager heavily that it was flagged by people who feel the underlying story is false and unworthy of public discussion, and not out of concern that the discussion would be bor…

Thanks for vouching, that was the thread I linked in the GP post dang was replying to. Constructive ideation on fixing a community problem of censorship is now "metadrama", Orwellian. I'm open to it not being a problem, but we can't even have that discussion.

Taibbi frequently gets flagged, he's not liberal enough for the site. I don't have the motivation to now but if someone wrote a "HN has a flagging problem" and got lucky with timing, maybe they'd listen? I may have to just accept one of the last decent sites for discussing tech events is going down the same path as the rest of them, though tbh it's been on the path for a long time now (I've noticed at least 15 decent articles in the last year flagged for essentially being "not liberal" despite high quality content).

Post reply on HN