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

271–280 of 596 posts

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#271

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #137
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a moral principle. Content moderation decisions can adhere to this principle or not. Removal of viagra bot spam from a blog comment section is a clear example where content moderation adheres to the principles of free speech. Removing content on a platform like Twitter simply because the Silicon Valley elitists/leftists that run Twitter don't like it is not in keeping with the principle of free speech…

"Content moderation" is about the speech someone running a website is willing to participate in. Requiring them to publish everything their users post would be what's called "coerced speech", which happens to be single biggest no-no of the legal concept of freedom of speech. Forcing someone to say something against their will is considered far worse than preventing someone from saying something they want to say. That…

> "Forcing someone to say something against their will"

As many on HN have said in the past, corporations aren't people. Speaking about their will makes no sense.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#272

Post by j8hn »

hackyhacky wrote: post #143
centimeter wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security There's no sane way to interpret twitter's actions as anything except censorship. The fact that they're legally entitled to commit this censorship doesn't make it something else.

To have a sensible conversation, we have to acknowledge what the alleged Biden emails are: at best, stolen information; and at worst, intentionally manipulated or fabricated information. In either case, the information is being released now for the explicit goal of altering the outcome of the election in favor of those who are releasing it. We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach…

I don't think either of your opinions have to be acknowledged or assumed in order to have a sensible conversation about this issue.

"We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach so many people with such bad information."

Is this a literal statement?

Is it bad information?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#273

Post by jsu32 »

linuxhansl wrote: post #267

Meh... Call me unimpressed. Twitter refrained from forwarding a story to which there is no factual basis. You can of course still read it with the New York Post if you so desire. That's all there is to it.

Was the story that the NY Post article was the result of Russian 'disinformation' based on facts? Because Twitter did nothing to stop that, not a fact check, not a block, nothing. Twitter was certain that 'story' was true, but the FBI (who said they have no evidence the Russians did it) was clueless?

If I may, the reason you are unimpressed is that you are on the political side that benefited from Twitter's selective bias this time around. Next time you may not be as lucky tho.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#274

Post by centimeter »

hackyhacky wrote: post #143
centimeter wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security There's no sane way to interpret twitter's actions as anything except censorship. The fact that they're legally entitled to commit this censorship doesn't make it something else.

To have a sensible conversation, we have to acknowledge what the alleged Biden emails are: at best, stolen information; and at worst, intentionally manipulated or fabricated information. In either case, the information is being released now for the explicit goal of altering the outcome of the election in favor of those who are releasing it. We haven't had this issue in history before: it's never been so easy to reach…

> stolen information

Who the hell cares if the information was stolen? Jeffrey Epstein's little black book was "stolen information" - do you object to using that information to make an indictment?

> intentionally misleading information

Crazy how a credible leak is "intentionally misleading" when it's politically inconvenient.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#275

Post by csours »

> "The Republican version of Burisma story – essentially, that former General Prosecutor Viktor Shokin was Elliott Ness, and Joe Biden intervened to fire him specifically to aid his son’s company – is also not supported by evidence. What Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his cohorts have done to date is take a few unreported or under-reported facts and leap straight to a maximalist interpretation of corruption on Joe Biden’s part.

This isn’t right, ..."

It feels like we're learning again how terrible propaganda is, and how to deal with it in a new medium.

I do not claim to be fair or smart or scalable enough to tackle the problem of propaganda, and in fact, I think at times propaganda can be used for good.

However, Matt Taibbi has failed at least as much as Twitter and Facebook have in handling this.

Propaganda needs context. Twitter and Fb were not prepared to provide the context, and so they removed the story. Matt provides some context, but it is buried deep in his post, in the absolutely least likely place for it to be read: the paragraphs right before the last paragraph.

When dealing with propaganda, provide the context front and center.

---

The answer for bad speech is famously 'more speech'. But what is the answer for poisoning the well of public discourse? I think this is the most important question of our day, the crux of the information age. Information is cheap, speech is cheap. I know society has gotten over it in the past, and I have some faith that we will again, but don't pretend it is easy.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#276

Post by AgentME »

throwawayay02 wrote: post #105
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…

Twitter did not decide that in good faight. First, because they are used as a public platform, like it or not, and as such they are not expected to moderate anything. People follow or block what they want. And second, because they are biased in their censorship and are not forthcoming about it.

Every public platform would look exactly like your email's spam folder if they weren't expected to moderate anything.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#278

Post by mjfl »

TwoBit wrote: post #206
platz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda was it?

I don't know about Russian involvement, but it was clearly a right wing attempt to meddle in the election to achieve a last minute bomb on their opponent like in 2016.

If something is going to be suppressed as Russian propaganda, there better be evidence that it is Russian propaganda. Otherwise the suppression itself is propaganda in the other direction.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#279

Post by dlp211 »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #238
hackyhacky wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Power leakage" is inevitable. Everyone has political opinions. Most cops are Republicans. That alone doesn't mean that they're incapable of doing their job competently. What you're doing amounts to an ad hominem attack: you're criticizing the person delivering the message, rather than the message itself.

I'm not talking about political opinions, I'm talking about highly connected political operatives in positions of power within these companies. Liz Bourgeois would be an example of such a person. She was Assistant Press Secretary at the DNC and prior to that was a Legislative Correspondant for Nancy Pelosi and Debbi Wasserman Shultz. Now she works as "Director, Strategic Response Communications" at Facebook.

This would be a valid criticism if these companies didn't hire top tier operatives from both parties and donate substantial amounts via their PACs to both.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#280

Post by briefcomment »

jessaustin wrote: post #112
crocodiletears wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been the reality for people on the political fringes for some time now. Unfortunately nobody's been paying attention to it due in large part to the commentariat/journalistic class's willingness to encourage and provide cover for this behavior as a matter of political expedience. Another example: Messenger's been blocking links to joebiden.info (this may have changed, it's been six months since I've checked)

I'm glad HN didn't block that link. I've learned a great deal that will affect my vote in the upcoming election.

Holy crap, those kids are so uncomfortable. The first girl, Senator Chris Coons’ daughter, is apparently on Hunter’s laptop.
Post reply on HN