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

331–340 of 596 posts

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#331

Post by mshroyer »

hackyhacky wrote: post #151
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…

They're not suppressing the article because it's wrong, but because it's pretty obviously intentionally planted misinformation disguised as news. Twitter has a choice: either they can suppress it; or they can be pawns of whatever bad actors are creating this disinformation. It's a hard choice, and clearly it's a struggle that as a society we have to deal with. Right now, creating and distributing disinformation is ea…

> because it's pretty obviously intentionally planted misinformation disguised as news

"misinformation" implies it's false. What's the evidence for this?

I'm as skeptical as anyone about the actual provenance of the information, but to my understanding, nobody in the Biden campaign has so far denied the material's legitimacy.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#332

Post by mshroyer »

creato wrote: post #311
jkhdigital wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“pretty obviously intentionally planted misinformation disguised as news” I am astonished at your blinding confidence in your ability to distinguish misinformation from news. You must be a Facebook content moderator ::snicker::

I can't tell you for sure if this story is misinformation or not. That's part of the problem with misinformation. Well constructed misinformation is not easily proven false. What I can tell you is that it is absurd to believe it is true given what we know about the details surrounding the "discovery" of the information.

I'd be with you if the Biden campaign denied the material's legitimacy. So far, at least as far as I'm aware, they haven't.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#333

Post by ben509 »

ketamine__ wrote: post #132
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content moderation is a form of censorship. Censorship isn't always bad. You can look up the history of the term if you want (hint: it shares the same origin as the term "census"). A closely related phenomenon to the pathological applications of censorship is the abuse and redefinition of language for political purposes like what you're doing.

The NY Post doesn't own the copyright to the photos it is publishing. Imagine if someone stole your laptop and published all your photos. I hope someone can step in and do to the Post what Peter Thiel did to Gawker.

Hunter Biden left his laptop at the repair shop and never paid for the repairs. After waiting the legally required 90 days, the repair shop became the rightful owner of the laptop and its contents.

Once they owned those photos, they had every right to publish them or do whatever they wanted.

The least the press could ask VP Biden would be, "will you pledge that your son will not be involved in any sensitive discussions or allowed access to any sensitive material?"

Even if there were no corrupt actions at all, Hunter Biden represents every kind of HUMINT leverage imaginable.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#334

Post by bassman9000 »

pron wrote: post #223
bassman9000 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really long way of trying to justify unfairness under some arbitrary criteria. If Twitter's policy is to surpress under some criteria (e.g. data illegally obtained), and they're not doing so every single time (they don't), then they're unfair on the arbitrary application of that criteria.

The criterion can be that stories that are unfairly promoted are penalised. HN does something similar.

Thus paving the way for being arbitrary. Because the decision of what's fair is hidden. That's not criteria: is lack of.

I understand you can't 100% define what's fair. That's why judges interpret. But if Jack has to come out to state they screwed up, something's not right. And they're not fixing it, by design: decisions will still be made by highly biased Twitter personnel.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#335

Post by skinkestek »

j8hn wrote: post #298
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)

Yikes, I never really paid attention to how creepy and inappropriate he was with little girls and young women.

Just remember:

Just like with DT this is also pulled out of context. I don't like any of them and won't (and can't) vote for any of them so I have no dog in the fight.

That website shouldn't have been blocked, whoever did it should probably been charged with election meddling but it doesn't change my view of Biden.

As for the videos I think many of them shows him (clumsily) trying to comfort people.

Again - I'm also the guy who points out that "fine people on both sides" as presented in mainstream media is a hoax.

I don't like either if them but think we should be fair to both if them.

If I lived in the US my lawn sign would be "Any Reasonable Person".

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#336

Post by zajio1am »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #265
chroem- wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your implication is that Twitter and Facebook are human beings, and I think a majority of people would contest that idea. What I am saying is that the authors of the bill of rights did not intend for a person's human rights to go away the moment they are persecuted by an entity other than the United States federal government.

The New York Post is also not a human being, for that matter. But I wasn’t implying that. People want to use Twitter’s property to spread a message, and Twitter said no. That’s not “persecution”, it just means they have to find some other way to do it. If I get kicked out of a bar because I say something the owners don’t like, I’m not being persecuted — even if I think it’s unfair.

> If I get kicked out of a bar because I say something the owners don’t like, I’m not being persecuted — even if I think it’s unfair.

In some countries that would be violation of consumer protection laws. If some service or product is offered to a general public, than arbitrary exclusion of a consumer is illegal in some jurisdictions.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#337

Post by timoth3y »

nanis wrote: post #237
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…

I am always impressed when people make these kinds of absolute statements about the primacy of private property rights. Now, let's consider: * Alice should be able to choose without restriction to whom she is going to rent * Bob should be able to choose without restriction who's allowed to play golf at his club * Carlos should be able to choose without restriction to whom his bank is going to lend money etc. I am not…

> I am saying when you say "Twitter is a private company. They can choose without restriction who's allowed to use their platform,"

That's a straw man. I never said anything like what you are pretending I said. They obviously could not ban users on the basis of race or religion or a number of other criteria.

But that's not really what's under discussion. The question is should Twitter (or other platforms) lose their right to moderate content when they become successful?

I don't think they should.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#338

Post by skinkestek »

TravHatesMe wrote: post #300
crocodiletears wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalists and commentators are the ones acting out of political expediency. The platforms themselves are a mixed bag, occasionaly banning content that represents legitimate disinformation, but often suppressing information that's contextually true, or conflicts with an existing broader social narrative which the moderator required to inspect the content has bought into. The human moderators are often inconsistent.…

Happy to see people think for themselves and form their own opinion. Good balance in your comment. You left room for doubt and rationally stated the reasons behind your opinion. Refreshing. Thank you.

Seconded. Refreshing.

I also try to do the same[1] but crocodiletears did much better.

[1]: you'll find me pointing out the "fine people on both sides" has been debunked and asking questions about the Hunter Biden disk.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#339

Post by CamTin »

dlp211 wrote: post #279
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not clear why this would be the case. Why should we care which "party" somebody is from when then issue at hand is a revolving door between DC and the Valley? The military-industrial complex has done fine under a two-party system and so presumably will the private-public corporate surveillance state. Everybody in power in the US has to pick one of two letters to put after their name, but they're all part of the same ruling class.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#340

Post by rayiner »

TwoBit wrote: post #208
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…

Fox News has been suppressing the truth for 20 years now and where are the complaints about that?

What Fox News was since Ailes took over, CNN and MSNBC have become. That's something to be really worried about. For a long time, I read the NYT and watched CNN. I never felt the need to check in and see what Fox was saying until the last 2-3 years. Now I do, because I don't trust that I'm getting the whole story.
Post reply on HN