Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story • Hacker News Board

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#381

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:26 AM UTC

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #367

jakelazaroff wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertisements posted by bots are not written by human beings acting in good faith in the pursuit of truth. So if Twitter didn't believe that the New York Post article was written by people acting in "good faith in the pursuit of truth", it's okay to censor? The intentions of the speaker and the value of their speech are subjective. It's fine to argue that we should be okay with censoring some thing you don't like.…

> you're just arguing for others to adopt your own boundaries of what's acceptable By virtue of operating under the principle of respecting free speech you are making a value judgement and asserting a set of values. There is no panacea or pure criteria you can use besides no content moderation at all. I give the example of spam posted by bots as what I think is an obvious and non-controversial example of content that…

You are correct, I don’t understand what you’re saying. I agree that there is no panacea or set of pure criteria other than not moderating at all. But there is also no singular principle of free speech beyond that, either — just different sets of tradeoffs that try to cultivate discourse that the moderator thinks is valuable. My issue is that people tend to present their own preferred set of tradeoffs as the One True Set that embodies the principle of free speech.

You mentioned “good faith” before, so let’s say that’s our operating principle: all parties must be speaking in good faith. Now consider that Twitter suppresses the New York Post because they believe they’re publishing in bad faith. Twitter is still adhering to our set of free speech tradeoffs. So why is this comment section full of people saying they’re not upholding the spirit of free speech?

It’s because they want Twitter to make a different set of tradeoffs. That’s fine, and I’m happy to have that discussion. But not when it masquerades as a discussion about whether Twitter suppressing this article is somehow incompatible with free speech as a concept.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#382

Post by comex » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:26 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #320

hackyhacky wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They're not suppressing the article because it's wrong, but because it's pretty obviously intentionally planted misinformation disguised as news. This would be a more credible assertion if the media hasn’t spent 3 years reporting totally random shit as “bombshells.” Taibbi, himself a left-leaning journalist (formerly at Rolling Stone) has catalogued these at length on his substack. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the…

> Taibbi, himself a left-leaning journalist (formerly at Rolling Stone)

Yes, he's the type of 'left-leaning' person who described a book about white privilege as "Hitlerian race theory" and wokeness as "mak[ing] the Junior Anti-Sex League seem like Led Zeppelin" [2], and also described not only what you (and he) call 'Russiagate', but the Ukraine incident as well, as a "permanent coup" [3] where Democrats' conduct was more corrupt than the conduct being investigated. Sure. I guess you could call it 'alt-left'.

> has catalogued these at length on his substack.

If there's a full list of supposedly false "bombshells", it's not publicly available at that link. But it's strange that its lead example is the Times' exposé of Trump's taxes, which even it admits is "real information" that suggests "potentially real" tax fraud (plus Trump not being as wealthy as claimed, what a surprise). Should it not be news that the Times found what Trump had been going out of his way to conceal for four years? Because the darkest speculation from the past proved false – speculation by random pundits, mind you (Taibbi doesn't link to anything from the Times, though for all I know there might have been some op-ed by someone) – does that make Times' report somehow fraudulent?

> In the cold light of the morning after, even WaPo has criticized the coverage over stories sources from the Steele Dossier

Rachel Maddow is a terrible journalist who makes exaggerated claims about all sorts of things. I wish she was not on the air, and Erik Wemple of the Washington Post was right to criticize her. But she is not representative of "the media"; she is rather unusual as left-leaning TV figures go. (Her "less degreed critics" on Fox News are far worse.)

But you didn't link to the Washington Post article. You linked to a Mercury News article that briefly mentions it. The Mercury News article, however, is full of misinformation. For example, it claims that Mueller investigation found "no evidence of actionable Trump obstruction". Well, technically, yes – because it assumed it could not indict a sitting president under any circumstances. The report suggested that the behavior would have been indictable otherwise, though it officially did not make a determination one way or the other.

[1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility

[2] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/if-its-not-cancel-culture-what...

[3] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#383

Post by bgentry » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:29 AM UTC

nearbuy wrote: post #376

bgentry wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if if the content is true and in the public interest, there is really no question about the legality of publishing it in the US: it is 100% constitutionally protected. Twitter’s initial justification for removing the “hacked” material is completely at odds with their past decisions to leave up hacked/illegally obtained materials like the Snowden docs, Trump tax returns, Panama papers, etc. Of course they have sin…

That's exactly why it's a legal grey area. We don't know if the content is true or forged. Publishing stolen content is illegal unless you can prove it's in the public interest, and even if some of it is, it's doubtful the personal photos are.

Even if the content of the leaks was fake, which we have no evidence to indicate and none of the key actors have really claimed (as opposed to the story about how they were obtained), it would still be legal to publish it because the public officials involved mean it has a clear public interest.

There’s the possibility of civil damages if it amounts to defamation, but that’s quite a standard to reach. Such damages would fall on the publisher of the story, the NY Post, but not a platform like Twitter (per section 230 safe harbor immunity). There is no legal gray area here.

This is the same reason why those who publicized the now widely rebuked Steele Dossier are not facing legal consequences for it (including Twitter), nor should they.

Of course your original comment said nothing about the accuracy of the reporting and instead only made the claim that there was a legal gray area around publishing hacked materials like these, which is simply not true.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#384

Post by dillondoyle » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:33 AM UTC

platz wrote: post #108

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…

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

There's strong evidence

Trump's own government warned Trump that Giuliani was being targeted. [1] Guliani met with Derkach in Ukraine explicitly to get dirt on Biden - incredibly in the middle of impeachment surrounding Ukraine.. Derkach is a known Russian agent (recently placed on sanctions list - the timing must be noted as well). [2]

It's been reported that the Biden emails were already being pitched around the time Guliani was in Ukraine - which throws into question the timeline of this computer repair story. [3]

Burisma emails were also hacked, and it was widely reported that Russia was going to use them for an 'October surprise.' Hacking emails/iCloud etc is a proven method employed by Russia/GRU many many times for similar political interference over the last 4 years. [4]

Russia is also known to have mixed false materials into legitimate hacked materials in FR-17 - which is a reported reason why FB/TW/the legitimate press has refused to spread this [5]

It should also be noted that the Trump campaign shopped the story around and not even the Journal (and evidently Fox News too) wouldn't report on it. [6]

It's been widely reported that the FBI is currently investigating. [7]

Though personally I call F U on Trump's DNI going on Fox News while the FBI sends a 'won't break longstanding precedent to comment' letter to Congress. [7]

While not the same as a reciprocal 'Comey disclosure' at least someone is leaking enough to the press that we know the above. Ironically let's hope for more in the the way of Comey -> Richman -> NyTimes

an addition. while not fact, Putin going to the press to 'reject' this story feels very very much in line with trolling and his underlying effort to just make one question what is real and mess with us [8]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi... [2] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1118 [3] https://time.com/5902557/hunter-biden-rudy-giuliani-ukraine/ [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-... [5] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/T... [6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-... [7] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...

[8] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-putin/putin-...

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#385

Post by tt433 » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:34 AM UTC

pseudo0 wrote: post #355

hackyhacky wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

According to the FBI[0] and the DNI[1], there is no evidence indicating that Hunter Biden's laptop is misinformation. Given that some of the emails have been independently verified by their recipients who have made statements on the record[2], and Joe Biden's campaign still has not disputed the emails' authenticity, the vast majority of the evidence points towards this material being authentic. The media and big tech…

I mean it's a false equivalency in the first place to put Hunter in some special bad place while the First Children reap the rewards of nepotism themselves. Misinformation doesn't need to be foreign, just good enough swill to distract some people from the important abuses of power.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#386

Post by triceratops » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #142

missedthecue wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should T Mobile or Verizon be able to censor your phone calls and text messages if they don't like the content? After all, they're private companies as well.

ISPs are private companies, too. Should they be suppressing political information as well?

ISPs are not common carriers and legally they can suppress political information. Guess under whose administration they stopped being common carriers?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#387

Post by comex » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:37 AM UTC

pseudo0 wrote: post #355

hackyhacky wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

According to the FBI[0] and the DNI[1], there is no evidence indicating that Hunter Biden's laptop is misinformation. Given that some of the emails have been independently verified by their recipients who have made statements on the record[2], and Joe Biden's campaign still has not disputed the emails' authenticity, the vast majority of the evidence points towards this material being authentic. The media and big tech…

Your article [2] doesn't actually say anything about Bobulinski claiming laptop emails were authentic, though perhaps he did somewhere in the full statement. Even if the emails themselves are authentic, the New York Post article which revealed them (the article that was suppressed) is misinformation in that it mischaracterized them. Their alleged provenance is also probably not authentic.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#388

Post by comex » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:38 AM UTC

knaq wrote: post #365

pavlov wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got this wrong. The ban on publishing personal information from hacks doesn't apply only when it's "absolutely true". It's about the claimed provenance, not the veracity. If I made a tweet that reads: "Here's some juicy extracts from jsu32's personal diary, I stole it from their hard drive" — it would fall under Twitter's policy, regardless of whether I ever stole your hard drive or not.

There certainly wasn't a hack. At worst there could be a copyright issue, but political stuff is very strongly protected for fair use. The drive legitimately changed ownership, according to the repair contract, after 90 days of abandonment.

Allegedly.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#389

Post by drewrv » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

jsu32 wrote: post #268

galaxyLogic wrote: post #255

If Twitter must publish all posts then doesn't it mean that New York Post must also publish all the letters that are sent to its "From the Readers" -page (assuming there is such)? Twitter is like a newspaper whose content comes only from its readers. It does not mean it has to publish everything. It does have a moral prerogative to not spread misinformation. Misinformation hurts the public. Twitter must make the deci…

Twitter has been claiming it's not a newspaper or editorial organization. They are legal benefits for Twitter to NOT be a newspaper. That's why they need to claim an objective reason for censoring/fact checking a specific story. So, I understand what you say but Twitter would beg to differ with you. Also network effects are harder to come by in newspapers. Imagine if there was one newspaper that had 100x the readersh…

They don't need to claim any reason, they can take down any content they want for any reason.

The only legal protection they have is not being held liable for the speech of their users. Newspapers don't have that because the writers are on their payroll.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#390

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #231

It is incredibly obvious that most US media is biased. This includes suppression on both sides of the political spectrum. It includes both mainstream media and social networks. It isn’t just here and there. It is endemic. It pushes mindsets and frames discussions. It precludes discussion. It is coordinated and pushed relentlessly. You can tell when opinions suddenly shift amongst influence makers. Suddenly others get…

[deleted]