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

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#391

Post by PaulAJ » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

gotoeleven wrote: post #20

nabla9 wrote: post #6

There is no clear principles or policies for censorship or suppression for economic or political reasons. Until there is, we must look each case as single instance. That case was hilariously crude attempt at influencing and creating false narratives. The whole thing collapsed quickly but it still had huge impact. Mixing something real and something false makes people accept falsehoods. Censoring obvious falsehoods li…

Could someone just explain in simple words why everyone keeps calling this story false or debunked or whatever? Everyone keeps downvoting me and I don't know why. It seems like to debunk this story you'd have to have a journalist do some journalism and figure out why all these companies were giving hunter biden money.

The problem is that the whole thing is basically an unsupported allegation. It might be true, but for the time being we have no way of knowing.

* The material was provided via two of Trumps henchmen, who may or may not have altered it along the way.

* They gave it to the NYP after Fox News (never one to miss an opportunity to bash the Democrats) turned it down due to lack of provenance.

* It was originally derived from a laptop that may or may not have been dropped off by Hunter Biden or someone associated with him.

* The computer repairman at the centre of this has given contradictory explanations of the timeline, how many laptops were involved, and whether he contacted the FBI or the FBI contacted him.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#392

Post by comex » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:43 AM UTC

PaulAJ wrote: post #38

darkerside wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I don't think the previous status quo was tenable either, and maybe even more problematic. Disclaimer: these are opinions. We allow mainstream press, owned by allies of a politician, to make outlandish claims unverified in the weeks leading up to an election. This has always been "correctable" in the past, in a world where articles could be retracted or condemned, particularly by even more m…

The truth is not a social construct. Either Hunter Biden received that "thanks for the meeting with your father" email or he didn't. Importance is a social construct. If that email is what it puports to be, then whether it is important is a point of view. The media don't (mis)lead us by telling us lies, they do so by deciding which parts of the truth are important enough to tell us.

The email didn't say "thanks for the meeting with your father"; it thanked Hunter for "inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father", wording that leaves it ambiguous whether the meeting had already occurred or was in the future. This is important because, even if it is authentic, it does not necessarily contradict Biden's claim that (according to his schedules) no such meeting occurred.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#393

Post by triceratops » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

bialpio wrote: post #379

tracer4201 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, ISPs aren’t social media companies. If my ISP censors information, then effectively I have no way to access that information, particularly in cases when there’s no other ISP in my area. A social media platform banning certain content is different. Just as we have alt right media sources such as Breitbart, nothing is preventing you from starting your own social media platform, with whatever content you want o…

> In my opinion, this is pretty clear cut. If you don’t like Twitter’s policies, don’t use their website. On one hand yes, but on the other, does that also apply to other services? Can I open a shop only for people only and claim that if you don't like it, go somewhere else? How about other categories, protected or otherwise? As a society, we already agree that there are some freedoms that private businesses are deni…

> Can I open a shop only for people only and claim that if you don't like it, go somewhere else? How about other categories, protected or otherwise?

You're missing the fine distinction between protected and non-protected categories. Discrimination based on what you are is banned - those constitute the protected categories. Sex, gender, national origin, race, family status, veteran status, religion, and sexual orientation all fall under things you are.

Business and private organizations however, are allowed to discriminate against their customers based on their actions. It gets fuzzier if those actions intersect with a protected category (e.g. a supermarket probably (IANAL) can't throw out a gay couple for family-friendly PDA if a hetero couple would be allowed to stay). But by and large, if you do or say something on my premises that I dislike, I can kick you out.

Imagine if weren't so. Anyone could disrupt religious services by shouting obscenities. You couldn't have a peaceful shopping trip or grocery run. It would be total chaos.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#394

Post by triceratops » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:46 AM UTC

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.

YSK there's no requirement for a "platform" to be "neutral". By law platforms can do whatever the heck they like with regards to content moderation. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or misinformed.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#395

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:49 AM UTC

chmod600 wrote: post #323

Was anyone besides me surprised that huge payouts to your family creating massive conflicts of interest are normal? And even acceptable for someone running for office? In a private company, if you don't disclose such conflicts and recuse yourself from related decisions, you'd be fired immediately. (Though perhaps I'm wrong here if I was wrong about politicians.)

[deleted]

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#396

Post by triceratops » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:49 AM UTC

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.

There is no legal requirement for a "public platform" (this is not a legal term) to be unmoderated or "neutral". You've been misinformed.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#397

Post by j8hn » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:54 AM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #294

j8hn wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? Have you heard of an October surprise? "On October 20, 1880, shortly before the 1880 presidential election, a forged letter was published purportedly written by James A. Garfield voicing support for Chinese immigration to the United States. At the time, most white Americans opposed Chinese immigration and both presidential candi…

> So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? That's exactly what I propose, precisely because October surprises are not in the best interest of democracy. Many countries [1] prohibit all political news stories during their election cycle. An added benefit of this policy would be to limit the length of the election cycle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence

If you're worried about the interests of democracy then I would think freedom of speech would be important.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#398

Post by briantakita » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 5:57 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #315

onecommentman wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the discussion is focusing on levels of the US government and what has been experienced by the public under that government since its founding. Actual exercised power by US governmental entities. The discussion of other governments will probably lead this thread into a swampy delta and it will lose its motive force.

> I think the discussion is focusing on levels of the US government and what has been experienced by the public under that government since its founding Get back to me when twitter can order an airstrike against an minor and enjoy qualified immunity.

The Chinese Communist Party is being accused of many human rights violations against the Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Christians, factory workers, etc. There are also allegations that the CCP is interfering with the United States government & election process. If these violations are true, then Twitter & the Big Media is complicit in obfuscating evidence of collusion & hidden business partnerships between the Vice President via his family & the CCP.

If these allegations are not true, then the public conversation has been censored & the story of censorship overshadows investigation which would absolve the innocent parties.

Either way, the public deserves to have direct access the truth.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#399

Post by j8hn » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 6:01 AM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #294

j8hn wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? Have you heard of an October surprise? "On October 20, 1880, shortly before the 1880 presidential election, a forged letter was published purportedly written by James A. Garfield voicing support for Chinese immigration to the United States. At the time, most white Americans opposed Chinese immigration and both presidential candi…

> So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election? That's exactly what I propose, precisely because October surprises are not in the best interest of democracy. Many countries [1] prohibit all political news stories during their election cycle. An added benefit of this policy would be to limit the length of the election cycle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_silence

And the majority of the prohibitions in the list are a very short time frame from 24-48 hours.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#400

Post by lkrubner » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 6:12 AM UTC

One has to be somewhat ignorant of the mission of the IMF or World Bank to think this is somehow new:

"Poroshenko was telling Joe Biden that in order to get an American aid package, he’d gone beyond even what the I.M.F. asked for and raised energy prices for ordinary Ukrainians not by 75%, but by 100%, as well as taking steps to curtail subsidized medicine prices."

Where this is good or bad, this has been common since the 1970s. Some writers refer to this process as "neoliberalism" as the effort seemed motivated by a desire to bring back the old era of laissez faire. Since the 1970s the IMF has demanded similar internal "reforms" in nations in South America, Africa, and Asia. If this is surprising to anyone then I would assume they are young or they have not been paying attention.