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

Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

melovedata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 763 posts

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#81

Post by function_seven »

blhack wrote: post #44
function_seven wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is not a utility. It is not common infrastructure. The Internet is, and I would not be okay with Internet access being terminated over political disagreements. But individual services? Sure, why not? For those who argue that Twitter is a de facto common platform, well these decisions are moving them away from that role. The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no lon…

Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their ne…

No. Google is different. They hold a monopoly on search that I think should be broken up. I have big problems with the power Google wields in finding things online.

But, going back to my previous comment, it would in a way be a good thing if Google started capriciously "disappearing" sites like this, in a high-profile manner. It would accelerate the move to other search providers and bring a more diversified Internet to us all. (I'm not advocating for it, but the end result would probably be better than what we have now: SEO madness all to please The One Algorithm.)

Twitter has competition. Reddit, Facebook, Apple News, and traditional media outlets all disseminate information. They all offer notifications on your phone. Where we're typing this out is HN, which is another news dissemination and discussion service.

The more Twitter does things to make it clear it's not a neutral platform, the more other services can find users. I do not want Twitter to be a monopoly platform. Tagging them with some common-carrier-like status, while allowing them to remain private, just entrenches that monopoly.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#82

Post by orf »

blhack wrote: post #44
function_seven wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is not a utility. It is not common infrastructure. The Internet is, and I would not be okay with Internet access being terminated over political disagreements. But individual services? Sure, why not? For those who argue that Twitter is a de facto common platform, well these decisions are moving them away from that role. The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no lon…

Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their ne…

> Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc.

It's all of these, except private. It's a privately run notification/messaging/authentication/identity/verification service. Just one that is widely used. That doesn't make it "public".

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#83

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

thinkingemote wrote: post #71
blhack wrote: post #19

To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…

Is it just me, or is there always a post in these types of discussions that say "it's a private company, it's not censorship"?

Since the discussion is polarized by virtue of politics nowadays, it’s worth remembering that a private company can censor their content, but it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize them.

Recognizing their freedom doesn’t insulate them from criticism. Freedom/regulatory regime != morality.

FWIW I'm fully supportive of company autonomy, and I also like expressing criticism when their actions don't line up with my values.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#84

Post by vmchale »

bmarquez wrote: post #15

Twitter's lack of transparency is depressing. If they're going to lock the NY Post account, they should put a notification on the page (and perhaps a reason why). Right now if you go to the NY Post Twitter it just looks like they voluntarily decided to stop tweeting, which is misinformation.

Pretty standard for a company, for better or for worse.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#85

Post by raunakdag »

someguydave wrote: post #66
bleepblorp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless Twitter has changed something recently, there are follow buttons on the account pages for @cnn, @cnni, @reuters, @ap, @bbcworld, @cbcnews, @dwnews, etc. Provided you're using chronological mode (which you should for many, many reasons), tweets from these sources will appear in your timeline. If you do not consider those news outlets adequately centerist, that may be an indication that your personal Overton win…

Those organizations all have a leftward slant. But thank you for informing me of your skew.

Interesting that @ap is considered a leftward slant. I’m not sure if you’d consider Reuters the same at that point?

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#86

Post by djsumdog »

blhack wrote: post #19

To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…

The right solution is that people should move off of Twitter and leave that wretched garbage platform in the dust. I wrote this the other day, but people have already pointed out tons of problems with it and I tend to agree with those issues: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/the-solution-to-big-tech-isnt...

The reality is they have massive market share. Keep in mind, Facebook and Twitter prevented the spread of this story via PRIVATE DIRECT MESSAGES!

Imagine if AT&T or Verizon started blocking texts because of their content. You can say, "Well don't use Messenger" and you need to realize, a lot of us don't have each other's phone numbers any more. For my international friends, I might only have a Messenger or Hangouts connection.

And this is where the rub comes into play. At what point is one of these platforms so big that they become a regular communication utility? If you were paying for the service, that's one thing, but in the case of Faceobook/Twitter, they make money from you in more abstract ways (adverts).

People can still go to NY Post directly, and because we have such good freedoms in the US, we can route around the censorship to some degree. But at some point, this also becomes election interference.

Politicians don't understand the Internet enough to get reforms right. (Remember Stevens and the series of tubes?). 230 Reforms would probably need:

a) Remove the algo Timeline entirely. Results should be the way they were in the old days: Reverse Chronological. (or baring that, inboxes with the default search order of names being alphabetical).

b) Don't block any direct messages unless it's clearly malware or illegal. (This can get super tricky. Look at the sad state of e-mail).

The real solution is to get people to use more diverse platforms, platforms people pay for (even $1/month) and that distribute/federate data rather than centralize it.

There are technological solutions around this. The problem is people and adoption.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#87

Post by olivermarks »

tomp wrote: post #64
quacked wrote: post #6

The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…

> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. Interesting... after reading this, I immediately thought: same as Zero Hedge (also often criticised). But then again, that shouldn't be a surprise - b…

Yikes - I've found Zerohedge to be scarily accurate over time! Depends on your political allegiances I suppose but my mother taught me when i was kid to always read the financial press - 'follow the money to find out what the b@stards are thinking' was her old line. (she used to work for the UK tory party in the '50's, despised them). ZH is what many city of London and wall street minions read live on their bloomberg terminals, for better or worse...

Separately I view Twitter as breaking section 230 free speech regulatory agreements in meddling with what they 'publish'

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#88

Post by bigbubba »

dimgl wrote: post #48
quacked wrote: post #6

The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…

> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven Implying that every other major MSM organization doesn't do the same exact garbage and aren't deserving of the same treatment. Edit: the point is that rules should not favor one MSM corporation over the other. It should be neutral.

The New York Times once allowed itself to be used as a mouthpiece for Stalin, publishing Walter Duranty's denials of famine in Ukraine. They didn't come clean on this until 1990: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-not...

More recently, they allowed themselves to be used as the uncritical mouthpiece of the American federal government when they were starting an illegal war predicated on lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller

If the NYTimes isn't pure, then surely none are. Genocide denial is particularly egregious, but at least they eventually came clean. I still read the NYTimes more than any other paper, but we must always remember to keep an open mind and to never be too trusting of what any newspaper says.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#89

Post by C1sc0cat »

vmception wrote: post #17
r00fus wrote: post #2

Twitter is a private corporation and perhaps its best if we all realize that FB/Twitter/Google are biased agencies. That said, maybe it's best if NYPost stays off Twitter.

I don't understand how people want to ignore that being pro-"free speech" means private sector corporations can choose which speech they want to associate with too just like an individual can. You have the right to say whatever you want, everyone else has the right to not allow it on their property. There is no first amendment right to compelled listening. We aren't remotely close to having that. There isn't even a s…

And its not if trash tabloids don't cancel and destroy people all the time.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#90

Post by manigandham »

function_seven wrote: post #31
blhack wrote: post #19

To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…

Twitter is not a utility. It is not common infrastructure. The Internet is, and I would not be okay with Internet access being terminated over political disagreements. But individual services? Sure, why not? For those who argue that Twitter is a de facto common platform, well these decisions are moving them away from that role. The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no lon…

> "The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no longer some sort of vital communication platform"

The usage and network effects by the public is what determines the ubiquity and utility of the platform.

Just because it's served by private entities doesn't change the fact that social media is very much on the verge of becoming public utility. Twitter's own CEO claims that social media is a human right.

Post reply on HN