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

251–260 of 763 posts

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

#251

Post by jaywalk »

cortesoft wrote: post #207
khawkins wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to see how quickly Silicon Valley culture has changed over the past 10 years from one of free speech absolutism to "benevolent censorship". The people so vociferously clamoring about the nightmare-hellscape of a world without Net-Neutrality are now telling us that a handful of major corporations actively and blatantly censoring speech is no cause for concern.

Net Neutrality is different. No one is arguing that it is ok to block NyPost at a network level. Free speech does not mean a free platform.

Net Neutrality is not really that different. These corporations just want to be the ones doing the blocking instead of allowing ISPs to do it.

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

#252

Post by dsaavy »

rwoodley wrote: post #134
dsaavy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would maybe be more understandable if the Director of National Intelligence hadn't made the statement he did [1], which was only a few days after the incident. Why wouldn't Twitter unlock their account then? So unless there is a huge conspiracy that you have evidence of where the DNI is straight up lying to everyone, I think it's fair to say that it's not misinformation from foreign parties. [1] "Director of Natio…

Read the wikipedia article on Ratcliffe and see if he is such a great source for your rebuttal. But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it. Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They…

All I'm doing is providing a quote from a government employee who is directly involved in the investigation. I don't know how else one can judge the incident other than from people directly involved in the investigation and by the contents of what has been released.

I don't see anything on Ratcliffe on Wikipedia that would make him a non-legitimate source? Could you point out what you're alluding to?

Stating that the NY Post story "is very suspect" isn't an evidence-based reason to lock their account permanently. In fact, there's a fine number of controversies around the NYT over the years, but I wouldn't support them being blocked from Twitter for any of those reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...

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

#253

Post by goodluckchuck »

ralph84 wrote: post #100

If Twitter wants to be a publisher, fine. Just stop sheltering them under Section 230. Make them fully liable for what they publish.

You say that as if that's not what Twitter wants. Jack Dorsey and Twitter's chief(?) legal counsel went on Joe Rogan and openly argued that Twitter is a publisher. They expressly waived Section 230 protection and thoroughly explained that their users do no publish content on Twitter, but merely provide Twitter with content that Twitter may choose to edit and publish as Twitter sees fit. They said Twitter makes thoughtful editorial decisions and chooses what content to publish.

I don't agree. I think that's a lie. Twitter is a common-carrier and should not be allowed to discriminate, but that's not what Twitter is saying. Twitter very openly claiming to be a "publisher." Twitter wants you to say that.

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

#254

Post by manigandham »

orf wrote: post #171
manigandham wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. The corporation providing the service doesn't matter, it's the how the service itself is used by the public. And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet.

> Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. Yep, and they can also terminate your service for any reason they choose.

How about a world where corporations have regulations that serve the public?

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

#255

Post by smnrchrds »

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…

We live in a world where Twitter is the place to get information about official government policy (US) or emergency alerts regarding life-or-death situations (NS). If Twitter were not a common infrastructure, it should have been downright illegal to use it like one, at least for government agencies and officials. That ship has sailed long ago. We might as well try to make sure everyone has unfettered access to Twitter. Because sometimes, the alternative is literally death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#Lack_...

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

#256

Post by ggreer »

raunakdag wrote: post #85
someguydave wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They're less biased than most sources, but there are little things that are easy to notice.

The Associated Press in 2015: "BREAKING: Obama sends $4 trillion spending plan to Congress, pledging help for middle class."[1]

The Associated Press in 2018: "BREAKING: President Trump sends Congress $4.4 trillion spending plan that features soaring deficits."[2]

If a news organization put "soaring deficits" in the Obama headline and "helping the middle class" in the Trump headline, I'd definitely call that right-wing bias.

1. https://twitter.com/AP/status/562287489365594112

2. https://twitter.com/AP/status/963088143527436288

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

#257

Post by wmwmwm »

dragonwriter wrote: post #205
keiferski wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a quote from Fight Club and more of a joke than anything, IIRC.

Fight Club , though, was just fancying up and decontextualizing the first sentence of Milton (EDIT: John Maynard, nor Milton) Keynes famous quote: "In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if, in tempestuous seasons, they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again." I would be very surprised if a financial news outlet choosing the Fight Clu…

Milton Keynes? :)

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

#258

Post by ardy42 »

bigbubba wrote: post #177
ardy42 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being reputable and being perfectly accurate all the time are different things. Listing a handful of cases where a reputable source was not accurate does not prove the source is not reputable. It's like trying to prove science is a sham by talking about phlogiston.

None can be counted on. I happen to think the NYTimes is better than most, which is why I read them more often than the rest. But you cannot count on them to not tell lies, even in the most important sort of matters, and anybody who reads any newspaper should always keep that uncertainty in mind.

> But you cannot count on them to not tell lies,

I think that's the wrong framing, at least for an organization like the NY Times.

For one, there's a difference between "a lie" and "an inaccuracy" even though most of the time (but not always!) lies are a subtype of inaccuracy. If you make a similar conflation in software development, you'd say that a team member who pushes buggy code to your repo sabotaged your project instead of saying he made a mistake.

Also there's a difference between an organization and its members. Those individuals you mentioned may have lied, but that doesn't mean the organization lied. If a disgruntled member of your team does try to sabotage your project, that doesn't mean your team is sabotaging the project.

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

#259

Post by jaywalk »

wow_yes wrote: post #225
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or on the side that Twitter thinks is the good side.

We are on the right side of history - progress always is. People like me are much more trustworthy because we're not motivated by greed, but for the desire for a better world.

"My idea of progress will always be correct, because I am a good person and people who disagree with me are not."

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

#260

Post by eesmith »

olivermarks wrote: post #188
dragonwriter wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Separately I view Twitter as breaking section 230 free speech regulatory agreements in meddling with what they 'publish' Section 230 was overtly adopted so that platforms would make efforts to censor content that they found to be objectionable; there are no "free speech regulatory agreements" associated with it. It is the only surviving part of a law whose sole and entire purpose was internet censorship, the rest o…

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 Twitter (and FB) have crossed the rubicon in editorializing other people's posts with 'fact checks' (sic), shadow bans and public bans. Practically the opposite of the free speech maxim 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and alarmingly close to totalitarian use of their publishing power.

Hall's quote from "The Friends of Voltaire" describes Voltaire's views concerning the revoking of Helvétius's right to publish De l'esprit, its ban in Rome, and more. By my reading, Hall doesn't imply that Voltaire meant to also 'defend to the death' the right for Helvétius to force a given company to publish his book - something which wasn't needed as it was quickly re-published across Europe.

Caesar has crossed this Rubicon so many times there's a 4-lane highway with a Waffle House at the rest stop. Forum moderators have been exercising their right of free association for a long time.

Why would Twitter (and FB) agree to be regulated as common carrier, with limited ability to discriminate in its service to the general public? What should it/they get in exchange?

Post reply on HN