341–350 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the laptop became property of the repair shop, how would that be illicitly obtained?
I don't think that owning the hardware means you own or can publish personal data contained on the hardware.
But perhaps there is a fair use argument to be made?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 headl…
Factually speaking, Trump did blow up the deficit, and failing to report that, instead of reporting it, would be indicative of bias.
Budgets requested by Republican vs Democratic administrations are different as the parties have different spending and taxation priorities. Reporting budgets without acknowledging that the parties are spending/borrowing/taxing in different areas would be a lie.
Printing news stories that make Republicans look bad is not indicative of bias if those stories are, as is usually the case, factually true. The solution to this problem is not to complain about media bias but rather for the Republican party to do fewer things that look bad.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should check out the NYTimes' coverage of every rumor in Sarah Palin's family right after she was picked as the VP running mate in 2008.
A few months ago there was non-stop coverage of the president purportedly saying very mean things about soldiers. This was from an anonymous source. Even Bolton who is no fan of the president said that it didn't happen. It got 24/7 playtime by the media. Now on the other day the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential can…
Which is so obviously fake it isn't even funny. I'm getting very tired of the GOP's shameless tendency of creating controversies out of nothing. This is just another Benghazi or Hillary's Emails or Migrant Caravan.
Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
If you think locking the account was a political decision, you're paranoid and wrong. They broke the rules on publishing hacked materials. They openly did this despite the rules. You want them exempted from the rules on political grounds, which is a problem.
Also, if the policy on hacked material was enforced; wouldn't the NYT story on the tax returns hacked/leaked from Trump also apply? Most of the controversy here is that Twitter has selectively taken action, and now that they changed their policy, they still wont reactivate the account even though its no longer in violation until the NYP deletes the original violating tweet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ZH was talking about coronavirus way earlier than anyone else, which is bound to happen if you don’t validate as well—sometimes you do strike gold. A comment I saw once about them was “ZH has reported five of the last three catastrophes”.
"ZH was talking about coronavirus way earlier than anyone else" I've seen that claim too and found it questionable. Almost every major news outlet that would cover international news I found had some story about coronavirus pretty dang early. It wasn't a breathless story predicting the impact, but they covered it. I feel like most media "media does this" or "didn't do that" is mostly just what passed in front of some…
Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes.
> How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is not great. It's also impractically subjective.
> Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?
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.
As a counterpoint, Twitter as a company isn't forced to do any such thing, so if they think it can hurt its userbase and its revenue, it won't be done. Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.
If Twitter wants to be a publisher, fine. Just stop sheltering them under Section 230. Make them fully liable for what they publish.
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.
"Section 230 Is The Subject of The Most Effective Legal Propaganda I've Ever Seen"
https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of...
TL;DR: No, moderating their site even in an egregiously, blatantly biased way won't make Twitter a "publisher" or make them lose Section 230 protections