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

461–470 of 763 posts

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

#461

Post by yarabarla »

vanattab wrote: post #396
brynjolf wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And vice versa, the side that has been Conservative continue to be on the wrong side of history over abs over again, yet never fail to say the other side is to blame. Gay rights Women rights Liberty Always one side saying let's wait a bit longer, let's listen to our lies for a bit longer.

You might want to look up which party was more supportive of the 19th amendment and check which party supported ending slavery. "On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25…

While not a one to one match with current politics, the parties largely swapped demographics and southern Republicans today would have been Democrats at that time.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

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

#462

Post by kvez »

manigandham wrote: post #95
orf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "pu…

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.

> And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet.

Okay. That doesn't mean a whole lot at the moment.

The ISPs that allow you to even access Twitter at all are quite deliberately not regulated to this extent, so there's a lot of work to do before we can say that Twitter, of all things, is somehow a public utility without First Amendment rights.

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

#463

Post by Splendor »

cjjuice wrote: post #142
cycrutchfield wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If social media companies don't want to be used as transmission vectors of obvious foreign political influence, then they don't have to be. Just like if they don't want to be used as transmission vectors of pornography or any other type of content, then they don't have to be. In both cases it requires setting some sort of content standard and making decisions about whether the content meets that standard.

If it is truly foreign influence, then it is on the FBI/DoJ to do the investigation and publicly declare it as such and order it to be taken down. Social Media companies are not equipped to make that distinction and should not do so.

Are you arguing that social media companies should not remove posts and instead let normal individuals determine what's true; while also arguing that billion-dollar social media companies are not capable of determining what's true?

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

#464

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

breakfastduck wrote: post #319
wow_yes wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem very certain of that, which is incredibly frightening.

On my first read, I assumed that they forgot to type the /s, but I think you're right and this was meant to be serious, which is... disconcerting.

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

#465

Post by Shivetya »

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.

I am in the camp of, once you open your company to political communication and news you are beholden to be open to all such activity as long as it is legal. You don't get to choose and the reason you don't get to choose is because filtering one view over another provides a service to the view permitted and as such is political speech and or contribution to one party over another.

As in, once you open that door it goes both ways. Twitter on purpose catered to news and political organizations and while they are free to issue a disclaimer of not supporting a message or messenger as long as its legal they should be held to account

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

#466

Post by vmception »

nostromo wrote: post #360
vmception wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run into a "I'm pro free speech and am therefore offended when a platform censors something by nature of them censoring at all" comment practically everyday now people are just conflating the concepts, and I also would not be able to tell if they are consciously referring to the American constitution or a concept that goes far beyond that

Are you ok with Comcast and ISPs filtering your internet then? Forget about net neutrality -- they're a private company and it's their right to censor websites and traffic they don't like. And since you're standing up for corporate civil rights, I'd love to hear your defense of the Citizens United decision while we're at it.

lol well then

deep breath

Citizens United merely clarified a reality that was already in play, enshrinment of corporate personhood going back to the passage of the 14th amendment, and simply shed light onto the toothlessness of the FEC and removed the discretion that was being used by people that didnt want a court challenge. With the attention I would have thought the people would gave attempted a constitutional amendment but one decade later this is clearly not the avenue people consider leaving only the reality of the tools available.

Corporate personhood is not a new concept and didn’t begin in 2010.

Regarding ISPs, section 230 has the capability of limiting their behavior in exchange for other privileges. There is a case platforms to be subject to that or a similar code.

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

#467

Post by damagednoob »

bleepblorp wrote: post #34
damagednoob wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Suddenly". You have to work really hard to make sure your timeline includes centre leaning views, never mind right leaning.

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…

Yes, because people only use Twitter to follow news outlets. Follow a bunch of Portland software developers and tell me which way your timeline is going to lean.

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

#468

Post by humaniania »

CptFribble wrote: post #411
selectodude wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZH was saying that it was going to be a catastrophe before China even started lying about how they had it under control.

To be fair, almost everything on ZH is predicting catastrophe - ZH is rife with prepper-flavored "this is the big one" reports on things like FEMA operations, rumors of potential false flag attacks, and of course various financial instrument movements. 99% of what ZH says is the end of all things fades into nothingness. ZH is the canonical example of a correct-twice-daily broken clock.

Exactly this! Thank you. ZeroHedge almost seems to be designed to induce anxiety and spread disinformation.

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

#469

Post by Kaytaro »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #191
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.

Meh. Just go to the NYPost directly if you want. We shouldn't be forcing and infringing on the freedoms of corporations to decide what they can sell/show.

Sure, but if they're going to be an editorialized platform they should be held liable for the content of each and every tweet.

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

#470

Post by dragonwriter »

manigandham wrote: post #95
orf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "pu…

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.

Even if we agree that they are the right comparators, there's a problem for using that pair as a reference for how online service providers should be treated, since phone providers have a strong neutrality mandate and ISPs have none, so it basically provides no guidance whatsoever.

Post reply on HN