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

551–560 of 763 posts

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

#551

Post by [deleted] »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #538
free_rms wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it 'trash' to be upset that Hunter Biden made 600k/yr from a no-show job that looks super crooked? I understand that it's politically not helpful at this particular moment, and that the Trump kids are worse, but none of that makes it false, and it doesn't make me 'trash' for not liking it.

> Is it 'trash' to be upset that Hunter Biden made 600k/yr from a no-show job that looks super crooked? No, because that's clearly verifiable facts summarized by an opinion. Now ask "Is it trash to acknowledge that Hunter Biden had his dad use his influence to replace a straight-laced Ukrainian prosecutor with a corrupt stooge so Hunter could enrich himself?" That's trash. Or: "Is it trash to point out how Soros-fund…

[deleted]

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

#552

Post by [deleted] »

weareallcowards wrote: post #304
gamblor956 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not how power companies are other utilities work and that's not what a natural monopoly is. A natural monopoly is one that arises due to the high costs of entering the market and other barriers to entry that make it difficult for competitors to establish a footing. Utilities are natural monopolies because it is very expensive to place pipes, transmission lines, etc., over large geographic areas. Consequent…

Isn't that what I said? That the cost of entering the market of mass-scale social media companies is extremely high? I wholeheartedly disagree that the cost is "nothing, nada, zilch". The network effects of having everybody using a couple of sites is what makes the cost of switching high, not the technical triviality of creating a new website.

[deleted]

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

#553

Post by rbanffy »

bigbubba wrote: post #145
teachrdan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a straw man argument. No in this thread is arguing that only "pure" outlets should be respected. The question is whether it was correct to lock the account of a media outlet that seems to be deliberately publishing news they know to be likely untruthful in an effort to sway the upcoming US presidential election.

Would twitter have blocked NYTimes in response to Walter Duranty or Judith Miller's reporting? Denying genocide or uncritically spreading pro-war propaganda seem comparably egregious to anything the NYPost has done.

If the NYT's reporting were obviously a falsification, yes. Twitter would probably block them as well.

At the time it wasn't obvious. In those days information traveled much more slowly, with many more intermediaries than today and was, therefore, much less reliable.

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

#554

Post by jb775 »

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…

I'd disagree on the fact alone that the President of the United States essentially needs to use Twitter in order to communicate with the general public without his words being twisted by an EXTREMELY biased media. (Fox news isn't even 100% on his side)

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

#555

Post by chrisco255 »

edmundsauto wrote: post #47
chrisco255 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with it being privately controlled. It was privately invented and developed, after all.

How does it matter whether it was developed publicly, or privately? Deregulation in the late 90s led to the Enron scandal, so I think there are clear reasons why not to be privately owned.

Right, and government officials were in charge of the Flint Water crisis. And government officials have abused the 4th amendment vis-a-vis the Patriot act. And governments have lied about WMDs to spend trillions on war. I guess the only difference between the private and public sector is that when a private company fucks up and gets caught, people actually lose money and go to jail.

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

#556

Post by lawnchair_larry »

tathougies wrote: post #154
bitwize wrote: post #74

If you insist on spreading hateful, proven-false conspiracy theories about a major-party presidential candidate, do not be surprised when reputable firms will not be complicit in such spread.

Proven false? What are you talking about? A man is testifying in front of the Senate about the veracity of some of the claims under penalty of perjury... EDIT: honestly, as a conservative who was supportive of the investigation surrounding impeachment, this kind of obvious media double treatment makes me want to double down -- as other conservatives have done -- in simply not supporting conservatives being investigat…

As a non-conservative, I’m with you. A large part of the left, including the media, have declined into total dishonesty and hypocrisy. They don’t even seem to realize it.

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

#557

Post by lawnchair_larry »

tbenst wrote: post #97

I’m reminded by the stories in 2016 on how the Pope has endorsed Donald Trump. Was it true? Not in the slightest. And yet these stories got millions of impressions. Enabling the spread of harmful, false, foreign-planted propaganda to spread like a cancer in our democracy is worth taking a moral stand over. Actors that propagate such falsehoods have earned their punishment. Equivocation in this thread to NYTimes publi…

Great, but what does that have to do with the laptop, which came from Delaware and not Russia?

You can’t spout a debunked conspiracy theory about Russian spies and then rail on about objective truth.

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

#558

Post by lawnchair_larry »

slondr wrote: post #24
redthrowaway wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why wasn't the NYT punished for publishing info from Trump's tax returns? The laptop story could at least be true. There is no way for the NYT to receive Trump's tax returns without someone committing a crime.

NYT didn't publish Trump's tax returns, they published prose about supposed contents of Trump's tax returns. If the articles had PDFs of the documents at the bottom, Twitter should probably block them too. But they don't.

Which is even worse, because apparently they literally spread fake news due to their not understanding how estimated tax payments work.

So, they illegally obtained something and then misreported on it without giving people the ability to verify their claims. I’m not even sure why they’re allowed to be on twitter in that case.

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

#559

Post by vanattab »

rabbitXIII wrote: post #492
vanattab wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think they mentioned a party anywhere in the parent comment. They were simply talking about the conservative vs progressive side of a debate or policy change

Around the same time as the 19th amendment was passed. Eugenics was a very "progressive idea"

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

#560

Post by JohnBooty »

eloisius wrote: post #550
JohnBooty wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is a platform with a editorial slant. The NYPost is a platform with a (large) editorial slant. Why should one be obligated to amplify the other? The NYPost gets to have an absolutely massive editorial slant (endorsing presidential candidates, etc) but Twitter can't? Should the NYPost be forced to amplify the NYTimes? What about other heavily user-driven platforms like HN and StackOverflow? Should HN be forbid…

>Twitter is a platform with a editorial slant Except that Twitter claims to be a neutral platform in order to benefit from Section 230. I agree with you that it's just another media outlet with a slant, but the government needs to start treating them like it. Edit: I'm not going to risk posting another comment in this thread because I'm getting negative votes. I keep seeing this more and more and I'm baffled. I haven…

I think Section 230 needs updating, badly.

I personally find value in entities like Hacker News, Twitter, StackOverflow, etc that curate their content. I of course do want transparency there.

I also value utterly unfiltered sources. But, I do not need or want every source to be unfiltered. Then everything becomes a firehose of utter garbage.

I think there is room for both. But it just makes zero sense to me to essentially force primarily user-driven platforms like Twitter to amplify/aggregate content from literally everybody. If they don't want to amplify the NYPost's stories, that should be their choice. And then I can choose not to read Twitter if I don't like that. I completely fail to see the problem.

    I agree with you that it's just another media outlet
    with a slant, but the government needs to start 
    treating them like it.
What, specifically, do you want done here? Should it apply to Hacker News as well -- should HN no longer be able to curate its content?
Post reply on HN