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

561–570 of 763 posts

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

#561

Post by free_rms »

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…

It gets into the realm of speculation with partial facts, but you can make a pretty good case that Biden was involved with replacing one corrupt stooge with another one, who then just happened to drop all investigations into Hunter Biden's shady employer. Matt Taibbi has done some good reporting on this lately.

You could cast doubt on Taibbi or an any narrative that fills in the blanks in some places, but compare to the fevered Russia-conspiracy talk that got mainstream credibility, Rachel Maddow features, WaPo editorial references, etc for years. Is one so much worse than the other? Or is it just a matter of which side it favors in the short-term?

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

#562

Post by kshacker »

rbanffy wrote: post #545
reaperducer wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. I've been reading the Post off and on for the last 40 years, and you are correct that it is a rag. But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for re…

> It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. > But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter. Twitter is not a news…

> That's debatable. You admit it's a rag, that publishes some of the lowest quality journalism. It's also very politically biased, in a way that damages the very fabric of society. Restricting its reach is the responsible thing to do in their case.

While I agree with you, something in your comment made me think. "What does not kill you makes you stronger". Maybe the test of our times is that we as a society learn how to ignore the trash ourselves, or if we do not learn the lesson, we perish. Do we want to learn to ignore, or learn to police?

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

#563

Post by ta8645 »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #234
cjjuice wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false. Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person. But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you…

I can appreciate the deeply principled stand people on HN tend to make about this issue. I know there is a libertarian streak here around the access to content and information. I don't share those values, and think unchecked distribution of manipulated content creates a worse outcome for our society; I'd argue it is more inherently dystopian than straight-up government censored speech, which of course is not what's a…

Everyone might have to start considering and addressing the needs of these people instead of ignoring them. The reason people are so exploitable is because those in power, who have intelligence and access to good information, seemingly despise the masses. At the very least dismiss them with contempt and ignore them.

The correct answer is to treat everyone as a worthy person, regardless of their intellectual prowess. The current left, with their self professed mission for the underdog, are the worst about this. The contempt a person must have for their fellow man in order to deem them as unworthy of free speech, is gut wrenching. Instead, we should be finding ways to make socially responsible ideas more accessible and inclusive for _everyone_.

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

#564

Post by dimgl »

tbenst wrote: post #73
dimgl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This equivocation of news sources is how misinformation spreads. Look at how WSJ handled same story vs NYP. WSJ is indeed more reputable as is NYTimes

I'm not equivocating any news source. My stance on this is that there should be NO censorship, period.

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

#565

Post by lawnchair_larry »

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…

CNN? Are you being facetious?

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

#566

Post by istjohn »

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…

Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. This is a common, but false, idea. Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Verge has a good article that discusses this in more detail: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20700099/section-230-comm...

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

#567

Post by Spooky23 »

reaperducer wrote: post #527
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…

Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. I've been reading the Post off and on for the last 40 years, and you are correct that it is a rag. But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for re…

The Post was the newspaper with the good sports page and sport betting odds when I was growing up.

The paper version pretty much is just that today. Online, it’s a different spin looking for a similar audience. Instead of cranky Jets fans, it’s targeting blue collar conservatives. The quality is much lower imo — they run native content that looks like Taboola.

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

#568

Post by scarmig »

> You can publish tax returns without exposing your sources

There's no reason to think this. It's increasingly common for security-conscious organizations to watermark documents to identify who accessed it. See, for instance, how the Intercept "accidentally" burnt a source by publishing her raw documents about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

That said, the New York Times has some level of credibility, and the Post doesn't. You can't simply demand that the Post be treated with a level of respect just because you agree with its slant. Perhaps if the Post published the email metadata which would instantly prove authenticity I'd feel a bit worse for it. Until then, though, I'll continue to assume it's just trying to launder a smear campaign, whether that smear campaign originated from foreign intelligence services or domestic slimeball political operatives.

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

#569

Post by torstenvl »

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…

Section 230 does not require a platform to be neutral. It never has.

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

#570

Post by meragrin_ »

bgorman wrote: post #447
mantap wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Twitter isn't saying the information is false. Twitter is saying the information was "hacked". The truth matters more than how the truth was obtained. If you don't your dirty laundry aired, don't have dirty laundry.

If the laptop was abandoned as claimed, it wasn't even hacked. Twitter does not have a leg to stand on. They were just reacting without evidence to try to help Biden.
Post reply on HN