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

591–600 of 763 posts

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

#591

Post by istjohn »

JohnBooty wrote: post #544
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…

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 isn't obligated to allow anyone to use their platform, but as a user, I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my local library to ban certain books or Google to delist websites that it decides are bad. Twitter is within its right to do whatever it wants, but I don't want it curating my feed anymore than I want my phone to decide who I can and can't text message. And while I'm resigned to the fact that there will be some moderation on Twitter, to remove a longstanding newspaper for publishing a dubious story is an absurd overreach. They can do it, but it's a silly, foolish way to run a social network.

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

#592

Post by eloisius »

JohnBooty wrote: post #560
eloisius wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 essent…

Just to clear the air, I am not a fan of the Post or the particular content that earned it its recent block. I agree that it's Twitter's platform, and they should be able to curate it as they see fit.

Here's how I see it: if I wrote a letter to the editor to a popular US newspaper calling for an ethnic pogrom, they published it, and it incited riots or violence, that news paper would get tar sued out of it. They are responsible for the user-generated content that they chose to publish. If instead I used my phone to start a phone tree to rouse people to ethnic violence, only the phone call makers would be responsible. The phone company just lets me place calls to whoever will receive them and transmits my messages.

Where does Facebook fall? Currently, if they allow people to start groups and publish materials calling for ethnic genocide and it leads to violence, they bear no responsibility. Sure, there's a continuum between phone and newspaper, but currently they are having their cake and eating it too. What should the law look like?

Free speech doesn't mean you are not responsible for the things you say (or re-transmit). If they want to be a non-neutral media outlet, Facebook, Twitter, et al. should be liable for the damages caused when their platform is involved in incitement of violence. If you're attacked by White supremacist counter-protestors, and it turns out they organized or promoted their activities on the platform, it should be partially responsible and should be a co-defendant in court.

Personally, I would prefer them to remain neutral platforms and focus their efforts on providing stronger abuse prevention that makes it harder for extremists to "amplify" their message into the feeds of people that don't want it instead of trying to whack-a-mole offensive content. Tools that would allow users to filter and block more easily, or even better selectively subscribe to the content they do want. I guess that would probably mean reduced engagement, though.

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

#593

Post by rightbyte »

picardythird wrote: post #450
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…

But here you have a man who stormed a pizza parlor with an AR-15, ready to uncover the global cabal of pedophilia that has infiltrated the Democratic Party. Or the woman who won't vaccinate her children because she believes vaccines cause autism. Or the person, communicating via the satellites that circle the Earth, who believes that the Earth is flat. These people aren't rare - they're common. We live in an era of d…

Lack of mental institutions are to blame not free speech on Twitter and FB. How about not making policys to combat covid-5g and the flat earth club.

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

#594

Post by dahart »

cjjuice wrote: post #101
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…

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…

Not disagreeing, but your comment leaves me with a lot of questions...

What would be the difference in this argument between 'social media' and other media? For example, should the same be true of newspapers? What about scientific or government publications?

If people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is true, should private for-profit companies also be allowed to decide what is true for themselves?

Do you consider stories that are verifiably false to be "unfiltered information"? Why should it be considered "information" if it's not true? Does it matter if the information being presented was known to be false and is being published for subversive politically motivated reasons?

Is your framing that they're saying people are dumb really true if the "information" is difficult or impossible to verify? Does it matter if it's a breaking story and there's only one such source of information? Does it matter if, statistically, there's a sizeable portion of smart people that will accept published stories as true?

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

#595

Post by mox1 »

chrisstanchak wrote: post #577
rbanffy wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. So is Verizon. Do you want to live in a world where your phone gets turned off if they don't like the conversation?

You have no intrinsic right to a mobile telephone, so we do live in this world.

If it made business sense for them to do this, they would.

Call in a few threats to local businesses or SWAT someone and see how long it takes for your phone to get disabled.

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

#596

Post by adventured »

chrisstanchak wrote: post #577
rbanffy wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. So is Verizon. Do you want to live in a world where your phone gets turned off if they don't like the conversation?

To that point, a small number of companies entirely dominate all social media at this point:

Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, Tiktok.

Collectively they form an extreme oligopoly position, something quite comparable to the telecom oligopoly. They should be held to a different standard accordingly, if they want to retain such power in our society. If only a few of them simultaneously collude to censor, it has what can only be considered something akin to direct government censorship in the impact it has: you are without voice while everyone else is holding a bullhorn.

In this day and age, being denied access to social media is probably even more socially & culturally punishing than having your phone number turned off. It's more akin to not allowing people to leave their homes and enter public spaces, not allowing them to ever protest, not allowing them to ever voice their opinions in a public square.

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

#597

Post by NeverFade »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #581
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 does matter! Twitter and Facebook swore that they would limit this kind of garbage rumor mill information for the election. if NYP would have showed how they verified the information then twitter would have let them spread the info. Twitter is a private company and they are trying to be more responsible about slowing the spread of disinformation. This is a good thing and not a bad thing.

> NYP would have showed how they verified the information then twitter would have let them spread the info.

Did Twitter or Facebook ever ask The Atlantic to "show them how they verified the information" about Trump calling war heroes "losers" and "suckers"?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a...

That story was based on 100% anonymous sourced. Unverified, unverifiable by definition. People who were on the scene went on record to deny it. Twitter and Facebook were happy to spread it. The Atlantic accounts were never blocked.

How about the NYT story about Trump's tax returns, also based on 100% anonymous, unauthorized, unverified document leak? Has the NYT account been blocked for that, too?

By contrast, the NYP actually did explain how they got the emails: from a laptop dropped off and signed for by Hunter Biden himself at a PC repair shop.

The double standard here is beyond obvious.

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

#598

Post by rbanffy »

hammock wrote: post #585
chrisstanchak wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. So is Verizon. Do you want to live in a world where your phone gets turned off if they don't like the conversation?

See also: net neutrality

Net neutrality is not applicable outside the network layers.

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

#599

Post by [deleted] »

chrisstanchak wrote: post #577
rbanffy wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. So is Verizon. Do you want to live in a world where your phone gets turned off if they don't like the conversation?

[deleted]

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

#600

Post by makomk »

whimsicalism wrote: post #477
duxup wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of Trump... i'm not aware of any large scale deception or ... just plain ignorance when it comes to trump.

Britain said that they could go for a "herd immunity strategy", several European governments said that masks were not useful for ordinary people, claims that the virus was under control, even people saying "don't stop going to bars", entire governments deciding to stop releasing information about cases, etc., etc. There was a whole lot that people didn't know, especially early. There were quite a few failures of comm…

The British government was very upfront about the fact that it wasn't under control very early on. That honesty doesn't seem to have worked out very well for them politically - I'm pretty sure that being so upfront about it fuelled a lot of the speculation about herd immunity, which somehow seems to have outlasted the current Europe-wide practical demonstration that yes, lockdown fatigue is real no matter what the British press said at the time - but you certainly can't argue that they lied about it like China did.
Post reply on HN