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

611–620 of 763 posts

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

#611

Post by ericb »

NeverFade wrote: post #597
stjohnswarts wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Yes, from a man who happens to be legally blind and can't verify who dropped it off. What are the priors on that? Turning up a week before the election?

The was supposed to be a professional servicing a machine, he violated his clients privacy for his own purposes, and now we're to trust him?

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

#612

Post by ethanwillis »

hotpockets wrote: post #541
hotpockets wrote: post #537

Wasn't this all about the publishing of Hunter Biden's personal information? A violation of Twitter's privacy policy, that they have always enforced. And yes, they have enforced it against journalists posting newsworthy information deleterious to Trump. "Twitter also said the Post article contained images that included personal and private information such as email addresses and phone numbers, which is against the so…

Haha, immediately downvoted, with no comments provided.

You're downvoted because it wasn't hacked information.

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

#613

Post by hotpockets »

ethanwillis wrote: post #612
hotpockets wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, immediately downvoted, with no comments provided.

You're downvoted because it wasn't hacked information.

My point is that that is not the reason for the account suspension. Twitter's policy is very clear and equally enforced! Here is a short video from a reporter that got a suspension for posting private info in a news article, and had to delete the post before getting unsuspended:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loylqtvKAbU

It would seem to make this case very clear. Right?

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

#614

Post by NeverFade »

ericb wrote: post #611
NeverFade wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Yes, from a man who happens to be legally blind and can't verify who dropped it off. What are the priors on that? Turning up a week before the election? The was supposed to be a professional servicing a machine, he violated his clients privacy for his own purposes,…

> Yes, from a man who happens to be legally blind and can't verify who dropped it off.

Still more verifiable sources than the Atlantic and NYT stories, which were based on zero verifiable sources.

> Turning up a week before the election?

The Atlantic and NYT stories were also published very recently, also a few weeks before the election.

> The was supposed to be a professional servicing a machine, he violated his clients privacy for his own purposes, and now we're to trust him?

The NYT story was based on illegally leaked tax returns. Whoever leaked these documents has not only breached their duty of confidentiality and privacy that they owe every taxpayer - they in fact committed a crime.

Why didn't Twitter and Facebook block a story that could only come from a source who breached their legal duties and committed a crime? And in your words, how can we trust such a source?

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

#615

Post by frollo »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #460
frollo wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The NYPost (or basically any news outlet and their readers) became dependent on Twitter on their own choice (or on their own laziness), and one of the consequences of being dependent on an external platform for your traffic is that you are subject to their contract. If you don't like the rules, you find or build another platform (and put in the money and effort to make it work). This is basically the NYPost…

> The NYPost (or basically any news outlet and their readers) became dependent on Twitter on their own choice (or on their own laziness), I'm curious what exactly you think they could have done to not end up here. I'm not aware of Twitter even offering a paid service that they could use, and network effects mean that failing to publish on Twitter just means that fewer people will see your stuff.

Most news outlets used to have RSS feeds which, once upon a time before it was removed from a lot of big websites (such as news outlets), allowed lots of people to get a feed of what was published. It worked for a lot of years and, if kept up and published, it could probably have given Twitter a run for its money. You could share the feeds you followed or even build public feeds from that (there are stil a bunch of them, mostly named after planets, for very niche things), so you could have a network effect.

Twitter doesn't have a paid service for users (it has paid access to their API, just in case somebody on this site still had doubts about what really is their core business), I was just making a (probably poorly phrased) example.

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

#616

Post by Spivak »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #575
Spivak wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The common person primarily votes based solely on a historical allegiance to a political party (be it individually formed or inherited) with about 75% of America essentially being unmovable D or R safe votes. This is one of those statements that sounds bad on the surface but is actually totally reasonable and has nothing to do with some trope about the "uninformed masses" or whatever. Locally the individual matters…

Here's the problem: Those people have a right to be wrong. That's why your vote counts as much as theirs does. The space that that leaves is where leadership is supposed to come in, in order to tilt the balance one way or the other. If a good leader doesn't arise, that's probably the problem you should be trying to solve. The elitism of "we know better than you" has been used to justify some pretty horrific chapters…

I would never say they shouldn’t vote and if I implied that then that was my mistake. My only point is that disparaging people who appear “party loyal” ignores the motivations that underpin that “loyalty”. On average people are pretty smart and I don’t think it’s too difficult to see some of the very real reasons why, at least nationally, people vote against one party or the other.

The joke about minorities begrudgingly huddling around the Democratic Party exists for a reason.

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

#617

Post by jjeaff »

roenxi wrote: post #497
dragonwriter wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has been having recessions almost like clockwork once every 10 years since 1950 Your standards for "clockwork" regularity seem to be quite low. Your own source offered to support that claim shows almost double that frequency from 1950-1990, and a maximum interval of 10 years, 8 months over the whole period. So it is neither "like clockwork" over that period (the frequency has on average dropped over the peri…

Gee, well that leaves me debunked. I guess recessions are quite common and ZeroHedge is ... much more reliable than I thought? A scary discovery. If you are planning your investments around not having a recession about once a decade, I'm unconvinced it will end well for you. Anyway, the point stands - regularly predicting recessions is a sensible approach, and saying ZeroHedge overpredicts is wrong. The normal financ…

No, I don't think you will come out ahead in your investments by trying to predict recessions. Timing the market almost always ends badly in the long term. The best way to come out ahead is to plan based on very long term market trends which include the recessions and stick to your plan with the understanding that there will be recessions, you just don't know when they will start and when they will end.

I'm quite certain if someone simulated trading based on predicted recessions on ZH, you would end up well below market returns.

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

#618

Post by xyzzyz »

kelnos wrote: post #576
rayiner wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being black and voting R is nuts -- same if you're gay. I'm not sure if its objectively "nuts" but almost 25% of LGBT voters supported Romney over Obama. That's accounting for the fact that openly LGBT voters are much younger than other voters: twice as likely to be 18-34 and half as likely to be 55+. Median age is about 35, versus 50 for the overall population. Romney won 37% of folks 18-29 and 51% of folks 45-64.…

Obviously all people have different kinds of policy opinions, and the "R" and "D" buckets are way too coarse to describe everyone. Someone who is gay can just as easily be a fiscal conservative (for example) as someone who is straight. But what I can't understand is how someone -- even if they agree with most of their chosen party's platform -- could vote for a party whose leadership largely wants to erase them. I ju…

I think your image of Republican Party messaging is wildly out of sync with how Republican voters see it. It’s closer to where religious faction of the party has been in early 2000s, but it hardly resembles their position today. I do not find it particularly surprising, given that one simply cannot get an accurate view of it without explicitly looking for it: you won’t get it in CNN or MSNBC, and most non-Republicans would never stoop so low to actually watch the “partisan hacks” on Fox.

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

#619

Post by JohnBooty »

istjohn wrote: post #591
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 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 ca…

    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
Those analogies are flawed, so I'll just address the issue directly.

I do want Twitter to curate things, by filtering out news from biased sources with questionable alliances and borderline journalistic practices. I want them to be transparent about it, and if I don't like the way they do it I'll go elsewhere. To me, that is the free market -- not forcing Twitter to amplify all voices indiscriminately. If Twitter was the only game in town I'd feel differently, but that is far from the case.

I think most really do want some level of curation. Do you want child porn on your feed? Endless ads for fake Viagra? Animal abuse?

I cannot imagine a platform like Twitter being useful without some kind of curation. I realize that blocking the NYPost is an opinionated move in some ways.

They were transparent about the reason, and I agreed with their move. That's all I ask. There are plenty of other places with more relaxed standards, and they're still available to me when I really want to drink from the firehose.

    They can do it, but it's a silly, foolish way to run 
    a social network.
Should HN stop being "silly" and moderating submissions?

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

#620

Post by zdragnar »

manigandham wrote: post #248
zdragnar wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the "public" uses the service is irrelevant; the legal regulations are all based on what the service is. Social media is fundamentally different from ISPs and other utilities- there are some protections and restrictions under section 230 (for now) but number of customers does not a utility make.

Public usage is how regulations and legislation are determined. Making social media a public utility is the point of the discussion here.

No, use of public space (spectrum, running wires to homes) drives the regulation. If the wireless spectrum was unlimited, and power, tv, internet and phone lines didnt need to be run on public land to get to private homes, they wouldn't face anything like the regulation (nor be granted monopolies) like they are now.
Post reply on HN