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

661–670 of 763 posts

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

#661

Post by olliej »

temp8964 wrote: post #582
istjohn wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes. Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. But Twitter insists it's neutral, so it MUST be neutral.

No, it doesn’t.

But the other problem is defining neutral - many people seem to have decided that removing objectively false information is somehow not neutral. Which it isn’t.

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

#662

Post by ponker »

adventured wrote: post #583
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. It's actually the uneven enforcement of their own terms of service that is primarily of issue and further whether their actions constitute an illegal campaign contribution to the Democrats by way of their intentionally tilted censorship. If the DOJ were doing its job, they would be crushing Twitte…

Per Citizens United, there's no such thing as an "illegal campaign contribution to the Democrats."

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

#663

Post by h0l0cube »

h0l0cube wrote: post #633
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…

>> 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. I can't ignore the irony here that you complain about straw-manning of the OP by cherry-picking the only negative comment in spite of the 99% of commentary in favor. Edit: I also can't ignore that the plaint of pervasive "echo chamber hyperbole" is juxtaposed…

Getting downvotes for this, not because there's any solid argument against what I'm saying, but because people are upset. The reason why I had to say something is because the GPs comment highlights much of what is wrong with online discourse.

That 'The New York Post has more merit than people afford it' might be worthy claim, but making a bunch of loud baseless claims isn't the way to convince people of it.

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

#664

Post by ricardo81 »

NeverFade wrote: post #608
rbanffy wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already. > It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US. It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. Lower th…

Here's what's happening: our communication is moving to private venues. These venues initially maintain freedom of speech. Once they become effective monopolies, they start arbitrarily cracking down on speech they dislike. The vast majority of people are on these monopolistic platforms. Yes, dissenters can still publish on some obscure platforms that nobody is consuming. If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, yo…

>If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it.

This is essentially the problem. FAANG are the gateways to the web and having your content removed from them makes it considerably harder to have a web presence.

I'm sure most sane people would not want tech companies to be the arbiters of truth, though the solution as to how people can consume information without the inherent bias of platforms/algorithms/company policy remains to be seen.

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

#665

Post by RonanTheGrey »

munk-a wrote: post #622
RonanTheGrey wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think attributing it to "having the right to be wrong" is overly simplistic and you're missing a big chunk of what the core problem is - when you walk into a voting booth you are allowed to[1] check either the D or the R box. If you've followed a few rounds of elections chances are you've held your nose at least one of the times you've voted. Can you be a member of the GOP that is pretty well convinced that while t…

100% with you that FPTP was a mistake and should be rectified - I've seen some pretty good proposals of how ranked choice voting could work and would result in much more equitable outcomes.

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

#666

Post by RonanTheGrey »

Spivak wrote: post #616
RonanTheGrey wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 begrudgin…

Ah, ok. Good points... So, I have been around awhile -- 6 presidential elections and many more smaller ones.. I got to thinking about this and I realized that at some point, the national conversation changed from 'who you vote for and why' to 'who you vote against and what horrible things will happen if they win'.

To be fair that kind of rhetoric has existed since even the earliest days of the US, but I think on the whole voting has historically been seen as something you DO rather than something you use to fight against. The change in balance is... worrying.

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

#667

Post by triceratops »

koolba wrote: post #346
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).

> 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? Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes. > How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is n…

> I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?

On your own website or forum, absolutely. It's your property. GP has no right to use it that you do not expressly grant.

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

#669

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

unishark wrote: post #645
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…

> They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. And what causes it?? What if censorship itself causes hate speech?

> What if censorship itself causes hate speech?

What if windmills cause cancer? What if toenails cause climate change? Why do birds?

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

#670

Post by unishark »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #669
unishark wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. And what causes it?? What if censorship itself causes hate speech?

> What if censorship itself causes hate speech? What if windmills cause cancer? What if toenails cause climate change? Why do birds?

Referencing actual logic people use regarding drugs/alcohol prohibition for those that didn't follow.
Post reply on HN