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

711–720 of 763 posts

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

#711

Post by srtjstjsj »

nickysielicki wrote: post #192
tomp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Interesting... after reading this, I immediately thought: same as Zero Hedge (also often criticised). But then again, that shouldn't be a surprise - b…

Not-so-fun fact: according to the mods on /r/conservative, submissions from zerohedge are currently banned site-wide. https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/jhksrq/do_not... It seems to check out: https://old.reddit.com/domain/zerohedge.com/new/

That post is referring to a Hunter Biden revenge porn sex tape. Are other non-anonymous performer) revenge porn sex tapes posted on reddit?

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

#712

Post by srtjstjsj »

dasudasu wrote: post #240
munk-a wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "common person" is honestly pretty depressing. 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. Censorship is a hard question and I think we do need to have better laws promoting free access to material (even "libelous" material) but this is also an area w…

With two parties divided along ideological left-right lines, it’s expected that a majority won’t be switching side too often in their lifetime. The opposite would be ideologically weak parties doing a form of clientelism that would change according to the trends of the day.

> The opposite would be ideologically weak parties doing a form of clientelism that would change according to the trends of the day.

Like the Southern Strategy, the Blue Dog Democrats, Tea Party, and Donald Trump (party-switcher).

Look at the radical positions calling themselves "conservative" today, getting more extreme since the 1980s when religous extremists stated taking over the Republican Party.

One-third of US voters are Independent not registered to a party.

The US electoral system forces to parties, but those parties change and are sometimes replaced.

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

#713

Post by srtjstjsj »

sam_goody wrote: post #536
munk-a wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "common person" is honestly pretty depressing. 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. Censorship is a hard question and I think we do need to have better laws promoting free access to material (even "libelous" material) but this is also an area w…

RealClearPolitics makes a point of presenting articles on both sides of the spectrum and has grown tremendously. I am cautiously optimistic that there are a lot, lot, lot of people (like myself) that are interested in trying to balance their views, and make a point of reading both sides - especially when a headline is sensational. I don't think Google news is as balanced as RCP, but it sure beats just reading CNN or…

RCP is "diverse" compared to CNN or Fox offering opinions from center (mayyybe center -left) Bloomberg/Politico/NYMag to far right (Federalist), with a clear Right bias. Their founding mission to provide diversity to balance the Liberal Mainstream Media. They have nothing Left like Mother Jones or Jacobin.

The farthest left they go is in linking to Biden endorsements, but Biden is a centrist establish Democrat who has been endorsed by most of the pre-2016 Republican party.

It's obvious from the list of sources: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

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

#714

Post by srtjstjsj »

Spivak wrote: post #264
munk-a wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "common person" is honestly pretty depressing. 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. Censorship is a hard question and I think we do need to have better laws promoting free access to material (even "libelous" material) but this is also an area w…

> 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…

What if you are Black and pro-Life, high income and live in the suburbs, married to a Palestinian and have a police officer brother married to a Jew?

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

#715

Post by srtjstjsj »

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…

> On average people are pretty smart

This is a vacuous statement. How smart is pretty smart?

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

#716

Post by srtjstjsj »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #666
Spivak wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since 1974 every election's plurality major issue has been abortion or war, exactly "who you vote against and what horrible things will happen if they win"

Abortion will be banned, Bush will start a war, Obama will create the world's first Muslim Socialist state

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

#717

Post by srtjstjsj »

joshuamorton wrote: post #501
hiram112 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason? That's a perfectly fine stance, and it has worked well for traditional publishers like the NY Times and Washington Post for decades. They control all their content, and publish exactly the narrative they want. OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them. See for…

Well no, the entire point of 230 was to allow content aggregators to actively moderate content. As I see it, there are three options: 1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable. 2. What we have now (sites can moderate as they see fit) 3. Some external board adjudicates on what it is acceptable to moderate Of these, 3 seems by far the worst, and 2 seems better than 1 on…

> 1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable.

Pre 230, platforms were liable regardless of whether they moderated.

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

#718

Post by srtjstjsj »

free_rms wrote: post #561
HelloMcFly wrote: post #538

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? 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 Burisma investigation was dropped by the shady prosecutor before the prosecutor was replaced. The opposition to the previous prosecutor was multi-national

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

#719

Post by joshuamorton »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #717
joshuamorton wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, the entire point of 230 was to allow content aggregators to actively moderate content. As I see it, there are three options: 1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable. 2. What we have now (sites can moderate as they see fit) 3. Some external board adjudicates on what it is acceptable to moderate Of these, 3 seems by far the worst, and 2 seems better than 1 on…

> 1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable. Pre 230, platforms were liable regardless of whether they moderated.

That's incorrect. A platform that choose not to moderate anything was not liable for anything.

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

#720

Post by legitster »

0x445442 wrote: post #531
legitster wrote: post #91

What a hot mess. I am imagining those years of looking at terrible National Enquirer headlines at store checkouts. This kind of terrible reporting as always existed, but for some reason (luckily I guess) they never crossed over into national discourse the way that stories do online. I never begrudged the store for carrying them and selling them. If Wal-Mart suddenly felt the need to arbitrate on the accuracy of every…

The hot mess is the story in question has been verified by multiple sources and is credible. What this means is Twitter is obviously trying to sway the outcome of an election by making editorial decisions on which information it allows on it's, supposedly, neutral platform. Because it's making editorial decisions of what news to allow on it's platform it should be treated as any other news organization and it should…

> has been verified by multiple sources and is credible

Citation needed.

Post reply on HN