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

731–740 of 763 posts

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

#731

Post by mainstreem »

projektfu wrote: post #449
mainstreem wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the evidence that the data on the hard drives and laptop were fabricated? There's a lot more physical evidence behind the Hunter Biden Laptop Story (and its censorship) than there was behind, oh I don't know, the impeachment of the President last January. I must assume you have personal possession of exculpatory physical evidence. Please share your physical evidence that discredits the physical evidence you d…

After the Killian documents controversy, the onus is on the publisher to authenticate this type information before they publish it, not on the public to believe it until it is shown to be inauthentic. In that event, the Republican candidate was hurt by a forgery that then resulted in the resignation of Dan Rather, a very prominent news anchor. In the impeachment case, that was not a case of the press digging up a doc…

> After the Killian documents controversy, the onus is on the publisher to authenticate this type information before they publish it

The problem is that this is not the standard that has been applied to the Left, e.g. the story in the Atlantic about the President disparaging troops, which was based on an anonymous source and even John Bolton, who wrote a whole book talking trash about Trump, said it didn't actually happen. And what about that book by #Anonymous which not only was published (I guess the onus wasn't on THAT publisher) but was bandied about in the rest of the mainstream media as a brilliant expose written by.... an unverifiable person. Who was supposed to reveal themselves before the election, but that went down the memory hole.

There have been many, many stories based on weaker evidence that the media has trotted out to judge Trump by, and then when the evidence is more closely examined, the accusations go down the memory hole.

The whole story about Carter Page should've been front page news. The FBI under direction of a Democrat interfered with a Republican's campaign. This was the same FBI leadership that dismissed an investigation against the Democrat with stronger evidence during the same election.

Then, James Comey, head of the FBI at the time of both of those events, after being rightfully fired, went on to disparage the President every chance he got.

But the American people, well, I guess we don't have a right to know what's on Hunter's laptop.

Newsflash: he was engaged in a quid-pro-quo with Ukraine with the help of his father. Trump was impeached for investigating that corruption. And that's the truth.

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

#733

Post by core-questions »

heavyset_go wrote: post #638
core-questions wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the GOP party platform for 2016 & 2020: Surely you understand the difference between things written in a policy platform and things actually done in practice. There is no GOP rep who is out there stirring anything up on reversing this and despite the words "urging its reversal" there is not and will likely not ever be any action in this direction. I can't really imagine someone following American politics f…

I once heard some good advice that I'm going to repeat: when someone tells you who they are, you should listen. The GOP is telling us who they are with their party platform. Anyway, I hear what you're saying a lot, and yet: - The GOP enables Texas social workers to refuse LGBTQ clients[1] - The Trump administration allows doctors to discriminate against LGBTQ people[2] - The Trump administration allows taxpayer-funde…

So, a few small "wins"; nothing major; nothing that is actually addressing the real concerns of these people that their culture and way of life is being changed forcibly around them without their consent. I don't think you'll find anyone that is satisfied with any of the above - at most perhaps someone who revels in this as some kind of revenge, but it doesn't accomplish what GOP voters want: the return of a strong middle class White culture that reflects the world they believe their ancestors to have been struggling toward.

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

#734

Post by chordalkeyboard »

munk-a wrote: post #672
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the reply. My perspective is that democracy is a type of authoritarianism, or at least closely related because the elections are decision-forcing processes that result in the losing side not getting what they want. How would you reconcile this?

I don't think you really can, we all live in a society and compromises need to be made for all of us to enjoy a moderate amount of freedom while not impinging on that of others. We don't currently live in a society that comes close to maximizing freedom for everyone (freedom of opportunity is denied to the majority of folks in the US and elsewhere) but I think we're on the right general path to eventually approach a…

Thanks for the reply. What is the minimum viable ruleset for a sustainable community? Does that ruleset change with technology?

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

#735

Post by munk-a »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #716
RonanTheGrey wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is precisely the effect of having a two party system. Negative campaign ads help you as much as they hurt the other guy - Negative campaign ads are also a more effective way to spend your money. Thus we've seen extreme polarization in politics as parties have stopped needing to say what they'll do - and started fear mongering about what the other guys will do.

It's one reason I've been quite happy to see the green new deal (or Biden's totally not the green new deal but most of it) talked about in debates - it's actually a policy position.

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

#736

Post by kyuudou »

kyuudou wrote: post #728
madmulita wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on... Anyone agreeing with Twitter's agenda, it appears.

Why is this being downvoted? Because of someone else's tip, I tried tweeting these 7 characters: gtv.org and had my account locked within 3 seconds. What kind of orwellian shit is that?!? The twitter account itself was used very sparingly to upload content from my PS4, not controversial in the least. There is very clearly an agenda being applied here. Which is fine with me because this kind of repression is indicatio…

to whoever downvoted me, it's this simple.

You are either:

A platform. That allows all voices to be heard. 1st Amendment protections.

A publisher. That can edit or censor. And can be sued for slander and libel.

Whatever sophistry section 230 discussion is being fogged with, the above should be the way it is, period.

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

#737

Post by ta8645 »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #699
ta8645 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contempt a person must have for their fellow man in order to deem them as unworthy of free speech, is gut wrenching You don't know me. That you feel I have so much contempt for my "fellow man" because of this disagreement of ours is wild. I may just as well bemoan - in equally bad faith - your contempt for honesty, transparency, or reality. At no point have I argued that anyone should be prevented from free spe…

> You don't know me. That you feel I have so much contempt for my "fellow man" because of this disagreement of ours is wild. I may just as well bemoan - in equally bad faith - your contempt for honesty, transparency, or reality.

It's funny that you took this so personally. I said explicitly I was talking about people who want to suppress the speech of their fellow citizens. Yet in the next paragraph you claim that's not what you want.

I don't care how well intentioned anyone is in their desire to suppress the speech of their fellow man. It is ultimately an evil and condescending stance that history shows is bound up with the very worst bloodshed and human suffering that men produce.

People who are supporting the current drive to hide opinions and ideas they dislike from everyone else should be ashamed of themselves. Of course they wont be, and we'll all suffer the pain and social destruction that is sure to follow as a result.

The cure you are promoting is much worse than the disease you can barely articulate.

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

#738

Post by munk-a »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #734
munk-a wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you really can, we all live in a society and compromises need to be made for all of us to enjoy a moderate amount of freedom while not impinging on that of others. We don't currently live in a society that comes close to maximizing freedom for everyone (freedom of opportunity is denied to the majority of folks in the US and elsewhere) but I think we're on the right general path to eventually approach a…

Thanks for the reply. What is the minimum viable ruleset for a sustainable community? Does that ruleset change with technology?

I don't know the minimum viable ruleset that we'd all find acceptable but it's an ethical question that changes over time with societal ethics. We value different violations with different levels of punishment - if we were living in madmax times then maybe rules around water sharing and preservation would be chief among folks.

That ruleset does change with technology on a functional level (murder with a gun when guns don't exist is a non-issue) I don't think there is a particularly interesting relationship with technology though - it's more just an extension of existing rules to platforms.

One thing that might counter that is doxing though - this is a pretty new phenomena that was pretty inconceivable when the world moved slower and humans were more directly involved with communication handling. I think you have the right to not be doxed but I don't think that right clearly translates to any pre-internet rights - it might be an implied right (but unstated or considered due to the infeasibility) but it is a pretty good example of a more novel rule for a sustainable community... that said we're still societally new to the internet so maybe it eventually won't be a rule and we'll find that doxing was an unfortunate emergent behavior of some integrated systems that really shouldn't have been integrated.

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

#739

Post by projektfu »

mainstreem wrote: post #731
projektfu wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the Killian documents controversy, the onus is on the publisher to authenticate this type information before they publish it, not on the public to believe it until it is shown to be inauthentic. In that event, the Republican candidate was hurt by a forgery that then resulted in the resignation of Dan Rather, a very prominent news anchor. In the impeachment case, that was not a case of the press digging up a doc…

> After the Killian documents controversy, the onus is on the publisher to authenticate this type information before they publish it The problem is that this is not the standard that has been applied to the Left, e.g. the story in the Atlantic about the President disparaging troops, which was based on an anonymous source and even John Bolton, who wrote a whole book talking trash about Trump, said it didn't actually h…

It’s the standard I apply, right or left. I don’t edit those organizations.

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

#740

Post by wan23 »

75dvtwin wrote: post #729
RoyTyrell wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. I agree with that. > A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter. Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on, it's not a news aggregation site and certainly isn't even a news generating company. Every news organization in the world could delete their Twitter account, and every…

Twitter restrict free speech using their selective outrage. It is morally reprehensible, but allowed. They are free to have their selective outrage, but they are a publisher, not a platform. And therefore cannot claim protections under 47.230 This is like claiming tax exceptions of a non-profit charity, while being a for profit business >" ... (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive mat…

This is a strange reading of section 230. It seems like you're saying that Twitter is not a "provider...of an interactive computer service" because it is choosing what is on its platform, even though in section 2A it specifically provides protections for such providers to "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider...considers to be obscene...or otherwise objectionable". If it is not allowed for a platform to remove content they find objectionable, then why call it out as protected here?
Post reply on HN