Live data from Hacker News

Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

Post reply on HN

Print view View original

121–130 of 238 posts

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#121

Post by ardy42 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

stretchcat wrote: post #118

ardy42 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think the NYPost fabricated the existence of the lawsuit? As far as I can tell, the lawsuit really does exist. Straight up fabrication is not the only way to disinform, and it's in fact it's a pretty shitty way to do it, since it means your disinformation collapses at the slightest scrutiny. To make fabrication effective, the fabrication needs to be laundered to give it credibility (see https://www.youtube.c…

Suppose the NYPost has an axe to grind and went looking for a lawsuit that makes twitter look bad... so what? The lawsuit exists as they claim. That wouldn't mean they're lying, it would only mean they have a different idea of what constitutes news worthiness than you. That wouldn't make it disinformation. Virtually every sentence in the article contains some variation of "the suit alleges." That the suit alleges the…

> Suppose the NYPost has an axe to grind and went looking for a lawsuit that makes twitter look bad... so what?

Because that would be more like propaganda than journalism.

> That wouldn't mean they're lying, it would only mean they have a different idea of what constitutes news worthiness than you. That wouldn't make it disinformation.

Lying is only one of the many ways you can mislead someone. My point was that lying is inferior way to deceive than assembling true facts in a deceptive way. So the fact that the NY Post themselves didn't outright lie in this story does little to refute the idea that they're a disreputable paper.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#122

Post by ketamine__ » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #88

ketamine__ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument can be made MeWe and Substack actually pose more of a threat to the established order because they are mainstream. Parler isn't competing with Twitter or Facebook because the average person doesn't want to see a feed full of white supremacist's discussing conspiracy theories.

You’re far more likely to see that on Twitter than you were on Parler.

It's concentrated on Parler. Are there any liberal or moderate groups using their service?

Parler's only redeeming quality is that it had all of the footage from the attack on the Capitol. It would have made a good honeypot but now it looks to be weaponized as a Russian disinformation project.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#123

Post by stretchcat » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #121

stretchcat wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose the NYPost has an axe to grind and went looking for a lawsuit that makes twitter look bad... so what? The lawsuit exists as they claim. That wouldn't mean they're lying, it would only mean they have a different idea of what constitutes news worthiness than you. That wouldn't make it disinformation. Virtually every sentence in the article contains some variation of "the suit alleges." That the suit alleges the…

> Suppose the NYPost has an axe to grind and went looking for a lawsuit that makes twitter look bad... so what? Because that would be more like propaganda than journalism. > That wouldn't mean they're lying, it would only mean they have a different idea of what constitutes news worthiness than you. That wouldn't make it disinformation. Lying is only one of the many ways you can mislead someone. My point was that lyin…

There is no clear demarcation line between journalism and propaganda. Every journalist has biases, every last one, and every journalist aspires to report on matters they care about (e.g. "want to grind an axe on", which is just a way of saying the same thing but with a derogatory connotation.)

What matters is whether their reporting is factual or not. In this case, there seems to be little doubt that the reporting is factual; the reported lawsuit does exist and does make the reported claims.

> does little to refute the idea that they're a disreputable paper.

I have no interest in refuting obvious truths.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#124

Post by ardy42 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

stretchcat wrote: post #123

ardy42 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suppose the NYPost has an axe to grind and went looking for a lawsuit that makes twitter look bad... so what? Because that would be more like propaganda than journalism. > That wouldn't mean they're lying, it would only mean they have a different idea of what constitutes news worthiness than you. That wouldn't make it disinformation. Lying is only one of the many ways you can mislead someone. My point was that lyin…

There is no clear demarcation line between journalism and propaganda. Every journalist has biases, every last one, and every journalist aspires to report on matters they care about (e.g. "want to grind an axe on" , which is just a way of saying the same thing but with a derogatory connotation.) What matters is whether their reporting is factual or not. In this case, there seems to be little doubt that the reporting i…

> What matters is whether their reporting is factual or not. In this case, there seems to be little doubt that the reporting is factual; the reported lawsuit does exist and does make the reported claims.

That matters, but it isn't the only thing that matters. Again: the fact that the NY Post themselves didn't outright lie in this story does little to refute the idea that they're a disreputable paper. The way they choose facts to report and how they arrange them can be the real source of disrepute.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#125

Post by worldofmatthew » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #111

DanBC wrote: post #104

I have to say, I don't quite understand why services find it so difficult to remove this material. This has been a long standing problem with Twitter. They've improved a bit, but there's still problems. Young people approach these platforms and say "here are some images of child sexual abuse that you're hosting. I know they're CSE because I'm the subject of the photos and I was We need to help young people understand…

If they know they are hosting CP, are they legally responsible for it?

I know some people cited section 223, allowing for prison for up to two years and or fined.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#126

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

isochronous wrote: post #52

newbie578 wrote: post #34

Now then, I expect a swift retribution from other companies to do the "right" thing and banish Twitter from our reach. Remove them from Google searches, de-platform them from the App Store and cut their access to hosting services. They have failed to moderate their platform, in fact in this case it seems they did on the contrary, so it is only just they get their part of punishment.

Truly a disingenuous argument. Parler didn't get TOS'd because they had things fall through their moderation process; they got TOS'd because they did not have a workable moderation process in place, period. Twitter obviously does make mistakes - both AIs and humans are fallible - but they have about as good a moderation process in place as it's possible to have with the amount of message traffic they process. Also, I…

The lack of moderation on Parler was considered a feature.

Except it actually did have moderation, but it was leftists voices that were silenced.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#127

Post by mansion7 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

trianglem wrote: post #95

Nextgrid wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole deplatforming thing is mostly virtue-signalling. PornHub is an easy target and the people & companies involved in its deplatforming do not need it in any way (at least not in a way they would publicly admit - I'm sure some of them do consume its content) so it's an easy call to make and can gather significant support from certain conservative and religious circles. Twitter on the other hand is near-essentia…

Is virtue signaling being a good person through your actions?

Not in my experience. That's why the distinction is made between "virtue signalling" and "actually being virtuous".

It's more akin to showing up to a date wearing fancy clothes and driving an expensive, but borrowed car. Giving the symbols of wealth while possessing none, to fool an audience.

Many of those I've seen signalling their virtue the loudest possess the least.

The reason for the growth and awareness of the phenomena? In prior times, one must perform virtuous actions to appear virtuous. Now, it costs nothing, takes no effort, and carries no risk; it's as simple as typing 140 characters into a phone screen.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#128

Post by stretchcat » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #124

stretchcat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no clear demarcation line between journalism and propaganda. Every journalist has biases, every last one, and every journalist aspires to report on matters they care about (e.g. "want to grind an axe on" , which is just a way of saying the same thing but with a derogatory connotation.) What matters is whether their reporting is factual or not. In this case, there seems to be little doubt that the reporting i…

> What matters is whether their reporting is factual or not. In this case, there seems to be little doubt that the reporting is factual; the reported lawsuit does exist and does make the reported claims. That matters, but it isn't the only thing that matters. Again: the fact that the NY Post themselves didn't outright lie in this story does little to refute the idea that they're a disreputable paper. The way they cho…

I am not disputing that the NYPost is disreputable, do I need to say this more? I am saying the deservedly poor reputation of the NYPost is irrelevant in this case because the reported facts are easy to independently verify. The reputation of a newspaper counts when their reputation is what we must rely on, which is not the case here.

The NYPost's source is a public filing linked elsewhere in this discussion. If you think the NYPost has lied, point out the lie. If you think they left something important out, point it out. I'm guessing you cannot do either.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#129

Post by mansion7 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #33

d33lio wrote: post #14

Even as someone who's glad Biden is now president - it's a bit unnerving to be living in a time where a service bans the sitting united states president without batting an eye but engages in legal battles to defend the distribution of child pornography on their "open platform". I guess people posting spicy takes on government happens to be more of an active risk to society than literal child predators?

They didn't ban Trump "without batting an eye" they dickered about it for four entire years while he trampled all over their AUP and they didn't bother banning him until he literally tried to incite a civil war, and even then it's clear that the only reason they banned him is that it didn't work. If somehow Trump's ridiculous little revolt had succeeded in installing him as president again, Twitter would have kept hi…

Did you read the tweets they used as justification?

A man simply saying "I'm not going to this event" allows them to suddenly become mind-readers and clairvoyants, able to not only read one's mind to determine what they REALLY meant, but also how others in the future will interpret it. Even Nostradamus didn't possess such foresight.

Yet actual, obvious child sexual exploitation is seemingly a low priority for them.

It's just interesting, their priorities. But not exactly a mystery.

Re: Twitter sued for allegedly refusing to remove child porn

#130

Post by stretchcat » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #119

colpabar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty clear you did not read the article, so here The federal suit, filed Wednesday by the victim and his mother in the Northern District of California, alleges Twitter made money off the clips, which showed a 13-year-old engaged in sex acts and are a form of child sexual abuse material, or child porn, the suit states. The teen — who is now 17 and lives in Florida — is identified only as John Doe and was be…

Yes, it sounds like he was forced to make actual child porn...because he shared nudes. And THAT was so unacceptable to society that he felt forced to pay the blackmail. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the other stuff I hear about, like teenagers getting charged with child porn for sending dick picks, or rape charges because 2 16-year olds had (consenting) sex. All of this is insane, and if not for the systemic insanit…

This is a ridiculous argument; blackmailers can and routinely do blackmail people over matters that are legal but embarrassing. This could have happened in any country. Similar things do occur in every country.

Post reply on HN