81–90 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next move: “We don’t do any real work here, but you’re getting hazard pay for a reason.”
It would be a deterrent to hire ex-KBG, ex-military, family members of key politicians...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politifact and COVID origin
Conspiracy theories that COVID was released intentionally by China are still false, same as they were every time this idea gets brought up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Twitter shouldn't get in the middle of these types of things.
Catch-22. When they don’t they’re attacked for harbouring, and allowing the algorithmic spread of, fake news. Besides, sites like Facebook and Twitter started to “get in the middle of these things” the moment they stopped simply showing you a chronological series of posts from people/pages you follow; to a weighted interest system, based on opaque algorithms.
If they're not smart enough, then who cares what they think anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think people should be allowed to say it because I believe in free speech. I do too, but this is the exact problem here. Twitter colored that free speech with what they thought was right. > Then you must really hate (almost) every news organization in the world. They literally make it their business to do the very thing you seem to oppose Oh, I do hate them. Passing commentary from high pedestals and this false s…
> I do too, but this is the exact problem here. Twitter colored that free speech with what they thought was right. I think this is where we disagree. Yes, twitter added their own opinion, but as far as I'm concerned why is that worse than anyone adding their own opinion to it? My point is twitter adding their opinion should be as inconsequential as a random person with 6 followers replying to the tweet saying "this i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Twitter shouldn't get in the middle of these types of things.
If Twitter just shows everyone all Tweets, people'd quickly get overwhelmed, and a few very active Twitter users would drown out all the rest. So they add an algorithm that tries to determine which Tweets a user is most likely to want to see - now they're in the middle, deciding what someone sees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general, Indians living abroad are highly supportive of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Not his party, or his government, or his policies ... just him personally. Hacker News contains many such people. They are responsible for the bizarre comments you've read on this thread. On a related note, this thread will soon be flagged, like all threads that are even mildly, indirectly critical of Narendra Modi. En…
This generalization comes up in every polarized thread about every polarized topic. Literally every side that feels passionately on such a topic feels like the community is outrageously biased against their side. For every sarcastic and aggrieved "anything that supports $X will get downvoted and flagged" or "anything even mildly critical will get $Y", there are isomorphic comments from the opposing side which are jus…
I don't spend time analyzing HN discourse like I think you probably do as a natural part of your role here, but it occasionally feels (perhaps a little less here?) like the actions of certain entities get a higher percentage of suspiciously blind or low effort defenders and whatabouters than others on high traffic public fora.
nb. Like you, I'm not talking about specifically this thread just the concept in general.
Highly misleading title, this was not a raid, they issued a notice as they were putting "manipulated media" tags on well known politicians, it was seen as Twitter directly attempting to shut down democracy in India
How many police are required to deliver a letter? Why not mail it or email it? How about using attorneys?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do too, but this is the exact problem here. Twitter colored that free speech with what they thought was right. I think this is where we disagree. Yes, twitter added their own opinion, but as far as I'm concerned why is that worse than anyone adding their own opinion to it? My point is twitter adding their opinion should be as inconsequential as a random person with 6 followers replying to the tweet saying "this i…
It might just be labeling today, next time it might be suppression of posts in feeds, eventually they might just shadow block posts or remove them entirely.
There's the platform versus publisher issue, where companies are arguably trying to be both.
And there's the social media companies already using black box algorithms to control their feeds.
So I'd argue with twitter everything already falls under the latter issue, which doesn't mean it's okay just that this is larger issue for any social media company and it's more complicated than just free speech (which is already more nuanced than I've described).
So yes, once twitter begins censoring opinions (and arguably they already do simply by having an algorithm make a feed for you) then they are equally culpable.
As to the corporation vs government issue, yes I'd prefer to hold governments accountable for these things and I agree they should be the entities that handle this. But I see that as an ideal and meanwhile I care more about practical solutions to help us improve where we are and hopefully get there some day.
The ruling party released a fake document, suggesting that the opposition is engaging in subversive activities. It was fact checked by various independent agencies and found to be a fake document. Twitter added a "manipulated media" label to those tweets. Delhi police, which is directly controlled by the Indian government raided the office of Twitter. It is not done with the intention of finding anything. It is to ha…
What is up with the comments in this thread? How are people seeing this as the Indian government taking a stand against censorship or whatever? The same government is upset that Twitter reinstated several accounts critical of the administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might just be labeling today, next time it might be suppression of posts in feeds, eventually they might just shadow block posts or remove them entirely.
Yes, that point is valid. I simplified my argument for the sake of conversation, but there are really two other very real issues I didn't address because it would wildly increase the scope of this conversation (and I don't want to spend hours here). There's the platform versus publisher issue, where companies are arguably trying to be both. And there's the social media companies already using black box algorithms to…