Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

imgur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#241

Post by lapcat »

lapcat wrote: post #46
sillysaurusx wrote: post #4

Not surprising. Social networks have been known to block smaller competitors. After all, it’s their right to as a private company. Isn’t that how that works? Everyone always says that, and this is a case of that.

> After all, it’s their right to as a private company. Why do people always use the term "private company"? Twitter is a publicly owned corporation. If the Musk deal goes through, it'll be private. But I'm not sure what work the word "private" is supposed to be doing.

It's too late to edit the above comment, but let me clarify:

When I ask, Why do people always use the term "private company", this is somewhat of a rhetorical question. I'm not asking for an explanation of what "private company" means, as if I were an ignorant simpleton. That's the uncharitable reading of my comment. Rather, I'm asking for the justification of the use of "private company" as a rhetorical term in the defense of the actions of corporations. I see this rhetorical usage constantly.

Everyone knows that Twitter is a company. That Apple is a company. That Google is a company, etc. And everyone knows that these companies are not run by the government. None of this ever needs to be explained in an argument. So the question is, what rhetorical force do people think the term "private company" gives them in defense of corporate actions? Or maybe the question is, what's the psychology behind the use of this form of rhetoric?

There are various government regulations that do or could be applied to these companies. Antitrust is very relevant for the tech giants. Communications Decency Act. Whether these regulations actually will be applied to these companies is another question, but it's a legitimate debate that can't be simply dismissed by "private company, anything goes".

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#242

Post by legalcorrection »

bee_rider wrote: post #64
legalcorrection wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is arguably "monopolization", which is illegal under the Sherman Act. Even the 9th Circuit, which has adopted an implausibly broad reading of 230, does not think that 230 is a defense against antitrust claims.

The word monopoly unfortunately invites all sorts of pedantry about whether a company is a monopoly (and it goes on endlessly because people can play a game of quibbling about exactly what 'the market' is). Twitter is obviously a powerful player in the social media market, whether or not it is a monopoly. You don't need to be a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Yes, it is often pedantry and not offered in good faith, but in fairness, the legal definition of "monopolization" requires that you either have a monopoly (defined, loosely, as a high-enough marketshare), or, if accused of "attempted monopolization", that you have a dangerous chance of achieving a monopoly. As you note, that requires defining the "relevant market."

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#243

Post by fartcannon »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #212
fartcannon wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damage control is cheap and easy.

So do you really think a team at twitter sat down and thought, lets block mastodon for a day to avoid some customer bleed, then we can do damage control, but it will be worth it in the end?

Yes.

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#244

Post by mardifoufs »

stimpson_j_cat wrote: post #173
mardifoufs wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would've been more believable, if they literally did nothing about the thousands of tweets sharing the hacked Trucker rally database. And it wasn't just random accounts, a lot of major north American/Canadian newspapers shared articles that not only mentionned the hacks and hinted at where to find them, but also explicitly detailed the contents of the database.

Yes that's the go-to copypasta reply. ("Literally" here meaning "not literally.") Twitter changed their policy in response to criticism of the Biden tweets to "no longer remove hacked material unless it’s directly shared by hackers or those working with them" including the rally database, and they restored previously removed tweets about Biden. So by your own measure, very believable.

That's very convenient! The problem is that they didn't enforce that policy before the laptop leaks either. Not in any significant way and no media outlet ever got their account banned for reporting on a hack before (or after).

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#245

Post by INTPenis »

dpedu wrote: post #29

When I attempt this I get a modal message saying: > We can't complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful. Visit our Help Center to learn more. Who are these partners, that apparently have the ability to block links on twitter? Edit: attempting to save the tweet as a draft results in a different error: "The content of your Tweet is invalid."

There was an issue a couple months ago where mastodon.social was blacklisted by some AV vendor. I seem to remember Eugen posting about this.

I also believe some profile had been used as C&C, which could have caused the blacklist.

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#246

Post by jaywalk »

lapcat wrote: post #237
jaywalk wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How do you not see that, and why are you doing this?

> Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How is the difference relevant? Also, the USPS can refuse to deliver child porn. Indeed, Twitter itself must remove child porn. > why are you doing this? I think that "theoretical government run social network" is a total red herring. Everyone in the comments is trying to tell me that "private company" is somehow a u…

You're arguing against something I never said, which is that private companies can do whatever they want.

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#247

Post by lapcat »

jaywalk wrote: post #246
lapcat wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How is the difference relevant? Also, the USPS can refuse to deliver child porn. Indeed, Twitter itself must remove child porn. > why are you doing this? I think that "theoretical government run social network" is a total red herring. Everyone in the comments is trying to tell me that "private company" is somehow a u…

You're arguing against something I never said, which is that private companies can do whatever they want.

> You're arguing against something I never said, which is that private companies can do whatever they want.

True. My original reply in this thread was to the user "rvz". Then you replied to my reply.

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#248

Post by dane-pgp »

aiilns wrote: post #224
dane-pgp wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's literally the dumbest idea possible. Unless the aim was literally to destroy these large left-leaning, people-empowering, highly profitable, internationally reaching businesses. Now imagine which political party and which geopolitical adversary would like to make the internet less liberal, silence the powerless, make American tax revenue lower, and make more space for authoritarian voices on the world stage.

Facebook, twitter, etc left-leaning in the US sense where left is right and right is near the edge of the right spectrum I get. But people-empowering? These large platforms are very much anti-democratic and anti-empowering people. Even more, subverting peoples wills about what they buy by managing what they see and algorithmically trying to guide what they should think is very much anti people. Any people empowering…

I see what you're saying, and there's definitely reason to question which entities have gained the most influence from social media (out of corporations, governments, or activists).

As for "the purpose" of social media, I suppose a simple reductive answer would be "to make money", but there were (and I think still are) people who are idealistic about social media giving a voice to the voiceless, even if you think that, in practice, commercial messages and misinformation end up having a bigger and more negative effect.

A thought experiment I think is useful is to imagine how Western political discourse could have been shaped (by politicians and the traditional media) if grassroots movements couldn't form and raise awareness through things like "hashtag activism".[0] The fact that authoritarian countries invest resources in censoring or banning social media also seems to confirm that they see it as a threat rather than a harmless distraction.

[0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/hashtagactivism

Re: Twitter Blocks Linking to Mastodon.social

#249

Post by bee_rider »

legalcorrection wrote: post #242
bee_rider wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word monopoly unfortunately invites all sorts of pedantry about whether a company is a monopoly (and it goes on endlessly because people can play a game of quibbling about exactly what 'the market' is). Twitter is obviously a powerful player in the social media market, whether or not it is a monopoly. You don't need to be a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Yes, it is often pedantry and not offered in good faith, but in fairness, the legal definition of "monopolization" requires that you either have a monopoly (defined, loosely, as a high-enough marketshare), or, if accused of "attempted monopolization", that you have a dangerous chance of achieving a monopoly. As you note, that requires defining the "relevant market."

I guess I just find it annoying that people want to quibble about "relevant markets" and that kind of stuff, when they could clear up the more likely confusion, which is basically just vocabulary, instead.
Post reply on HN