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

The Twitter Files, Part Six

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#861

Post by roenxi »

candybar wrote: post #827
roenxi wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be foolish to see this as a left v. right issue. This is an authoritarian vs. libertarian battle. This sort of activity is what the government 100% shouldn't be involved in. Having a department of What is Allowed To Be Said is one of those ideas that gets tried regularly and has a terrible track record that - inevitably - ranges between a source of mild shame in hindsight to a nightmare influence on society.…

Are there any scenarios where it is acceptable for the President to threaten private companies to change their moderation policies to suit his needs? That's what Trump did repeatedly. There's a fundamental contradiction in the narrative presented in the Twitter Files, apparently we're supposed to believe that Twitter is this overwhelmingly liberal place where employees were highly biased against conservatives in thei…

> Are there any scenarios where it is acceptable for the President to threaten private companies to change their moderation policies to suit his needs?

If he's asking for something completely reasonable that ~80+% of people think is a good idea, sure. The appropriate thing for Twitter to do would still probably be to ignore him.

Giving Trump influence of Twitter's moderation policies is one of those obviously bad ideas (much like giving the FBI influence, in fact, for similar reasons).

> If Twitter and FBI were aligned, there's no coercion.

Yeah it isn't really a question of coercion, obviously if Twitter wants to support the FBI in political causes they are free to do that. The issue is that the FBI is being funded by taxpayers, not leftists, and shouldn't be deployed in a political capacity to support partisan management policies like what Twitter turned out to have. The easy way to achieve that is a blanket rule - something like "the government doesn't police what people say" which is fair and reasonably objective.

> ...also the FBI, of course that famously leftist institution...

There was the institutional support for the Trump-Russia hoax and the FBI's help in suppression of the Hunter Biden story. While I agree the FBI probably isn't leftist (I'm arguing it is authoritarian and status-quo biased, for what it is worth - they'd pull all the same tricks on someone like Bernie Sanders if he had made it through the primary), it is politically active and spreading a lot of this "misinformation" stuff to try and keep Trump out of office. That is corrupt, and it shouldn't be working with Twitter like it is.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#862

Post by Shared404 »

bennies4grojnd wrote: post #860
Shared404 wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, fine. > neither causes harm https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transphobia#effect... > Nor dehumanizes Intentionally causing harm (see above) and pushing for it to be acceptable for others to cause harm is in fact dehumanizing. I note you still fail to present any argument other than "I feel like you're wrong"

So, let's say that someone (like a user of Twitter, or a writer for the Babylon Bee) points out that Rachel Levine, a public figure, is a man. How does that actually harm him? He's in an incredibly privileged position, and indeed has enjoyed male privilege for pretty much all of his life. Should we avoid saying any truth that might slightly upset a public figure, or anyone really, just in case they feel a bit sad if…

It continues to drive the narrative that trans people are invalid, and also has knock-on effects for every trans person who reads that post.

> just in case they feel a bit sad if they happen to hear it

I recommend you read that source I provided again.

E: And a couple others -

https://mentalhealthcommission.ca/resource/transgender-peopl...

https://sci-hub.st/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ Good paper, but here's a sentence from the conclusion. > Findings underscore the importance of risk factors such as emotional neglect within the family, interpersonal microaggressions, and internalized self-stigma

In addition, what reason do you have to not respect a trans persons identity? Biological sex is already much _much_ more complex than just the XY we're taught in middle school. Klinefelter's and intersex people both exist, as do other blurred lines.

There's also nothing inherent about 'sex == gender' - transgender people have existed throughout history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

Now then, unless you provide actually interesting input we're done here until you come back with your main :).

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#863

Post by meepmorp »

willcipriano wrote: post #629
meepmorp wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't talking about the FBI, I was talking about Hunter Biden's laptop, and what an entirely bullshit story it is from start to finish. Read the comment I was responding to.

Lots of crackheads get jobs on the boards of foreign energy firms, and lots of crackheads dads withhold a billion dollars in loan guarantees from the nation where their crackhead sons have these jobs unless they fire the prosecutor looking into their sons business. Total nothing burger. Another one for the big guy.

But none of that actually happened, so it is a nothingburger.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#864

Post by nopenopenopeno »

UncleMeat wrote: post #628
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's straightforwardly a broad term and you have no basis for your nonsense gatekeeping.

It isn’t gatekeeping. “Orwellian” has a negative connotation. It is unreasonable to describe ordinary internal jargon as such.

If you disagree, then make an actual argument for the content of your position. This subjective word policing is pathetic and unconvincing.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#865

Post by xnx »

daxfohl wrote: post #468
threeseed wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I think the idea is to try and attract conservatives from other apps e.g. TruthSocial. Good idea in theory except that many of those users aren't as well-behaved so to speak. And so the overall quality of the discourse has noticeably dropped since Musk took over.

I think he's just trying to eliminate the cultural barrier for marketing a Tesla pick up truck.

Could he possibly sell enough pickups to make up for the money hes losing on twitter?

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#866

Post by bennies4gronjd »

Shared404 wrote: post #862
bennies4grojnd wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, let's say that someone (like a user of Twitter, or a writer for the Babylon Bee) points out that Rachel Levine, a public figure, is a man. How does that actually harm him? He's in an incredibly privileged position, and indeed has enjoyed male privilege for pretty much all of his life. Should we avoid saying any truth that might slightly upset a public figure, or anyone really, just in case they feel a bit sad if…

It continues to drive the narrative that trans people are invalid, and also has knock-on effects for every trans person who reads that post. > just in case they feel a bit sad if they happen to hear it I recommend you read that source I provided again. E: And a couple others - https://mentalhealthcommission.ca/resource/transgender-peopl... https://sci-hub.st/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ Good paper, but h…

So everyone just has to lie and pretend, just to make trans people feel better? Push down their own beliefs and feelings in case someone who thinks they are the opposite sex reads anything that may be critical of this?

As a more concrete counterpoint, here's a news article from last year which includes a lesbian woman describing her rape by a man who calls himself a woman: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

The editors decided to replace the male pronouns she used to describe him with "they" and "them":

> Another reported a trans woman physically forcing her to have sex after they went on a date.

> "[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them]," she wrote. "I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a 'woman' even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me."

How do you think she must have felt reading this truthful quote of hers mangled into a lie? A rape victim who isn't permitted to have her rape accurately reported, after she had already been shamed into getting into bed with this man by him weaponising the same ideology that censors her now.

Was she guilty of hate speech by describing her own rape?

I read your source by the way, it's very one-sided, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation about speech.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#867

Post by willcipriano »

meepmorp wrote: post #863
willcipriano wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of crackheads get jobs on the boards of foreign energy firms, and lots of crackheads dads withhold a billion dollars in loan guarantees from the nation where their crackhead sons have these jobs unless they fire the prosecutor looking into their sons business. Total nothing burger. Another one for the big guy.

But none of that actually happened, so it is a nothingburger.

Joe will tell you the story himself: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4820105/user-clip-biden-tells...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#868

Post by Shared404 »

bennies4gronjd wrote: post #866
Shared404 wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It continues to drive the narrative that trans people are invalid, and also has knock-on effects for every trans person who reads that post. > just in case they feel a bit sad if they happen to hear it I recommend you read that source I provided again. E: And a couple others - https://mentalhealthcommission.ca/resource/transgender-peopl... https://sci-hub.st/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ Good paper, but h…

So everyone just has to lie and pretend, just to make trans people feel better? Push down their own beliefs and feelings in case someone who thinks they are the opposite sex reads anything that may be critical of this? As a more concrete counterpoint, here's a news article from last year which includes a lesbian woman describing her rape by a man who calls himself a woman: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-578533…

One trans woman being a scumbag piece of trash

A) Doesn't make her not a woman

B) Doesn't make all trans people scumbags.

I understand the position of the lesbian woman in that story - she is justified in anger, hate and fear, as sad as it is to say.

You're allowed to not be attracted to someone, and trans individuals have to accept that sometimes relationships may not work out as a result of their being trans - it's just a sad but true fact.

> Push down their own beliefs and feelings in case someone who thinks they are the opposite sex reads anything that may be critical of this?

Isn't the quote "facts don't care about your feelings"? All serious modern research points to trans individuals being valid.

> I read your source by the way, it's very one-sided, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation about speech.

You asked how speech leads to harm, I provided an example. I've also uploaded more since then.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#869

Post by rhaksw »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #710
rhaksw wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who has been in a tech company knows that there is internal lingo that refers to features we devs make. But it's presented as being an "Orwellian language" The fact that you need different internal descriptors should be a red flag. All kinds of phrases get used like selective invisibility, visibility filtering, ranking, visible to self, reducing, deboosting, or disguising a gag. Each is a form of censorship,…

> The fact that you need different internal descriptors should be a red flag It can be, and you're zeroing on sense where vague lingo like "enhanced interrogation" replaces plain "torture". But that's a stretch. Every profession develops their own lingo over time. They're called "term of art" (1) An example is when one sysadmin asks another to "bounce the box" - these words have specific meanings which are opaque to…

> Every profession develops their own lingo over time.

In this case, Twitter packages up two objectively observable things, people you follow and people who are popular, along with Twitter's own opinion about who the bad-faith actors are. It's that last subjective part that is at issue here. Yet all three are lumped together under the term "rank" [1], and we are told it is the bad actors who are manipulating, not Twitter.

I'm not calling for the demise of Twitter's former leadership, just calling out corporate speak where I see it. YouTube is at least transparent in this respect. They openly say that they "reduce" content [2].

[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...

[2] https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsib...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#870

Post by bennies4gronjd »

Shared404 wrote: post #868
bennies4gronjd wrote: post #866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So everyone just has to lie and pretend, just to make trans people feel better? Push down their own beliefs and feelings in case someone who thinks they are the opposite sex reads anything that may be critical of this? As a more concrete counterpoint, here's a news article from last year which includes a lesbian woman describing her rape by a man who calls himself a woman: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-578533…

One trans woman being a scumbag piece of trash A) Doesn't make her not a woman B) Doesn't make all trans people scumbags. I understand the position of the lesbian woman in that story - she is justified in anger, hate and fear, as sad as it is to say. You're allowed to not be attracted to someone, and trans individuals have to accept that sometimes relationships may not work out as a result of their being trans - it's…

You've missed the point, this about people not being permitted to say the truth, per this ideology.

Even a rape victim isn't allowed to say that a man raped her, despite him forcing his penis inside of her. Is she supposed to pretend that this is a "woman's penis" or something?

That was an extreme example used to illustrate. The other examples elsewhere in this thread include a man taking an accolade that would usually be reserved for women, and a man going around being creepy to women who provide genital waxing services to other women.

If critics aren't allowed to push aside the gender ideology for a minute and discuss these males as men, it entirely undermines any point they're making about women's boundaries being encroached upon - which is also a harm, and a significant one.

Post reply on HN