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

Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 596 posts

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#111

Post by centimeter »

__float wrote: post #7

At what point do we look to capitalism as a driving factor for misinformation spreading? Media outlets are incentivized to bring in clicks/shares/likes. They're not incentivized to research stories sufficiently, so...a shaky lead from a sketchy source but a super compelling headline? Of course that gets published. Taking this as some anti-conservative war from the tech industry is super misleading.

The abundance of low-quality news today can be understood as a consequence of the cantillon effect in an inflationary environment. American-style crony capitalism might incentivize low-quality media, but without the presence of massive subsidies propping up News Corp, AT&T, and the other few firms owning the vast majority of American media, I would expect more legitimate and reputable news firms like Bloomberg or Reuters.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#112

Post by jessaustin »

crocodiletears wrote: post #14
eyeball wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s crazy that they’re even blocking links to the ny post article via direct message. What’s next? Email? Will we have to resort to signal and other encrypted direct messaging methods to have open discussion? Or run your own mail server end hope your recipient doesn’t use one that censors? Creepy stuff.

This has been the reality for people on the political fringes for some time now. Unfortunately nobody's been paying attention to it due in large part to the commentariat/journalistic class's willingness to encourage and provide cover for this behavior as a matter of political expedience. Another example: Messenger's been blocking links to joebiden.info (this may have changed, it's been six months since I've checked)

I'm glad HN didn't block that link. I've learned a great deal that will affect my vote in the upcoming election.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#113

Post by skindoe »

platz wrote: post #108
timoth3y wrote: post #96

Many are confusing "censorship" with "content moderation". The difference is very important. Censorship is when you are prevented from publishing on your own platform. Content moderation is when a platform owner choses what can be published on theirs. Twitter decided they did not want their platform used to spread what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda, but they in no way prevented the NY Po…

> what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda was it?

I'm sure they totally would do the same thing for a different political candidate /s

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#114

Post by cmdshiftf4 »

thebigblueguy wrote: post #18
gotoeleven wrote: post #8

Yeah the censorship is bad and further reduces trust in the media and tech companies (though its already at zero for many people). But isn't the story here that the vice presidents son was being paid millions of dollars by chinese, ukrainian, and other companies for .. something? It's not his business accumen, right? What could they possibly be paying him for other than access to his dad? Is there any other reasonabl…

They paid for introductions to “the big guy”. I’m surprised HN keeps this story up given the overlap of philosophies between the tech bubble and Democrat politicians.

The reason stuff like this gets flagged is, in my opinion, that while the underlying issue is of relevant interest (stinking tech companies caught poisoning yet another thing), it’s too close to simple politics to prevent a thread full of hyperpartisan bickering.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#115

Post by sagichmal »

throwawayay02 wrote: post #105
timoth3y wrote: post #96

Many are confusing "censorship" with "content moderation". The difference is very important. Censorship is when you are prevented from publishing on your own platform. Content moderation is when a platform owner choses what can be published on theirs. Twitter decided they did not want their platform used to spread what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda, but they in no way prevented the NY Po…

Twitter did not decide that in good faight. First, because they are used as a public platform, like it or not, and as such they are not expected to moderate anything. People follow or block what they want. And second, because they are biased in their censorship and are not forthcoming about it.

> because they are used as a public platform . . . they are not expected to moderate anything

Says who?

> because they are biased in their censorship

Yes, and reality has a liberal bias, eh?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#116

Post by strathmeyer »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #107
timoth3y wrote: post #96

Many are confusing "censorship" with "content moderation". The difference is very important. Censorship is when you are prevented from publishing on your own platform. Content moderation is when a platform owner choses what can be published on theirs. Twitter decided they did not want their platform used to spread what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda, but they in no way prevented the NY Po…

Content moderation is a form of censorship. Censorship isn't always bad. You can look up the history of the term if you want (hint: it shares the same origin as the term "census"). A closely related phenomenon to the pathological applications of censorship is the abuse and redefinition of language for political purposes like what you're doing.

Content moderation is a form of free speech.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#117

Post by googthrowaway42 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #4

I certainly hear a lot more talk about the suppression than the actual story (excluding the non-stop spew from Trump, I tuned him out a long time ago), so Twitterbook's attempts at suppression seem to have backfired. Taibbi may think it's under-reported, but even my non-tech acquaintances know about this scandal.

You hear a lot more talk about the suppression than the actual story because the news media you follow isn't covering the content of the story.

There are emails being released constantly detailing various business dealings with CCP linked companies including undisclosed loans from Chinese banks that the Bidens continually roll forward.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#119

Post by phs318u »

throwawayay02 wrote: post #105
timoth3y wrote: post #96

Many are confusing "censorship" with "content moderation". The difference is very important. Censorship is when you are prevented from publishing on your own platform. Content moderation is when a platform owner choses what can be published on theirs. Twitter decided they did not want their platform used to spread what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda, but they in no way prevented the NY Po…

Twitter did not decide that in good faight. First, because they are used as a public platform, like it or not, and as such they are not expected to moderate anything. People follow or block what they want. And second, because they are biased in their censorship and are not forthcoming about it.

> as such they are not expected to moderate anything

When even the president's tweets have been squelched or tagged, I highly doubt that anyone reasonably familiar with Twitter over the last couple of years would have that expectation.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#120

Post by TeMPOraL »

strathmeyer wrote: post #116
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content moderation is a form of censorship. Censorship isn't always bad. You can look up the history of the term if you want (hint: it shares the same origin as the term "census"). A closely related phenomenon to the pathological applications of censorship is the abuse and redefinition of language for political purposes like what you're doing.

Content moderation is a form of free speech.

So this would make censorship a form of free speech.

We've reach a contradiction, so there must be an error in the chain of reasoning. My money is on "content moderation is a form of free speech" being wrong.

Post reply on HN