Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

Post by likeafox » Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #158

likeafox wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a newspaper collaborating with the president's personal lawyer, who is already the subject of investigations into persons in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, during the run up to an incredibly contentious election after these networks - Facebook and Twitter- have already been accused of allowing rampant disinformation campaigns. If they had reason to believe that the information was part of a mal…

Is that Cohen when you say Trump’s lawyer? Do you have a source for that out of interest? It smells a bit like that National Review article Cohen planted about Cruz’s dad killing JFK or something in 2016.

Post by jtbayly » Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

tboyd47 wrote: post #120

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #103

If I was a Twitter or Facebook investor, I have one question: What did you expect was going to happen? Honestly. Did nobody have the foresight at Facebook or Twitter to think that this wouldn't blow up? Did nobody think, just once, that this might invite regulatory action or be in news headlines? And if honestly nobody thought this might happen, I'd want the entire management and "safety" team replaced for having no…

They probably have been doing this for a while, and this was just the first time they got called out for it. Regulatory action has been in the works for some time. Whether or not it goes through depends only on politics. The mainstream media already doesn't like them for eating their lunch. Twitter has nothing to lose by doing this. It will damage Facebook's brand identity as being a "free speech" platform, but that'…

Post by quest88 » Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

throwawa3495 wrote: post #20

rmrfstar wrote: post #13

Robert Graham [1] pointed out that if the emails are authentic, they can be trivially verified via DKIM. That the email metadata was not released implies the emails are either inauthentic, or that the post did not contact someone with basic competence in computer forensics. Either possibility seriously undercuts the article's credibility. [1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1316407424648179717

it's honestly irrelevant about the credibility of the emails and other data at this point, its the blanket censorship of this article that's now the real story.

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #114

croissants wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the likeliest explanation that 1) random Ukrainian energy company paid Hunter Biden for access to Joe Biden, and 2) the payments were not useful in actually getting access to Joe Biden? "Thousands of dollars a month" doesn't seem like "get close to a former VP/future presidential candidate" money. (Of course, this explanation isn't exactly a good look either, but at this point it's a choice between imperfection…

Do companies pay princelings large sums of money without getting anything in return? I believe it's usually understood that they get something in return, even if that something is just not getting into trouble (as is the way in China, if you want no road blocks in your enterprise, you better hire some high official's kid).

Post by Zpalmtree » Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

whateveracct wrote: post #136

throwaway4715 wrote: post #87

Facebook is NOT blocking the Post from posting. They are limiting sharing. This headline is a good example of way it may have been the right move. Misinformation spreads fast.

HN is full of unwitting Trump/conspiracy theory enablers with their high-minded bottomless "benefit of the doubt" schtick.