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

Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

melovedata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 763 posts

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#271

Post by weareallcowards »

orf wrote: post #82
blhack wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their ne…

> Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. It's all of these, except private. It's a privately run notification/messaging/authentication/identity/verification service. Just one that is widely used. That doesn't make it "pu…

You're talking past each other. OP was framing Twitter as a "natural monopoly":

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

The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous.

In this situation, the market is more efficient when the large incumbents are granted a highly-regulated monopoly status.

That's how power companies work. You don't have new power grids cropping up, but the main providers are held to much stricter standards that a normal private company in terms of their quality of service and how much they can charge.

If we allow mass-scale social media to continue existing, we need these sorts of strict regulatory standards. These companies have become mad with power, and there's no way to unseat them through ordinary competition.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#272

Post by thisiszilff »

bigbubba wrote: post #112
function_seven wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Google is different. They hold a monopoly on search that I think should be broken up. I have big problems with the power Google wields in finding things online. But, going back to my previous comment, it would in a way be a good thing if Google started capriciously "disappearing" sites like this, in a high-profile manner. It would accelerate the move to other search providers and bring a more diversified Internet…

The GP's Google example concerns thermostats, not search. Google doesn't have a thermostat monopoly. Is it therefore okay for Google to remotely deactivate the thermostats of people they've decided to dislike?

It isn't a very good comparison given that those thermostats/locks aren't free and it's unlikely Google wouldn't like someone because of how they are using their thermostat. In this case, twitter provides the account and the objections are to how the account is being used.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#273

Post by [deleted] »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #234
cjjuice wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false. Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person. But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you…

I can appreciate the deeply principled stand people on HN tend to make about this issue. I know there is a libertarian streak here around the access to content and information. I don't share those values, and think unchecked distribution of manipulated content creates a worse outcome for our society; I'd argue it is more inherently dystopian than straight-up government censored speech, which of course is not what's a…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#274

Post by dragonwriter »

wmwmwm wrote: post #257
dragonwriter wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fight Club , though, was just fancying up and decontextualizing the first sentence of Milton (EDIT: John Maynard, nor Milton) Keynes famous quote: "In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if, in tempestuous seasons, they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again." I would be very surprised if a financial news outlet choosing the Fight Clu…

Milton Keynes? :)

Yeah, that was a great brain-o

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#275

Post by zaroth »

dilap wrote: post #185
eli wrote: post #26

The Post still hasn't deleted the offending tweet. Those are the rules: on a first violation of posting someone's personal information without permission you get your account locked until you delete the tweet.

But Twitter has officially stated it was a mistake to block posting of the link to the Post's story. So why is the Post's account still locked? More generally, it does not appear Twitter is impartially enforcing standards against leaking private information. There are no problems posting stories to Trump's illegally-leaked tax returns, or Melania's phone calls, for example.

Or the manipulated media of Giuliani literally trending on Twitter while anyone posting Hunter Biden video gets shut down.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#276

Post by cjjuice »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #234
cjjuice wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false. Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person. But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you…

I can appreciate the deeply principled stand people on HN tend to make about this issue. I know there is a libertarian streak here around the access to content and information. I don't share those values, and think unchecked distribution of manipulated content creates a worse outcome for our society; I'd argue it is more inherently dystopian than straight-up government censored speech, which of course is not what's a…

Well argued point. However, I would counter that we should not do evil in the pursuit of good.

Let's find another way that does not limit free speech. It will be a harder solution to find sure, but the converse is too dangerous and nuanced to be implemented. It also gives social media companies undue influence over our democracy.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#277

Post by razius »

barumi wrote: post #223
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better analogy: Twitter is like Fedex refusing to deliver your packages based on your politics, not the electrical utility company.

>>Twitter is like Fedex refusing to deliver your packages (...) In case you don't know, FedEx or pretty much any delivery company are free to refuse shipping your parcels. A cursory googling is enough to allow you to discover fedex's shipping guidelines.

Except those are pretty transparent and non-political.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#278

Post by varispeed »

quacked wrote: post #6

The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…

This still reeks of hypocrisy. For example almost any large and "reputable" outlet writes outright lies about drugs and their effects or use them to sensationalise the event (for example if there was an accident there is almost always a mention that someone had cannabis in their system even if it was obviously not related to anything). This is extremely harmful as it creates stigma for people who need cannabis or other drugs as a medicine and often they cannot access it at all because lawmaker believe what these outlets write. So when Twitter blocks someone because they think their reporting is dishonest, I don't understand why they won't block all outlets that spew lies.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#279

Post by cortesoft »

jaywalk wrote: post #251
cortesoft wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net Neutrality is different. No one is arguing that it is ok to block NyPost at a network level. Free speech does not mean a free platform.

Net Neutrality is not really that different. These corporations just want to be the ones doing the blocking instead of allowing ISPs to do it.

You honestly don't see a difference between net neutrality and platform content moderation?

This is like not seeing the difference between allowing anyone to drive on a public road verse forcing everyone to pick up all hitchhikers.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#280

Post by kazinator »

weareallcowards wrote: post #271
orf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. It's all of these, except private. It's a privately run notification/messaging/authentication/identity/verification service. Just one that is widely used. That doesn't make it "pu…

You're talking past each other. OP was framing Twitter as a "natural monopoly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous. In this situation, the market is more efficient when the large incumbents are granted a highly-regulated monopoly status. That's how power companies work. You don't have new power…

We cannot compare Twitter to the situation with power companies, because Twitter does not own the only copper wires that are routed to your address.
Post reply on HN