Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story • Hacker News Board

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#281

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #126

strathmeyer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content moderation is a form of free speech.

Free speech is a moral principle. Content moderation decisions can adhere to this principle or not. Removal of viagra bot spam from a blog comment section is a clear example where content moderation adheres to the principles of free speech. Removing content on a platform like Twitter simply because the Silicon Valley elitists/leftists that run Twitter don't like it is not in keeping with the principle of free speech…

How does removing “Viagra bot spam” adhere to the moral principle of free speech? Why does the New York Post get special moral privileges that Bob’s Viagra Store does not?

This is the frustrating thing about this debate: one side tries to position itself as “anti-censorship”, when really that position only extends to cover speech they care about.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#282

Post by chroem- » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:25 AM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #265

chroem- wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your implication is that Twitter and Facebook are human beings, and I think a majority of people would contest that idea. What I am saying is that the authors of the bill of rights did not intend for a person's human rights to go away the moment they are persecuted by an entity other than the United States federal government.

The New York Post is also not a human being, for that matter. But I wasn’t implying that. People want to use Twitter’s property to spread a message, and Twitter said no. That’s not “persecution”, it just means they have to find some other way to do it. If I get kicked out of a bar because I say something the owners don’t like, I’m not being persecuted — even if I think it’s unfair.

We already have a significant amount of legal precedent to compel a private business to serve certain groups. Those protected groups were legally enshrined in the first place to extend them the same rights that everyone else already enjoyed by common custom, not to create a new group of people with elevated privileges. In my opinion, it's time that we now legally enshrine the common custom of a right to service as well.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#283

Post by nl » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:25 AM UTC

> from the similarly-leaked “black ledger” story implicating Paul Manafort, to its later-debunked “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence” story

It's astonishing to me that Taibbi (who's work I've always enjoyed) isn't aware that - far from debunked - this has been confirmed. The Republican led Senate Intelligence committee report[1] was released in September and covered this in extensive detail. It's a long read, so reporting from The Intecept's summary[2]:

One of Manafort’s closest aides during his time in Ukraine was Konstantin Kilimnik, who the Senate report identifies as a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik also served as Manafort’s liaison with Deripaska.

While he was working for Trump during the 2016 campaign, Manafort stayed in contact with Kilimnik and gave him the Trump campaign’s internal polling data, which showed that the key to defeating Clinton was to drive up negative attitudes about her among voters.....

The Senate report says that the intelligence committee “obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU’s hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 election.” The report adds that “this information suggests that a channel for coordination on the GRU hack operation may have existed through Kilimnik.” The report adds that in interviews with Mueller’s prosecution team, “Manafort lied consistently about one issue in particular: his interactions with Kilimnik.” Manafort decided to “face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik.”

In Taibbi defense this report was released in September, and there was a lot of news happening then. Prior to this report, I don't think any official source was willing to call Kilimnik an intel officer.

[1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[2] https://theintercept.com/2020/09/03/trump-russia-senate-repo...

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#284

Post by tomp » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #247

nanis wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always impressed when people make these kinds of absolute statements about the primacy of private property rights. Now, let's consider: * Alice should be able to choose without restriction to whom she is going to rent * Bob should be able to choose without restriction who's allowed to play golf at his club * Carlos should be able to choose without restriction to whom his bank is going to lend money etc. I am not…

Your analogy is broken. Clever to try to compare Twitter to discrimination though. In all of the situations, the principals have broad discretion to make choices about their property. Alice can turn away people with credit problems. Bob can require a specific handicap to play. Carlos can choose to not loan money to high risk professions. They cannot say “no black people at my apartment complex”, “no golf if you are J…

Agreed, these aren’t good analogies.

Twitter and Facebook are getting closer to: the post not delivering your mail, or the power company turning off your electricity despite paying your bill, or the phone company cutting you off after you say the wrong thing...

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#285

Post by abnry » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #247

nanis wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am always impressed when people make these kinds of absolute statements about the primacy of private property rights. Now, let's consider: * Alice should be able to choose without restriction to whom she is going to rent * Bob should be able to choose without restriction who's allowed to play golf at his club * Carlos should be able to choose without restriction to whom his bank is going to lend money etc. I am not…

Your analogy is broken. Clever to try to compare Twitter to discrimination though. In all of the situations, the principals have broad discretion to make choices about their property. Alice can turn away people with credit problems. Bob can require a specific handicap to play. Carlos can choose to not loan money to high risk professions. They cannot say “no black people at my apartment complex”, “no golf if you are J…

But isn't the sort of sneaky racism exactly what people claim is such a problem today? There's not overt claim of inferiority or an explicit denial of opportunity, but yet there is still "systemic racism".

The analogy is that Twitter can't censor stories that benefit republicans, but if the "reasons" for censoring always seem to work against republicans and are applied inconsistently, then perhaps things aren't as they seem.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#286

Post by nearbuy » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

mjfl wrote: post #278

TwoBit wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about Russian involvement, but it was clearly a right wing attempt to meddle in the election to achieve a last minute bomb on their opponent like in 2016.

If something is going to be suppressed as Russian propaganda, there better be evidence that it is Russian propaganda. Otherwise the suppression itself is propaganda in the other direction.

Twitter's objection was that the New York Post article contained hacked or illegally obtained material (personal intimate photos, etc.). Publishing those materials is a legal grey area.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#287

Post by abnry » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

TwoBit wrote: post #206

platz wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know about Russian involvement, but it was clearly a right wing attempt to meddle in the election to achieve a last minute bomb on their opponent like in 2016.

How the heck can an opposing party "meddle" in an election that the very party itself is contending in?

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#288

Post by nl » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:29 AM UTC

sparky_z wrote: post #217

chroem- wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets better (worse?) though: reddit has removed any references to Aaron Swartz from its list of founders. https://www.redditinc.com/ > Reddit was founded in 2005 by two college friends. > Steve Huffman, Co-Founder/CEO > Alexis Ohanian, Co-Founder

Isn't that technically true, though? I thought Swartz joined them later, months after they had already launched the site.

Yes, this is true. Aaron always seemed to regard it as a sore point, but he was never listed as a Reddit founder.

I'm aware that PG has called him a founder, but seemingly the Reddit guys never thought of him as one.

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#289

Post by j8hn » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:29 AM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #167

darkerside wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but I don't think the previous status quo was tenable either, and maybe even more problematic. Disclaimer: these are opinions. We allow mainstream press, owned by allies of a politician, to make outlandish claims unverified in the weeks leading up to an election. This has always been "correctable" in the past, in a world where articles could be retracted or condemned, particularly by even more m…

I agree. Fabricating damaging information on the eve of an election is easier than ever, and impossible to correct. Allowing propagation of such fabrications is to be complicit with the bad actors responsible. Disinformation could be tolerated if we, as a society, have the time and means to determine its veracity. But with the ticking clock of an election, disinformation is too easy. Some countries have laws prohibit…

So, what do you suppose? Prohibition of political news stories leading up to an election?

Have you heard of an October surprise?

"On October 20, 1880, shortly before the 1880 presidential election, a forged letter was published purportedly written by James A. Garfield voicing support for Chinese immigration to the United States. At the time, most white Americans opposed Chinese immigration and both presidential candidates were in favor of immigration restrictions.[3]"

And a list of many more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

Re: Suppression is a bigger scandal than the actual story

#290

Post by mjfl » Mon, Oct 26, 2020, 2:30 AM UTC

Thought I would post some of the contents of the suppressed articles. They seem falsifiable through financial transaction records:

> A tranche of emails from a hard drive belonging to Hunter Biden — published exclusively by The Post last week — revealed how the scandal-scarred son tried to leverage his family connections to land lucrative deals overseas and boost his Burisma pay.

> Speaking before reporters at a Marriott hotel near the debate site Thursday evening, Bobulinski claimed he had a falling out with the Biden family when Hunter Biden wanted to pocket $5 million from an initial $10 million cash injection into SinoHawk, ponied up by CEFC.

> “He said, referring to ‘the chairman,’ his father, that CEFC was really investing in the Biden family, that he held the trump card and that he was the one putting his family legacy on the time,” said Bobulinski, who declined to take questions afterward.

> “During these negotiations I repeated to Hunter and others that SinoHawk could not be Hunter’s personal piggy bank,” he went on.

> “CEFC through July 2017 was assuring me the funds would be transferred to SinoHawk, but they were never sent to our company. Instead, I found out from Senator Johnson’s September report that the $5 million was sent in August 2017 to entities affiliated with Hunter,” he said, referring to the Wisconsin senator’s congressional probe into potential corruption in the Biden family.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulin...