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

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#291

Post by thelean12 »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

What's the alternative?

During the 90s information traveled slower and those with large audiences took the time to research reports before sharing it with the world. And if it turns out that they were wrong, the correct information can be spread across those few platforms to everyone.

Now, misinformation can be created way faster than it can be discredited and there are a massive number of surfaces where the misinformation can live without being corrected.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#292

Post by afrojack123 »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

Politicians need to control the narrative. If everybody is on Facebook, Twitter, that's where politicians will go. Wait until everybody starts coming to HackerNews lol.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#293

Post by rtx »

jungletime wrote: post #183

@Jack thinks China is going to win the war, and already picking sides. There are reasons why being Neutral is a bad option, if you read Machiavelli. "Do not be Neutral" https://www.obtaineudaimonia.com/do-not-be-neutral-prince-ni...

That's why this election is so important. It will chart our paths for next 100 years.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#294

Post by adventured »

cheeze wrote: post #265
mc32 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So obviously no Wikileaks or any “sources inside the $agency with access to information” (but with no clearance to leak) cannot be published on Twitter any more, right? No guessing in who poisoned Navalni, etc... Got it!

I mean, you can logical fallacy all you want here but this isn't what OP said at all. I'm not agreeing one way or another, but holy weak argument.

It's good to hear we can't publish any leaked information about Trump's tax returns, re the NY Times, a story Twitter intentionally allowed to run at max distribution, along with dozens of prominent anti-Trump stories that ended up being baseless over the last four years which the media happily concocted.

Everyone here knows exactly what's going on and it's rotten as can be.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#295

Post by amanaplanacanal »

adventured wrote: post #233
Tallasatree wrote: post #214

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We've been watching this happen for a few years now, and some of us are actively paving the road.

It's not good intentions. The tech giants are attempting to throw an election and they don't care who knows at this point. For the 2012 election Facebook execs bragged about illegally assisting the Obama campaign by giving them practically the entire FB social graph, for free. That violates federal campaign finance laws. Nothing was done about it and you'll never get anyone on HN to go near talking about that fraud,…

If there were illegalities, you would think the Trump justice department would have gone after them. Do you have theories as to why that didn’t happen?

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#297

Post by rebolek »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

I was born in late 70's in Czechoslovakia so I remember the communist regime with its propaganda. I'm all for free speech but when I see propaganda I want to smash it with a steel tube which probably makes me pro-censorship.

I still want to believe in the ideals of Internet as I've encountered it back in 1994 but that would require ideal people and we're not ideal. So some rules are needed.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#298

Post by vowelless »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

> I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s.

$TWTR $FB

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#299

Post by manigandham »

snowwrestler wrote: post #275
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

It's 100% inline with free speech to let a given website decide what they want to publish. Even if it is a very popular website. If they make bad decisions, then people can go to competitors; it's as easy as typing in a different URL. That's how the Internet--and open societies in general--are supposed to work. What it looks like to me--someone who has been on the Internet since before the turn of the century--is tha…

Scale makes a difference. These social networks are no longer just a small private website serving a local community but a critical communications medium.

When they can influence billions and shape elections, it's time to seriously review their power. This is how we treat ISPs and phone providers today, and social networks of a certain size should be considered in the same class.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#300

Post by Mountain_Skies »

manigandham wrote: post #271
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

The problem is the scale and centralization of power with social media. Global conglomerates serving billions where moderation is controlled by a few individuals with absolute control and no accountability. This is a major issue as these networks are quickly becoming a critical medium of communication and expression in this century.

But what if some of those small communities engage in no-no think? How can we allow those with no-no think to co-exist with our world? Shouldn't they be stamped out of existence for the good of everyone else who doesn't have no-no think?

Sadly the above is a very common belief structure now. It's a product of utopian thinking where if just this one more enemy can be destroyed, peace will fall upon the Earth and all will be well. It seems to be that these utopian dreamers always end in the elimination of those who don't share their dream vision of the world.

Post reply on HN