Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by judge2020 » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #262

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 the early 90s, and likely grew up on the same internet you did in the late 90s/2000s. In that time, I remember fondly, of participating and even moderating many, many, phpBB, vBulletin and Invision forums, and this idea that, in the past, you could post anything you wanted and people would just "put up with it" has never been true to me at least. Even 4chan never had the "free from consequences" free sp…

Even pre-internet, one's social groups would cast them out if they were to say something everyone else in the group thought was wrong or didn't want to hear..

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

#302

Post by hintymad » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #244

sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

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!

Exactly. I guess banning content on a private platform by its private owner is totally okay, at least legally. Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right.

And hacked in what way? Didn't the repair shop owner take ownership of the computer after repeatedly asking for payment but not getting it? Didn't the owner give the hard drive first to FBI, then to a few media, and then to Giuliani?

As for fact checkers, Twitter didn't really fact check those media who give a report that says "anonymous source says", right? Twitter didn't really fact check that Jack Tapper contradicted himself now and in 2016 on exactly the same fine people hoax, right? Twitter didn't really fact check The Project 1619 that teaches us to hate America with a long list of inaccuracies (if not outright lies) or the critical race theory that claims that all white people are born racists or Asian people are complicit racists because they bought the values like working hard or being good at STEM, right? Or why isn't leaked tax records not "hacked"(FWIW, I'm only arguing the definition of "hacked", not whether it's good or bad to reveal tax record).

Oh wait, I guess I'm not exactly following the righteous narratives here, as all the morally superior mainstream media are doing. So this makes me a what? A bigot? A Nazi? A brown but really white supremacist? A racist?

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

#303

Post by DevKoala » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

uncoder0 wrote: post #4

wesleywt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think its correct to delibrately spread a false story about Hunter Biden? Is this type removing false information censorship?

Is the story demonstrably false? I don't know if that is the case. It's certainly a smear story. In the past they've fact-checked Tweets from the President and his party but, I've not yet seen them straight up delete them and lock their accounts until now.

How is the story demonstrably false? We have yet to see any counter evidence.

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

#304

Post by bigbubba » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

People ignore what @Jack says because he has a record of saying dumb shit that doesn't pass the sniff test.

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

#305

Post by nradov » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #264

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.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

We had AOL message boards and similar forums with free amplification before social media.

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

#306

Post by codecrusade » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

cs702 wrote: post #285

The Washington Post tried to verify the authenticity of the claims made by the blocked article... and so far they have found ZERO evidence supporting the story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/hunter-bi... This bit, in particular, suggests that the blocked article actually deserves to be blocked: > The New York Post published PDF printouts of several emails allegedly taken from the laptop, but for…

Wapo is owned by democratic landlord jeff bezos right? What a joke.

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

#307

Post by natalyarostova » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

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.

Up until a few months ago I agreed. I have since been convinced that the power of Twitter/FB etc in connecting people who have never been connected is something we need to think carefully about...

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

#308

Post by codecrusade » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

shrubble wrote: post #269

sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

Did Twitter block the NYT story on Trump's taxes, which they did not have any official authority for having?

exactly. bias evident

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

#309

Post by notadev » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #264

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.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

Wouldn't the obvious choice be to let everyone have the same access to free amplification? No one is being forced to listen, and I'd rather have the ability to ignore what I don't want to see/hear instead of a bunch of 20 somethings Engineers deciding for me.

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

#310

Post by wesleywt » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

nowandlater wrote: post #277

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't happen overnight. 2016 U.S elections changed things a lot. Spreading misinformation is not free speech.

Who gets to decide whether I'm being misinformed or not?

Should a private platform allow misinformation on his platform?