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

Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

nationalreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#331

Post by nautilus12 »

free_rms wrote: post #212
Arthanos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post has a very odd tone, as if a private company enforcing their policy to remove unverified & leaked personal correspondence of a private citizen is some unquestionable moral wrongdoing that's apparently going to blow up. Surprised to see this as at the top, on HN. National Review is a conservative wing-nut website trying to turn this non-story into fuel for their censorship culture war.

The pentagon papers were unverified and leaked. More recently and less impressively, the entire world of Russia-gate stuff was unverified and leaked Would you say the same if that stuff was censored?

Exactly!

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#332

Post by tzs »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #284
tzs wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeal of section 230 would probably result in Twitter blocking a lot more things than they do now.

Which is why we need reform: 230 liability protection needs to be extended only to those entities that only remove illegal content and nothing else, period.

So if I ran a chess forum, I could not remove posts about horse racing without losing my section 230 protection? Or posts advertising boner pills? Once I decide to allow people to post on my forum, for any reason, I have to allow every single post that does not violate the law, or I lose 230 protection?

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#333

Post by [deleted] »

Shared404 wrote: post #320
ars wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they've never seemed to misclassify any They do, my local politician robo-calls all his constituents with info, and T-Mobile always flags his calls as spam. I guess in a way it's spam since it's unsolicited? But it's real info, and relevant to the local people he's calling, and keeping people informed is part of his job.

> politician > robo-calls Yeah that sounds like spam. If info needs to get sent out, try email. Robo-calls are intrusive, and generally the wrong medium for transmitting information. Edit: Obtrusive -> intrusive. Although I guess both are technically correct.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#334

Post by [deleted] »

hirundo wrote: post #54

There's a recurring argument on social media censorship that goes: "you wouldn't want the telephone company censoring phone conversations would you?" And the response is along the lines: "these are hardly private conversations, any tweet can go viral and be seen by millions". This story breaks that mold in that it involves social media censoring private conversations via DM. If you think that's OK for Twitter on its…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#335

Post by taxicab »

zzleeper wrote: post #330
Rebelgecko wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's relevant that twitter is blocking the story due to their rules about releasing hacked material, not misinformation. If the hard drive is a hoax, I think it's important to have an open discussion to shine a light on it. Banning the article in a way that appears to validate its claims will only embolden claims of a conspiracy. I think it's also interesting that the "hacking" ban doesn't have an exemption for t…

> If the hard drive is a hoax, I think it's important to have an open discussion to shine a light on it. The damage is still done then. NYPost knows the article is fake news, and so does Giuliani and the other folks surrounding the article. But put it there, and by the time your "open discussion" is done, the elections will be over.

As Winston Churchill said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

In normal circumstances, that doesn't matter. Talk about it, let it fly around the internet and then in a week or so we'll hear the authoritative rebuttal.

However, we are 20 days from the election. People are literally lined up and voting as we speak.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#336

Post by nautilus12 »

Arthanos wrote: post #189
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…

This post has a very odd tone, as if a private company enforcing their policy to remove unverified & leaked personal correspondence of a private citizen is some unquestionable moral wrongdoing that's apparently going to blow up. Surprised to see this as at the top, on HN. National Review is a conservative wing-nut website trying to turn this non-story into fuel for their censorship culture war.

How this logic not apply to the steele dossier is beyond me.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#337

Post by thinkingemote »

ColanR wrote: post #328
nemothekid wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

disinformation is a dog whistle for censorship, but fake news is...? Censorship for thee but not for me.

IIRC, fake news was originally used by the left, but co-opted by Trump.

Correct but it was basically limited to the obviously fake "russian" troll farms.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#338

Post by hackinthebochs »

daveevad wrote: post #215
Arthanos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post has a very odd tone, as if a private company enforcing their policy to remove unverified & leaked personal correspondence of a private citizen is some unquestionable moral wrongdoing that's apparently going to blow up. Surprised to see this as at the top, on HN. National Review is a conservative wing-nut website trying to turn this non-story into fuel for their censorship culture war.

> their policy to remove unverified & leaked personal correspondence do you think their policy is evenly applied across their platform?

Of course not. But how could it possibly be applied evenly? That's not an expectation anyone could genuinely hold.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#340

Post by cofeecup »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #327
taxicab wrote: post #90

To be fair, the fact that it was published by the New York Post already seriously undercuts the article's credibility. Edit: and also the fact that it was written in collaboration with the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Yet I don't recall anyone questioning Buzzfeed News when they dropped their bombshell story years back. I remember the defenders saying something along the lines of "If the news is newsworthy and constitutes journalism, then the publication it was produced in shouldn't matter" As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed…

Well in that case, let me just clear my schedule to spend all of tomorrow performing an exhaustive fact check of the credibility of this story. /s

It turns out that journalism is hard to do correctly. As an "independent thinker" I'm going to independently decide to not trust a publication with the reputation of the NY Post until it's been corroborated.

Post reply on HN