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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by partiallypro »

farias0 wrote: post #368
hartator wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe free amplification is terrible It's exactly what they were saying at the invention of the printing press. Amplification becoming too cheap. Maybe being on the side of censorship is always being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

I don't think it's comparable. If social network is the new newspaper, everyone is free to create your own newspaper. That's why I'll always defend net neutrality. But forcing a private institution to adopt a specific editorial stance, THAT'S anti-freedom. In general, we should work to promote alternative platforms, not to force the existing ones to promote what we believe is right.

I agree, but I am also a fierce critic of what Facebook and Twitter are doing. By doing this they are actually driving many people to even -more- extreme platforms. I am generally not opposed to them banning antivaxxing, and things that are an active threat to safety...but banning the NY Post story was way too far, and Twitter has even doubled down on it by banning the follow up stories. The thing is that their business models rely on them not being held liable for what is posted, yet by curating things which aren't abhorrent or in the interest of public safety they have opened up a massive can of worms of potentially removing their limited liability from user generated content.

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

#382

Post by cptskippy »

nradov wrote: post #305
sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not even remotely the same thing. When you post on an AOL message board, the only people that see it are people who are in AOL, use the Message Boards, and actively choose to read the thread and post with your message.

When I log in to Twitter right now I get a message that Ariana Grande has a new album. I don't follow her, I don't care about her, but Twitter decided I needed to see that.

I have notifications disabled but I can only imagine what it pushes out.

On top of that pushing of unsolicited information, the social networks purposely push controversial topics to gain your attention. After a while those controversial and outlandish posts are legitimized and normalized.

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

#383

Post by colinmhayes »

rtx wrote: post #288
colinmhayes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. We can't censor because of slippery slope 2. Idiots elect clown because of propaganda 3. Hundreds of thousands of people die from preventable catastrophe. I don't disagree with you but this is not an acceptable answer.

So dimissive, people selected who aligned with their needs. Their vote is as valid as yours.

It's actually more valid unfortunately because I live in a highly populated state. If hundreds of thousands of people dying needlessly aligns with anyone's goals I want them out of the country. The reality is they got tricked because they're too stupid to make rational decisions and too entitled to realize it.

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

#384

Post by beervirus »

ffggvv wrote: post #124

i remember during the BLM Riots, we had stories going around that jacob blake was just "breaking up a fight" between two women. when it turns out he had just finished robbing someone he'd previously sexually assaulted with her kids in the house. and twitter let it trend i remember they had a video of gunshot sounds trending with a description saying that an innocent 16 year old girl was shot by police when in reality…

Wipe it, like with a cloth?

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

#385

Post by WorkingDead »

CivBase wrote: post #189
gok wrote: post #146

It's frustrating Twitter and Facebook won't just say the truth: "This is a blatant attempt at disinformation by politicians who have repeatedly attacked our employees, and we don't want it. It's our web site, stop trying to tell us what our own rules are. Go spread your nonsense somewhere else. If you think this is a 230 violation sue us."

Reading through these HN comments, it is amazing to me how many people have already concluded the NY Post story is either obviously true or false. But I agree with the gist of your point. Social media platforms should stop pretending to be unbiased disinformation watchmen. It's their platform and they don't have to justify squat. If people want free speech, they can go somewhere else. On that note, I really do think…

The go somewhere else thing doesnt end well. If half the country has to recreate their own social networks, web hosting, payment processing, banking, and even retail locations you end up with two separate societies competing for the same physical space and thats not going to end well for anyone. This is the very thing we should be trying the hardest to avoid but we are already moving down this road.

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

#386

Post by tootie »

rayiner wrote: post #187
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…

If this is hacked emails, doesn’t that prove the article is credible?

In the context of Twitter's actions and explanation, it doesn't matter. They aren't trying to ascertain the authenticity. Note the policy is against both hacking and doxxing and this story is doxxing regardless of how the emails were obtained.

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

#388

Post by azangru »

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 am from the same generation. Got introduced to the internet in mid-90s, after about a year of using FidoNet. Will die on the same hill.

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

#390

Post by Cookingboy »

tomjen3 wrote: post #377
Cookingboy wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on At this rate it will be the hill that the civilization dies on. The whole "absolute free speech is a sacrosanct human rights for everyone" is an ideal that simply would not scale with the 21st century civilization. Most users around here grew up firmly believing that value, and it is further reinforced by American/Western exceptionalism, so I can see how thi…

It should be the hill that civilization dies on, because without free speech there is no civilization. Without free speech corruption will grow and societies will decay because there is nothing to stop the rot before it spreads.

As long as there is people and society there will be a civilization one way or the other.

You may not like that civilization, but saying a specie cannot survive unless we adhere to democracy and free speech is the product of your upbringing but not the product of objective reality.

Post reply on HN