381–390 of 763 posts
The Post still hasn't deleted the offending tweet. Those are the rules: on a first violation of posting someone's personal information without permission you get your account locked until you delete the tweet.
Is it what they finally settled on? because we've heard "we don't relay unverified news" and "we don't relay hacked information" as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the wikipedia article on Ratcliffe and see if he is such a great source for your rebuttal. But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it. Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They…
All I'm doing is providing a quote from a government employee who is directly involved in the investigation. I don't know how else one can judge the incident other than from people directly involved in the investigation and by the contents of what has been released. I don't see anything on Ratcliffe on Wikipedia that would make him a non-legitimate source? Could you point out what you're alluding to? Stating that the…
> Ratcliffe is well known for criticizing the FBI and the special counsel investigation as being biased against Trump. Ratcliffe has also alleged that Russian interference may have benefited Trump's 2016 rival candidate Hillary Clinton more than it benefited Trump. American intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Robert Mueller have maintained that Russia interfered to help Trump. A week before Trump's announcement, Ratcliffe had argued that the special counsel investigation put Trump "below the law" because it declined to exonerate Trump. Later, Ratcliffe claimed on Fox News that the special counsel investigation's report was not written by special counsel Robert Mueller, but by "Hillary Clinton’s de facto legal team".[63][8]
Democrats asserted Ratcliffe was unqualified and too partisan to serve in such a role, which is historically considered relatively nonpartisan.[64] Some Republicans also privately expressed discontent with his selection and concerns about his ability to be confirmed.[65] However, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Senator John Cornyn expressed confidence in him.[66][67] Democratic senators including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that Ratcliffe’s only qualification for the office appeared to be "blind loyalty" to Trump, noting that he has promoted some of Trump’s conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation and has called for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies.[68][63] Several former members of the intelligence community expressed concerns that Ratcliffe's appointment risked politicizing intelligence work.[5][69] They expressed fear that with Ratcliffe as DNI, Trump would in effect be assuming personal control over the intelligence community, which would then be expected to tell him only what he wants to hear.[70] They stressed the need for intelligence to be "candid, truthful and accurate even if it is unpleasant and does not confirm to the biases of the president".[8]
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
This still reeks of hypocrisy. For example almost any large and "reputable" outlet writes outright lies about drugs and their effects or use them to sensationalise the event (for example if there was an accident there is almost always a mention that someone had cannabis in their system even if it was obviously not related to anything). This is extremely harmful as it creates stigma for people who need cannabis or oth…
Twitter can stop an account which causes harm without being immediately required to block all accounts which may cause harm.
To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential candidate " Which is so obviously fake it isn't even funny. I'm getting very tired of the GOP's shameless tendency of creating controversies out of nothing. This is just another Benghazi or Hillary's Emails or Migrant Caravan.
Obviously fake? The Biden camp hasn’t disputed the authenticity of the materials. How is it “obviously” fake? Especially since most of the media refuses to investigate it — even if to establish that it isn’t fake? The media had no problem running with the very obviously fake Steele Dossier that claimed Trump got a golden shower on a hotel bed Obama once slept in. There was zero corroboration or legitimacy for that, b…
According to a Daily Beast interview, Isaac “switched back and forth” between saying that he contacted the FBI and saying the FBI contacted him. He also claimed that the FBI asked him for help in accessing the drive, though he didn’t indicate that the drive was encrypted or protected in any way.
There’s are several huge missing pieces in this story. For example, what did Isaac say to the FBI? “Hello, someone brought in a computer, and I think it belongs to Beau Biden.” If so, why would the FBI say anything other than, “Then give it back?” Why would Beau Biden dropping off a wet laptop cause the FBI to have any interest at all?
This, then, is the “official” story from the Post and Giuliani: A mysterious stranger drops off a laptop at a shop belonging to a legally blind Trump supporter who has said disparaging things about Biden. Nine months later, the FBI asks for that computer. Then 10 months after that, Giuliani hands over to the New York Post what he says is a copy of that computer’s hard drive. In between those dates, we have nothing. Well, nothing except for more Facebook statements from Isaac, who does devote some time to saying that Trump’s impeachment is a sham, but says nothing at all about Hunter Biden’s crack-smoking video that he found on a computer left at his store. And we have a lot of statements from Giuliani during this period, many of them essentially identical to what will eventually appear in the Post story.
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false. Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person. But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you…
Most platforms, Twitter included, just wanted to be dumb service providers. They don't want to spend money and carry responsibility moderating content.
It was large media outlets and the public outrage they produced over "fake news" and "the far right" that pressured them into taking a more proactive stance.
People like me who were opposing it back then and saying "you don't know what you're asking for" got labeled far right, and essentially bunched with Trump, which was hilarious to me as a left leaning European.
Newspapers now becoming angry Twitter is evenly applying the new rules - the rules newspapers lobbied for - is even more hilarious to me.
And you have to understand that Twitter did not make a mistake in how they responded to this. The article objectively was against their rules.
Whether these rules are good rules is another matter, but clearly the whole thing was dumb from the start.
That said, all they need to do is delete the fake news Twitter asked them to, yet they won't. Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But you cannot count on them to not tell lies, I think that's the wrong framing, at least for an organization like the NY Times. For one, there's a difference between "a lie" and "an inaccuracy" even though most of the time (but not always!) lies are a subtype of inaccuracy. If you make a similar conflation in software development, you'd say that a team member who pushes buggy code to your repo sabotaged your proje…
I encourage you to dig deeper into the background of the Walter Duranty and Judith Miller cases, in both cases the individuals were lying and their colleagues and coworkers knew they were lying or had good reason to suspect it. In the case of Walter Duranty, it took the organization several decades to admit Duranty was full of shit, long after the facts were widely know.
Duranty did his reporting literally 90 years ago, which is several generations in the past. That case is of limited use when reasoning about the organization today.
Miller was criticized by colleagues and was eventually forced out. She seems to me kind of like a software engineer who came up with some grand design that had fundamental problems, but couldn't let the design go. That's mistaken, arguably incompetent, but not sabotage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. Interesting... after reading this, I immediately thought: same as Zero Hedge (also often criticised). But then again, that shouldn't be a surprise - b…
Yikes - I've found Zerohedge to be scarily accurate over time! Depends on your political allegiances I suppose but my mother taught me when i was kid to always read the financial press - 'follow the money to find out what the b@stards are thinking' was her old line. (she used to work for the UK tory party in the '50's, despised them). ZH is what many city of London and wall street minions read live on their bloomberg…
The slightly less cynical way I think of this is that finance will directly be impacted vs non-finance so news targetted at them is more helpful, or at least not actively harming.
In the financial independence community most articles on mainstream sites are considered jokes or to have insufficient detail to actually improve your finances
A good non-money example: If you get a chronic disease, reading blogs and forums by people who have the disease is going to me more helpful than whatever a staff writer can do in 2 hours of research
Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
> Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
Well it's hard for the New York Times cough Judith Miller cough, so I'm not sure what your point is here.